Organised Crime Policies in the Netherlands

Abstract

A relatively high level of social stability and a certain degree of tolerance are characteristic of Dutch society to the present day. In spite of the influx of immigrants and the presence of ethnic minorities there is very little racial conflict. Even in these times of economic depression, disputes between unions and employers are not fought to the bitter end. In the political decision-making process compromises are preferred over polarisation.1 Experts play an important role in bridging the differences. There is a tendency in the Netherlands to leave it to the experts to decide on normative issues, such as under which circumstances euthanasia is admissible or whether or not the sale of certain drugs should be tolerated. Normative issues are reduced to technical, empirical questions for the experts to answer. In this way the issues are depoliticised: they are still on the political agenda, but the fierceness of the debate is tempered by the facts and rational considerations provided by the experts. The land of ministers and merchants is now the land of experts. Experts also dominate the administration of justice. There is no jury system in the Netherlands and neither is there any input from laymen in the judiciary. Judges are formally appointed by the Minister of Justice, but they are de facto appointed on the recommendation of their peers. The administration of criminal justice is equally dominated by professionals. Police chiefs and public prosecutors are appointed on merit, not democratically elected based on their political preferences. This professionalisation is based on a firm belief in the democratic benefits of the trias politica, which finds particular expression in the relatively autonomous position assigned to the judiciary. The boundary between ʻpolitics and ʻjustice is carefully guarded for the sake of the rule of law. There is a general wariness among judges and public prosecutors of the politicisation of the administration of justice. Opinions expressed by the Minister of Justice or statements by politicians on specific criminal cases are easily interpreted by the professionals as attacks on their independence. According to a recent poll, 85 per