nrc.nl
CDA Proposes Motion Quota to Curb Excessive Submissions in Dutch Parliament
The CDA party in the Dutch parliament proposed a motion quota of 150 plus the number of seats per party, aiming to reduce the excessive number of motions (reaching 4000 in 2024 from nearly 2900 in 2014), a measure supported by only one other party despite widespread concerns over their effectiveness.
- How does the CDA's proposed motion quota system compare to the current situation regarding motion submissions in the Dutch Parliament?
- This initiative addresses concerns over the escalating number of motions, deemed by some as "overdaad" (excess) leading to diminished political impact. The CDA's proposal, while supported by only one other party, reflects a broader parliamentary recognition of the issue, evidenced by previous committees' observations of an "explosive increase" in motion submissions.
- What is the primary driver behind the CDA's proposal for a motion quota in the Dutch Parliament, and what are its immediate implications?
- The CDA party in the Dutch parliament proposes a motion quota to curb the excessive number of motions submitted, currently exceeding 4000 annually compared to nearly 2900 in 2014. Their internal "Motie-meter" tracks this, with one member submitting 21 motions. The proposed quota would limit each party to 150 motions plus their number of seats.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of either adopting or rejecting the CDA's motion quota proposal on the Dutch Parliament's efficiency and political discourse?
- The CDA's motion quota proposal, while rejected by most parties, highlights a potential shift towards "slow politics". The long-term impact may involve a re-evaluation of parliamentary procedures, emphasizing quality over quantity in legislative processes and reducing the focus on using motions for social media attention. The failure of the proposal may lead to continued increase in motions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the CDA's proposal as a solution to a widely acknowledged problem, emphasizing the excessive number of motions and their negative consequences. The headline and introduction highlight the CDA's initiative and their concerns about 'profile-boosting' motions. This framing potentially biases the reader towards viewing the quota as a necessary reform. The counterarguments are presented, but their prominence is less than the CDA's perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language, such as "explosive increase," "permanent state of panting," and "waving around" motions on social media. These phrases carry negative connotations and subtly influence the reader's perception of motions. More neutral alternatives could include 'substantial increase,' 'frequent motion submissions,' and 'using motions for publicity.'
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the CDA's proposal and the reactions of other parties, but it omits discussion of potential benefits of the high number of motions, such as increased responsiveness to citizen concerns or broader parliamentary engagement. It also doesn't explore alternative solutions to managing the number of motions besides quotas.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between the CDA's proposed quota system and the current system with no limits, neglecting the possibility of alternative approaches such as self-regulation or stricter guidelines for motion submission. The article frames the debate as a choice between these two options, overlooking more nuanced solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses a proposal to limit the number of motions submitted in the Dutch parliament. This aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the legislative process, promoting more focused and impactful parliamentary work. Reducing excessive motions can contribute to more structured and productive debates, leading to better governance and stronger institutions. The current situation is described as "a permanent state of eagerness" which is detrimental to effective governance. The proposal directly addresses SDG 16, specifically target 16.6, which aims to "significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere". By improving the efficiency and focus of the parliament, the proposal indirectly contributes to reducing political polarization and conflict, thereby promoting peace and justice.