What does Pieter Omtzigt stand for? This question remains unanswered even after the presentation of the election program. His main opponents in the House elections accuse him of indecisiveness.
But Omtzigt’s first priority was known long before the founding of the New Social Contract (NSC) party: better governance. However, his most important proposal, the establishment of a constitutional court, is now being criticized.
He has the last word
Elected judges in such a newly established court could, among other things, review the unconstitutionality of new laws. If they believe a law violates fundamental rights, they can declare it non-binding. Then the law is no longer “valid”.
Omtzigt writes in Nieuwsuur that it is “a complete anomaly” that such a court does not yet exist. “The Constitution is the only law that does not allow going to court.”
According to critics, the constitutional court also has its disadvantages. “The democratically legitimized legislature no longer has the right to have the final say,” says constitutional law doctoral student Ursus Eijkelenberg.
Eijkelenberg is disappointed that Omtzigt does not mention its disadvantages:
Constitutional law professors interviewed by Nieuwsuur also criticize the added value of a new court. They point out the danger that the court will become politically influenced and no longer fully independent.
Latest research from Maastricht University shows that this actually happens when a constitutional court is established in Belgium, Germany and France. These courts decided more issues than intended. Partly for this reason, CDA, GL-PvdA, BB and D66 argue that constitutional review should be available to all judges and not focused on a single court.
Omtzigt does not deny the disadvantages, but believes that certain conditions, such as the limited term limits of judges, may prevent judges from becoming too involved in the position of the legislature. “And if you want a judge to override the House of Representatives, you don’t want him to be the district court judge in Schiedam. “Then you want this to be a special constitutional court.”
“Not right and left”
While Omtzigt has been accused of not making clear decisions on other issues, he himself expects more honesty and transparency from politicians. “We wrote this election manifesto in a very short time, so there are some things that were not included,” he admits.
At the same time, he is consciously cautious about promises such as minimum wage and tax cuts. “In fact, we say at many points in our election program: We will not do this. “For us, childcare will not be free because we know we cannot afford it and we already know there is a shortage of childcare places.”
NSC party program has many similarities with its former party CDA. Omtzigt appeals to voters across the political spectrum and says he is neither left nor right.
However, on some philosophical issues Omtzigt seems to lean towards the conservative side. For example, he voted against a motion aimed at examining what changes to the law would be needed to make multiple parenting legally possible in 2022. CDA voted in favor. “Maybe I’m a little more conservative,” he admits.
Omtzigt is still skeptical about multiple parenting. “From the child’s perspective, it only makes sense to have two parents,” he says.
A state committee concluded in 2016 that children can have up to four legal parents under certain circumstances. For example, when two LGBTI couples decide to have a child together, it often causes practical problems. “The current legal situation may prevent good care for children,” the committee wrote.
Experts from the Nieuwsuur committee continued to support this conclusion. However, Omtzigt says that if the government allows more than one parent, it will face problems such as paying social benefits.
“Comfortable” with medical ethical questions
Additionally, Omtzigt says in his election manifesto that he does not want to restrict abortion and euthanasia. But in 2022, she voted against a bill that would eliminate the mandatory waiting period for women seeking abortions. “I don’t think abortion is a normal medical treatment and I thought the cooling off period was a balanced thing to consider whether you want it or not. It was abolished by a parliamentary majority and I do not want to reverse it.”
On other medical ethics issues that the House of Representatives may one day vote on, Omtzigt says he would give future party members the freedom to follow their “conscience.” “We agreed that we would be a little more relaxed than other political parties.”
Watch the full interview here, in which Omtzigt says, among other things, that he is open to a prime minister who is not currently on the candidate list:
Source: NOS
Emma Fitzgerald is an accomplished political journalist and author at The Nation View. With a background in political science and international relations, she has a deep understanding of the political landscape and the forces that shape it.
