Balkenende Administration Falls Over Afghanistan Mission

In the early hours of February 20, the Dutch cabinet has fallen on the subject of the prolongation of the Dutch mission in Afghanistan.
The cabinet, a coalition of CDA (Christian Democrats), PvdA (Labour) and CU (Confessional Christians), had been in function for nearly three years. It was the fourth coalition under Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, and also the fourth to collaps within the last 7 years.
The initial stand of the cabinet towards the Afghanistan mission was that all Dutch participation should be ended by the end of 2010, and thus all troops should be back home by then. But international appeal and appraisal have persuaded two parties (CDA and CU) to reconsider this stand, and consider the possibility of a smaller force staying elsewhere in Afghanistan on a humanitarian mission rather than a combat one.
Recently, a letter stretching to this request was issued by the NATO and addressed to the Dutch cabinet. Unfortunately, this letter caused great controversy between CDA and CU on one side and PvdA on the other. PvdA have kept their stand regarding withdrawal of all Dutch troops from Afghanistan and are not willing to budge. Vice president Bos (PvdA) has made this stand very clear over the last couple of days. This eventually lead to the unavoidable break-up of the cabinet earlier today, despite negotiations and talks that went on for over 12 hours.

The inflexibility of the PvdA on this subject isn't coincidental. In less than two weeks, there will be municipal elections in The Netherlands, and PvdA are doing poorly in the polls.

FYI: There appears to be a majority of Dutch people that would like to see the Dutch participation in Afghanistan end by 2011, but it is not a vast majority. So far, 21 Dutch soldiers died in the Afghanistan mission (including one suicide).

And there have been other tensions between coalition parties in the past few months, most noticeably over a report on the war in Iraq and the Dutch participation therein.

I posted this in the other thread:


I read this this morning and thought about you. What does it mean the Administration falls? Our system is totally different. I think if our Administration falls, the entire country would collapse.


Cat

I posted this in the other thread:


I read this this morning and thought about you. What does it mean the Administration falls? Our system is totally different. I think if our Administration falls, the entire country would collapse.


Cat


Well, it's not that disastrous in our country. It just means we're heading for new elections.
The current coalition/cabinet has basically seized to exist, because the PvdA has resigned. That would also imply our country would be without a government, but for the time being the other two coalition parties (CDA and CU) remain in power. However, they aren't allowed to tackle any major issue, such as the Afghanistan mission, or the national budget, or measures regarding our social security system. They're just minding the store, basically.
This has major impact on current affairs. The cabinet had proposed some far-fetching measures re. the state old age pension plan that can not be implemented now. Also, the initial stand of the cabinet on the Afghanistan mission (i.e. withdrawal of all troops) has to be respected now.
This situation will last until a new cabinet has been formed, following national elections (that probably will take place somewhere in June).

.... What does it mean the Administration falls? Our system is totally different. I think if our Administration falls, the entire country would collapse.



Not really.  The Presidential Succession Act provides a very specific order of succession.  If the President bumps out then (in order) the following is the order of succession:


Vice President
Speaker of the House of Representatives
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of HHS
Secretary of HUD
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security


This succession list is also why, when there is a major governmental event like the State of the Union address, that at least one of the aforementioned people is ALWAYS absent and at a secure location, so that if somebody nuked the venue  :o , a constitutionally-viable successor is still around.

The act also provides that whoever succeeds into the President's job also gets his salary.  ;)

Not really.  The Presidential Succession Act provides a very specific order of succession.  If the President bumps out then (in order) the following is the order of succession:


Vice President
Speaker of the House of Representatives
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of HHS
Secretary of HUD
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security


This succession list is also why, when there is a major governmental event like the State of the Union address, that at least one of the aforementioned people is ALWAYS absent and at a secure location, so that if somebody nuked the venue  :o , a constitutionally-viable successor is still around.

The act also provides that whoever succeeds into the President's job also gets his salary.  ;)



That is true. I didn't think of it that way.



Cat

Not really.  The Presidential Succession Act provides a very specific order of succession.  If the President bumps out then (in order) the following is the order of succession:


Vice President
Speaker of the House of Representatives
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of HHS
Secretary of HUD
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security


This succession list is also why, when there is a major governmental event like the State of the Union address, that at least one of the aforementioned people is ALWAYS absent and at a secure location, so that if somebody nuked the venue  :o , a constitutionally-viable successor is still around.

The act also provides that whoever succeeds into the President's job also gets his salary.  ;)


All this is true, but if the total administration fell, was expelled from office, we would be in a state of revolution, if not anarchy. 

Isn't it funny how this thread seems to have changed topic in just three posts? ::)

Isn't it funny how this thread seems to have changed topic in just three posts? ::)



That wasn't my fault. Maybe we should blame it on Howard.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Ok, getting back to the topic. Here we only have about 2 parties (there are others but they usually don't make much of a dent in our elections) and they usually go back and forth as who is in charge. How often does your government change parties (roughly) and/or does your government usually have a coalition?



Cat

Ok, getting back to the topic. Here we only have about 2 parties (there are others but they usually don't make much of a dent in our elections) and they usually go back and forth as who is in charge. How often does your government change parties (roughly) and/or does your government usually have a coalition?

Cat


In general, we have national elections every four years (to be held in March). The number of parties participating varies from election to election. At the last held elections (in 2006) there were 24 parties, 13 of which participated in all voting districts (19).
We have a proportional representation, which means that the number of votes casted on a party divided by the total number of voted casted times the number of seats in our national assembly (150) determines the number of seats any party gets in the national assembly. There is no threshold, so basically any party can get a seat (provided they get over approx. 0.67% of votes).
This implies that the more parties participate, the more parties there will be present in parliament, and that it is virtually impossible for any party to get an absolute majority of seats. So yes, we always end up with a coalition. In the past this was usually a two-party coalition, but nowadays it's more common to have a three-party coalition.

Following the 2006 elections, 10 parties made it to the parliament. That was one more than following the preceding elections in 2003.

Frankly, I think your multi-party system is much more democratic than our winner-take-all system, which leads to two party domination.  In both systems, deals have to be made, logs rolled, people cajoled, but in your system all that is much more transparent than it is in our.

As to your origin topic, I'm not sure how I feel because I am very ambivalent about AF'sta.  But clearly, what happened in Holland demonstrates it's advanced democracy.

Frankly, I think your multi-party system is much more democratic than our winner-take-all system, which leads to two party domination.  In both systems, deals have to be made, logs rolled, people cajoled, but in your system all that is much more transparent than it is in our.


Both systems have their pros and cons.Though I'm definitely not favoring a winner-takes-all-system, our system leads to complications and division. This may be more democratic, but it's also highly impractical. Especially when it comes to forming a government. Well, I guess it's all part of our folklore...
What I DO like, however, is that all parties are treated equal. They all get the same amount of broadcasting time on national television to get their message across prior to national elections.



As to your origin topic, I'm not sure how I feel because I am very ambivalent about AF'sta.  But clearly, what happened in Holland demonstrates it's advanced democracy.


I can see how withdrawing from Afghanistan at this point would not be a wise move. On the other hand, we can't stay indefinitely. It's a tough decision to make.

That is very interesting.  Over here in "the land of the free" if you even presume to say you are something other than Democrat or Republican you are considered anti American.  It is more than ignorant.

Latest news is that the national elections will be held on June 9, 2010.

That is very interesting.  Over here in "the land of the free" if you even presume to say you are something other than Democrat or Republican you are considered anti American.  It is more than ignorant.


I think that's a bit extreme.

My opinion is that if somebody here says they are neither Dem or Repub (especially if they are a politician) they are immediately branded as being "unelectable".

I am registered as an Independent.

Both systems have their pros and cons.Though I'm definitely not favoring a winner-takes-all-system, our system leads to complications and division. This may be more democratic, but it's also highly impractical. Especially when it comes to forming a government. Well, I guess it's all part of our folklore...
What I DO like, however, is that all parties are treated equal. They all get the same amount of broadcasting time on national television to get their message across prior to national elections.





But that is just the point.  In addition, lots of deals are made behind the sense in our system, which in a multi-party system get made in public.  On the other hand, intransigence is intransigence in any system.  I think it was Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".