Liekuut | Control: an unclear magic word, with a price tag

In ‘Liekuut’, which is the Groningen dialect for straight ahead or straightforward, we regularly share the perspective of one of our academics on a topical issue. In this way, we show how UG researchers are contributing to the societal debate.
Control, control, control. Solke Munneke, Professor of Constitutional Law, suddenly started seeing the word everywhere: in legislative proposals, letters, explanatory notes, and especially now in party programmes. It is being presented as the solution to all big problems. It sounds wonderfully decisive. However, nowhere is it specified what ‘control’ exactly entails, or what it will cost us. That is problematic, according to Munneke, because we pay for control with autonomy and influence. Parties would do well to finally write that down clearly.
Unclear and vague
‘"Control" is a magic word that sounds great, but it is also unclear and vague. The problems are serious, but if there's control, they'll be solved. However, that's a far too simplistic view because what exactly do we mean by "control"? Does it mean: I'll explain in great detail what you must to do? That approach is likely to encounter considerable resistance. Or is it: I'll ensure that you collaborate more effectively? That'd be more acceptable. In other words: the term "control: is somewhat ambiguous. If you don’t explain what you mean, you may receive various policy plans regarding control, but the catch comes afterwards.’
The price
‘Control comes at a price, but that gets glossed over a bit. Imagine if a party programme states: we will exercise greater control over cooperation between universities. The consequence of this would be a reduction in the autonomy of universities. It could still be a justified decision if you believe there's not enough money and we should simply work more efficiently. However, what you're actually saying is that universities will have less freedom to pursue their own policies. Phrasing it as "taking control to promote cooperation" sounds much more appealing, and it makes it seem like you're solving something. But in fact, you're not being honest about the price of control.’
Lack of control, or lack of money?
‘Many government tasks are ultimately carried out by municipalities. This is a deliberate choice, also known as the subsidiarity principle. Municipalities are close to citizens, which gives them much more direct influence than they have over the distant The Hague. A fine idea in itself, if it weren't for the fact that when municipalities are assigned tasks, they often receive only a limited budget. The idea is: we assign the tasks to you as you're more efficient, so it will be less expensive. This raises the question: if it goes wrong, is it because of a lack of control or a lack of money? If the central government were to take back control, it would weaken the subsidiarity principle. In addition, it often means that the municipality still has to carry out the same tasks with the same limited budget, the only difference being that they receive extra top-down instructions. This would probably only make things more difficult!’
The benefit of top-down instructions
‘Another example is the reception of refugees: a national issue that now has to be dealt with by the municipalities and the COA (Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers). Many municipalities say, ‘well, the neighbours can have them’. But it's clear that this won't lead to sufficient results on a national level. If the voluntary basis does not work, some control or pressure from above, might indeed be a good idea. Municipal councils would have less say, but it would lead to a fairer distribution and help secure the required number of places. It may not be well-liked, but it would be clear and more effective.’
Being honest
‘Everyone wants control, so it seems. Will that actually solve problems? That strongly depends on how you go about it. It's about the balance between responsibility and autonomy. If the central government takes more responsibility regarding certain topics, it will go hand in hand with a loss of autonomy. And sometimes, that may be a price worth paying. Therefore, parties must always be honest about the price that comes with it, especially now that it is a buzzword in the run-up to the elections. As long as you're not honest and clear about it, you're only postponing the debate and solving nothing.’
More information
Last modified: | 09 October 2025 09.46 a.m. |
More news
-
30 September 2025
Michael O’Flaherty gives second Röling lecture in Groningen: War, Peace and Human Rights
From Ukraine to Gaza: every day shows how fragile peace and human rights are – and how urgent the question is of what role human rights can play in achieving and maintaining peace.
On Wednesday 10 December 2025, International Human Rights Day, Michael...
-
29 September 2025
Liekuut | Why political parties should be required to have members
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?
-
29 September 2025
What can you do if your smartphone breaks down far too quickly?
The ink for your printer is no longer available anywhere. Your refrigerator breaks down because it contains parts that have a short lifespan. And your old smartphone still works fine, but your provider is discontinuing updates. These are all examples...