On January 15, the entire Dutch government resigned over a child welfare fraud scandal. Although Prime Minister Mark Rutte was the one who handed in the resignations, the Cabinet made the decision unanimously, and the officials accepted full responsibility for their mistakes. They concurred with the masses of parents and concerned citizens who brought the issue forward that their efforts to limit abuses of child care benefits led to widespread false accusations of tax fraud. Some families were told that they had to reimburse all of the benefits that they had ever received from the government, and these types of cases have caused extreme financial hardship for many families across the country. Although this was a large scandal with discriminatory and serious repercussions for numerous Dutch people, it seems that the Netherlands is not really in the midst of political uncertainty. When the results come in from the upcoming elections, some suspect that those in power will be relatively unchanged.
The Dutch Government
In order to grasp the implications of these resignations, one must understand the leadership and political structures at play. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Constitution regulates the monarch’s powers. While King Willem-Alexander is currently the head of state, it is generally accepted that Parliament — the House of Representatives — is the “highest political body.” It is also important to note that the word “government” often refers only to the executive branch, and Parliament is generally not included in that term. The Cabinet is part of the executive branch and composed of both ministers and state secretaries, and they make up the collective that resigned on January 15. The “actual decisions” on behalf of the government are made by the Council of Ministers, and the Council is chaired by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the monarch. Mark Rutte remains as the Prime Minister with a demissionary status, and as aforementioned, he is the one who delivered the cabinet’s resignation to the King.
The Child Welfare Scandal
The scandal emerged from the government’s efforts to prevent excessive abuses of the benefit system. The push was a result of the “Bulgarian fraud” issue that was uncovered in 2013, where the Dutch people discovered that Bulgarian gangs and migrants had made fake claims for childcare and housing benefits. About $120 million was involved, and the public began to grow worried about increases in immigration throughout the European Union. The massive fraud became a major point of concern, but in trying to respond to the scandal, the Dutch government unknowingly created a larger one.
The Childcare Act of 2005 provided money to low-income families in order to pay for daycare and babysitting. However, after the implementation of the Act, the Dutch government created a system for extra screening in 2012. The next substantive official action in the government’s mission to crack down on fraud was a provision in a coalition agreement, originating during Prime Minister Rutte’s first term. Afterwards, the government created a Fraud Management Team on May 28, 2013 which then established another coalition. The coalition lasted until 2015. The anti-fraud systems were designed in order to weed out those who did not actually qualify for the child welfare benefit, but once these systems were instated, they ended up being far more extensive and restrictive than the goals of the government’s original mission. Miniscule errors such as forgetting to sign a single line on a form led to accusations of fraud, and “these families were forced to pay the entirety of the benefits back, driving many families to bankruptcy.” Despite lesser public attention surrounding the butchered welfare systems, Finance Minister Frans Weekers resigned in 2014 due to the scandal. However, it was not enough to stop the negligence that has carried on.
As parents began to call for the resignations of the Dutch government, the world learned that 20,000 to 30,000 Dutch families were accused of fraud over a period of the past several years. An investigation into the government’s actions was launched, and a parliamentary report was generated as a result of that investigation. Some major condemnatory points were explicitly stated: “Fundamental principles of the rule of law were violated,” and there was “unprecedented injustice” involving a multitude of innocent parents and families. Accordingly, “at least 20 families are pursuing legal action against ministers who were involved in the affair, although it was announced that nobody in the tax office was being sued. The Cabinet accepted the conclusions of the report and acknowledged that they were some of the main people responsible, and Prime Minister Rutte called the report “hard as nails” but “fair.” There seems to be little contention outside of and within the government about whether or not to hold them responsible for negligence and extreme error.
Inequality in the Netherlands
The child welfare fraud scandal has opened the door to a further discussion of various inequalities in the Netherlands. As part of Article I of the Dutch Constitution, the text reads: “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal cases.” It also supposedly binds the government to “ensure that anyone who needs social security benefits will receive them.” However, this epic scandal serves as evidence that the law is not always adhered to, even in pieces of national legislation. The widespread and wrongful fraud accusations have furthered the current problematic economic disparities, and the parliamentary report explained that they have disproportionately affected immigrants as well as poor families.
This scandal has increased the distrust between the Dutch people and their government, and there has been a call for more transparency. In May of 2020, the government asked public prosecutors to look into any possible discrimination in the years between 2013 and 2017. The results of this investigation have not yet been released to the public. Prime Minister Rutte also addressed the situation specifically, by calling the discrimination and rampant inequalities “unacceptable” and once again taking responsibility for his hand in it. He expressed that the government must make sure that nothing like that ever happens again, and his administration passed a resolution giving 10,000 affected families €30,000 each. Yet, the lawyer representing 600 victims said that this money had not yet been distributed.
The Prime Minister, Political Parties, and the Upcoming Elections
Prime Minister Mark Rutte was appointed by the King and sworn into office in 2010, and he resigned partway into his third term. He had a relatively reputable standing as a politician before this national scandal, occasionally being given the description of a “rule follower,” “a straight-shooter,” and other positive descriptors. This strong image is one of the reasons why the child welfare fraud scandal may have come as a shock to people across the world.
While Prime Minister Rutte and the members of his Cabinet continue in politics with somewhat tarnished reputations, the opportunity for a change in Dutch leadership is approaching. The general election has been scheduled to be held on March 17, and there are currently three main political parties in the Netherlands: the Christian Democrats (CD), Labour (PvdA), and Liberal (VVD) parties. Voting happens through a “list system of proportional representation.”
Prime Minister Rutte is the first Liberal in his senior position in 92 years, and one would likely think that his party would be significantly harmed by the ongoing benefit scandal. However, the center-right Liberal Party he represents has been polling extremely well, even after the resignations; they actually remain the number one party in the polls. This is probably not too surprising to those who know that mass resignations and this sort of political upset have happened before in the Netherlands — even recently. To get a sense of what may come in March, people can recall the political effects of 2006. Much like in the current situation, the full Cabinet stepped down, including the Prime Minister. Instead of a political flip, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende continued in his position, ultimately serving from 2002 to 2010. Considering the combination of the polls and the events of 2006, it seems that the leaders in Dutch politics will be relatively unchanging in March, despite the massive scandal and admitted negligence on the part of the government. It may also help that the government took the blame for their actions, making them look like they are willing to be held accountable and will learn from their mistakes.
In the Dutch government’s efforts to prevent abuses of the benefit system, Cabinet officials displayed negligence that led to discriminatory and harsh actions against a multitude of innocent families. The repercussions of the government’s crackdown on fraud were devastating — but many people do not anticipate a major shift in political leadership. The child welfare fraud scandal and the subsequent resignations of the top Dutch officials may not have as much of an impact as people would expect. At the moment, the political future of the Netherlands and the status of Dutch representation in the European Union seems relatively stable.