The government presented it with much fanfare at the end of last year and the beginning of this year climate- and the Prevention-agree. Both are the result of a consultation at various tables where a large number of parties from the field were allowed to join. Although this approach fits in with the Dutch polder model, the agreements that have been concluded are meagre and the chance that these agreements will ultimately lead to improvement is not very great.
How did that happen?
Successfully highlighting an issue is different from talking about possible solutions. Tim Hofman was very successful in this last year. He succeeded - supported by the media attention he created - in growing the Children's Pardon into a grassroots movement that ultimately supported hundreds of thousands of Dutch people. This success has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that political parties 'changed' or had to 'change'. The ultimate result is that the Children's Pardon has been adjusted and hundreds of children are allowed to remain in the Netherlands with their parents (for the time being).
How do the results of the two tables mentioned differ? In both cases, a large number of parties started working on the basis of an order from the cabinet. They were asked top-down to think about possible solutions for climate objectives that were formulated by the cabinet and not by themselves. These were therefore discussions in which most parties kept their cards close to their chest and sometimes had to keep them close because the final policy is not developed in the Netherlands. Discussions were also conducted only by midfield. A civil society that has also become politicized, due to the large number of former politicians who sat around the table as directors from an interest group. For most negotiators, the organizational interests were therefore paramount. Also among the action groups. Not the social interest. The interests of the citizens, who were not allowed to sit at the table themselves, were hardly taken into account.
You can solve an issue in two ways: with a movement or alliance that is built from the bottom up or with an agreement that you impose and develop from the top down. Experience shows that the chance of success in an agreement is very low. The discussion is often conducted by umbrella organizations and interest groups and not by the companies that have to implement the final policy. The agreements are also often not so strict that the parties cannot avoid them. Especially when international parties are involved, where policy is developed in countries that do not feel bound by the Climate Agreement concluded in the Netherlands.
An alliance or movement offers a greater chance of success. The parties work on the basis of their own involvement. They each formulate their own objectives and indicate what they can and want to do to actually achieve these objectives. The citizen - as strange as it may sound - is indeed involved in this. After all, they are not just citizens, but also consumers who have to buy the products and employees. This allows them to influence the choices their organization makes on a daily basis and not just once every four years during the elections for a new cabinet.
Although it seems that both forms of collaboration can work to successfully put an issue on the map, we still prefer an alliance or broad-based movement. This makes the urgency clearer to all parties and actual efforts are made to create support for solving the issue.
