Research[1] has confirmed what many people already suspect: political parties often make campaign promises that are difficult to fulfil once they are in power. More often than not, the tough stances on which election campaigns run fall victim to the inevitable process of bargaining. The end result is usually a coalition agreement that displeases the fewest number of parties. The Netherlands is particularly known for this kind of coalition politics, so much so that the electorate often accepts that a party’s stance in an electoral campaign cannot be taken at face value. The current coalition is no exception, creating new opportunities to influence policy that may have seemed improbable during the election. Furthermore, there are several issues on which the coalition has yet to take a formal position. What does influencing look like when most coalition parties have not even committed to stances on major challenges facing the Netherlands?
The New Cabinet is Not Afraid of Changing its Mind
As research has indicated, many parties in the new Dutch coalition have already shifted positions since taking office, compared to what they campaigned on. For example, before the November 2023 election, parties like BBB and NSC were in favour of reevaluating tax breaks for expats. Yet after the election, coalition party BBB helped secure a majority to preserve the expat tax scheme. The party claimed they had simply changed their mind.
Unlike previous cabinets, this coalition’s flexibility stems from the nature of its governing agreement. Rather than a rigid coalition agreement, the parties have adopted an experimental “Agreement Along Broad Lines” ("Hoofdlijnenakkoord" in Dutch), which outlines general ambitions without being overly prescriptive. This agreement leaves much open to interpretation and doesn’t extensively address the many issues facing the country. For instance, although the expat tax scheme was a hotly debated topic during the campaign for parties like NSC, the term “expat” doesn’t even appear in the Agreement. This lack of detail leaves the coalition’s policies malleable.
Another example of this malleability is the PVV’s softened stance on development cooperation. During the election, and the years preceding it, the PVV called for abolishing development aid altogether. However, during the cabinet’s recent budget negotiations, PVV Minister for Foreign Trade and Development, Reinette Klever, has requested more money for development aid. Thus, it's clear that this coalition’s policy stances are flexible, and that it is not afraid of changing its mind.
A Coalition in Search of Direction
However, the coalition’s flexibility goes beyond policy shifts—it also includes areas where parties have taken no clear position at all. This presents both opportunities and risks for our clients. With three of the four governing parties having no prior governing experience, the coalition may be more open to outside influence, particularly in policy areas outside their focus. For relatively niche parties like the PVV (focused primarily on migration) and BBB (focused on agriculture and nitrogen emissions), influence may be especially effective in sectors like trade, technology, and defence. All parties have emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong international business environment, providing opportunities for influence both domestically and internationally.
However, this inexperience also carries risks. A flexible and open-minded approach can result in policy uncertainty. For instance, PVV Minister of Infrastructure Barry Madlener initially opposed mandatory helmets for riders of “fatbikes” (popular, fast, electric bikes with wide tires). Yet, after facing considerable criticism from both parliament and his own PVV parliamentary faction, he reversed his position. The Minister stated that mandatory helmets "might be a good idea" and expressed willingness to enact any legislation parliament deemed necessary. However, he cautioned against the potential side effects of stricter regulations on "fatbikes," advising parliament to “think carefully” before making any drastic decisions. This suggests that the Minister is prepared to implement new policies, provided that parliament assumes responsibility if the measures fail. Should the cabinet continue deferring to parliament in this manner, it could seriously undermine its credibility. Moreover, the cabinet’s lack of consistency emphasizes that, while the coalition may be more open to external influence, its indecision could create difficulties, especially for those making long-term lobbying or financial investments.
Relations Between the Senate and House of Representatives
The current power balance between the Senate and the House of Representatives requires additional flexibility in forging alternative coalitions. To retain political leverage, it is likely that this cabinet will regularly make decisions influenced by opposition parties or relatively powerful parties in the Senate, such as BBB.
Practical Advice: This is the Time to Engage
Practically speaking, now is the time to engage. Both ministers and members of parliament are in the process of shaping their agendas for the coming years and are looking for ways to distinguish themselves. Help from businesses and trade organizations will likely be highly valued during this process.
Comments