Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of the Netherlands (The Dutch Republic)

The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of the Netherlands (Dutch: Negentiende wijziging van de Grondwet van de Republiek der Nederlanden, German: Neunzehnter Verfassungszusatz der Verfassung der Republik der Niederlande) replaced the parliamentary monarchy previously used as the nation's form of government with a parliamentary republic. Subsequently, the office of President of the Netherlands was introduced to fill the role of head of state which previously had been occupied by the Queen or King of the Netherlands. After a petition for a plebiscite reached the 3,000,000 signatures necessary for a referendum in 2010, voting took place on February 15th 2011, alongside the general election of that year. The amendment itself was signed into law on May 7th by Queen Beatrix as the last state document with a signature of the monarch. The public campaign in favor of abolition was spearheaded by the Communist Party of the Netherlands with the All-Dutch Workers' Party and the Progressive Alliance voicing their support for the motion in a joint declaration prior to the referendum, stating that "if the people were supportive of the introduction of a more modern form of government," they would do "everything that is politically feasible to support their will." While the German Minority Party, National Liberal Party and National People's Party declared neutrality on the issue, the governing Dutch Party for Prosperity and Progress and their coalition partner, the Christian Democratic Party vocally opposed the amendment, with Prime Minister Zalm claiming this would "plunge the country into chaos for what is merely a symbolic change to our state."

While many expected the measure to fail initially, the government's unpopularity caused by an austerity program combined with what was seen as lavish spending by the royal family allowed for the narrow passing of the bill. On the 9th of May, former football star Johan Cruyff was elected to the mostly symbolic role of President by the Geementendag for a term of six years which he did not complete due to his death in 2016.

Text
Sectie één: Het vijfde artikel van de grondwet wordt ingetrokken. Het wordt vervangen door artikel honderdzeventig van de Grondwet.

Sectie twee: Het volgende artikel is als honderdzeventigste in de grondwet opgenomen: De Republiek der Nederlanden is een democratische en federale staat. Het staatshoofd is de president van de Republiek der Nederlanden, direct of indirect gekozen door het Nederlandse volk. De uitvoering van deze bepaling wordt geregeld door een adequate federale wet.

The official translation to German reads:

Erster Absatz: Der fünfte Artikel der Verfassung ist abgeschafft. An seiner Statt wird der hundertsiebzigste Artikel in die Verfassung aufgenommen.

Zweiter Absatz: Der folgende Artikel ist als ihr hundertsiebzigster in die Verfassung aufgenommen: Die Republik der Niederlande ist ein demokratischer Bundesstaat. Ihr Staatsoberhaupt ist der Präsident der Republik der Niederlande, der in demokratischer Wahl direkt oder indirekt durch das niederländische Volk bestimmt wird. Das Nähere regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

The official translation to English reads:

Section One: The fifth article of the constitution shall be repealed. It shall be replaced by Article one hundred and seventy of the Constitution.

Section Two: The following article is incorporated into the constitution as its one hundred and seventieth: The Republic of the Netherlands is a democratic and federal state. Its head of state is the President of the Republic of the Netherlands, elected directly or indirectly by the Dutch people. The execution of this stipulation shall be regulated by an adequate federal law.

The Dutch constitution of 1949 and the monarchy
After the end of the Second World War, Dutch politics were initially dominated by the All-Dutch Workers' Party under their leader and prime minister Willem Drees, which allowed the political left to include many important points in the Constitution of 1949, most importantly a guaranteed welfare state, decolonization and independence for all overseas territories, strong trade unions and a limited involvement of the monarchy in politics. However, due to Queen Wilhelmina's popularity and diplomatic pressure excreted by the United States and the United Kingdom certain compromises, such as the continuation of the monarchy and the adoption of a first-past-the-post voting system had to be accepted. While the Wilhelmina and the subsequent monarchs rather begrudgingly accepted their ceremonial role in the constitution, their luxurious yet taxpayer-funded lifestyle remained an issue of contention, especially among the working class, who saw themselves exploited and cheated out of their money.

2009-2010: Economic downturn and growing contempt for the monarchy
An iron shortage due to the outbreak of the Second Chinese Civil War, coupled with a cyclical recession in the Netherlands caused a dramatic economic decline, originating from the struggling heavy industry but soon expanding to almost every branch of the nation's economy, resulting in mass unemployment and civil unrest. In response, the incumbent conservative government resorted to austerity measures, especially affecting the infrastructure, welfare and education budgets, which exposed it to harsh criticism by leftist opposition, led by the ADWP's chairman Job Cohen. While quality of life and happiness among the populace began to sink, reports about extravagant parties hosted on the royal family's properties enraged the public even further and led to a revival of the anti-monarchist movement in the country.

Petition and campaign
On December 18 2009, the Vereniging van Burgers voor een Nederlandse Republiek, the Association of Citizens for a Dutch Republic (or ACDR for short), was registered at the municipality of Amsterdam as a nationwide platform for opponents of the monarchic system. The organization officially initiated their campaign on January 1st of the subsequent year, collecting signatures, donations and renting billboards for propaganda. As provided by Article 85 of the constitution, a petition calling for a change in the nation's constitution will be put to a plebiscite if either a two-thirds majority in parliament votes in favor of the motion or after receiving backing by three million citizens. Since the parliament was controlled by a staunchly pro-monarchy coalition, only the latter option was seen as feasible, although communist delegates in the Gemeentendag would voice their support for the movement. Additionally, the CPNL would host signature events among during party meetings, at trade union congresses, especially at those of the FVN and during other, normally apolitical events like sports club meetings. Among many left-leaning parts of Dutch society, the movement caused a spike in political interest and mobilization, which many analysts saw as one of the reasons for the ADWP's victory in the 2011 general election. The petition reached 3,000,000 signatures on the 3rd of October 2010 and was submitted to the Dutch Electoral Commission a week later, counting 3,076,159 signatures. The commission accetepted the petition and announced a referendum would take place parallel to the next regularly scheduled general election.

Positions of the major parties
While the parties represented in parliament, excluding the Communist Party, initially did not comment on the petition with few representatives giving personal statements, the scheduling of the referendum provoked the other parties to announce their standpoint.

Communist Party of the Netherlands
The Communist Party had included the abolition of the monarchy in their founding manifesto and had already supported a similar yet unsuccessful petition in 1977. One of the ACDR's founding members and its head of communications, Jasper van Dijk, is a member of the Gemeentendag for the CPNL, and the two organizations cooperated closely from the beginning, with the party even donating ƒ160,000 to the campaign. Prior to the federal election, the party used their state-allocated campaign ad on public TV to encourage voting in favor of the amendment.

ADPL and PAN
After the passing of the petition, the Workers' and Progressive Parties hosted a joint press conference and published a leaflet in which they announced they generally supported the movement, hoping to profit from the political mobilization effects of the movement. They did not include support for the campaign in their election manifestos but promised to "respect the decision of the Dutch people." Prominent party members such as the PAN's general secretary Corinne Ellemeet appeared in pro-abolition advertisement and personally supported the ACDR.

National Liberal Party
The Netherlands's oldest political party was divided by the proposal. While the social liberal wing was generally supportive of the idea, many conservatives saw it as unpatriotic, disregarded it as too left-wing and even threatened to leave the party should the support for the petition grow too great. To ensure party cohesion, the presidium of the party made the controversial decision to enforce neutrality among its members, being the only party to do so.

German Minority Party
Although the electorate of the GMP had always been rather left-leaning, the party always saw itself as a neutral representative of the interests of the German minority in the country's west and transcending any ideology. Its chairman Franz Josef Radermacher stated that "while many voters support the amendment, it would be a dramatic mistake to disregard those who oppose it. The German community must stand together, lest we be disregarded ourselves."

National People's Party of the Netherlands
The right-wing NPPN consisted of two main factions prior to the referendum, an absolute monarchist wing and a neo-fascist branch. Disorganized and already in a major identity crisis, the NPPN's leadership saw itself incapable of deciding a common party line and allowed its members to act in accordance with their own worldview.

DPPP and CDPN
As the main representatives of conservatism in the Netherlands, the Prosperity and Progress Party and Christian Democrats stood united against the amendment. In a parliamentary speech already mentioned above, Prime Minister Zalm firmly attacked the initiative, calling it "unpatriotic, unwanted and unnecessary", while CDPN leader Segers referred to it as a revolt against the "god-given order of our state". A minor counter campaign was launched by the DPPP and CDPN, it was however quickly aborted due to a lack in public interest and funding.

Campaign issues
The main issue surrounding the campaign was the spending of taxpayer money on the properties and services provided to the royal family in contrast to the decay of public and social services. Furthermore, leaked photos from a party in the Villa Eikenhorst suggested that several member of the family participated in an orgy and consumed illegal narcotics, with even more incidents being discovered upon further investigation, causing an uptick in support for abolition among the religious right. Additionally, Zalm's passionate defence of the monarchy caused many voters to connect the efforts to sustain the monarchy with the Prime Minister's personal unpopularity.

Aftermath
After public broadcasting announced the preliminary results at 7:14 pm CET, PM Zalm announced his retirement from politics due to the result of the general election and the referendum. Queen Beatrix also published a statement on the following day, in which she remorsefully accepted the results. The monarchist movement in the NPPN was diminished as a result of the referendum, allowing for neo-fascist dominance while the remains of the branch largely settled for the CDPN.

International reactions
The governments of Germany and France issued a joint declaration in which they welcomed the result as a "step in the right direction, towards more democracy and a brighter tomorrow." The British royal family announced it was "sad to see a good, trusted friend and partner go" but ultimately accepted the Dutch people's decision. US President William Cohen was criticized for forgoing to publish a comment about the plebiscite. He later justified his inaction with his preoccupation with the ongoing conflict in China.