A record number of party manifestos for the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, scheduled for 29 October, contain proposals that either present a risk to the rule of law or directly contradict it. This assessment was conducted by the independent committee titled “Rule of Law Review of Election Manifestos,” commissioned by the Netherlands Bar Association (NOvA) to evaluate the political parties’ proposals for alignment with the rule of law.
To enhance voter understanding, the NOvA engaged a committee of independent academics and legal professionals to review the manifestos for their adherence to the principles of the rule of law. The committee maintains a neutral stance and evaluates proposals against established minimum legal standards, both nationally and internationally.
“Many of the proposals in the election manifestos conflict with the rule of law in key areas. This year, we have observed a record number of proposals that do not withstand scrutiny, which is concerning,” Committee chair Elaine Mak remarked.
General Dean Sanne van Oers, to whom the report was presented, noted, “The rule of law is not a guaranteed condition.” The Dutch Bar Association increasingly recognises and responds to these challenges, affirming its responsibility to advocate for the core values associated with the rule of law. The committee’s review of the election manifestos provides valuable insights into potential risks as well as identifies proposals that could enhance the rule of law.
Examples of proposals that challenge the boundaries of the rule of law include restrictions on the right to peaceful demonstration and plans to obstruct access to the courts for collective actions. Additionally, questioning international treaties that form the basis of the Dutch legal framework and undermining the independence of the judiciary are particularly alarming developments for the integrity of the rule of law in the Netherlands. The committee aptly describes the rule of law as “a troubled asset” that necessitates ongoing attention and defence.
The committee employed a clear ‘traffic light’ framework: proposals that strengthen the rule of law were categorised as GREEN, those posing a risk were classified as YELLOW, and proposals that conflict with the principles of the rule of law were marked as RED.
The assessment has revealed a troubling trend in the programmes for the House of Representatives elections since 2012. An increasing number of manifestos contain proposals that are inconsistent with the principles of the rule of law. In 2012, only two of the reviewed programmes presented this concern. By 2017, this number rose to five out of 13 reviewed programmes receiving red ratings. The assessment in 2021 indicated that the figure had escalated to seven out of 14, while in 2023, ten out of 18 programmes received red ratings. Looking ahead to the 2025 assessment, 12 out of 15 reviewed programmes contain at least one proposal contrary to the rule of law, with nearly two-thirds featuring multiple red-rated proposals. This pattern reflects a broader issue that correlates with an increasingly polarised political discourse.
Despite these challenges, all but two parties have proposed measures that could strengthen the rule of law.
Composition of the Committee
The NOvA Committee on the Rule of Law Review of Election Manifestos consists of chairperson Elaine Mak, Professor of Jurisprudence and Legal Theory at Utrecht University; Jasper Krommendijk, Professor of Human Rights at Radboud University; Lieneke Slingenberg, Professor of Migrants and the Rule of Law at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Camilo Schutte, attorney and chairperson of the NOvA’s legislative advisory committee on the rule of law; Channa Samkalden, attorney and member of the NOvA’s legislative advisory committee on the rule of law; Dino Bektesevic, attorney and member of the NOvA’s legislative advisory committee on criminal law; and Thomas van Houwelingen-Boer, attorney and member of the NOvA’s legislative advisory committee on immigration law.
