D66 struggles with its own governance culture

D66 was delighted to be able to hold a fully-fledged and enjoyable party conference with three thousand attendees for the first time in two years. But in anticipation of the new freedom-restricting measures announced by the cabinet on Friday evening, the party board had already canceled “the largest congress ever” in the Brabanthallen in Den Bosch on Tuesday.

Somehow, the party leadership – national board and political leadership – must also be relieved that a live meeting with thousands of members was not possible. At ‘Congress 114’ and the associated annual general meeting of members, a number of topics were on the agenda that exposed a growing discomfort among party members with the course of D66.

These were now discussed in a digital meeting spread over two evenings, Thursday and Friday. Only a few hundred members called in and there was considerably less discussion than in a full room with interruption microphones.

A painful motion on the agenda was a public condemnation of the behavior of a number of close advisers to party leader Sigrid Kaag. At the end of September they had among parliamentary journalists spread the gossip that VVD informant Johan Remkes had been intoxicated during a crucial day in a difficult phase of the cabinet formation. The motion asked the party board to look back on this painful performance by Kaag’s spin doctors and “the increasing role that the information team has played within D66 in recent years.” [heeft] received” to reconsider. The state government had previously rejected the motion. Its submitter, Blanca de Louw from Utrecht, decided to postpone her motion until the next congress “because then hopefully it can be discussed normally, in physical form”.

‘Far from democratic roots’

At the request of another party member, Tim Vos-Goedhart (also from Utrecht), a series of proposals from the board were also postponed to a next congress. This concerned an amendment to the internal regulations, which in some respects somewhat interferes with the democratic content of D66 itself. For example, the board wants to raise the threshold for submitting motions from 25 supporting signatures to 75.

A “too radical” proposal, says Vos-Goedhart, “to vote on a Thursday evening with 130 people.” According to him, the increased threshold could lead to less participation in smaller D66 departments outside the Randstad.

According to Casper Jongeling, the proposal represents a long-running development of ‘de-democratization’ at his party, of which the D in the party name stands for Democrats. “We have drifted far from our democratic roots and values.”

Jongeling, former chairman of the Young Democrats in Rotterdam, himself submitted a number of motions to keep his party to the promise of party leader Kaag to show new leadership. That should lead to different behavior in national politics.

For example, Jongeling asked to break with what he calls “anti-constitutional and anti-democratic” faction discipline that is imposed in the groups of the Senate and House of Representatives. He also calls on the people’s representatives in The Hague to no longer participate in coalition consultations or discussions between the executive and controlling powers in the next cabinet, in which D66 may participate again.

The party board advised against the motions, which were voted down by a large majority at the online congress. Youth reacts disappointed. “Unfortunately, this has been the case with us for years. The party is full of new governance culture, but if you come up with concrete proposals, they fail.”

‘Stir. Take action!’

Critical members who say that they often encounter resistance or reluctance at the party leadership when they ask difficult questions or submit unwelcome motions draw hope from the results of the online election of a new party chairman. That election, in the weeks leading up to the congress, has given more internal weight to the critical part of the party. The losing candidate, Janarthanan Sundaram, campaigned emphatically against the incumbent party leadership of D66, which in his view has been in charge for far too long. Although again a representative from those circles won, the Amsterdam alderman Victor Everhardt, challenger Sundaram surprisingly received 44 percent of the votes cast.

In her speech broadcast online on Saturday afternoon, party leader Kaag did not comment on increasing dissatisfaction within the party. She left it with a business congratulation to the new party chairman – “Welcome, good luck and have fun.” She did call on all members to remain critical. ‘Democrats’, said Kaag, ‘we are traditionally good at thinking and thinking along. But I also ask you now: stir! Don’t be indifferent. Take action.”

Kaag was silent about the current formation negotiations – her co-negotiator Rob Jetten only announced earlier in the day that the coming week will be dominated by climate policy. Kaag has known since the end of September that a large part of her supporters are not too happy with it that the promised progressive cabinet will not materialize and that D66 has started to negotiate again with Mark Rutte’s VVD – still rejected by Kaag at the beginning of April. And also with the ChristenUnie, the party that strongly rejects the medical-ethical agenda of D66.

Kaag and Jetten promised on Saturday that their group will only agree to a new coalition agreement if it will contain major changes acceptable to D66 in the field of equality of opportunity, climate and the rule of law. “We do it right, or we don’t.”

The fact that a new coalition agreement is still a while away was also a good thing for the party leaders at the moment. Then the (online) conference would mainly have been about that.

–