In recent weeks, the news, alongside the farewell of Hans van Zijst and the accompanying SOM Festival, dominated by the formation of our new cabinet. A formation that can be called remarkable in many ways. And as with every election and the subsequent formation, inspired by the SOM Festival and the lessons shared there by colleagues, I wonder; how would this go if they approach both the elections and the subsequent formation according to SOM?

First of all, the focus would naturally have to shift from viewpoints to interests. This is despite politics seemingly wanting to showcase those viewpoints as much as possible. Because that's how parties distinguish themselves. If interests were paramount, wouldn't most parties actually want the same thing? A safe country, with enough housing for everyone, where everyone can keep up at a certain level? Although viewpoints sometimes suggest otherwise, it's quite possible that the differences at the level of interests are not that great at all. Wouldn't there then be much more focus on what is shared? Instead of just magnifying the (apparent) differences and thereby consciously or unconsciously contributing to the estrangement of the voter, to polarization?

Then parties could find each other much more easily on the themes and interests they consider important together. And from those interests, they could look for the best solution. Instead of coming up with it beforehand and presenting it to the voter. Knowing that there's only a small chance that this specific solution will hold up. Not to mention that I wonder if people actually know the consequences of the solutions chosen from the party program. Or if they actually solve the problem adequately. That's also not possible, because the puzzle is many times more complex than it is presented at the front end in bite-sized pieces at a B1 level.

This is how politics creates its own problem, as it were; because by presenting seemingly achievable solutions as such, voters then also expect a quick and effective solution along those lines. When dealing with interests, you still have the room to choose a solution only after a proper problem definition and investigation into multiple possible solutions. And then to be accountable for it.

But what should the voter then vote for, I hear you ask? Won't it become a gray mass? I don't think so. Because what parties differ on much more than the interests themselves, is the prioritization of those interests. The differences will be greater there; where one labels the theme of security as most important, another finds sustainability and climate much more important. The focus of the elections and the formation will thus shift from choosing apparent solutions (expressed as standpoints) to a prioritization of interests chosen by the voter. Where do they want the most attention to go?

Still no easy formation with that, but a lot easier and especially more effective than the stance-driven hassle we have now, I think. What do you think?

Senior consultant

Jeroen Medema