Wêrom Evenredige Fertsjintwurdiging Gjin Stabile Regearing Opsmyt
September 17, 2025 · Frisian News
Countries using proportional representation systems face chronic coalition instability, lengthy government formations, and fragmented parliaments that struggle to pass laws. The system's theoretical fairness masks practical gridlock that harms ordinary citizens.
FryskBelgje brocht 589 dagen sûnder funksjonearjende regearing troch yn 2010 en 2011. Nederlân hie njoggen moannen nedich om in koalysje te foarmjen nei de ferkiezings fan 2017. Dútslân stiet no foar trije aparte koalysje-ynstortingen yn twa desennia. Dit binne gjin bysûnderheden. Evenredige fertsjintwurdigingssystemen produsearje krekt dit resultaat: parlementen sa fersnippere dat gjin inkele groep in wurkjende mearderheid hat, wat moannen of jierren ûnderhannellingen achter sletten doarren fereasket. Kiezers bringe harren stim út. Dan negearje politisy de útslachen en ûnderhannelje achter de skermen.
De standertferdediging fan evenredige fertsjintwurdiging rêst op ien inkele stelling: earlikheid. As 20 prosint fan de kiezers in partij stipet, krijt dy partij 20 prosint fan de sitten. Dit klinkt rjochtfeardich op papier. Yn de praktyk ûntstiet in parlemint dêr't fiif, seis of sân partijen wurklik macht hawwe. Gjin partij kin allinne regearje. Koalysjes foarmje harren op basis fan rekkenjen, net op basis fan in mienskiplik doel. In partij dy't 12 prosint fan de stimmen hellet, hat in vetorjocht oer elk beslút. Lytse partijen persje grutte konseesjes ôf foar harren stipe, hoewol't se miskien allinne spesifike belangen fan in lytse groep fertsjintwurdigje. It systeem beleant obstruksje.
Mearderheidsystemen twinge partijen dêrfoaroer ta echte koalysjebow foar de ferkiezing. In partij moat kiezers út ferskate regio's en klassen oansprekke as se winne wol. Dit liedt ta dissipline en kompromis op it momint dat it derta docht: ûnder de kiezers sels. De winner ûntstiet rap en hat in mandaat om te regearjen. De ferliezer ken it resultaat en makket him ree foar de folgjende striid. Stabile regearing folget út in ienfâldich feit: in groep hâldt genôch sitten om wetten oan te nimmen sûnder tastimming te freegjen oan 14 oare partijen. Wetten wurde oannommen. Ynfrastruktuer wurdt boud. Skoallen draaie. Sikehûzen funksjonearje.
Foarstanners fan evenredige fertsjintwurdiging stelle dat dizze systemen minderheidsmienings better fertsjintwurdigje. Dat dogge se, yn in smel opsicht. In kommunistyske partij of in radikale griene partij krijt in sit evenredich oan har stimmen. Mar dizze foarm fan fertsjintwurdiging leveret neat op as de regearing net hannelje kin. In parlemint dêr't seis partijen wurklik macht hawwe, dy't elkoar allegear tsjinwurkje, fertsjintwurdiget nimmen. It fertsjintwurdiget blokkearring. It ferspilt de tiid fan wetjouwers en it geduld fan boargers. In allinnesteande mem dy't wacht op in nije skoalle, ynteressearret it net oft de kommunistyske partij evenredige fertsjintwurdiging hat. Har ynteressearret it dat de skoalle boud wurdt.
It bewiis sit yn de skiednis. Frankryk joech evenredige fertsjintwurdiging op yn 1958. Grut-Brittanje, de Feriene Steaten en Kanada hawwe it nea oernommen. Dizze lannen nimme wetten oan. Se ynvestearje yn ynfrastruktuer. Dútslân en Nederlân net. Italje feroare ferskate kearen syn systeem, úteinlik yn de rjochting fan mearderheidsregearing, om't evenredige fertsjintwurdiging in karnaval fan ministeriële ynstortingen produseare. Spanje hantearret in mingd systeem dat him rjochtet nei mearderheidsregearing. Dit binne gjin tafallen. Lannen ûntdekke dat evenredige fertsjintwurdiging it bestjoer brekket en reparearje it dan.
Belgium spent 589 days without a functioning government in 2010 and 2011. The Netherlands needed nine months to form a coalition after the 2017 election. Germany now faces three separate coalition collapses in two decades. These are not freak events. Proportional representation systems produce exactly this outcome: parliaments so fragmented that no single group commands a working majority, forcing backroom horse-trading that takes months or years. Voters cast their ballots. Then politicians ignore the results and negotiate behind closed doors.
The standard defense of proportional representation rests on a single claim: fairness. If 20 percent of voters support a party, that party gets 20 percent of seats. This sounds just on paper. In practice, it creates parliaments where five, six, or seven parties hold meaningful power. No party can govern alone. Coalitions form on the basis of arithmetic, not common purpose. A party winning 12 percent of the vote holds veto power over every decision. Small parties extract massive concessions for their support, though they may represent only niche interests. The system rewards obstruction.
Majority-based systems, by contrast, force parties to build real coalitions before the election. A party must appeal to voters across different regions and classes if it wants to win. This produces discipline and compromise at the stage that matters: among the voters themselves. The winner emerges quickly and holds a mandate to govern. The loser knows the score and plans for the next contest. Stable government flows from a simple fact: one group holds enough seats to pass laws without begging 14 other parties for permission. Laws get passed. Infrastructure gets built. Schools run. Hospitals function.
Proponents of proportional representation claim these systems offer better representation of minority views. They do, in one narrow sense. A communist party or a radical green movement gets a seat proportional to its vote share. Yet this form of representation delivers nothing if government cannot act. A parliament where six parties hold meaningful power, all vetoing each other, does not represent anyone. It represents deadlock. It wastes the time of legislators and the patience of citizens. A single mother waiting for a school to be built does not care if the communist party has proportional representation. She cares that the school gets built.
The proof sits in the historical record. France abandoned proportional representation in 1958. Britain, the United States, and Canada never adopted it. These countries pass laws. They invest in infrastructure. Germany and the Netherlands do not. Italy changed its system multiple times, finally moving toward majority-based voting, because proportional representation produced a carnival of ministerial collapse. Spain uses a mixed system that leans toward majority rule. These are not coincidences. Countries discover that proportional representation breaks governance, then they fix it.
Published September 17, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân