Parliamentary Hearings with New Cabinet Members – A Successful Experiment?

For the first time in Dutch parliamentary history, the House of Representatives organized hearings with candidate cabinet members. This initiative, following a motion by MP Joost Sneller (D66 – Liberal Democrats) adopted by the House in October 2023, aims to increase transparency and involve citizens more in the formation process. But how did this work in practice? And are these hearings worth repeating?

A New Phenomenon

The idea behind the hearings was simple: provide a platform for candidate ministers and state secretaries to introduce themselves and allow MPs to question them. Candidates had four minutes to explain their policy ambitions in the relevant committee of their portfolio, followed by a round of questions from the MPs. The goal was to give both the House and voters a chance to evaluate the candidates and dispel any doubts early on. The hearings were sanction-free – meaning the House could not formally express its opinion on candidates or reject them.

Reactions to this new phenomenon were mixed from the start. Proponents welcomed the increased transparency and emphasized the importance of everyone in the Netherlands being able to see who the future cabinet members are and what their plans and motives are. This could potentially increase trust in politics. On the other hand, there were also critical voices. Some opposition parties, including the CDA (Christian Democrats), SGP (Reformed Political Party), and SP (Socialist Party), boycotted the hearings because they feared “spectacle politics” instead of serious evaluations. Concerns about the risk of personal attacks and political theater were significant – and not entirely unfounded.

Mixed Results

The hearings were an experiment with mixed results. Although, according to initiating MP Sneller, transparency and public involvement in the formation process were increased, there were clear shortcomings in the execution. The hearings offered little room for genuine dialogue, making substantive conversation difficult. Additionally, some questions from parliamentarians seemed primarily aimed at personal attacks rather than substantive issues. For instance, during the hearings with Marjolein Faber (candidate minister of Asylum and Migration) and Reinette Klever (candidate minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation), attention mainly focused on controversial statements from the past, and much less on the future policy.

There were also positive notes. The hearings provided a unique opportunity for candidates to explain their vision and priorities, and for parliamentarians and voters to get to know the sometimes fairly unknown new cabinet members. Moreover, potential problems or concerns can be identified, named, and addressed early on. For example, it was not inconvenient for Prime Minister Dick Schoof that prior to the debate on the government statement – where he himself must answer all questions on behalf of the entire Cabinet – the most critical questions were already adressed during the hearings with the relevant cabinet members themselves.

Worth Repeating?

In short, the concept itself has potential, but there is still much work to be done. The House has already announced an evaluation of the hearings and will need to decide whether they will become a permanent part of the formation process. If so, how they can be improved to better serve their purpose will need to be considered. If the procedure is adjusted to allow more room for in-depth and substantive conversations and less for personal attacks, these hearings at least have a better chance of being a valuable addition to the formation process.

Photo via the Dutch House of Representatives