In recent weeks we have experienced the fall of the cabinet in the Netherlands. I have said before, I cannot connect myself to a party. That just doesn’t work, because I see something in all parties, but I also see a lot in all parties with which I totally disagree. So you might almost say: start your own party, but that is completely out of the question. But what then at least very clearly stands out is the use of the word democracy. And I must say that it has increasingly started to irritate me how that word is used, with what kind of conduct and a certain way of being very sure that precisely that party which is speaking, knows what the true democracy is.

Now of course it is originally a Greek word. And it means that it is the rule of the citizenry. Not of the people, but of the citizens. I have looked that up again. The difference between the Greek ‘demos’ and the Latin ‘populus’. Because of course you also think of populism, which is also used so often, that word. And that obviously cannot be the same. So there must be a difference between ‘demos’ and ‘populus’. And indeed, that turns out to be the case: ‘demos’ has more to do with the citizen, while ‘populus’ is the nation, the people of a certain nationality. And when you say democracy, it literally means that the citizens have the rule.

And then of course the immediate question arises: yes, how must that then be realized? Because of course you can’t all sit together in the cabinet. So it is then of course logical that certain parties are formed that have a certain set of ideals, and that the citizen has the opportunity to choose. But yes, once the citizen has made their choice, democracy in fact ends, because then the party that comes to power more or less determines things. Then it is no longer the citizen. Then it is that party that rules. And the citizen has, in fact, only had something to say about which party eventually comes to power.

And that’s not even always the case. Because the party with the most votes is not necessarily the party that governs. So it is quite a complicated process. And that is then more or less counterbalanced by the fact that in such a government system, as is used for example in the Netherlands, there is a parliament that in turn consists of people from the citizenry, who are also elected by the citizens and who do not so much co-govern, but who do have a vote every time something has to be reasoned out and accepted or rejected. And in that sense, the citizens who did not vote for the ruling party still to some extent have a voice in what happens, because the representatives of those people are active in the chamber, in the parliament.

But of course, it is still a very peculiar situation, because at some point you are faced with the fact that a certain party becomes the largest. That has then come about democratically, because the citizens – the largest part of the citizens – have voted for that party. And what then starts to irritate me is that the word democracy is constantly used by the opposition. Yes, more or less to demonstrate that that ruling party is not a democratic party. That again has to do with the fact that people believe that that party wants to simply push through what they have as ideals in their party program, outside of the rest of the citizenry. And then it really becomes very complicated.

And that’s why it starts to bother me, because if we now have a system in a country – and that is nowadays almost everywhere the case – where people vote for certain parties with certain people in the leadership, then that means that when a party becomes the biggest, that that party has become the biggest democratically. You really can’t say otherwise, can you? Then it may annoy you that that is the case, and you may say: well how unpleasant, those are people I really can’t stand, but that does not mean you can say that that breaks democracy. And that is what I find difficult in listening along to what is said in a parliament. That is, that it apparently is the case that certain parties believe that they have the correct vision of democracy, who then think that the opposition parties don’t have that, and who constantly bring that up.

And then I get the impression that we are dealing with a new modern idol. It is of course very clear in human history that people have the need to worship a being. As long as that is a recognized divine being, that is seen as proper. And in the Bible you regularly see deviations arise and that idols are worshipped. And I must say that this reminds me somewhat of what we now see with our principle of democracy. I ask myself every time, all those people who now use that word, do they still have a clear vision of what they actually find so important about it? Because the word is actually used as if it were the divine principle itself in national governance.

Democracy is the great principle to which everything must comply. That it can no longer be aristocracy is of course obvious. When you think of earlier times of emperors and kings, dictators, then it is of course clear that in our age of awareness we no longer want that. We do not want to be dictated to as people by a ruler who knows better and who will tell us how it must be. Of course you still see that in our time. But then there is a lot of resistance against it. So an aristocracy is no longer possible in our time. And then you think: well, okay, then it must be a democracy, then it must be the citizen who rules.

But yes, the number of citizens is so incredibly large, that the number of opinions and ideas about how it should be is also incredibly large. And to steer that properly, that is of course not so simple. While, when democracy is spoken of, the impression is given that it is simple. Those parties that constantly speak about it, apparently know exactly how it must be. They know what a democracy is. And they also know that the opposition is certainly not democratic. And so I get the impression that there is a kind of ideal of social structure, of government structure, that is accepted by many people as the great ideal. And that this is almost worshipped. That people actually no longer see clearly what a real democracy would be.

Look, in the Netherlands we have a People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. I believe that this party has received a lot of accusations that they are not democratic. There is a party Forum for Democracy. I don’t have the impression that the citizenry in general agrees with the vision of democracy of the leaders of Forum for Democracy. Mind you, I choose no party. I am just telling what I observe and what touches and disturbs me in my feeling. The word democracy is constantly used by the parties, Labour Party, GroenLinks, Party for the Animals, with a certain way of bringing that word, from which it appears that they believe that they know what democracy is and that others do not stick to it.

Why do I say this? I say this because, for me, it is clear proof that in our time, words are being used that represent a certain concept, without really thinking through precisely what that actually means. What would you say if – suppose the one that was the largest party in the democratic elections, the previous democratic elections – the PVV. If they were to become the largest party again. Then you must honestly say that that is a democratic choice. Or you must say: yes, we must beforehand make a selection among the citizenry of who may and may not vote. And then you are making a choice, a selection that suits you or something like that. Do you understand what I mean?

It is nonsense to have a voting system and then, when that voting system – which is said to be democratic – leads to a certain party being chosen as the largest party by the people, by the citizens, to then go against that with the word democracy. That is not possible, is it? So I want to say: if you have a country where it is assumed that it is a democracy, then that means that you give every citizen who is entitled to vote a vote. But that also means that the outcome of such a democratic election is a democratic outcome. And that you must then respect that. I did not see that at the time of the previous elections and the cabinet that resulted from that. The word democracy was constantly waved about, but there was no respect for the fact that the largest party is democratically the largest party. And I hope that in the future this will reach people: that if you have a democracy, that means that the citizenry determines which party is actually desired to govern.

And even if you would find it terrible that that party is the one, then you must conclude that the citizens do not agree with you. So that they do not find that. They therefore for some reason have a different opinion about what they think is good for the country. And that comes to expression democratically. And so I have over the past months looked with wonder at discussions about democracy and asked myself: should we not take a more sober view and conclude that, when you believe that the citizenry may rule, then you must also have respect for the decision of the greatest number of citizens. And then you should actually also allow the largest party into the government. If you don’t do that, then in my view, you are not democratic.

And yes, I want to say again: that does not mean that I am for this or that party, but I am for a reasonable following of the principles you yourself set. And if you state: we are in a country, we have a democratic system, then that means that when the citizens choose a certain political direction, that should also be respected. And then you cannot say in advance: well, I don’t like that party, because they are not democratic. Yes, I don’t know what that then means. But we don’t want them. So I wanted to say that once. A whole lot of words, but it is also difficult to express. In a democracy, the citizenry chooses which political direction it desires. And because it cannot be otherwise than that the largest number of citizens ultimately is the winner, it would then be democratic if that largest party also really got the chance, namely on the basis of that democratic principle, to take the government into their hands. Next time a different topic.