Skip to main content

The rise and fall of the Dutch referendum law (2015–2018): initiation, use, and abolition of the corrective, citizen-initiated, and non-binding referendum

Acta Politica volume 57, pages 96–116 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

In 2018, the Netherlands became the first democratic country to abolish its national referendum legislation. The Dutch referendum law of 2015–2018 allowed facultative, citizen-initiated, corrective, non-binding referendums, to veto specific types of laws passed by parliament. The referendum law included an ill-suited turnout threshold that created a strategic dilemma and a psychological side effect among voters. In the three years between introduction and abolition, two referendums were triggered. After the first referendum—a treaty between the EU and Ukraine, rejected by Dutch voters—support for referendums soured among centrist politicians and highly educated, progressive voters. Despite positive experiences with the second referendum, the legislation was abolished as part of the coalition agreement by the new government. This article provides a thick description of the Dutch referendum legislation trajectory (instigation, design, implementation, and abolition) to an international audience as well as a theoretical explanation of its comparatively late introduction and remarkably swift abolition. We discuss the roles of public opinion and coalition politics in the face of constitutional rigidity. Ultimately, we draw three broader theoretical lessons from the Dutch referendum experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Source Dutch Parliamentary Election Surveys (weighted by demographics, party size)

Fig. 2

Source Citizens’ Outlook Barometer (weighted by demographics, party size)

Notes

  1. The former are often referred to as “act-contingent motivations”, the latter as “outcome-contingent motivations” (Reed and Thiess 2001).

  2. For instance, Portugal introduced a restrictive reform in 1998 (Bedock 2017); Belgium in 1998 (Jacobs 2011).

  3. According to Wiegel himself, he was persuaded not to give in to political pressure by a note from his wife telling him he would not be allowed into his own house if he would support the referendum legislation (Goslinga et al. 1999).

  4. The barriers included a signed request to organise a referendum by at least 600,000 citizens (i.e. 5% of the potential electorate), to be collected within 6 weeks.

  5. In the Netherlands, bills do not automatically ‘die’ when a new parliament is installed. Hence, the proponents of the referendum bills could wait until there was a sufficient majority in favour of them.

  6. Although the Dutch Senate can only veto but not amend policy proposals, the initiators of the referendum legislation accepted these conditions and laid them before both houses of parliament.

  7. In a comparison with provisions for citizen-initiated, corrective referendums in 11 other countries, Hendriks, Jacobs and Wagenaar (2020) show that only two countries employ shorter terms. The majority of countries allow three or more months for signature collection. The number of signatures required proportional to the electorate varies from approximately 1% to 25% with the majority employing thresholds around 5 to 10% of the electorate.

  8. Formalised digital signature collection processes—involving government-initiated signature collection forms and existing infrastructures for identity verification—are uncommon in popular initiatives and veto referendums. Digital signature collection for European Citizens’ Initiatives presents an innovative, though not fully successful, exception (Susha & Grönlund, 2014).

  9. In their evaluation of the referendum, the Electoral Council explained their decision to consider the digitally collected signatures to be valid (Evaluatie raadgevend referendum 6 April 2016, 24th May 2016).

  10. The Electoral Council ruled that the plurality in the second referendum should be interpreted as a win for the No-camp.

  11. As the Dutch case is the first where referendum legislation was abolished, no prior study examined such an instance. However, some work exists on the restriction of referendum legislation.

  12. The 2017 Dutch Parliamentary Election Survey allows us to analyse support for specific elements of the Wrr in detail. It indicates that a majority of voters supports referendums on general laws (53% vs 34% who do not) and international treaties (52% vs 36%) but not on the government budget (34% vs 54%).

  13. The 2003 survey posed this question as well, but without a neutral answer category.

  14. This quote is taken from Bedock’s set of conclusions about ‘divisive reforms’ that require a simple majority. This is the ideal type that best applies to the Dutch referendum law: the reform had a set of proponents and a set of opponents (there was no general consensus) and the procedure required a simple majority.

  15. The successful attempts include the temporary law between 2002 and 2004, the ad hoc law in 2005, and the Wrr between 2015 and 2018.

  16. The failure of the proposal for a binding referendum in 1999 by a narrow veto of the Senate fits this explanation: in the Dutch political culture the coalition agreement does not bind co-partisan members of the Senate.

  17. According to the Dutch Parliamentary Election Survey of 2017, approximately two-thirds of D66 voters had completed an education at ISCED levels 5–8 (applied sciences; university), compared to 40% of the general electorate.

References

  • Aguiar-Conraria, L., and P. Magalhães. 2010. Referendum design, quorum rules and turnout. Public Choice 144 (1–2): 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. 2011. Direct democracy worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andeweg, R. 1989. Institutional conservatism in the Netherlands: Proposals for and resistance to change. In Politics in the Netherlands: How much change?, ed. H. Daalder and G. Irwin, 42–60. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedock, C. 2017. Reforming democracy: institutional engineering in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., and A. Wille. 2017. Diploma democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brummel, L. 2020. ‘You can’t always get what you want’: The effects of winning and losing in a referendum on citizens’ referendum support. Electoral Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Ridder, J., and P. Dekker. 2015. Meer democratie, minder politiek? Een studie van de publieke opinie in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2013. 30.372-B. Voorlopig verslag van de Vaste Commissie voor Binnenlandse Zaken en de Hoge Colleges van Staat/Algemene Zaken en Huis der Koningin, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-30372-B.html. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Gerards, J. 2016. The irrelevance of the Netherlands constitution, and the impossibility of changing it. Revue interdisciplinaire d'études juridiques 77 (2): 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glencross, A., and A. Trechsel. 2011. First or second order referendums? understanding the votes on the constitutional treaty in four EU member states. West European Politics 34 (4): 755–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goslinga, H., M. Van Houten, and T. Lagas. 1999. Q-mail. Trouw 30/11/1999.

  • Hendriks, F., D. Jacobs, and C. Wagenaar. 2020. Referenderen en delibereren. Een verkenning van bindend correctieve referenda en combinaties met deliberatieve democratie. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, F.Van, K. der Krieken, and C. Wagenaar. 2017. Democratische zegen of vloek? Aantekeningen bij het referendum. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. 2009. Europe in question: Referendums on European integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, S. 2019. The politics of referendum use in European democracies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, K. 2011. The Power or the people? Direct democratic and electoral reforms in Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Ponsen en Looijen: Wageningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, K., M. Van Klingeren, H. Van der Kolk, T. Van der Meer, and E. Steenvoorden. 2016. Het Oekraïne-referendum: Nationaal Referendum Onderzoek 2016. ’s-Gravenhage: BZK Uitgeverij.

  • Jacobs, K., M. Van Klingeren, H. Van der Kolk, K. Van der Krieken, C. Wagenaar, and M. Rooduijn. 2018. Het Wiv-referendum: Nationaal Referendum Onderzoek 2018. Enschede: Gildeprint.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieskamp, W. 2018. D66 waagt opnieuw een poging om de benoemde burgemeester uit de Grondwet te halen. Trouw, 13 Nov 2018.

  • Knoop, B. 2018. Gekozen burgemeester weer stapje dichterbij voor D66. Financieel Dagblad, 13 Nov 2018.

  • Morel, L. 2018. Types of referendums, provisions and practice at the national level worldwide. In The Routledge handbook to referendums and direct democracy, ed. L. Morel and M. Qvortrup, 27–59. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwsuur. 2017. Bindend referendum van de baan; PvdA, GL en D66 trekken hun handen ervan af, https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2174438-bindend-referendum-van-de-baan-pvda-gl-en-d66-trekken-hun-handen-ervan-af.html. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Nijeboer, A. 2005. The Dutch referendum. European Constitutional Law Review 1 (3): 393–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollongren, K. 2017. Intrekking wet raadgevend referendum. Memorie van Toelichting, https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20171220/memorie_van_toelichting/document3/f=/vkkckho6n0zh.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Popper, K. 1945. The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, M. 2005. A comparative study of referendums: Government by the people. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rae, D., and H. Daudt. 1976. The ostrogorski paradox: A peculiarity of compound majority decision. European Journal of Political Research 4: 391–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S., and M. Thiess. 2001. The causes of electoral reform in Japan. In Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds?, ed. M. Shugart and M. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, A. 2010. The politics of electoral reform: Changing the rules of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rijksoverheid. 2018. Kabinet scherpt Wiv2017 aan, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/04/06/kabinet-scherpt-wiv-2017-aan. Accessed 4 April 2019.

  • Ruigrok, N., W. Van Atteveldt, S. Gagestein, and R. Van Keulen. 2017. ‘15 minutes of fame’: De invloed van Nederlandse media tijdens de verkiezingscampagne van 2017. Amsterdam: LJS Nieuwsmonitor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, S. 2001. Direct democracy and institutional change: A comparative investigation. Comparative Political Studies 34 (6): 651–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setälä, M., and T. Schiller (eds.). 2012. Citizens' initiatives in Europe: Procedures and consequences of agenda-setting by citizens. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S., and C. Wlezien. 2010. Degrees of democracy: politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • SPS (State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands). 2019[2018]. Democracy and the Rule of Law in Equilibrium: English translation. https://www.staatscommissieparlementairstelsel.nl/documenten/rapporten/samenvattingen/072019/18/download-the-english-translation-of-the-final-report-of-the-state-commission. Accessed 14 March 2020.

  • Susha, I., and A. Grönlund. 2014. Context clues for the stall of the Citizens’ initiative: Lessons for opening up e-participation development practice. Government Information Quarterly 31: 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2006. 30.372-10 Verslag. https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-30372–10.html. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Uleri, P. 2002. On referendum voting in Italy: YES, NO or non-vote? How Italian parties learned to control referendums. European Journal of Political Research 41: 863–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Brug, W., T. Van der Meer, and D. Van der Pas. 2018. Voting in the Dutch ‘Ukraine-referendum’: A panel study on the dynamics of party preference, EU-attitudes, and referendum-specific considerations. Acta Politica 53: 496–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meer, T., H. Van der Kolk, and R. Rekker (eds.). 2018. Aanhoudend Wisselvallig: Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2017. Amsterdam: Stichting Kiezersonderzoek Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. 2000. Carambole! De nacht van Wiegel in de parlementaire geschiedenis. In Jaarboek Parlementaire Geschiedenis 1999, ed. C. van Baalen, W. Breedveld, J. Brouwer, J. Ramakers, and W. Secker, 59–71. Sdu Uitgevers: Den Haag.

    Google Scholar 

  • VVD-CDA-CU-D66. 2017. Vertrouwen in de toekomst Regeerakkoord 2017–2021 VVD, CDA, D66 en ChristenUnie, https://www.kabinetsformatie2017.nl/documenten/publicaties/2017/10/10/regeerakkoord-vertrouwen-in-de-toekomst. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Wagenaar, C. 2019. Beyond for or against? Multi-option alternatives to a corrective referendum. Electoral Studies 62: 102091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, H. 2019. If I’ll win it, I want it: The role of instrumental considerations in explaning public support for referendums. European Journal of Political Research.. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    T. W. G. van der Meer

  2. Tilburg Institute of Governance, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

    C. C. L. Wagenaar

  3. Department of Political Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    K. Jacobs

Authors
  1. T. W. G. van der Meer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. C. L. Wagenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. W. G. van der Meer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Meer, T.W.G., Wagenaar, C.C.L. & Jacobs, K. The rise and fall of the Dutch referendum law (2015–2018): initiation, use, and abolition of the corrective, citizen-initiated, and non-binding referendum. Acta Polit 57, 96–116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00175-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00175-3

Keywords

  • Referendum
  • Direct democracy
  • Electoral reform
  • The Netherlands
  • Public opinion