The Appointed Mayor: An Undemocratic Practice in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, mayors are not elected by the public but appointed through a process in which the municipal council and the King’s Commissioner nominate a candidate, with the final appointment confirmed by the King. While this system is often defended as a way to ensure administrative stability and quality, it contradicts the fundamental democratic principle that citizens should have direct control over their leaders. The appointed mayor is a relic of the past that no longer fits within a modern democracy (Bovens & Wille, 2017).

A System Without Direct Public Influence

The Role of the Municipal Council in the Appointment

Supporters of the current system argue that since the municipal council, which is democratically elected, plays a role in the appointment process, it provides sufficient legitimacy. The reasoning is that the council represents the citizens and thus indirectly voices their choice in selecting a mayor.

However, this argument is misleading. While the municipal council does have a role in nominating candidates, the final decision rests with the government and the King. Moreover, the process is often characterized by behind-closed-doors politics, where party interests and personal networks play a significant role (Andeweg & Irwin, 2014). Citizens have no direct influence on who becomes their mayor, which runs counter to the democratic principle of popular sovereignty.

No Accountability for Poor Governance

A fundamental characteristic of democracy is that citizens can hold their leaders accountable through elections. Since mayors are not elected by the public, they are not directly responsible to the citizens. Even if a mayor enforces unpopular policies or governs poorly, the public has no direct means of removing them from office. This creates a governing elite less inclined to answer to the people (Van Ostaaijen, 2020).

Political Party Interests Over Local Needs

Although the appointment of a mayor is officially supposed to be ‘neutral,’ political party affiliations play a crucial role in the selection process. Candidates with the right political connections have a higher chance of being nominated, even if they are less competent or popular. This results in a system where established political parties maintain control rather than the citizens (Daalder, 2004).

Counterarguments and Why They Fall Short

“The Municipal Council Is Democratically Elected, Which Is More Important”

A common argument is that it does not matter that the mayor is not directly elected because the municipal council is. The mayor, in theory, works alongside the council and implements policies set by the elected representatives.

This argument ignores the fact that a mayor holds significant power and influence. The mayor is the face of the municipality, plays a crucial role in public order and safety, and can directly impact policy decisions (Boogers & Schaap, 2012). It is illogical that a figure with such authority is not directly chosen by the people.

“An Appointed Mayor Prevents Populism”

Some proponents of the current system claim that electing mayors could lead to populist, inexperienced, or incompetent leaders. They point to countries where directly elected mayors have been controversial figures.

This argument is paternalistic and anti-democratic. It assumes that citizens are incapable of making an informed choice and that political elites should decide on their behalf. Democracy means that people themselves determine who governs them, even if that sometimes leads to less favorable outcomes. Moreover, international examples, such as in the United States and Germany, show that elected mayors often function effectively and remain accountable to voters (Denters, 2006).

“Stability and Continuity Are More Important Than Direct Elections”

Another argument is that an appointed mayor ensures stability and administrative continuity since the position is not affected by election cycles. This would lead to more efficient local governance.

This argument fails to acknowledge that democracy inherently brings change. Stability should never be an excuse to sacrifice democratic accountability. Additionally, an elected mayor can provide just as much stability, provided there are clear rules regarding reelection and term limits (Hendriks & Karsten, 2014).

How Can It Be Improved? The Benefits of an Elected Mayor

A directly elected mayor would offer several advantages:

• Greater democratic legitimacy: Citizens gain real influence over who governs them.
• Better accountability: A mayor seeking reelection will be more inclined to consider public interests.
• Less backroom politics: The power of party elites and closed nomination processes is diminished.
• Increased civic engagement: Local election turnout is often low. Direct mayoral elections could boost public participation in democracy.

Examples From Other Countries

Many other democratic nations elect their mayors directly. In Germany, mayors are elected by the public, ensuring greater transparency and accountability. The same applies to France, where the mayor is often a crucial figure in local governance. In the United States, mayors of cities both large and small are directly elected, sometimes even in nonpartisan elections.

Additionally, in the United Kingdom, some cities like London have introduced directly elected mayors, demonstrating that this system can work effectively even within parliamentary democracies (Copus, 2018). These examples show that direct mayoral elections do not destabilize democracy but rather strengthen local governance by making leaders more accountable to their constituents.

Conclusion: Time for Change

The current system of appointed mayors is an anachronism that no longer fits within a modern democratic society. The arguments in favor of appointed mayors do not stand up to scrutiny when weighed against the fundamental democratic principle that citizens should choose their own leaders. The Netherlands should move toward a system where mayors are directly elected, as is the case in many other Western democracies. Only then can local government be considered truly democratic.

Referenties

• Andeweg, R., & Irwin, G. (2014). Governance and Politics of the Netherlands.
• Boogers, M., & Schaap, L. (2012). De veranderende rol van de burgemeester.
• Bovens, M., & Wille, A. (2017). Diploma Democracy.
• Copus, C. (2018). Directly Elected Mayors in the UK: Leadership and Local Governance.
• Daalder, H. (2004). Politieke geschiedenis van Nederland.
• Denters, B. (2006). Directe verkiezingen en lokaal bestuur.
• Hendriks, F., & Karsten, N. (2014). Lokaal bestuur in Nederland.
• Van Ostaaijen, J. (2020). Lokaal bestuur en democratie in Nederland.