Forcing Governance — On Political Fragmentation and the Seat Penalty

In Dutch politics today, effective governance is increasingly undermined by political fragmentation and strategic behavior. The wide variety of parties in parliament makes forming stable coalitions complex, slow, and often ineffective. Cabinets frequently collapse well before completing their term, leaving the country in a state of political paralysis — precisely when decisive action is needed.

While a government falling shortly before elections can sometimes be justified, it becomes problematic when parties intentionally withdraw early from coalitions for strategic gain. It often appears that governing has become secondary to chasing media attention, polling boosts, and personal career ambitions. This behavior not only erodes public trust, but also weakens the structural functioning of democratic institutions.

The Seat Penalty as a Remedy

To address this issue, I propose a seat penalty. The concept is simple: if a party in government is responsible for collapsing the cabinet before three-quarters of the term has passed (approximately 3 years), that party loses 20% of its seats in the following election. These seats are redistributed among the other parties, proportionally to their vote share.

This measure is not meant to punish disagreement but to force political responsibility. Only in cases involving fundamental violations of democratic principles or human rights could a party contest the penalty through a legal process.

Is This Undemocratic?

At first glance, this proposal might seem to conflict with representative democracy. But democracy is more than voting — it is also about accountability, continuity, and governance. In an era where elections occur in rapid succession, coalitions take months to form, and parties prioritize posturing over compromise, the system risks collapsing under its own weight.

Citizens may have the right to vote, but if their vote leads to unstable governance and political theater rather than long-term policy, the very essence of representation is diluted. Democracy requires more than the right to choose — it demands that elected parties fulfill their duty to govern.

Conclusion

The seat penalty is not a restriction of democracy, but a reinforcement of democratic responsibility. Rather than gambling with poll numbers or manipulating voter sentiment for short-term gain, parties would be compelled to do what they were elected to do: govern, collaborate, and make difficult decisions.

In times of urgent crises — climate change, housing shortages, migration, geopolitical instability — stability is not a luxury, but a necessity. Not by silencing voters, but by reminding parties of their obligation: to serve the country, not themselves.