What would change if we were to change government over the 10 years instead of 4 years?

Ten years is too long.A cabinet then is going to feel the country’s owner. The moment when it is settled by the voter is then too far in the future. Of course, it can be a good thing, but the risk of having a premier dictatorial treks will be life-size. Someone like Rutte would do everything to create a neoliberal paradise.

The business would love it all, but the social housing would have been minimized, the care privatized, universities only for richer students, social security aborted and everyone would be more or less self-Employed (hire and Fire).Once that has been aborted, you will lose it forever. Build takes two to three times as long as abort.

Or imagine you’re getting 10 years Of Green Left.Then becomes identity politics the rudder. Then the borders open to give people who have suffered less in the birth lottery a chance in the Netherlands.

No one can correct such trends.

A government can still sit for 10 years now?Then the whole club must be re-elected after 4 years, and 8 years. In practice, this never happens, and that M.I. already indicates that 10 years is too long.

4 years: Short enough not to let your power rise to the head, long enough to show your good intentions.

Overall, this would be a good thing, because the ministers would be given more freedom to pursue a long-term policy.

The downside is of course that direct control decreases.Rotten apples can go ahead for ten years.

Incidentally, this is also the distinction that you often see in two-chamber systems.One room that is more directly negotiable (e.g. House of Representatives) vs. one room where members are elected for longer term and often indirectly (e.g. Senate).

In The Netherlands, this distinction is less the case (there is an indirect election, but no longer term).

Without a constant threat of ‘ the next elections ‘, the coalition parties would be much less than now lying to what the voters actually want.”We do this a year before the elections”.

Less often (at 2 years?) Then a government has insufficient opportunity to put a real policy on its own and to see its results.Then they always give up everything that goes wrong to blame to the previous government.

That four years is therefore a nice measure.Not too short, a government can really put some, and not too long, so that the voter’s involvement remains assured.

People would be more dissatisfied with their own choice and then have to wait 8 years or more to choose again.

It gives governments on the one hand more opportunities to give shape to a long-term policy.On the other hand, politicians who are out of self-enrichment can also go on their way for much longer.

Power corrupts and the longer people are in a position of power, the harder it becomes to resist the corrupting influence of that power.

It would solve nothing and stir up a lot of new discontent.

I would see a little more in five years ‘ time, because governments are just a little more likely to show the real consequences of their policies and we have the opportunity to do so.But fundamentally better than four years it is not.

History teaches us that nothing is going to change.In the nearly 75 years after the Second World War, the Netherlands has known 30 cabinets. With this, the average life span of a cabinet is 2.5 years. Of the 30 cabinets, however, 16 were prematurely demolished, including 7 in the first year.

The term of a prime minister is considerably better, N.L. average 5 years.Only Lubbers and Drees have fulfilled the position of Prime Minister for ten years. This brings the average administrative period of the remainder to an average of 4 years. Keeping elections every 10 years will also change nothing.

Ten years is far too long.

Firstly, the chances are that the incumbent government fills the room with friends, so that laws can be changed, adopted or deleted much more easily.In addition, the Prime minister can then make himself Lord and master on the Dutch political system; A kind of dictator. Of course this does not necessarily have to be negative, but history shows that modern dictatorors (not the Roman ones, which were only half a year in power) are not exactly the most peaceful individuals (exceptions exist).

If I were to come up with one advantage, this would be a reduction in bureaucracy.With a person or grouping in power I don’t see months of debates, piles of paperwork and thousands of man hours to adopt a law.

Indication that this is also a translated question from English/American.

We do not change the 4 years of government.Only in America, the President sits for 4 years as a short-term king on his throne and the date of the next election is carved in stone.

In The Netherlands there must be an election at least every four years.However, a cabinet can fall, and after a few months, new elections will be organized, which will allow the next compulsory election to be held again for four years. Even a seated cabinet can change from Prime minister to mid-term. In the Netherlands highly unusual, in England often manifested. (Chamberlain/Churchill; Thatcher/Major; Blair/Brown; Cameron/May)

A government that can sit for 10 years has the opportunity to put down very long-term policies.Such a thing would only work if a business cabinet comes in, but in the meantime the people’s representation is regularly refreshed by elections. The people’s representation then directs the cabinet more directly, a prime minister becomes a kind of mini-king. If you were to capture the people’s representation for 10 years, you will get the problem that your Parliament no longer represents the will of the people at the time. Their mandate is being untested for too long.

The Netherlands has two chambers in the people’s representation.The elections for those two chambers do not run synchronously. This makes it possible to review the government policy more often than once every four years. Once directly at the second chamber elections, where parliamentarians are directly elected. And once every four years indirectly (regular four-year periods) in the provincial elections where the results in the provinces determine the composition of the first chamber. The first room tests the second chamber.

So our government rarely changes once every four years.And that’s good.

If you were to have elections for the 10 years, a government would be better able to work on a long-term vision.It is the question of whether this long-term vision is in the interests of the country. Many politicians have their own illusions that they want to accomplish. It does lead to clear policy. Putin and Xi Jiping provide more stability than Trump, which you also think of them.

If you do not want a dictatorship, the population must also be able to correct the policy quickly.A possibility is elections each four years, in which one third of the room is elected. But what do you vote for? Once in power everyone is for expansion of Schiphol, which one is also promised. It is better if the citizen can correct the policy through real referenda.

Leave a Reply