Liekuut | Why political parties should be required to have members

In ‘Liekuut’, Gronings voor rechtuit of rechtdoorzee, delen we regelmatig de blik van één van onze wetenschappers op een actueel thema. Zo laten we zien dat RUG-onderzoekers een bijdrage leveren aan het maatschappelijke debat.

_{Opgetekend door Jaap Ploeger, Corporate Communicatie RUG}

Unlike in several European countries, political parties in the Netherlands are not required to have members. Why is this the case, and would it not be sensible to embed a minimum number in law? In the Dutch House of Representatives, the ‘elephant in the room’ is the PVV, with Geert Wilders as its single member. According to Sam Maasbommel, assistant professor of constitutional law, it would be reasonable to include a membership requirement in the proposed Political Parties Act (Wpp). ‘Why, in a democratic order, shouldn’t we be able to require that political parties themselves adhere internally to our democratic and constitutional principles?’

Constitution

‘In Germany, the constitutional role of political parties is firmly established. Their democratic internal organization, including member participation, derives directly from the Grundgesetz. This can, of course, be explained historically: after the Second World War, anti-democrats were denied the opportunity to seize power, as Adolf Hitler had done with the NSDAP.

In the Netherlands, parties are in fact associations without any special constitutional status, even though they serve an important function. In contrast to Germany, there has been no perceived need for this in the Netherlands. The Dutch Constitution, which largely dates from 1848, is still founded on the idea of independent, individual representatives of the people and contains no reference to cooperation among ideological allies, either within or outside parliament. Political parties didn’t appear until the late 19th century — with Abraham Kuyper’s ARP as the first — and over time the membership-association model became the norm.'

Autocratic leaders

'For its part, the state has historically not considered it as its responsibility to concern itself with the organisation of movements emerging from society. The governing power, as it often seemed, should give as much space as possible to those advancing alternatives or seeking to assume governmental responsibility themselves. This stance, often referred to as ‘non-interventionism’, was viable as long as democratic values were shared, but that seems no longer the case in 2025. With autocratic leaders on the rise worldwide, who show little regard for principles such as press freedom, judicial independence, and minority rights, I believe the time has come to introduce a membership requirement for political parties.

We should not think that internal debate automatically produces properly rule-of-law-based plans in election programmes. That is not enforced by merely adjusting the law. What you can avert with this are some immediate consequences of one-man politics: administrative chaos and lack of policy.'

Complete ungovernability

‘In the past year and a half, we’ve seen what happens when one individual holds a decisive voice in the governance of the country. As the sole PVV member, Geert Wilders faces no opposition from within the party. Furthermore, there is no pool of qualified party members to take up seats in parliament or government. The thirty-seven-member parliamentary party does relatively little, and when it became clear that the PVV would join the cabinet, ministers and state secretaries had to be conjured up out of thin air, sometimes as second choices, such as Minister Faber.

They were barely prepared for their responsibilities, and the leader kept a hand in all their decisions. The experiment ended in characteristic style when Wilders took it upon himself to pull the plug on the cabinet. Even his ‘own’ ministers had not been told in advance that they would have to leave. In this way, the Schoof cabinet came to a standstill, having hardly set anything in motion to begin with.'

Role and responsibility of parties

'It should only be logical that participants in the democratic process also uphold its core principles themselves. Then a party programme is drawn up in consultation, and the party leadership can be held accountable for its implementation.

In any case, let the debate on this begin. A number of parties want to include democracy as a requirement into the Political Parties Act, which is currently under consideration in the Dutch House of Representatives. Its purpose is to consolidate the rules for parties, ranging from financing and subsidizing to, in the most extreme case, banning a party that poses a threat to the democratic rule of law. A membership requirement would be a valuable addition. During the parliamentary debate, it can be discussed whether a specific number should be attached to it.

In any case, that would be the moment to finally hold a fundamental debate on the role and responsibility of political parties. The unwritten rule that parties have always had members has proved to be insufficient and ultimately harmful to both politics and the public's trust in it. We have been paying the price for that for two years now.'