Towards a real democracy: Binding referendums and administrative renewal

Do we live in a truly democratic society?

In a real democracy, the ultimate decision-making power lies with the population, not with politicians. Politicians advise, but the people decide. Our current parliamentary democracy, however, is the opposite of a democracy with binding referendums. Yet, ironically, parliament offers the most peaceful and legitimate route for voluntarily transferring this power to citizens, should they wish it. How can we achieve this, and why is it necessary? Let’s examine this step by step.

Strong support for referendums and democratic renewal

Research by I&O Research (October 2023) shows that the Dutch population is ready for more direct democracy. As many as 64% of Dutch people support referendums in general, with even more support for municipal referendums (71%) and slightly less for national ones (61%). Binding referendums in particular, where the government must follow the outcome, are popular: 58% in favour, versus 34% against. Non-binding referendums, which serve only as advice, get much less support (37% for, 53% against). Voters of right-wing parties in particular (such as FvD 99%, BBB 88%, PVV 83%) and parties like NSC (74%) and SP (76%) are enthusiastic about binding referendums, while non-binding referendums find more support among D66 (46%) and GroenLinks-PvdA (46%).

In addition, there is broad support for other democratic renewals: 58% of Dutch people want a directly elected Senate, 54% support an elected mayor (a 10% drop since 2019), and 57% are in favour of a corrective referendum, which would allow citizens to reverse government decisions. Only 19% support lowering the voting age to 16, a decrease compared to 2019 (25%).

Binding referendums: a powerful instrument

Some find binding referendums problematic. They wonder: are citizens sufficiently informed? Aren’t topics too complex? Doesn’t voting lead to unwanted emotions, manipulation, or overly one-sided outcomes? These concerns are often based on an unjustified belief that citizens aren’t capable enough. The opposite is true: binding referendums are a powerful democratic instrument. They give citizens direct influence, increase trust in democracy, and legitimise policy through broad societal support.

Gauss’s normal distribution shows that the outcome of binding referendums reflects the average of what the Dutch voter thinks. And the average Dutch person is certainly not stupid. By explaining what’s at stake in clear, accessible language, outlining the background of issues, and presenting the pros and cons of possible solutions, everyone can make a well-considered choice. Voters then indicate, as percentages, the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements, and can add additional comments. This leads to a meaningful and workable result, showing what extra information may be needed to paint a fuller picture.

A self-learning and self-regulating system

Our proposed system is self-learning and self-regulating. Citizens see and feel the consequences of their choices, and can adjust them in the short term through new referendums if a measure doesn’t work out well. This makes the system flexible and responsive. Prior to the introduction of binding referendums, we advocate for an ethical humanistic covenant. This covenant protects the interests of the weaker members of society – in the broadest sense of the word, including vulnerable groups, but also against the exploitation of labour and natural resources. This ensures that referendums have no adverse effects on minorities or vulnerable groups.

Administrative reform: government serves the citizen

A crucial part of this democratic renewal is a complete reform of government. Government belongs to and exists for the citizens, but it often no longer feels that way – not for citizens, and not even for civil servants. That’s why government must be made service-oriented again. How?

Accountability for civil servants: All civil servants must be individually accountable for their actions. If they make mistakes, withhold information (consciously or unconsciously), or fail to report abuses, they can be held to account, reassigned, dismissed, or even prosecuted. This also applies to senior officials who ignore reports from lower-ranked colleagues. Corruption is severely punished. Civil servants are salaried employees of the citizens and are hired or dismissed by them, for example through institutions such as a renewed CPB or SER.

Transparency and reporting obligation: Civil servants must be contractually obliged to report positive and negative observations, ideas or abuses to the next level up in the hierarchy. This ensures an open and accountable system.
Replacement of traditional administrators: Parliament, commissioners and other administrators are replaced by salaried civil servants and scientists, who are accountable to the population. This puts an end to personal exercise of power and ensures a government that truly works for the citizen.

Not liquid democracy, but direct democracy

Some advocate for “liquid democracy”, a system in which citizens can delegate their vote to others under certain conditions. We reject this idea, because it unnecessarily hands power to third parties and undermines the core of direct democracy. In our system, you don’t need extensive expertise to vote. The only thing required is reading comprehension.

Decisions are clearly explained: what is the problem, what is the background, what are the solutions, and what are the pros and cons? Scientists and specialists in the employ of the population draw up these questions, and citizens give their opinion as percentages, with room for comments.

Funding: who pays?

A commonly heard question about changes is: who’s going to pay for this? The answer is simple: through binding referendums, citizens have the ability to turn the “dials” of the tax system. If there are insufficient resources to sustain the ethical humanistic covenant, additional tax revenue is generated. In doing so, income, capital and assets are taxed more heavily, with the emphasis placed on the strongest shoulders.

Practical and efficient thanks to technology

Direct democracy is often seen as impractical, because people assume everyone has to vote on everything. But that’s not the case. Citizens can vote from the comfort of their armchair within a set period, and the number of important topics is limited. With the help of the internet, algorithms and AI, votes are processed quickly and efficiently, similar to how you handle your banking. After a consistency check, the outcomes are automatically implemented in the government system. Should a measure turn out badly, it can quickly be put to a vote again for adjustment.

Conclusion: a democracy of and for the citizens

The government is ours, the citizens’, and must work for us again. Binding referendums, supported by an ethical humanistic covenant and a reformed, accountable government, make this possible. This system gives citizens direct influence, protects the weaker members of society, and ensures a self-learning and self-regulating process. It’s time to give power back to the people.