Monarchy of The Netherlands - Constitutional Role and Position of The Monarch - The Reign of The Monarch - The Monarch and The States-General

The Monarch and The States-General

The one branch of government in which the monarch has no direct part is the legislative branch, which is formed by the States-General of the Netherlands. This parliamentary body consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives (also commonly referred to as the Parliament) and the Senate.

As in most parliamentary democracies the States-General are dually responsible for overseeing the government in its executive duties as well as approving proposals of law before they can become actual laws. In this respect it is of course vital for the government to maintain good relations with the States-General and technically the monarch shares that effort (although the monarch never officially speaks to members of the States-General on policy matters due to ministerial responsibility).

Constitutionally, the monarch deals with the States-General in three areas: lawmaking, policy outlining at the opening of the parliamentary year and dissolution.

Of the three, policy outlining is the most straightforward. The parliamentary year is opened on the third Tuesday of September with a joint session of the two houses. At this occasion the monarch addresses the joint states in a speech in which he sets forth the outlines for his government's policies for the coming year (the speech itself is of course prepared by the ministers, their ministries and finally crafted and approved by the Prime Minister). This event is mandated by the constitution in Article 65. Tradition has made more of this occasion than a policy speech though, and the event known as Prinsjesdag has become a large affair with much pomp and circumstance, in which the States-General and other major bodies of government assemble in the Ridderzaal to hear the queen deliver the speech from the throne after having arrived from the Noordeinde Palace in her golden carriage. Both in constitutional aspects and in ceremony the event has much in common with both the British Queen's Speech and the American State of the Union.

Lawmaking is the area in which the monarch has the most frequent involvement with the States-General (although in fact he has very little to do with it in practice). Laws in the Netherlands are primarily proposed by the government and can be proposed "by or on behalf of" the monarch (this phrase is repeated often in the constitution). Technically this means that the monarch may propose laws in person, hearkening back to the days of the first monarchs of the Netherlands when the monarchs really could and did propose laws. However, this possibility is at odds with ministerial responsibility and the queens have always avoided the issue by never proposing laws in person. The monarch must still sign proposals into law though, a historical deference to the fact that the law of the land is decreed by the monarch.

While the monarch has no practical involvement anymore in lawmaking other than a signature at the end, one might get a different impression from reading the communication between the government and the States-General regarding proposals of law and the laws themselves. All communication from the States-General to the government is addressed to the monarch and communication in the opposite direction formally is from the monarch (it is also signed by the monarch, without a ministerial countersignature – such communication is not a decision or decree, so does not require a countersignature). The formal language still shows deference to the position of the monarch, with a refusal of the States-General to approve a proposal of law for example becoming "a request to the monarch to reconsider the proposal". The constitution prescribes a number of the forms used:

• If the government accepts a proposal of law and signs it into law, the language is that "The monarch accedes to the proposal".
• If the government refuses a proposal of law, the language is that "The monarch shall keep the proposal under advisement".

A law, once passed, is formulated in such a way as to be decreed by the monarch.

The final involvement of the monarch with the States is dissolution. Constitutionally, the government is empowered to dissolve either house of the states by royal decree. Of course, this means that a minister (usually the Prime Minister) makes the decision and the monarch countersigns. The signing of such a royal decree constitutionally implies new elections for the house in question and the formation of a new house within three months of dissolution.

The constitution prescribes a number of cases in which one or more houses of the States are dissolved (particularly for changes to the constitution); this is always done by royal decree. In addition, traditionally a collapse of the government is followed by dissolution of the House of Representatives and general elections. Before World War II, before it became common to form new governments with each new parliament, it would happen from time to time that a Council of Ministers found itself suddenly facing a new and unfriendly parliament. When the inevitable clash came, it was an established political trick for the Prime Minister to attempt to resolve the problem by dissolving the parliament in name of the monarch in the hope that new elections brought a more favorable parliament (but it was also possible for the trick to backfire, in which case the new, equally hostile and far more angry parliament would suspend the budget to force the resignation of the government).

Even though the monarch never speaks with members of the States-General formally, it was tradition up to 1999 that the queen would invite the members of parliament over once a year for informal talks about the general state of affairs in the country. Of course these conversations were held in the strictest confidence due to ministerial responsibility. The tradition was suspended after 1999 though, due to repeated incidents involving MPs blabbing about the contents of the conversations, despite agreeing not to (and embarrassing the Prime Minister in doing so). In 2009 an attempt was made to resume the tradition, but this failed due to Arend Jan Boekestijn resuming the tradition of revealing the contents of his conversation with queen Beatrix anyway.