Prinsjesdag remains an interesting moment of the year for many of us. Naturally, this is mostly due to all the beautiful hats, outfits, the King's speech, etc. But also because of the political spectacle surrounding it. The leak of the budget memorandum, the stances taken by political parties, the substantive choices for our country.
This year was no exception. What a statement, because with this preview of the new cabinet, it promises to be an interesting time. A particularly fascinating element this time came to me from the realm of the concept of transparency. The issue: a supposed asylum crisis. The peculiarity: the reaction of the administrative apparatus. And then, not so much the reaction itself, or the fact that it seems to go directly against the choice of the administrators, but that this reaction was nevertheless shared with the general public. You can think what you want about it, but it is transparent.
Transparency remains a complex, but also interesting concept. It is often used, including in political circles in The Hague, as a kind of miracle cure. The more, the better. This has to do with control and accountability, but hopefully also with trust. Trust in the government and trust in politics. For the NSC party, undoubtedly an important element in the new governing culture.
In light of the alleged asylum crisis, this reminded me of an article by De Vries (2017) in the Maandblad Voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie, titled ‘The complex relationship between transparency and trust in supervision’. In it, she states that “While it is often assumed that greater transparency from supervisors automatically leads to more trust, the conclusion should rather be that transparency can influence trust in the supervisor in both positive and negative ways. Furthermore, situations can arise in which greater transparency contributes to trust in the supervisor's integrity, but simultaneously erodes trust in their expertise.”
Also, research by Fung and Weil (2010 – Open Government and Open Society) shows that Transparency in the US, this actually leads to excessive attention on government failure, thereby confirming the image of an incompetent and corrupt government. My translation of that is that sharing information is in principle positive because you are acting with integrity. But if that information then shows that your actions are perhaps not as expert as one might have hoped, there could also be a negative impact on trust in that expertise.
Back to the week of Prinsjesdag. In light of an alleged asylum crisis, this was about sharing the advice of the civil service – in this case, the Directorate of Constitutional Affairs and Legislation of the Ministry of the Interior – in which they stated that the justification for an urgent asylum emergency is lacking. Nevertheless, the cabinet proceeded with it, going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. On the one hand, very transparent; as voters, we have a pretty good idea of how the decision was made, but we also know that the official in question disregarded the advice of the civil service. And although we don't know this yet, I wonder: would this whole situation now have a positive effect on trust in our government, due to the transparent way of working? Or rather a counterproductive effect, as described in the article by De Vries? And with respect to whom would trust then increase or decrease? The civil service, the ministry, the minister, the cabinet? Time will tell, but it will certainly be interesting...
