Thijs Jochems: Democracy, RIP?

February 9, 2026

_{This column was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.}

During the Dutch election debates, the traditional parties focused primarily on the question: should they or should they not govern with right-wing populist parties? The answer was clear: no. But in the meantime, more than 30% of Dutch voters voted for parties from the populist spectrum. Understanding that choice should be the starting point for the policies of all parties.

By Thijs Jochems, Advisor and Private Investor

Populism thrives when there is widespread discontent. The main sources of this discontent are growing inequality and a government that does not do what is necessary for its citizens. A family with an average income and two children can hardly make ends meet, especially in the big cities. In 2019, Rutte was shocked by the declining share of wages in national income. That decline had already been going on for about twenty years at that point and has still not stopped. In addition, the government appears unable to implement effective policy. This is mainly due to the enormous increase in legislation and regulations over the last twenty-five years. There is no clear vision on how to tackle the problems currently facing the Netherlands and Europe. In addition, there is a laundry list of problems facing society, such as housing shortages, expert press, climate, migration, and so on. Fake news on social media is also a problem, but in my opinion it is not the cause of the rise of populism. Satisfied people will be less susceptible to conspiracy theories and fake news.

As far as migration is concerned, the Netherlands is full and can no longer accommodate the influx of asylum seekers. This must be drastically reduced. On the other hand, the ageing Dutch population does need workers. Targeted migration is necessary for the Dutch economy. Right-wing populist parties have attributed all problems to migration. This is a frame that the traditional parties, as evidenced by the election debates, cannot really escape. All parties agreed that the benefits scandal had to be resolved. Eight years on, this has still not happened. The same goes for natural gas problems. Why is this?

The culture prevailing in government-related organisations of not making decisions, but merely “following the rules”, plays an important role in this. It does not pay to deviate from the rules. If things go wrong, then: Off with their heads! This culture of accountability encourages evasive behaviour, which certainly does not contribute to the government's problem-solving ability.

It takes too much time to solve problems through the normal channels in a democracy. Voters have made it clear that things need to move faster. Fewer parties – read: an electoral threshold – would help, but that is not the biggest stumbling block. Speed sometimes requires politicians to implement policies that go against court rulings. To illustrate: housing construction is frustrated by endless permit procedures. There are often delays due to the nitrogen issue or because a few individuals make use of all the rules for lodging objections. The result: major delays in construction projects. The Netherlands is the only European country that has brought itself to a standstill due to nitrogen.

In order to enable rapid change in situations like this, we have no choice but to disregard certain rules of the rule of law (i.e. court rulings). Ultimately, new legislation must make this lawful, but waiting for that takes too long. It is not lawful, but it is democratic as long as an elected majority decides to do so. To prevent these changes from benefiting only a small group, it is necessary for that majority to be formed by multiple parties. Not ideal, but a functioning democracy is still a better alternative than sliding into autocracy. This already seems to be happening in countries that were originally democratic, such as Turkey, Hungary and perhaps even the US.

More columns by Thijs Jochems