Organisational changes, 1986-1989

Interestingly, the experience with the ad hoc organisation of the party during the election campaigns seems to have resulted in a shift of opinion on the national committee. There was still a conservative bend to many of the discussions, but in the second electoral cycle the general membership played this role. As a result of the election evaluation, the national committee appointed a committee led by former Nijmegen alderman Wim Vrijhoef to advise on a re-structuring of the party.159 _{Among others, a central concern}

was the dissatisfaction with the way in which the national congress functioned, which was still deemed unsatisfactory by the national committee.160

The central proposal of the Vrijhoef committee would be to delegate some tasks from the national congress to other organs. The national committee and executive would get some of the organisational tasks, while a new party council based on membership representation would take charge of the political preparation of congress decisions.161

This arrangement mirrors that of other political parties. This is particularly significant since it would significantly reduce levels of direct democracy within the party. This would give the cadre of the party more leeway and thus form part of an extension strategy. The national committee, which had previously rebuffed attempts by the existing advisory council to become such a party council, appeared broadly supportive of the idea at first. However, after the report was circulated the regional members of the national committee in particular proved very critical. This was largely due to discontent about not being consulted about proposals that included the abolition of their positions on the national committee. The rest of the national committee appeared to have been slightly taken aback by this.162 _{The party’s standing political programme would also be abolished and}

replaced by the manifesto plus policy documents determined during the cycle, as had practically been done in 1986.163

The Vrijhoef proposals never made it to practice. When they were released in the party magazine in September 1987, they encountered heavy resistance among the membership. The party council, in a heated meeting, seemed concerned (among others) that it did not get the expansion of advisory competences it had asked for – ironically, since this

158. Democraten 66, National Executive, “Notulen DB van 7-4-1987,” Minutes of the meeting of the Na- tional Executive held 7th of April 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87/084, inventory nr. 105, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 1.

159. Democraten 66, Vrijhoef Committee, “Advies van de Adviesgroep Partijstructuren,” Democraat 20, no. 7 (1987): 9.

160. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Partijstructuur onder de loep,” Democraat 20, no. 7 (1987): 9.

161. D66, Vrijhoef Committee, “Advies van de Adviesgroep Partijstructuren,” 10-11.

162. B. Van den Bos, “Partijorganisatie moet worden vernieuwd,” Democraat 20, no. 8 (1987): 2; Democraten 66, National Committee, “Verslag van de Fractie-HB-dag,” Minutes of the Meeting of the National Committee and Parliamentary Party held 21st of November 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87/209, inven- tory nr. 108, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 31-34.

was what Vrijhoef intended.164 _{In addition, it successfully called for decision-making to}

be deferred to the autumn national congress.165 _{In January, the national committee gave}

the national congress two clear options – either implement changes or change nothing.166

Although an internal document noted the diversity and quality of the reactions as the reason,167 _{the memo by the national committee published in Democraat implied heavily}

that the reactions were generally opposed to the proposals, distinguishing a group inim- itably opposed to the whole idea of an overhaul and a group that objected to part of the Vrijhoef proposals.168 _{The party council advised not to change the structure.}169 _In

the end, the national committee concluded that a change to the party structure was not the preferred option of the national congress and prepared minor changes to procedures instead.170

The national committee appears, in addition, to have entertained the thought of polling the members on political issues. In a proposal by Scheltema, these polls could be focused at prioritising issues and evaluating the manifesto policy-wise.171 _{It was also raised at}

the national congress where the Vrijhoef proposals were discussed.172 _{It is significant that}

discussions like this one were held in the context of a membership drive.173_{In addition, this}

mobilising role of intra-party democracy was clearly linked to the reasoning, as evidenced by the fact that members of the executive were wary to be seen to use such polls as a lure on new members, that giving more power to members encourages more people to become members.174 _{The proposals did not, in the end, make it into practice.}

164. H. Bleumink, “Adviesraad,” Democraat 20, no. 10 (1987): 5.

165. H. Frentz, Untitled letter to the members of the party council, dated 22nd of November 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87/203, inventory nr. 108, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.

166. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Discussie partijstructuren,” Democraat 21, no. 1 (1988): 2–3; Th. De Graaf, “Concept Thom de Graaf d.d. 23 – 12 – 1987,” Draft of the memo on the party structure discussion dated 23rd of December 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87/216, inventory nr. 108, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.

167. S. Van der Loo, H. Kernkamp, and Th. De Graaf, “betreft: procedure behandeling rapport advies- groep partijstructuren,” Memo on the procedure for consideration of the Vrijhoef Report dated 12th of De- cember 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87/212, inventory nr. 108, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.

168. D66, National Committee, “Discussie partijstructuren.” 169. Bleumink, “Adviesraad.”

170. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Notulen HB-vergadering d.d. 25 februari 1988,” Minutes of the Meeting of the National Committee held 25th of February 1988 (1988), HB.DB-88/042, inventory nr. 109, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 3-4.

171. O. Scheltema, “Onderwerp: Enkele voorbeelden voor mogelijk te houden opiniepeilingen onder de D66-leden (mede in relatie tot de ledenwerfactie),” Memo to the National Executive with some exam- ples of possible polls among members of D66 (1987), HB.DB-87/171, inventory nr. 107, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 1-2.

172. H. Kernkamp, “betreft: Procedure inzake ’Partijstructuren’ n.a.v. ALV 6 februari 1988,” Memo to the National Committee on the procedure for the Vrijhoef proposals (1988), HB.DB-88/031, inventory nr. 109, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 1.

173. Scheltema, “Onderwerp: Enkele voorbeelden voor mogelijk te houden opiniepeilingen onder de D66- leden (mede in relatie tot de ledenwerfactie),” 1-2.

What can be seen from the above discussion is that as a result of the continuing dis- satisfaction with the current functioning of party organs, D66 felt the need to pursue internal de-democratisation in the form of a move away from OMOV and therefore away from the membership, showing an extending tendency. However, the resistance encoun- tered by the Vrijhoef proposals meant that not much changed and organisational efforts remained largely confined to tweaking the changes introduced previously. The character of the party and its conception as a unique experiment in direct democracy will no doubt have contributed to this outcome.