How EU and NATO are eroding our democracy: 'We need systemic reforms'

The Schoof government promised a historic change of direction but fell before any real policy could be made. According to political scientist, Isabelle Buhre, this rapid collapse of the government is not a coincidence, but instead a symptom of a deeper democratic crisis. Parliament has been sidelined, real power lies with international organisations, the civil service and the judiciary, and criticism of that system is actively discouraged. In conversation with NieuwRechts, she provides numerous options to turn the tide.

We recently experienced another government collapse. The media immediately started talking about “the puppets”. Why is that?

We pay a lot of attention to people, especially party leaders and prominent figures, but not to underlying ideas, their short- and long-term consequences and the system as a whole. Form takes precedence over content. Mainstream and social media reinforce this. You see it reflected in disproportionate attention to someone's “statements”, tweets, “tone” or things from someone's past. As if one “statement” nullifies many good solutions, vistas or an entire party programme! The way Thierry Baudet was handled is a textbook example of this.

This is not only a process, but also a deliberate tactic of the establishment: attention is diverted from the content, the debate is postponed or not held, and persons with good alternatives are sidelined. So it is up to us to get much less involved in this. Literally. "You are now talking about this old tweet, but that is completely irrelevant. What does matter to talk about..." And then shift the focus.

To what extent does this say something about the sustainability of the Dutch political system?

Within the current frameworks, many of our problems cannot be solved, or those frameworks are themselves the cause of them. Think of the European Union, the UN Refugee Convention, but also NATO commitments, the WHO and binding agreements with the WEF. Because most legislation comes from the EU and we are stuck with binding treaties, the Lower House has been completely sidelined. The original idea was: Parliament is the supreme body, the legislature, and the government executes. Now it is: international organisations decide, and the government comes and announces. That was never the intention. This is the main cause of political discontent and loss of trust.

It leads to what I call the cycle of political engagement. People gain information about an issue. That leads to the realisation that there is a problem. That realisation then leads to involvement, resistance, commitment or action. Then comes disillusionment: people see that they cannot change anything within the current frameworks. That disillusionment and mourning is followed by political apathy: 'It's all pointless anyway!' Then information emerges on a new issue, and the cycle begins again.

If your voice no longer matters because all the decisions are made above you, you end up with political apathy. People then no longer want to vote, or set their sights on emigrating. They shift their focus to daily life, distractions, entertainment or culture, just like the people in the GDR and the former Soviet Union. 

Or they focus on a social movement, in order to actually be involved and be able to change something in the culture, instead of only by parliamentary means. That's what FVD does with us. That is crucial for developing ideas, for forming a new elite, and for bringing people together. But even for that, it is still necessary to vote, otherwise this movement will not get access to funding and the necessary attention. So do vote. 

Why is there so little attention for system criticism?

This is more abstract and difficult than one superficial fuss after another. Besides, system media belong to the system, like NOS. You cannot expect a state-owned broadcaster to attack its own interests. Or from newspapers that are all owned by the same company, DPG Media.

We see more and more fragmentation, long formations and unstable coalitions. Are these inevitable consequences of proportional representation, or can they be different?

A variety of ideas and parties is partly part of proportional representation, but it is also a consequence of this excessive focus on individuals: the many break-offs with seat retention and new parties. I see this mainly as an unwillingness to cooperate, to put aside own feuds and opinions for a higher purpose.

I would not advocate an electoral threshold, but rather an obligation to pass on your seat to the next person on the list if you resign for any reason. So de facto a ban on splitting off. Representation of the people is not for ego-tripping, personal feuds and holding the money of the job.

Are there systemic reforms that could make governance more effective and democratic?

Yes certainly, many. First, we need to get out of oppressive international frameworks that prevent us from pursuing our own sovereign policies that are in the Dutch interest. So out of the UN Refugee Convention, out of EU treaties that oblige us to accept asylum seekers, and out of the EU itself: the debt machine, which keeps expanding and heading for war; one size fits none. An exit from the WHO is important to protect people from mandatory vaccination programmes and preserve free choice and bodily autonomy in this.

Secondly, we should ban parties and organisations that want to politically Islamise the Netherlands and eventually turn it into a caliphate. This is sensitive, but even Muslim countries ban organisations we naively allow, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

A business government is a good idea, i.e. one that seeks varying majorities on each issue. The left-right contradiction is often outdated in our times. This will put political primacy back in the hands of parliament. 

It is also a good idea to elect mayors and provincial governors. To prevent another mayor popping up somewhere who has never lived there, has no ties, does not share the political preferences of many residents, but is still looking for a job. In principle, I am very much in favour of the royal house as a unifying, traditionalist element that stands above the parties. However, it is up to politicians to frame their role more tightly, which means not suddenly making pleas for a digital programmable euro or showing up at the WEF.

Next, we need to learn from other countries. Hungary does manage to steer a clear sovereign course, even while they are still part of the EU. To advocate de-escalation and peace with Russia, and to structurally oppose mass immigration. How do they do that, and what would it take to replicate that in the Dutch context? We are a net contributor to the EU, they are a net recipient. So we should be able to negotiate this much better. 

Next, we should convert the monistic system to a dualistic one. This means that international treaties will no longer have direct effect in the national legal order, but will be decided by parliament. 

We should introduce binding referendums on the Swiss model in order to increase the level of democracy again, to turn the involvement and commitment from the cycle into results and satisfaction instead of disillusionment and apathy.

By the way, it is noteworthy: Switzerland is not a member of NATO, it is structurally neutral. We also had that tradition of neutrality up to and including the First World War. Switzerland does not participate in the euro. It has referendums. Yet you don’t hear anyone claim that the Swiss are dangerous fascists or “Putinlovers”. They do exactly what we advocate, but we get that kind of accusation. A travesty, then, that you can pierce right through.

Finally, I would like to note that in the long run demography has a major effect on democracy. You can already see this in polls among young people, where DENK is on many more seats than among the rest of the population. We can make efforts to restore democracy, but there is no point if they vote themselves into a caliphate in a few decades, if they want to vote at all. That is why border closure is strictly necessary also from a democratic point of view, and remigration policies are needed. We need to start working out how to do that, what categories and criteria there should be, and what is needed legally, practically, politically and financially to make remigration policy a reality. A person’s skin colour or origin can never be a criterion, but illegality, criminality or Islamic radicalism and rejection of Dutch society can be. Failure to integrate into Dutch society, cultural incompatibility. What are these people doing here?

You briefly mentioned a dualist system, binding referendums and a ban on secession. Do you think further legal changes are needed to improve our system?

Yes. You see in Europe more and more political use of the judiciary, or lawfare. Judges are being used to silence political opposition: look at Marine Le Pen in France, the pre-emptive banning of AfD in Germany, and trials of FVD MPs. There are also (subsidised!) organisations that use the judiciary to enforce policies in lawsuits against the state, think of the nitrogen rules. I think there should be a law to curb the politicisation of judges and start restricting their role to reviewing national laws again. The system has started to "proliferate.

In addition, and this is very important: the Dutch constitution dates back to the 19th century and is not equipped to protect citizens in the digital age. We need fundamental digital rights at the national level, protection against far-reaching digital control by the government, international organisations - think digital ID and digital euro from the EU - and by companies. Against trafficking in our data and medical records. An example of a basic digital right could be anonymous access to the internet. Participation in digital banking without social credit-like conditions. Access to knowledge and courses available on the internet. Free speech on the internet within the limits of the law. And the right to establish and maintain contact with other people worldwide, even if their governments are in conflict. 

Indeed, I believe that personal contact and friendships is one of the antidotes to propaganda and enemy images, indeed it can lead to citizen diplomacy, citizens being able to say things that officials should not or do not want to. What does a government that wants to tighten its grip do first? Flatten social media and news platforms where people can hear a different voice and really get to know each other. Russians have to turn on a VPN to get on YouTube, we to watch Russian sites like RT or be anonymous on the internet. With us, the open space to express your opinion is indeed greater, but nothing is then done with that collectively accumulated knowledge and mandates, that is the problem. 

In the Cold War era, we could not read the media from the “other side”. Now we technically can, but we remain largely in a created mainstream information bubble that narrows our view.

Should this topic, “systemic change”, be more central to the election campaign?

Not directly, but using major themes you can show that this is behind it, and necessary to make real change. For example, immigration, nitrogen rules, the huge debts we incur within the EU, and being sucked into NATO and the EU’s anti-Russia course, which is unnecessary and very dangerous. On our cultural kinship with Eastern Europe and Russia, and our now missed opportunities there for trade and mutual benefit, I would need a separate article. As Slavist Marie-Thérèse ter Haar so beautifully puts it: our seat at the table in Eurasia is now empty, but it is still there, accompanied by an outstretched hand.

How can citizens themselves change anything? Or has the system become too much of a self-protective bastion?

It certainly can; that is precisely where renewal is going to come from in the long run. Become part of that social movement. Support local initiatives, such as peaceful opposition to an asylum seekers’ centre in your neighbourhood. Where you spend your money is also a good example, think local products and local retailers. Do you spend money every month on a Netflix subscription with American woke-series, or do you go to a classical concert or a museum? What do you donate to? Not to the Postcode Lottery. 

It manifests itself in paying attention to your family, relationship, wider family, to friendships, club life, people in the neighbourhood. Find tradition in your leisure activities, a choir or orchestra, an association. And be “the other voice” there, because you will find that you are not the only one. Herein is also a piece of antidote to polarisation, because within this midfield you will automatically meet people who think differently and put the focus on what you do have in common. 

Reading, sharing and supporting alternative media, of course. People are usually not stupid, they just have a huge information gap and only have the time to open the NOS app once a day. 

Two years ago, I was in Serbia and visited an Orthodox monastery that had survived under Ottoman attacks. There had been a fire, the murals had been partly chopped down and scratched away. But it had retained its culture. And now, centuries later, the monastery still functioned exactly as it was meant to. After the Ottomans, after communism, after the Yugoslav civil war. This is how I see European civilisation right now: under fire from enemies within its walls as well as from our own elites. The question is going to be: can we as a social movement also establish such a sanctuary and preserve what is valuable to us?

In short: we will first try to change it ourselves. Our own movement, our own culture with, in time, a different politics. Not immediately fleeing to Hungary, Serbia or Spain - but taking inspiration from there for a better life here.