Political Life and Thought
Holland is a democratic kingdom. Democracy was born there in the sixteenth
century, and is still unquestionably thriving. But democracy was born in
peculiar circumstances; it was reared by men whose ideas of democracy
differed, for, while the leaders of the nation consistently worked for
popular government, they did not all or always mean exactly the same thing
by the word 'people,' and hence did not aim at exactly the same goal. The
French Revolution of the eighteenth century upset the outward form of the
Dutch Commonwealth; it did away with ancient and more or less obsolete
fetters, which proved no longer strong enough to support the growth of
political life, though still sufficiently strong to hinder it. It could do
nothing for, and add nothing to, the profound love of liberty and the
passion for independence which are dearer to every Dutchman than life
itself, but it could and did extend the blessing of political and
religious freedom to a greater number of people. Love of liberty brought
about the disestablishment of the Church, and love of toleration made
Holland follow this measure in the fifties by the emancipation of the
Roman Catholics.
Every one who is acquainted with Dutch history understands that these two
things have as much meaning for Dutch political as for Dutch religious
life. But side by side with religious and political freedom came also
economic freedom. The guilds were abolished, and so the bonds by which the
handicrafts had been prevented from moving with the movements of the
times, and thus of living a healthy life, were swept away. The social
revolution acted like the doctor who enters a close and stuffy sick-room
and throws open the windows and door, so that the invalid may get the very
first necessity of life--fresh air. So it was with a sigh of relief that
the Dutch--and not they alone--said, 'No State interference in matters of
trade and industry, let us keep open the windows and doors!'
No doctor, however, will compel his patient to live in a constant draught,
winter and summer, since upon one occasion a liberal admission of fresh
air was necessary to save that patient's life. There can be no doubt that
during the nineteenth century the doors and windows were kept open rather
too long. The great employers of labour were strong enough to stand the
draught, for centuries of prosperity had made them a powerful class; but
their men had no such advantages, and they were worse off when steam power
brought about another revolution by creating the so-called system of
'capitalistic production' and the growth of the large industries. Hence it
comes about that Holland, like all civilized countries, is now trying to
find out how far the windows and the doors must be closed, so as to allow
the men to live as well as the masters. This, in few words, characterizes
Dutch party politics from the social and economic side.
Political parties in the Netherlands obviously differ not only in their
views upon political, religious, and economic issues, but also as to the
degree of precedence to be allowed to each of these three departments of
national life and thought. The Liberals say, "Politics first; if these are
sound and religion and commerce are free, everything will be right." The
Social Democrats reply, "Politics only concern us as a means of obtaining
real and substantial economic liberty and material equality; religion does
not affect us at all, and certainly does not help to solve the practical
problems of human life." Differing from both, the Anti-Revolutionists
assert, "Whosoever leaves the firm ground of God's Word, the Holy
Scriptures, as the only true basis for public and private action, can have
neither sound politics nor sound economics." The Roman Catholics also put
religion on the first plane, but they are in the most difficult position
of all. They are a minority, even a decreasing minority, and know
perfectly well that they will never be a majority; so they recognize that
in the first place they must try to be good Dutchmen, faithful, loyal
citizens of the State, while in the second place they must not give up one
single ideal of their Church. Their faith in the eternal existence of
their ecclesiastic system enables them on the one hand to be patient and
to wait, just as on the other hand it teaches them not to sit still, but
to act, to work, either by themselves or conjointly with any party that
may assist them to realize, or even to get nearer to, any of their
religious ideals.
When the Liberals, in the middle of the nineteenth century, did an act of
great toleration by emancipating the Roman Catholic Church, the
Protestants threw over the Liberal Cabinet, and the Liberal leader,
Thorbecke, was returned to Parliament by the most Catholic town of
Holland, Maestricht, in Limburg. But afterwards the Anti-Revolutionists
raised the cry for denominational education, and the Dutch Liberals were
rather sore to find their former friends join their antagonists. The
soreness was in consequence of a miscalculation; the Liberals had
forgotten that in becoming emancipated the Roman Catholics did not become
Liberals, but remained Roman Catholics as before, faithful to their creed,
and to their ideals, even at the cost of political friendship.
The common ground upon which Anti-Revolutionists and Roman Catholics meet
is the conviction that religion must in everything be the starting-point.
The Anti-Revolutionists take the Scriptures as such; the Roman Catholics
accept the Pope's decisions, given _ex cathedrâ_, as inspired by the Holy
Spirit and transmitted to him by Conclaves and Councils. For the rest,
Rome's creed is sheer idolatry to the Anti-Revolutionist Protestants,
whereas Rome looks upon ail Protestants as lost heretics. But both, again,
consider such Protestants--the so-called 'Moderns'--who reject the
Trinity, the miracles, the Divine origin of the Bible, and certain other
dogmas, as simple atheists, and as most 'Moderns' are Liberals, and
_vice-versâ_, they proclaim the Liberal State to be an atheistic State.
Strictly speaking, there is really no Conservative party in Holland, for
it ceased to exist in the beginning of the seventies. After Thorbecke gave
Holland the Liberal constitution of 1848, the Conservatives tried for a
time to obstruct the country's political development, but ultimately they
gave up the attempt, and their best and ablest men, Mr. J. Heemsherk Azn
and Earl C. Th. van Lynden van Sandenburg, headed Liberal Cabinets as men
professing very moderately progressive views, yet openly opposed to the
restoration of the somewhat autocratic and aristocratic conditions which
prevailed before 1848 in consequence of the reaction against the chaotic
era of the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte. Yet though there is
no Conservative party in Holland, there are, none the less, Conservatives
in every party.
The Liberal party counts three sections, the Old Liberals, the
Radico-Liberals, and the Liberal Democrats. The Old Liberals adhere to
Thorbecke's principles, and maintain that it is the primary business of a
Liberal State to promote individuality and to create on this basis the
general conditions by which social development can be achieved. According
to them the State has no right to interfere in everything, to cure
everything, to provide everything, as the collectivist would like; on the
contrary, its first duty is abstinence--simply to preserve a fair field
and to show no favour. These Old Liberals, in fact, regard the State as a
legal corporation which exists merely to administer justice and to guard
the constitutional rights of its citizens.
Their political friends and next-of-kin are the Radico-Liberals of the
'Liberal Union,' who form, for the present, the bulk of the party. They
admit the value of individual energy and enterprise, and hold that
unlimited scope must be allowed to these; they even contend that, on the
whole, the system of unfettered individualism proved to be more in the
workman's favour than the opposite; but they also admit that this
condition is not such as it might and ought to be, and in consequence they
do not object to social legislation wherever individual efforts fail.
The advanced Liberal Democrats ('de Vryzinnige Democraten') differ
fundamentally from both the foregoing parties. They give prominence to
political rights and franchises, and hence fall foul of a leading clause
(clause 80) of the constitution, which confers electoral powers upon only
such adult male inhabitants as 'possess characteristics of capability and
prosperity.' The members of the 'Liberal Union' admit that the requirement
of a certain measure of prosperity withholds from numbers of citizens the
right to influence their country's affairs by their votes. They admit also
that the constitution ought to be altered on this point, but they doubt
whether it is sound practical politics to put this item in the foreground.
They say, in effect, 'We can quite well provide the country with adequate
social legislation either with or without the help of the disfranchised
section of the population, for if we propose measures dealing with social
problems, even the more Conservative amongst us will not object, and those
measures will come on the statute book. But there is not the slightest
chance that we shall ever get the Old Liberals to give the franchise to
poor and destitute people, who have no financial stake whatever in the
country. So by insisting upon adult suffrage you merely postpone social
legislation indefinitely. Moreover, the object of our social legislation
can only be to make the poorer class more capable and more prosperous, and
as soon as that end is gained they get the franchise automatically,
without any change of the constitution.' To this the Liberal Democrats
reply: 'Social legislation must not be regarded as a grudgingly admitted
necessity, it is the paramount duty of the State, and as social
legislation principally affects those who are now disfranchised, it is
only just to begin by affording them the opportunity of expressing their
opinions upon the subject, and hence to alter the constitution so as to
give them votes, for they know best what they want.'
The Liberal Democrats deny, in fact, that the State can make any laws that
do not affect the social life as well as the legal position of its
citizens, and contend that those who hold that natural laws rule the
social relations of man with man, and that on this ground the State ought
to refrain from interference, merely allow the State to protect the
stronger against the weaker classes, whereas its duty is the contrary.
Positive interference in social matters is, according to them, the State's
duty, and it may only refrain when the free operation of social forces
creates no conditions or relationships which offend modern ideas of
justice and equity.
The Democrats have, unquestionably, by their secession, greatly crippled
the strength of the Liberal party, and it will be long before the younger
generation of Liberals can take the places thus vacated and a rejuvenated
and unanimous party can issue from the present dissensions.
The only other political party in Holland who do not accept religion as
the one safe starting-point for politics are the Social Democrats. When
the German Socialists of the school of Marx discovered how the sudden
development of steam and machinery was followed by a vast amount of
distress amongst the labouring classes, affecting also such of the lower
middle class as principally traded with workpeople, they at once jumped
at the conclusion that the same thing was bound to go on for ever.
Perhaps it was with a feeling of despair, therefore, that the father of
Dutch Social Democracy, F. Domela Nieuwenhuys, gradually drifted into
anarchism, or, as he prefers to call it, Free Socialism, and finally
abandoned all political action. The younger generation, led by F. van der
Goes, H. van Kol, and, last but not least, P. J. Troelstra, still
vigorously carry on the fray, however, and a very considerable number of
Dutch workmen follow them. Their ambition is to conquer political power
in Holland, and as soon as they have it to revolutionize, not the
country, but the statute-book, in such a manner that they may acquire the
economic power as well. Of course, they wish to abolish individual
property in all the means of production, and to make the State the owner
of all these; and it is their hope that a general love for the
commonwealth, and zeal for the general welfare of all, may take the place
of the present egotism and sordid pursuit of wealth.
[Illustration: Parliament House at the Hague. View from the Great Lake.]
The Anti-Revolutionists also have their Conservatives and Progressives.
Dr. Kuyper always speaks of a 'Left' and a 'Right' wing of his party, and
as the Conservative 'Right' is largely composed of the members of the
Dutch nobility, he once sneeringly called this fraction 'the men with the
double names.' Their proper title is 'Free Anti-Revolutionists,' and their
leader, Jhr. A.F. de Savornin Lohman, who in 1888, with Baron Ae. Mackay
(Lord Reay's cousin), led the first Anti-Revolutionist-Catholic majority
in the Second Chamber of the States-General.
The third faction is headed by Dr. Bronsveld, and is called the
'Christian Historicals,' who differ on one great principle from the two
others, inasmuch as they seek the re-establishment of the Netherlands
Hervormde Kerk as State Church.
But, however much they differ in practical measures, their common ground
is the recognition of the Holy Scriptures as the only right basis for
statesmanship, and their conviction that the present modern State is
merely a passing, non-Dutch consequence of the French Revolution and its
disastrous teachings. They all agree that the Netherlands should be
governed according to the principles that made Holland great and powerful
ever since the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Dr. Kuyper is fully
convinced that the French Revolution thrust Holland off its historical
line of development, and he wants to return, as near as possible, to the
point reached before that event, or, at any rate, to lead the State
forward in the old direction.
All Anti-Revolutionists hold that their first civic duty is obedience to
God;--if conscience requires resistance to the authorities, resist them,
whatever you may suffer. At the same time they eschew clericalism and
object to every form of State Church. Hence one of their chief antipathies
is clause 171 of the constitution, which continues in the same way as
before the disestablishment of the Church the payments by the Exchequer to
various clergymen of all denominations. In opposition to this they demand
entire and absolute liberty and equality for all churches and confessions,
and, theoretically, admit that one can be a member of their party without
being of their creed. With regard to education, they do not desire to
substitute denominational State schools for the present neutral ones, but
they object that at present the State compels parents, who desire
religious schools for their children, not only to find all necessary
money for these 'free schools,' but to contribute in addition to the
school taxes, to the advantage of such parents as hold that secular and
religious education are better disconnected, since religious education
must needs be dogmatical and sectarian, and that the churches and not the
State should look to this, whereas school education can quite well be
given without reference to religion at all.
The Anti-Revolutionist position, on the other hand, is that it is not the
State's duty to provide school or any other education, all education being
a matter of private concern for the individual family, and not a public
business at all; though they allow that where parents are unable to
maintain them schools may be erected by the taxpayers' money. They also
deprecate legislation against intemperance, immorality, and prostitution,
because they think such laws do not remove the evils themselves, but
merely attack their visible signs, and relieve moral trespassers of part
of their responsibility by protecting them against certain consequences of
their acts. They are opposed to the legal and compulsory observance of the
Sabbath, holding this to be an affair of the churches and of individuals;
but they support laws to compel employers to allow their men a sufficient
weekly rest on Sundays. They admit a limited State interference in social
matters, but contend that it must not discourage individual effort, or
create a host of officials, inspectors, and controllers. The franchise
must, according to them, never enable one section of the nation to
supersede the other by sheer force of numbers; they do not admit that the
majority System is the ultimate and only criterion of legality and
justice; moreover, the family being the unit from which the commonwealth
has grown into existence, they contend that heads of families are the
natural electors. Where the Old Liberals say that the financial test is
the right one for voters, the Anti-Revolutionists hold that no one has a
real stake in the country who has not a family and knows nothing of the
responsibilities involved thereby. Dr. Kuyper is the democratic leader of
what he calls, in classical but antiquated Dutch, the 'Kleine luyden' (the
'Little people') amongst the Anti-Revolutionists. He knows that the
'double-named' Free Anti-Revolutionists have little sympathy with his
social programme, but this does not matter, since they are perfectly well
aware of the fact that they owe everything, as far as political power
goes, to the 'Little people.'
Finally, there is the Left Wing of the Roman Catholic party, who derive
their social convictions from Pope Leo's Encyclica 'Rerum Novarum,' which
affords a great many points upon which joint action is possible, for Leo
XIII. is often called in Holland 'the Workmen's Pope.' Both
Anti-Revolutionists and Roman Catholics entertain entirely different
political ideals, but they agree upon this, that the modern Liberal State
is not really neutral in religions matters, but is 'Modern Protestant,'
and 'Modern' Protestantism spells atheism in their eyes; and both regard a
weak and fragile Christian as a better citizen than the best atheist or
agnostic. For this reason they are combined in hostility to the existing
System of elementary education, which they suspect of an atheistic
tendency. These two questions, religion and the schools, virtually exhaust
the vital points of agreement between the Anti-Revolutionists and the
Roman Catholics, though in an emergency they might possibly unite on
social legislation or some mild form of Protection. The latter would,
however, have to be very mild indeed, for Dr. Kuyper is a Free Trader, and
the 'Little people' like cheap bread just as well as other folk. For
Holland it might be a matter of great importance if progressive social
legislation became Kuyper's chief work.
There is no doubt a great drawback in this mixing up by ail parties of
politics and religion. Kuyper, the Calvinist; Schaepman, the Catholic;
Drucker, Treub, and Molengraaf, the Liberal Democrats; Goeman Borgesius,
the man of the 'Liberal Union;' and Troelstra, the Socialist, all have
many common ideas on social questions, although they may differ in
principles and seek different aims. Each of them, however, has
Conservative opponents in his own party, and there is just a possibility
that the next few years may bring about not only a healthy measure of
social development, but also a much-desired readjustment of parties, on
non-theological, undogmatical lines.