This has been a topic of debate in politics for decades, but this time it could easily continue: introduce a binding corrective referendum. The private member’s bill appears to have a large majority in the Senate today. However, this is not a settled issue yet.

A binding corrective referendum means that voters can still reject laws that have already been adopted. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the bill must be approved by the Senate and House of Representatives again after the elections. Hence there must be a two-thirds majority in both houses.

At the beginning of this year, SP MP Rinski Litten put forward a proposal to hold a binding corrective referendum. At the time, Litten described it as a democracy boost because “a growing group of people do not feel represented by politicians and policy makers.” The House of Representatives approved it in February. Today, Socialist Party leader Liliane Marinissen defended the proposal in the Senate and a large majority appears to be voting in favour.

Paul Pondert, a professor of constitutional law at Radboud University, says the referendum “could be a nice addition to the representative democracy we have in place.”

Like Laiten, Pondert believes a referendum could help restore confidence in politics. “By getting citizens more involved in government and politics, you can gain more trust. You can at least give voters the opportunity to oppose bills that the majority of them don’t like at all.”

In 1999, the introduction of a corrective referendum was very close, but it failed due to an unexpected vote against it in the Senate by Liberal Democratic Party member Hans Weigel. This event became known as “Wiggle Night” and led to a ministerial crisis.

Since then, several consultative referendums have been organised. In 2005 on the European Constitution, in 2016 on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, and in 2018 on the Intelligence Law. In all cases the majority voted against it.

Because these referendums were advisory, politicians in principle did not have to worry about the outcome. In the case of the referendum on the European Constitution, the government did just that: the draft law was withdrawn. After the other two referendums, the government parties decided to amend the draft laws in order to – in their opinion – respect the result.

“Everyone found it very unsatisfactory,” Pondert says. “And it’s true.” “That is why a binding referendum is now on hold, where voters will actually make the final judgment on the bill.”

The VVD and CDA have traditionally been against installing the referendum in the constitution. Other parties, such as PvdA, GroenLinks and D66, regularly changed their minds. “The two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment was never in sight,” Pondert said.

So far, the race is far from over, but because the CDA now has far fewer seats than it did 25 years ago, and because parties like the BBB and NSC have said they support the referendum, the change in law now appears to have a significant impact. Chance of success.

What may help is that the Socialist Party does not mention anything about the finer details, such as politically sensitive matters such as the turnout rate that must be achieved. This must be arranged at a later stage in another law.