On doing what is just, right and fair: Essay on a Dutch example

George Harinck

doi:10.4102/ids.v54i1.2646

Abstract

The 1848 Constitution of the Netherlands guaranteed civic freedoms within the frame of liberalism. In practice, this meant that the public sphere was not open to orthodox Protestants or Catholics. Abraham Kuyper changed this situation by accepting wholeheartedly the liberal maxim of the separation of church and state, but he rejected the exclusion of religion from the public sphere. He succeeded in changing the political climate and opened up a public sphere that was plural in nature, not open just for liberals, but for every citizen, whatever religion or worldview he had. This public regime was implemented in the late 19th century, and lasted until the 1970s. Then a new regime was implemented gradually. Religion and religious minorities were downplayed in a public sphere that was dominated by moral permissiveness and individual self-expression. This regime was challenged by Islam, and at present the debate is on the issue if a religious culture that denies individual freedom can be tolerated in a liberal democracy. This is a déjà vu of the debate Kuyper generated 150 years ago.

Highlights

Citizens of countries in the Western world would usually define their political system as liberal democracy, and rightly so
They function in a democracy, for the citizens vote their rulers, and the system enables a kind of control of political power
Right and fair has been a goal both supported and threatened by liberal democracy. To show how this tension is endemic in liberal democracy and can only be softened temporarily and contextually, I will focus on the early development of liberal democracy in the Netherlands

Summary

Introduction

Citizens of countries in the Western world would usually define their political system as liberal democracy, and rightly so. It might seem that this is a more recent problem of the system we call liberal democracy, but it seems it is a systemic one Today, this problem is expressed by the excessive individualism and identity politics that splinter the notion of a common ground. This problem is expressed by the excessive individualism and identity politics that splinter the notion of a common ground These phenomena did not create the tension, and they reveal a tension that was always present in the heart of liberal democracy. Right and fair has been a goal both supported and threatened by liberal democracy To show how this tension is endemic in liberal democracy and can only be softened temporarily and contextually, I will focus on the early development of liberal democracy in the Netherlands. What turned out to be the potential of this approach, and where did it meet its limits in doing what is just, right and fair?

A Dutch Constitution

Findings

Conclusion