3. 2 The Netherlands
During the second half of the nineteenth century, liberal ideology
dominated the political arena in the Netherlands. Consequently, the role
of the central state, especially in economic matters, was limited.
However, the liberals perceived the moral standards of the lower classes
as problematic and much hope was invested in educating youth. A
public primary school system was established that was neutral in the
field of religion. This neutrality was questioned by religious movements
that started to run their own education institutes. They demanded to be
on an equal footing with the neutral schools and to receive equal state
subsidies. The school question became the catalyst in a process that
would divide the Netherlands into subcultures.
The first subculture was the reformed Calvinistic movement that
represented farmers, petty bourgeois, and civil servants and schooled
labourers. It agitated against the domination of the liberal class of
burghers in state affairs and the church. The second subculture was
made up of Roman Catholics and represented Catholics of all social
layers. They formed the majority of the population but had for centuries
been excluded from political power and official duties. The third
subculture comprised the socialist movement that organised labourers
of all kinds. These three subcultures were movements that aimed to
emancipate their members. The liberals, although weaker in numbers,
had traditionally comprised the power elite, strongly represented in the
political system and administration.
Besides the school question, two more issues stood in the centre of
political controversies: general suffrage and the social question, i.e. a
system of social security to meet the negative effects of
industrialisation.
The first two issues were settled in 1917 by the "Pacification", i.e. a
treaty between the state and the pillars (see below) in which the
existence of a diversity of philosophies of life and their rights was
acknowledged in the Constitution. The basic principle for the
"Pacification" is that of proportionality. This principle guaranteed all
minorities representation in parliament according to their size.9
Pillarisation
These developments resulted in a division of Dutch society into pillars
(zuilen). Göran Therborn (1989: 202) defines a pillar as "a set of
closed,
tightly interlocking organisations held together by a common cultural
orientation". Salient for the confessional pillars was their closed
character. For the pillars and especially the confessional ones, the
biggest threat to their existence was the alienation of the grassroots
from the leaders. Therefore, it was essential to control the members by
means of a segregation of grassroots from other groups of the
population. The Dutch sociologist Gijswijt-Hofstra (1989: 36) denoted
pillarisation as an institutionalised form of "apartheid", not based on
race but on religious or political ideologies. The Dutch historian Aerts
(2001: 7677) characterised the pillarised society as "living apart
together", with a homogenous pattern of values and lifestyle despite
subcultural differences. It was a conservative, disciplined, burgher
society, aiming for a better future. All communities adhered to order
and authority and endorsed roughly the same codes of decency. The
pillarisation of society would have enormous consequences for the
Dutch society (samenleving). Practically all fields of social life
followed the borderlines of the pillars.
The process of pillarisation even strengthened the special relationship
between the central state and civil society. Throughout the history of
the Netherlands, the role of the central state has been limited. Van Deth
and Vis (2000: 36) speak of a historically grown characteristic of Dutch
society: the pursuit for autonomy and an aversion to central
government.
The "Pacification" changed the balance of political power
dramatically. The liberal parties declined sharply. The Catholic Party
became the largest party and has, together with the Protestant parties,
dominated governments since the first general elections in 1917 and
succeeded in keeping the secular Social Democratic Party out of office
until 1939. However, in the 1930s the social democrats and a left-wing
faction of the Catholic Party had sought rapprochement with each other
in economic issues. Both parties advocated state intervention in
economic matters as an answer to the economic crisis at that time.
The co-operation between the two parties also led to a Dutch model
of corporatism. In this model, a tripartite (state, employers, labourers)
social security system was established that brought together the
(pillarised) social-economic partners in structures that would mediate
between state and society (de Swaan 1996: 222). This intermediate
layer was based on the ideologies of the pillars: the Catholic principle
of subsidiarity (and solidarity), the Calvinistic sovereign spheres in
society, created by God and subordinate only to God, in which the
government had no right to interfere. The social democrats had already
adopted the idea of functional decentralisation into their programme of
planning, rather than nationalisation. Dutch liberalism, being more
organic than individualistic in its ideological origins, did not object
much as long as corporatist institutions came into being voluntarily
(Andeweg and Irwin 1993: 170).
Another feature of pillarisation was that the lives of the members
were taken care of by the organisations they belonged to, from the
midwife to the undertaker. The limited involvement of the central state
in social matters had consequences for the organisation of health and
social services. Health and social services were divided into Catholic,
Protestant, and general (public) sections. Not until 1965 was a law
enacted that made poor relief a right for all citizens, administered by
municipalities, and subsidised by the central state. Social work,
however, remained a matter for NGOs. Health services are performed
along the same principles with a low direct participation of the state and
almost exclusively run by non-governmental organisations.
The post-war period
After the liberation on the 5th of May 1945, the country was in bad
shape. Large parts of the infrastructure had been destroyed or taken to
Germany. Some 250,000 citizens had died and half a million were
waiting to return to the country. Roughly 130,000 Dutch had been
arrested for collaboration and locked up in camps. Another problem
was on the rise: the Dutch East Indies (occupied by Japan during the
war) strove for independence and in 1949, the Netherlands had to give
up the profitable East Indies.
However, after a period of cleaning up, the economy recovered
remarkably fast. Several factors contributed to this little
"Wirtschaftswunder". First, the corporatist model enabled a guided
income policy based on agreements between the social economic
partners but within margins dictated by the government. Secondly,
through donations and credits from the US, the Netherlands received
1050 million dollars until 1951. Third, money that previously had been
invested in the East Indies now flowed into the Dutch economy
(Roegholt: 1973: 664).
On the political level, post-war conditions did not lead to the new
political and social structures that many had hoped for. On the contrary,
the extreme pillarisation of Dutch society survived the war and was
even strengthened.10 To mention one example,
in a charge proclaimed
by the bishops in the Netherlands in 1954, members of the Catholic
church were prohibited from being members of socialist organisations,
listening to the (socialist) VARA broadcasting organisation and reading
socialist newspapers (Ibid. 662).
However, at the same time a counter-force had emerged that aimed to
change pre-war conditions. A new social democratic party (PvdA)
composed of socialists and left-wing liberals was established to break
through the pillar walls. The PvdA became part of a Catholic/red
coalition that governed until 1958. Another contributory factor was in
fact a consequence of the experiences from World War II. In reaction to
the fascist inhumanity and terror, the principle of respect for the
individual, of a many-sided development of the personality and of
spiritual freedom was emphasised by those who wanted to obstruct a
return to pre-war conditions (Harmsen, Reinalda 1975: 242).
The decline of pillarisation
The system of pillarisation that had been so powerful since the end of
the nineteenth century declined during the 1960s. After the war, the
state and society became increasingly intertwined. This process started
in the interbellum but accelerated after World War II (de Swaan 1996:
233). Consequently, the pillar's organisations merged into the state and
lost their ideological importance for their grassroots and eventually
their support. This was especially the case for the Catholic pillar but
also the Protestants and socialists were hit by this effect. At the same
time a process of secularisation went on that again was most profound
among Catholics (de Liagre Böhl 1998: 222).
A consequence of the demise of the pillars during the 1960s was that
the traditional pillars, which had executed social control of their
members for at least half a century, eventually lost much of their
influence and authority. However, as Hupe, Meijs, and Vorthoren point
out, "despite depillarisation at the base as well as at the top of the
pillars, the pillared structure of civil society has to a large extent
remained intact" (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, 2000: 157).
This means that in spite of the increased involvement of the central
state in Dutch society the basic structure with a strong intermediary
layer between the central state and civil society remained intact.
9 Consequently, after the first general elections in 1917 seventeen parties took
seats
in the Lower House.