Good governance is easier said than done – even for Cabinet Schoof I

Along with asylum and migration, it was the other big issue in the last House of Representative elections: “good governance”. The political parties stumbled over each other during the campaign to emphasize its importance to their voters. Led by New Social Contract (NSC), the brand-new party of Pieter Omtzigt. Now that the new cabinet has been in office for several months, it appears that the road to the desired new administrative culture is not without its obstacles. All the fine words, intentions and good intentions notwithstanding. For although the coalition agreement states that transparency in the actions of government officials must be actively promoted, it is precisely this transparency that is now the subject of discussion.

Financial interests

Last week, the House of Representatives reacted with great indignation to the news that State Secretary Folkert Idsinga (NSC – Taxation and Fiscal Service) refuses to provide insight into his business interests. Among other things, Idsinga has equity interests in several listed companies, but does not want to disclose which ones. This is because he considers this a “private matter. Members of Parliament and integrity experts are critical; Idsinga maintains that he complies with the prescribed rules and is not obliged to disclose more than he has already done.

Distinction between letter and spirit

It is important in this discussion to distinguish between the letter and spirit of the law. While Idsinga is indeed in compliance with the rules and regulations – after all, he reported the interests and “put them at distance” – the question arises whether the behaviour is appropriate. Especially given his membership of a party (NSC) that pretty much invented the term “good governance.” It is therefore remarkable, to say the least, that party leader Pieter Omtzigt (currently temporarily out of circulation) did not foresee this criticism and thus did not intervene earlier. The same goes for formateur Richard van Zwol, to whom Idsinga reported the interests in accordance with the rules.

The crucial point here is that the rules are not just there to prevent actual conflicts of interest (which the House and citizens cannot properly judge without disclosure). These rules are just as much there to counter the appearance of conflict of interest. On top of that, despite the best intentions, business interests can also unknowingly or unintentionally influence decision-making. This is precisely why democratic control based on this transparency is so important. This, by the way, applies to all cabinet members – not just Idsinga.

Transparency agendas of ministers

Moreover, the discussion surrounding Idsinga is not the first time the new administration has been compromised over transparency issues. Last month, research by the Open State Foundation revealed that the mandatory public agendas of the ministers are not properly maintained. Indeed, the new cabinet performs no better than their predecessors on this one. Extra remarkable is that the ministers of New Social Contract (NSC), champion of good and transparent government, are among the worst scoring and least transparent cabinet members.

Some cabinet members have apologized, others blame the “administrative delay” on the summer recess. How transparency has actually improved remains to be seen: researchers from Leiden University, commissioned by the Cabinet, are currently evaluating whether the transparency of ministers’ agendas has actually improved with the new rules. The results of this study are expected this fall. If the results are disappointing, the introduction of a lobby register will again be considered. After all, an important goal of the public agendas is to provide insight into the conversations that ministers have with various parties, so that the various interests and perspectives in policy decision making are transparent.

Integrity remains ‘hot topic’

The discussion in the House of Representatives about the new culture of government, integrity and transparency will not be finished in the near future. Certainly not now that after several sets of parliamentary questions by MPs (from D66 and SP, among others), Geert Wilders, as leader of the largest governing party, has also become involved in the discussion surrounding Idsinga. On X, he expressed harsh criticism of Idsinga and called for transparency. This can hardly be separated from the shaky relationship between the PVV and NSC – especially since the PVV’s asylum plans are hindered by NSC’s commitment to “good governance.” The review of the public agendas of ministers and the possible reconsideration of a lobbying registry will also no doubt provide new fuel for discussion. For now, it appears once again: realizing a new governance culture is easier said than done.