Speech by dr. A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, chairman SER (Social and Economic Council) at the conference ’Democracy and Trust’, organised by Rob (The Council for Public Administration) and NWO (The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research), January 17th, 2009, in Sociëteit De Witte, The Hague.
Check against delivery.
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is an honour, and a true pleasure to share with you some thoughts on a most interesting and inspiring conference theme in this beautiful and historical setting. My sincere gratitude goes to the organisation for inviting me, and making the information about the research programme ‘contested democracy’ available to me.
I am happy to see that our public administration is subject to rigorous scrutiny - not only by citizens and the media, but also from a multidisciplinary scientific perspective. This can only delight the scientist in me, as you will understand.
Trust in political institutions
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today we talk about trust in political institutions. The declining levels of trust in political institutions we have witnessed are discomforting. One source of relief might be that politicians and other public officials are not the only ones struggling to win people’s confidence. The trust crisis has hit much wider than only the political arena. Politicians and public officials could perhaps even be called lucky in the sense that levels of trust in political institutions have somewhat recovered, in sharp contrast to trust in, for example, the financial sector and the broader economy.
However, this regained confidence should not reassure us too much. The key issue we need to grasp is the reason behind these fluctuations in citizens’ confidence. This is a difficult exercise. Political trust appears to be correlated with factors on which public officials have limited direct impact, such as the economic tide or the trust people place in their fellow citizens.
But let us focus on the positive side; we have, in fact already learned quite a lot. Particularly important factors in securing citizens’ trust appear to be: the policy track chosen by the government and citizens’ impression that they have some influence on the political choices made. Furthermore, citizens seem to appreciate convincing leadership, together with a political vision that takes into account their everyday worries.
Politicians and public administrators are doing their best to recover and further strengthen people’s trust. I am confident that the proceedings of this conference will make an important contribution to these efforts.
The role of civil society
But let me be the messenger of some more good news. It is my strong conviction that the government and public administration are not the only parties responsible when it comes to strengthening trust in public policy. Civil society organisations are other powerful actors in this. It is well known that participation in voluntary organisations boosts trust and democratic virtues through a variety of channels. Such participation helps develop citizens’ political attitudes and skills, it facilitates the formation of public opinion, and it provides an additional, and more accessible venue for governance.
Given my position, I will focus on the role of the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands, the SER. The position of the SER in our parliamentary democracy has not always been equally appreciated. Especially in the 1990s the SER was often regarded with suspicion. Some critics argued that when Parliament decides to directly follow our recommendations, this goes against democratic principles. As such, we have sometimes cynically been referred to as the ‘Third Chamber’. Likewise, the council has sometimes been criticized for not including more actors in our council.
My reply to such criticisms is simple: we do not pretend to be more than we are, that is: the voice of the organised corporate sector. There is no ground whatsoever for the fear that this would undermine the primacy of Parliament. Even stronger: in the Netherlands civil society and parliamentary democracy have been mutually reinforcing each other for quite some time. I even dare argue that our tradition has the capacity to enrich democratic practices by providing an additional social basis for new policy directions. Although the legal requirement to consult the SER on socioeconomic issues has been abolished in 1995, the government has continued to consult our council. Especially in social security reforms, the SER has often played a crucial role.
Three channels of trust
In discussions about the SER’s role in our modern democracy, I have often tried to disentangle for myself the processes in which our contribution lies. I see three main channels through which the deliberative discussion and analysis in our council can be of unique value. These coincide with those issues that in general are found to generate trust in political institutions:
- people feel the right issues are on the agenda;
- people feel they can get involved and are being listened to;
- people feel their leaders exhibit a constructive political vision. In all three channels, civil society can play its part. My focus here is on social partners in particular.
1.political agenda
As to the first, citizens need to feel that the right issues are on the agenda. We have seen that some of people’s concerns have been neglected by politicians, and this has proved an important factor in the feeling of discontent among citizens. One crucial recent example concerns the difficult topic of immigration. Politicians have not always fully understood how obstacles in integration processes affect the everyday life of citizens, and as such can raise anxiety. Fortunately, we see that nowadays the issue receives much more political attention and priority.
But what about those issues and reforms that fail to attract citizens’ interest despite their importance - given processes such as ageing, individualisation and European integration?
Especially politicians’ priorities regarding social security and the labour market have proved not to coincide with the priorities of citizens. Think of changes in the pension system, inability act, unemployment scheme, and health care insurance.
It has not proved easy for politicians to convince people of the need of such reforms. In fact, the political dynamics of unpopular measures appear to be of a distinctly different nature than popular reforms. Among other things, this is related to the fact that expected losers of reforms are much clearer identified and better organised than those coalitions that would benefit (the future generations, the taxpayer).
Involvement of trade unions and employers’ organisations can raise the awareness of people that in fact such issues are important and deserve the attention of politicians and citizens alike. In deliberate exchange between capital and labour it is easier to see that current affairs are not sustainable. Our advisory reports in this domain have often proved the only way to effectively dealing with import reform agendas.
2. involvement
Secondly, the possibility of being consulted and voicing concerns, gives people the feeling that the process is fair, even if they cannot always get what they would like best. This is true in the exchange between employers and employees, but also and certainly not less important within employers and employees’ organisations.
There is an elaborate system of consultation in both types of organisations, where internal democratic procedures make sure that all concerns are discussed and extensive deliberation leads to a shared consensus. Of course, this can be an extremely difficult process, and it takes tremendous efforts and mutual trust. And this, of course, takes time. However, once consensus within and between social partners has been reached, more people can feel at peace with it. And a strong social basis supports the effectiveness of any public policy, as we all know.
This aspect of involvement is even more important when members in our council have an important stake in the actual implementation.
The pension system is a key example of this. In addition to our pay-as-you-go public pillar, a second pillar consists of private occupational pensions. This pillar has only grown in importance. While it has explicitly remained the territory of social partners, the government has in many instances attempted to influence its infrastructure and its regulation. In the details of these reforms and revisions, employees and employers are best placed to judge and appreciate the precise policy options.
Policy trade-offs – for example between low pension contributions or indexation of pensions – become more apparent and difficult measures can be better explained. I am convinced this system is one factor behind the relatively high level of trust in the Dutch pension system.
3. leadership/vision
Thirdly, I mentioned the need for citizens to feel that their leaders show vision and leadership. In our increasingly complex world and our current risk society, citizens are increasingly in want of an inspiring political vision. A story that convinces them of the way forward, a perspective that provides guidance and trust.
In the current financial and economic turmoil, it is interesting to witness the increasing trust gained by those politicians who are managing the crisis.
As to our Council, we also attempt to fulfil a role in this. Showing leadership proves difficult, and we have not always been successful. A case in point concerns the advisory process on the modernisation of dismissal procedures. An extremely sensitive issue; social partners united in our council failed to create sufficient momentum to come closer together and tackle this important issue.
In my opinion, in some other areas we have been rather successful. One of our recent contributions of which I am particularly proud concerns the advisory report on globalisation which our Council issued last June. We all know that, apart from its ardent cheerleaders, many people have their reservations about globalisation. The clarification of the benefits of globalisation was timely as the discussion on globalisation tends to face some persistent myths.
Often newspapers talk about processes being outsourced to India; only rarely do we read about other countries outsourcing services to our economy. This stresses the need for politicians and other opinion makers to give citizens an accurate picture of the challenges, but also of the opportunities facing us.
In Denmark, a special committee presided by its prime minister Rasmussen some years ago engaged in a broad societal debate on the challenges and opportunities of globalisation. This discussion helped produce broad social consensus that the Danish people are well placed to benefit from globalisation if they keep on pursuing the right policies. It is not a surprise to me that in the Eurobarometer the Danish feature among the most confident populations when it comes to processes such as globalisation.
In the Netherlands also, the time was more than ripe for such a debate. Globalisation is all too often presented as a threat, even with so many people benefiting from it. This is true also for some members in our council, notably trade unions.
Nonetheless, I am happy to be able to say that in the advisory process, trade unions and employers have really come closer to each other and have reached an important consensus about globalisation.
One of the key lessons of the report is that the Dutch government has ample policy space to follow its own socioeconomic agenda. Globalisation doesn’t just happen to us, nor does it tie our hands. A big public sector is perfectly compatible with economic openness, as proves the experience of the Scandinavian countries. An OECD index comparing countries on this ability to cope with globalisation shows that in fact the Netherlands is rather well equipped. There are some countries that do better. Interestingly, these are not only Anglo-Saxon countries such as the United States and Canada; Sweden, Finland and Denmark perform equally well.
Conclusion: role of the SER & challenges ahead
To resume, the channels of trust are: a political agenda people can identify themselves with, involvement in discussions and attention to people’s concerns, as well as an informed account of the challenges and opportunities facing us.
All three channels help to provide a social basis for important public policies. At the SER, we are eager to continue playing a constructive part in strengthening this basis.
When it comes to me personally, I must say I am certainly a ‘high trust’ person. I am confident that the current government is doing a good job in solving the financial crisis. I am confident that public officials are trying and learning to win citizens’ trust wherever possible. I am optimistic about citizens’ trust in the Dutch institutions. A little rebellion has never been unhealthy.
What I am more concerned about are urgent political problems at the international level. We are facing incredible global challenges in terms of climate policy and severe poverty in many places around the world. We need international cooperation to find lasting solutions to the current turmoil on financial and other markets. We are also seeing that the current interstate structures are not always adequate to solve these issues. Earlier this year we already saw how difficult it is to negotiate in a European setting the foundations of a new, sufficiently ambitious climate treaty. Later this year, we will probably face similar problems on the multilateral level.
If there is not yet a topic for a future conference, I would like to propose one. Wouldn’t it be highly interesting, and extremely timely, to discuss with each other methods to boost trust in international public policies. Surely interstate structures can be made more democratic, and as such can raise some more trust among the world’s citizens. Given my views on the positive contribution of civil society at the national level, I have been asking myself how civil society can also contribute at the international level.
What civil society structures do we currently have for European and international social dialogue? At the European level, we have been experimenting with an institutionalised form of dialogue between European trade unions and employers organisations in a European Social and Economic Council. At the international level we have tripartite interaction between social partners and government at the International Labour Organization. In June last year the ILO issued the declaration Social Justice for a Fair globalisation. I am confident that such initiatives can help.
But these structures are arguably still relatively far away from the experiences of ordinary citizens. Fortunately we have other civil society structures operating at the international level that are closer to people. Two particular examples are the World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum.
Where the World Economic Forum gathers mainly business representatives, the second was established in response to this economic forum and entails a variety of purposes such as labour rights, the environment, indigenous people’s rights and the like. Isn’t it peculiar in this respect that these two forums coexist so separately from each other without hardly any interaction except from cynical rhetoric?
In his writings and in his speech later in this programme, John Dryzek points to the severe lack of dialogue between the discourses of social justice and economic globalisation’s protagonists. My question to him – and others – would be: isn’t there a world to win by bringing those discourses and experiences together? Would it be an idea to organise a World Social and Economic Forum and look for deliberative exchange and practical solutions?
Surely some people would expect little progress given the fundamentally different rhetoric both groups tend to use (business opportunities vs. the failures of capitalism). However, the international problems facing us today are too severe for not trying. The Dutch experience at least strengthens my confidence.
Thank you.