3. 2 The Netherlands

During the second half of the nineteenth century, liberal ideology dominated the political arena in the Netherlands. Consequently, the role of the central state, especially in economic matters, was limited. However, the liberals perceived the moral standards of the lower classes as problematic and much hope was invested in educating youth. A public primary school system was established that was neutral in the field of religion. This neutrality was questioned by religious movements that started to run their own education institutes. They demanded to be on an equal footing with the neutral schools and to receive equal state subsidies. The school question became the catalyst in a process that would divide the Netherlands into subcultures. The first subculture was the reformed Calvinistic movement that represented farmers, petty bourgeois, and civil servants and schooled labourers. It agitated against the domination of the liberal class of burghers in state affairs and the church. The second subculture wasmade up of Roman Catholics and represented Catholics of all social layers. They formed the majority of the population but had for centuries been excluded from political power and official duties. The third subculture comprised the socialist movement that organised labourers of all kinds. These three subcultures were movements that aimed to emancipate their members. The liberals, although weaker in numbers, had traditionally comprised the power elite, strongly represented in the political system and administration. Besides the school question, two more issues stood in the centre of political controversies: general suffrage and the social question, i.e. a system of social security to meet the negative effects of industrialisation. The first two issues were settled in 1917 by the "Pacification", i.e. a treaty between the state and the pillars (see below) in which the existence of a diversity of philosophies of life and their rights was acknowledged in the Constitution. The basic principle for the "Pacification" is that of proportionality. This principle guaranteed all  minorities representation in parliament according to their size.9

Pillarisation

These developments resulted in a division of Dutch society into pillars (zuilen). Göran Therborn (1989: 202) defines a pillar as "a set of closed, tightly interlocking organisations held together by a common cultural orientation". Salient for the confessional pillars was their closed character. For the pillars and especially the confessional ones, the biggest threat to their existence was the alienation of the grassroots from the leaders. Therefore, it was essential to control the members by means of a segregation of grassroots from other groups of the population. The Dutch sociologist Gijswijt-Hofstra (1989: 36) denoted pillarisation as an institutionalised form of "apartheid", not based on race but on religious or political ideologies. The Dutch historian Aerts (2001: 76­77) characterised the pillarised society as "living apart together", with a homogenous pattern of values and lifestyle despite subcultural differences. It was a conservative, disciplined, burgher society, aiming for a better future. All communities adhered to order and authority and endorsed roughly the same codes of decency. The pillarisation of society would have enormous consequences for the Dutch society (samenleving). Practically all fields of social life followed the borderlines of the pillars.
The process of pillarisation even strengthened the special relationship between the central state and civil society. Throughout the history of the Netherlands, the role of the central state has been limited. Van Deth and Vis (2000: 36) speak of a historically grown characteristic of Dutch society: the pursuit for autonomy and an aversion to central government.
The "Pacification" changed the balance of political power dramatically. The liberal parties declined sharply. The Catholic Party became the largest party and has, together with the Protestant parties, dominated governments since the first general elections in 1917 and succeeded in keeping the secular Social Democratic Party out of office until 1939. However, in the 1930s the social democrats and a left-wing faction of the Catholic Party had sought rapprochement with each other in economic issues. Both parties advocated state intervention in economic matters as an answer to the economic crisis at that time. The co-operation between the two parties also led to a Dutch model of corporatism. In this model, a tripartite (state, employers, labourers) social security system was established that brought together the (pillarised) social-economic partners in structures that would mediate between state and society (de Swaan 1996: 222). This intermediate layer was based on the ideologies of the pillars: the Catholic principle of subsidiarity (and solidarity), the Calvinistic sovereign spheres in society, created by God and subordinate only to God, in which the  government had no right to interfere. The social democrats had already adopted the idea of functional decentralisation into their programme of planning, rather than nationalisation. Dutch liberalism, being more organic than individualistic in its ideological origins, did not object much as long as corporatist institutions came into being voluntarily (Andeweg and Irwin 1993: 170).
Another feature of pillarisation was that the lives of the members were taken care of by the organisations they belonged to, from the midwife to the undertaker. The limited involvement of the central state in social matters had consequences for the organisation of health and social services. Health and social services were divided into Catholic, Protestant, and general (public) sections. Not until 1965 was a law enacted that made poor relief a right for all citizens, administered by municipalities, and subsidised by the central state. Social work, however, remained a matter for NGOs. Health services are performed along the same principles with a low direct participation of the state and
almost exclusively run by non-governmental organisations.

The post-war period

After the liberation on the 5th of May 1945, the country was in bad shape. Large parts of the infrastructure had been destroyed or taken to Germany. Some 250,000 citizens had died and half a million were waiting to return to the country. Roughly 130,000 Dutch had been arrested for collaboration and locked up in camps. Another problem was on the rise: the Dutch East Indies (occupied by Japan during the war) strove for independence and in 1949, the Netherlands had to give up the profitable East Indies. However, after a period of cleaning up, the economy recovered remarkably fast. Several factors contributed to this little "Wirtschaftswunder". First, the corporatist model enabled a guided income policy based on agreements between the social economic partners but within margins dictated by the government. Secondly, through donations and credits from the US, the Netherlands received 1050 million dollars until 1951. Third, money that previously had been invested in the East Indies now flowed into the Dutch economy (Roegholt: 1973: 664).
On the political level, post-war conditions did not lead to the new political and social structures that many had hoped for. On the contrary, the extreme pillarisation of Dutch society survived the war and was even strengthened.10 To mention one example, in a charge proclaimed by the bishops in the Netherlands in 1954, members of the Catholic church were prohibited from being members of socialist organisations, listening to the (socialist) VARA broadcasting organisation and reading socialist newspapers (Ibid. 662). However, at the same time a counter-force had emerged that aimed to change pre-war conditions. A new social democratic party (PvdA) composed of socialists and left-wing liberals was established to break through the pillar walls. The PvdA became part of a Catholic/red coalition that governed until 1958. Another contributory factor was in fact a consequence of the experiences from World War II. In reaction to the fascist inhumanity and terror, the principle of respect for the individual, of a many-sided development of the personality and of spiritual freedom was emphasised by those who wanted to obstruct a return to pre-war conditions (Harmsen, Reinalda 1975: 242).

The decline of pillarisation

The system of pillarisation that had been so powerful since the end of the nineteenth century declined during the 1960s. After the war, the state and society became increasingly intertwined. This process started in the interbellum but accelerated after World War II (de Swaan 1996: 233). Consequently, the pillar's organisations merged into the state and lost their ideological importance for their grassroots and eventually their support. This was especially the case for the Catholic pillar but also the Protestants and socialists were hit by this effect. At the same time a process of secularisation went on that again was most profound among Catholics (de Liagre Böhl 1998: 222).
A consequence of the demise of the pillars during the 1960s was that the traditional pillars, which had executed social control of their members for at least half a century, eventually lost much of their influence and authority. However, as Hupe, Meijs, and Vorthoren point out, "despite depillarisation at the base as well as at the top of the pillars, the pillared structure of civil society has to a large extent remained intact" (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, 2000: 157).
This means that in spite of the increased involvement of the central state in Dutch society the basic structure with a strong intermediary layer between the central state and civil society remained intact.


9 Consequently, after the first general elections in 1917 seventeen parties took seats in the Lower House.

10 The southern part was liberated in 1944. Consequently, the Catholic pillar was able to reorganise itself as a pillar before the nothern part was liberated in May 1945 (Harmsen, Reinalda 1975: 232).