During a practitioners' meeting on parliamentary opposition and executive-legislative relations in The Hague, Tom Louwerse, Rick van Well, and Elina Zorina presented preliminary research results on the differentiation between government and opposition in parliament, the explanations for this differentiation, and its implications for democratic legitimacy. About 15 practitioners working in the political arena participated in the meeting and shared their experiences and views.
In the first interactive session, the concept of ‘dualism’ in a fragmented system was discussed. The term dualism is used in the Dutch public debate on executive-legislative relations and refers to the need for an independent position of the government and parliament, even within coalition parties. However, it was acknowledged that a certain level of ‘monism’ is inherent in a parliamentary system, and what is important is for parties to clearly state their positions and openly discuss arguments.
The second interactive session focused on ‘constructive’ and ‘radical’ opposition. It was noted that constructive opposition should not necessarily involve close cooperation with the government, but could also involve presenting reasonable alternatives to government policy. The difficulty lies in presenting alternative coalitions due to partial changes in government and the lack of clarity regarding party preferences for coalition formation.
Opposition parties face challenges in differentiating themselves from the government, and the media often neglects opposition proposals without majority support. The opposition’s role is not always to provide solutions but to hold the government accountable and influence the political agenda. Image building is considered an important tool for the opposition to influence public opinion.
Overall, the discussions highlighted the complexities of executive-legislative relations and opposition in parliament, emphasizing the need for clear party positions, open debate, and effective influence on the political agenda.
