Back to medieval times – part II

After my first post about the plan to abolish (premature) fireworks, a new plan has seen the light of day: to banish public firework lighting in places where it is not prohibited.
In other words: the creation of fireworks-friendly locations is imminent!

Our government is to decide where to light your fireworks to minimize any nuisances. Last New Years Eve there have been several incidents with teenagers causing havoc with their fireworks, and this should apparently be stopped at any cost.
To control these kids, a complete regulation of the lighting should be created; according to the majority of our Tweede Kamer.
The plan is to create specific areas where fireworks should be lit to lessen the amount of used fireworks littering the streets. If it is centered, it’s easier to maintain; or so it seems to be the thought.

I can be very short concerning this matter: they have now officially become way too much disattached from ‘us’, being the inhabitants of The Netherlands. In our hearts, people in general are conservative: we do not like changes. Nor do we like the constricting of our freedom, or the government tampering with our daily (yearly) lives.
The above named plan does meet all bad expectations and from now I’m officially declaring the entire Tweede Kamer as superfluous.
New elections are not recommended (for now) but I think our representatives should not be concerned with small subjects like this: the bigger issues should be taken care of.
Like the subjects in my previous posts: public transportation and the AOW.

7 thoughts on “Back to medieval times – part II”

  1. I see your sarcasm, but I’d like to reply with:

    Planner/Visionary (m/v) for president!

    We need someone dedicated to solving the big issues in our country, and not politicians only concerned with the ‘hype of the day’. They are very scarce however, and I cannot name one. Can you?

  2. But I doubt if not all politicians in our system will sooner or later be corrupted by the system… of hype-driven media and populist politics

  3. I think you’re being too negative or paranoid: the democratic system relies on the voters to decide who’s best suited for the job.
    Since “we” can all vote (and thus politics has become a product for the masses) the elite does not have the upper hand in the voting. This can be bad, but has lead in our country to the shifting of focus from a high level to a lower level of interest. People nowadays are more concerned with the daily practice instead of the bigger (and longer term) issues.

    Sadly, but true, this effect is here to stay. We thus have to ‘train’ politicians to divide their focus to both small and big issues and the ultimate tool for this is democracy. We just have to vote for those who do the above, and not vote for those who do not.
    The power is in the hands of the Dutch: vote not with your eyes, but with your mind.
    TV-democracy sucks!

  4. I don’t believe the government is there to do our bidding. The government is there to do what’s good for our country and our environment. If that’s contrary to the wishes of the populace, that’s too bad.

    We have the right to elect representatives. That doesn’t equal the right to decide. It doesn’t even equal the right to be involved in the decision process. Which is fine by me, as most of us are too unknowing to make the – in general – best decisions for what the government is trying to achieve. So all we can do is show our preferences on the nuances. Every government wants to achieve a great economy with low unemployment ratings and high earnings per capita, only on the finetuning of what a great economy is will the elections have any influence.

    As for Arjen’s negativism, I don’t think it’s an unrealistic view of the current situation. And while ‘we’ have the power to solve it, most of the ‘we’ are not the solution but the cause of the problem. Admittedly, media influence is drastically too high. Matthijs van Nieuwkerk probably has more influence on voters’ opinion than 2 months of campaigning. But it’s still the voters that let themselves be influenced. And, interestingly enough, the only way voters will ever grow more conscientious is through drastic changes that can only be initiatied by either the government itself – which would require a very strong character indeed to use the system to get in power and then change the system that got him or her in power to their own disadvantage – or through the media, in case voters themselves take the initiative. So we’re at the grace of either the immoral and populist media or the populist and power-hungry politicians.

    Actually, I think the best solution here would be to have our own Bush elected as president. A total airhead who doesn’t have any capabilities. And as the Netherlands isn’t as polarized as the USA, I think things would settle down more quickly here.

    We need someone dedicated to solving the big issues in our country, and not politicians only concerned with the ‘hype of the dayâ€. They are very scarce however, and I cannot name one. Can you?

    Move away from the center and you move away from the parties that have much desire for votes. Bas van der Vlies, for example, has – you have to admit it – stood up magnificiently for his belief’s vision. Even in the light of cutting subsidies they don’t back down. And it’s not just the feminist issue.

    However, I doubt that any of the politicians of the current system – certainly not the ones I am familiar with – would stay ‘uncorrupted’ once in the center of power and media attention. Although I’ve always been charmed with Lousewies van der Laan and Thom de Graaf (who might’ve not rallied magnificiently after the debacle with the chosen mayors but at least self-imposed some sort of consequence).

  5. Timmo: you’ve made my day here. Let’s say we both share the same thoughts on Bush. 😉

    Slowly but surely we’re coming all to the same conclusion: our democracy as we know it is getting outdated and overrun by it’s own success. The idea behind it is great but the system is collapsing under it’s own weight.
    Certain characters in it do stand out from the rest, as you’ve pointed out dhr. van der Vlies did although the reason might be a little dubious.

    I’m not following the reasoning behind the election of someone totally incapable to run our country: it would only lead to more hyping and less focus on bigger issues. Ministers only have responsibility in our system, the true power lies with the high-ranked civil servants who are coincidently also not re-elected every four years which leads to far better continuity in the governing of our country.
    Installing a no-no would lead to even greater power for those civil servants, but I’m not following the idea that would be better for The Netherlands.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.