Vision for a More Humane Netherlands

Vision for a More Humane Society

An Essay on Justice, Humanity and Democracy

1. Towards a Just, Empathic and Sustainable Society

Imagine a young woman cycling through The Hague, past the Hofvijver and the buildings where laws and decisions are made. It may seem like an everyday image, but in fact it carries a deeper meaning: freedom of movement, safety in public space, the self-evidence that she can choose her own path. This simple scene is at the same time a symbol of what makes our country great – and of what is at stake.

The Netherlands is built on values that are more than political slogans: humanity, justice, freedom, equality, fraternity, and the rule of law. These are values we must not regard as self-evident, but as tasks that must be realized again and again. They form the foundation of a society in which people do not stand against each other, but with each other.

In this essay Vital Moors explains how we can together build a society in which connection, empathy, and human rights are central. He writes this book in a personal capacity, out of a deep moral responsibility to contribute to a more just and humane Netherlands.

As a senior legislative lawyer, I have worked for years at the intersection of legislation, politics, policy, and fundamental rights. My expertise in housing, international treaties, and human rights has taught me not only how laws function, but also how vulnerable they are when political will and social support erode. My motivation to do this work goes beyond technical knowledge. It is rooted in a moral responsibility. I believe that a society can only be humane and just when human rights are not merely a paper norm, but a lived practice. That requires continuous commitment: from institutions, from politics, and from citizens.

I see it as my mission to contribute to a society in which justice, empathy, and humanity are central, and in which the democratic rule of law is not merely a legal construct, but a living fabric that protects us all. As John Rawls stated: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions.” Without justice, laws lose their legitimacy and society its foundation.

Yet more and more people feel that this foundation is wavering. Polarization, populism, and distrust pit us against each other. Problems such as housing shortages, inequality, and climate change are too often reduced to battle cries or slogans, while they demand joint solutions. Politics sometimes seems more like a spectator sport than a collective search for justice.

This essay seeks to offer an alternative: a vision of a more just and humane Netherlands. A Netherlands that not only solves problems but is guided by a moral compass. Where freedom does not mean that everyone lives for themselves, but that everyone has the space to live their lives in dignity. Where equality is not an empty promise, but visible in affordable housing, good healthcare, and equal opportunities. Where fraternity is not a outdated word, but the concrete experience that we do not let go of each other.

With this premise, this essay invites reflection and action. It is not a blueprint, but a compass. The following chapters develop this story further, from philosophy and science, from concrete political and social examples, and with attention to the international context. The rule of law is the supporting structure. It protects our rights, limits power,  and guarantees that the weak are not delivered to the arbitrariness of the strong. In a time of growing pressure on democratic institutions – from The Hague to Brussels – holding on to this foundation is more necessary than ever.

Yet it begins with that everyday image: a young woman on a bicycle. She reminds us that the values we uphold are not abstract, but tangible and human. It is about her freedom, her safety, her future – and thus about ours as well.

What does it mean today to live in a democratic rule of law? And how do we ensure that freedom, justice, and humanity do not become empty words, but tangible reality?

With insights from philosophy, sociology, law, economics, and political theory, this book shows how a human democracy is possible – and how we can realize it. From fair opportunities and citizen participation to climate and international cooperation: the challenges are great, but the solutions are within our reach.

2. Humanity under Pressure

“Freedom without connectedness becomes coldness.”

Humanity is not a luxury: the human scale as a starting point

On a rainy morning in The Hague, a young woman cycles to her work. She was born here; her parents came to the Netherlands in the 1980s. She studies medicine, wants to help others, and contribute to society. On the way she reads on her phone the reactions under an article about migration:  “Send them back, all of them.” Suddenly she feels like a stranger in her own country. Not because she has changed, but because the society around her
seems harder, more hostile, and less welcoming. While we all want the human scale to be the starting point.

Freedom, equality, and solidarity – what used to be called fraternity – are the pillars of a humane Netherlands.

This picture is unfortunately recognizable. It shows how polarization and distrust erode our democracy. Where freedom once meant that every person could be themselves, it is now too often misused to exclude others. Where equality once promised equal opportunities, we now see growing divides. Where fraternity stood for connection, we now see growing division. And where the rule of law was meant to protect everyone, it is questioned by some.

At the same time, structural problems such as climate change, housing shortages, and social inequality demand choices that reach beyond short-term interests. Justice in this regard means that burdens and opportunities are shared fairly, that not the strongest wins, but that every person can live in dignity. Humanity demands that in politics and policy we never forget that behind the numbers are people with dreams, families, and vulnerabilities.

Justice as a foundation: laws and policies lose their legitimacy without a moral compass

The core values that have shaped our country – humanity, justice, freedom, equality, fraternity, and the rule of law – are not abstract ideals. They are based on moral choices. Laws and policies lose their legitimacy without a moral compass. They are the compass that can guide us in a time of uncertainty. This essay is written from the conviction that precisely now we must ask the question: what kind of society do we want to be?

The answer does not lie in cynicism or polarization, but in rediscovering our common values. A just and humane Netherlands requires us to reconnect with this compass – in policy, in governance, and in daily life together.

2.1 The urgency of a new social compass

Society in the Netherlands in 2025 is under pressure. Polarization divides citizens into ever sharper camps. Populist rhetoric and the success of far-right parties sharpen the divisions. Social media reinforce hate and disinformation. Meanwhile, the major structural issues are insufficiently addressed in their interrelation.

That is why a new social compass is necessary. A direction rooted in the values of empathy, justice, freedom, equality, and fraternity. A society in which the democratic rule of law is not only formally defended, but lived daily in policy, governance, and civic interaction.

This document is written from that conviction. It brings together what philosophers, religious traditions, sociologists, economists, and political scientists teach us. It translates these insights into concrete proposals for strengthening our democracy. And it shows that change is possible not only from above, but also from below:  by linking political reforms, civic engagement, and individual responsibility.

2.2 Invitation

This text is not a blueprint, but an invitation. An invitation to think together, to discuss, and to act. Not to resign ourselves to cynicism or polarization, but to build a just, empathic, and humane society.

As Václav Havel said: “Responsibility begins with yourself, in your immediate environment, with the choices you make every day.”

This document aims to be a contribution to that shared responsibility.

3. The Threat of Division

“Democracy is not a spectator sport.” – inspired by Barack Obama

The Netherlands and many other democracies are confronted with a series of complex, interconnected problems. Polarization, populism, discrimination, and attacks on institutions may seem like separate phenomena, but in reality they strike at the very foundations of our shared life.

When freedom is used to spread hatred, it becomes a weapon against others. When equality is undermined by structural inequality or exclusion, democracy loses its credibility. When fraternity is replaced by enemy-thinking, the ties that bind us fall away. And when the rule of law is attacked, citizens lose the anchor that is meant to protect them.

The essence of the current crisis is therefore not only political or economic, but moral: it is the values of humanity and justice that are under pressure.

3.1 Polarization erodes trust: division weakens the social fabric

A first major challenge of our time is the increasing polarization and the loss of dialogue. The European elections of 2024 clearly showed how populist parties such as PVV, AfD, and RN gained ground. This is more than a political shift; it is a signal that polarization places the democratic rule of law under strain. Public debate increasingly degenerates into a struggle between “us” and “them.”

Instead of listening to one another and seeking nuance, groups withdraw into their own bubbles. We see this not only in the climate debate – where activists are too often dismissed as naïve extremists and critics are immediately branded as “climate deniers” – but also in many other public discussions.

In the migration debate, asylum seekers are portrayed as a threat to our welfare provisions, while their actual numbers are relatively small and the Netherlands has international obligations to provide protection. The nuance that migration can also have economic and social value is thereby drowned out.

In debates on LGBTI+ rights we see the same pattern. Where equal marriage rights or gender diversity once represented a step forward for freedom, they are now reframed as “a threat to traditional culture.” As a result, young people who identify as LGBTI+ increasingly feel unsafe at school or in their neighborhoods.

Science too has become a terrain of polarization. Scientists who point to climate change or inequality are dismissed as ideologues, while others who seek nuance are branded conspiracy theorists. Thus, the space for what truly matters disappears: an open conversation about facts, possible solutions, and shared responsibility.

This division weakens the social fabric. When groups see each other only as opponents, we lose the ability to work together on the problems that affect us all: affordable housing, a livable planet, a just society.

Yet it does not have to remain this way. Diversity of perspectives is not a threat, but a source of enrichment. The climate debate can be stronger if activists, scientists, entrepreneurs, and critical citizens engage with one another. The migration debate can become more realistic if we both acknowledge concerns about integration and recognize the opportunities migration offers. And conversations about identity and equality can be fruitful when we accept that differences do not divide us but teach us how broad humanity can be.

The challenge of polarization therefore calls not for more slogans, but for more dialogue. A democracy does not thrive on shouting over each other, but on the ability to tolerate differences, to understand one another, and to make collective choices. As Hannah Arendt wrote: “Plurality is the law of the earth. We live together with and among others.”

According to French thinker Claude Lefort, this is dangerous, because democracy is based precisely on the ongoing conflict and conversation between different voices. He calls democracy an “empty place of power”: no single group has the monopoly on truth or power, and therefore public debate must remain open and inclusive. When that openness disappears, democracy loses its essence.

If we embrace plurality, we can find our way back to a society that does not fall apart into camps, but grows stronger through the multiplicity of voices and stories.

3.2 Facts losing to slogans: the erosion of truth in public debate

Populist slogans are like sudden thresholds or unexpected gusts of wind that throw the cyclist off balance. They sound loud, are often catchy, but do not actually help anyone forward. Facts, by contrast, are the straight road: solid, reliable, and passable, allowing us to stay the course. Only by letting ourselves be guided by numbers, by careful analysis, and by honest debate can we keep pedaling towards a society built not on fear but on truth.

The young woman on the bicycle – symbol of commitment, hope, and future – deserves a road that is navigable, without every turn being blocked by distortions or half-truths.

Yet populist leaders know how to mobilize voters with powerful but simplistic slogans. Complex problems are reduced to seemingly simple solutions. The migration debate is a clear example: the cry “close the borders” suggests a ready-made solution, while reality is far more layered. The Netherlands is bound by international treaties, such as the Refugee
Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, labor migration is of major economic importance: from healthcare to agriculture, large parts of our economy depend on people from abroad. Closing the borders may sound forceful, but it is practically and legally unfeasible and would weaken rather than protect our country.

The same mechanism appears in the housing crisis. Populist parties often put migrants and status holders forward as the main reason why young people or starters cannot find housing. But the facts show that the housing shortage primarily arose from years of insufficient building policy, liberalization of the rental market, and tax advantages for investors. Migrants account for only a fraction of the demand on the housing market. The problem is therefore wrongly framed: not the newcomer, but decades of policy have led to scarcity.

Climate change too is a favorite target of populist slogans. Cries such as “climate madness” or “we don’t care about the climate” ignore the hard facts presented by scientists worldwide. The consequences of inaction are real: floods, extreme weather, rising food prices. Reducing a global challenge to a laughable slogan is not only misleading but dangerous.

In the integration debate, similar tactics are used. Muslims are portrayed as a threat to “Dutch culture.” Proposals to close mosques or ban Islamic education are presented with applause, but drip with discrimination and conflict with our Constitution. These are pseudo-solutions that solve no problems but strengthen polarization.

At the same time, the fact is forgotten that diversity is an enrichment. Migrants, refugees, and people with different cultural and religious backgrounds bring new perspectives, knowledge, and creativity. Our universities flourish thanks to international students and researchers. The healthcare sector continues to function thanks to labor migrants. In art, music, food, and sport, the contribution of diversity is indispensable. The idea that “different” is a threat misses the point that precisely in differences lies our shared strength. As writer Amin Maalouf says: “Identity is not a prison, but a crossroads.”

Even healthcare is not spared from simplistic frames. When staff shortages or waiting times increase, the accusation is quickly made that “foreigners” overburden the system. In reality, studies show that migrants themselves often work in healthcare and that the main problems are structural staff shortages, aging, and budget cuts. Diversity here is not a burden but a condition for keeping the system running.

Populist slogans are attractive because they appeal to emotion. They provide a sense of certainty in uncertain times, but it is a false certainty. Behind the harsh words there is no substance. Facts may be less spectacular, but they give us the real tools to move forward.

Political scientist Cas Mudde describes populism as a thin ideology that works with the opposition “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite.” The problem is that this dividing line leaves no room for nuance or compromise. Michael Sandel warns in this regard that politics, when reduced to marketing and slogans, loses its moral dimension: “Politics is not only about what works, but also about what is right.” Where facts guide us, justice can grow – without truth there is no trust.

As a society we must choose: do we allow ourselves to be led by the short gust of the slogan, or by the steady road of facts, reason, and the recognition that diversity makes us stronger? Only the latter guarantees that the young woman on the bicycle can reach her future – in a society built on fairness, humanity, and sustainability.

4. Freedom, Equality, Fraternity

“Man is only truly human in relation to the other.” – inspired by Levinas

The problems described in chapter three may sometimes seem overwhelming. But they are not inevitable. For every problem there are alternatives that bring us back to the core values on which our society rests.

Humanity requires restoring dialogue and mutual respect.

Justice requires an economy that counteracts inequality and distributes opportunities fairly.

Freedom means that citizens can raise their voices without fear or exclusion.

Equality requires that all groups, regardless of origin or position, can truly participate.

Fraternity becomes concrete in initiatives that strengthen solidarity and cooperation.

And the rule of law is the anchor that ensures these values remain protected, even in difficult times.

The alternatives discussed below – from deliberative democracy to a just economy and international cooperation – are not  merely technical solutions. They are ways to reconnect with the values that make our society humane.

4.1 Dialogue restores trust: conversation as counterforce to polarization

Promoting conversations between diverse groups in society is essential. In a time of increasing polarization and distrust, we are more than ever in need of spaces where people can truly meet. This requires creating environments – both physical and digital – where citizens can engage in conversation in safety, without fear of stigmatization or exclusion.

Dialogue initiatives such as citizens’ assemblies, neighborhood discussions, and interreligious meetings have repeatedly proven that they can narrow the gap between groups. In citizens’ assemblies, randomly selected citizens deliberate together on complex issues, such as climate or healthcare. In interreligious meetings, people encounter one another across religious boundaries and discover that values such as respect, justice, and humanity connect them. Neighborhood conversations bring residents together around local themes such as livability or safety, generating not only  understanding but also concrete solutions.

But dialogue only works when citizens are taken seriously. When opinions are dismissed as “stupid,” “extreme,” or “irrelevant,” the existing divide is only reinforced. Only when people experience that they are truly listened to, trust and willingness arise to listen to others as well.

Imagine that citizens not only vote once every four years, but also regularly make their voices heard through citizens’ assemblies, neighborhood meetings, or participation evenings. That would be a democracy that not only exists formally but also lives. A society where people do not feel powerless, but know their concerns and ideas matter.

An inspiring method that can help is the Deep Democracy technique. Deep Democracy is a decision-making method that does not stop at the will of the majority but actively seeks out what minorities bring forward. The principle is that all voices are heard. In practice this means first gathering all opinions, concerns, and doubts. Then exploring why people think as they do, deepening the conversation. Only then does decision-making follow. The majority often decides, but the concerns of the minority are integrated into the decision.

This ensures decisions have greater support and that conflicts are no longer breaking points but sources of better choices and stronger connections. Thus, a neighborhood decision on, for example, traffic safety or housing can satisfy the majority while also addressing the specific concerns of a small group of residents. The result: policies that do not polarize, but connect.

A society that creates room for this kind of dialogue is stronger and more resilient. Where polarization builds walls, dialogue builds bridges. Where exclusion feeds distrust, inclusive decision-making shows that differences are not threats, but sources of wisdom.

An example is the G1000 citizens’ summit, in which randomly selected citizens devise solutions for social issues. Political scientist James Fishkin points out that deliberative democracy leads to greater understanding and more balanced choices, precisely because citizens learn about one another’s perspectives. Habermas emphasizes in his theory of communicative rationality that democracy can only function when citizens recognize each other as equals in dialogue.

4.2 Facts above slogans: building policy on knowledge and research

Policy must be based on reliable data and scientifically grounded analyses. A society can only be just and humane when policy is built on a solid foundation of facts and knowledge. Where that foundation is absent, emotions, slogans, and framing dominate – undermining not only rational decision-making but also the democratic rule of law itself.

Especially in a time of polarization, fake news, and framing, it is crucial that citizens and politicians can rely on independent knowledge. When facts are systematically questioned or dismissed as “opinions,” society loses its common reference point. Debate then becomes one in which the loudest voice counts more than the most substantiated, and in which images of fear gain more power than reality.

This is why ongoing investment in knowledge institutions and independent journalism is necessary. Statistical bureaus such as CBS in the Netherlands and Eurostat at the European level play a key role. Their figures reveal the reality behind political slogans: how many houses are actually being built, how many migrants arrive annually, how the economy is developing, and what consequences climate change has. Without these figures, policy choices cannot be tested and public debate floats on rhetoric.

Independent research institutes such as the SCP, PBL, CPB, and WRR also provide crucial analyses. They chart trends, scenarios, and long-term developments that force politicians to look beyond the issues of the day. Their reports often form the silent backbone of policy that must be fair and forward-looking.

Universities and colleges also have an indispensable role. They generate new knowledge, provide critical analysis, and educate the professionals who keep society running. Moreover, they serve as free spaces for debate and dissent, where ideas are tested and renewed.

Free and independent journalism plays a key role as well. Investigative journalism and fact-checking ensure that citizens have access to well-founded information and that political choices are scrutinized. In a democracy, journalism is not a luxury but a necessary counterforce. Without a free press, scandals such as the childcare benefits affair, abuses in gas extraction in Groningen, or excesses in childcare support would never have come to light. Journalism makes abuse visible and keeps society alert.

To strengthen this foundation, concrete steps are needed. The position of the planning bureaus can be reinforced by providing them with more resources and safeguarding their independence by law. Government data should be made more accessible and understandable via open data portals, so that citizens can follow and scrutinize policies themselves.

European cooperation is also important: uniform and reliable data via Eurostat or the European Institute for Gender Equality make cross-border problems such as climate and migration clearer. Fact-check initiatives deserve structural support in the fight against disinformation. Finally, citizen participation can be deepened by ensuring citizens’ assemblies always have a clear knowledge base provided by independent experts and planning bureaus.

In this way, a society arises in which facts stand above slogans and policy is not merely the product of power and emotion, but of careful deliberation and justice. Investing in knowledge, transparent statistics, and free journalism is therefore not a technocratic luxury, but a foundation of the democratic rule of law – and of a more humane Netherlands. As the American philosopher John Dewey said: “Democracy requires an informed public; without facts, politics becomes manipulation.”

5. Wisdom from Science and Philosophy on the General Principles

“Where facts and values meet, vision grows.”

In this chapter, insights are drawn from diverse sciences and traditions. Philosophy, religion, anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, biology, and law each show from their own perspective what is needed for a humane and just society to be attainable.

What binds these perspectives is that they always return to the same core values:

Humanity: the duty to see the individual in their dignity.

Justice: the moral task to limit inequality and arbitrariness.

Freedom: the space to make choices, protected by institutions.

Equality: the guarantee that no one is systematically excluded.

Fraternity: the recognition that we need each other to flourish.

Rule of law: the foundation that secures these values, regardless of the power of the moment.

Philosophers and scientists are the signposts of our journey. Rawls teaches us that justice is the first virtue of  institutions – as if he is saying that the bicycle only moves forward if the handlebars are straight. Sandel points us to the moral choices behind every turn: which road do we take, and why? Graeber and Wengrow show that there are always alternative routes, that society is not doomed to follow one path. Piketty shows how inequality works like a headwind: one cycles lightly, another struggles heavily. Together these thinkers give us the gears, the steering, and the directional signs needed to endure the ride.

From Rawls to Piketty, from world religions to modern sociology: time and again it becomes clear that societies are stronger, freer, and more sustainable when they shape their institutions and policies around these core values. Philosophy and science are not luxuries, but signposts that help us maintain the human scale.

5.1 Philosophy affirms justice: Rawls and Sandel as moral anchors

Philosophers such as John Rawls emphasize in A Theory of Justice that a just society is built on the principle of  “justice as fairness.” Inequalities are only justifiable, according to Rawls, when they benefit the least advantaged in society. His thought experiment of the “veil of ignorance” shows that policy is truly fair only when designed as if no one knows what position they will occupy. From that perspective, rational people choose a society in which basic provisions, rights, and opportunities are fairly distributed.

Michael Sandel adds in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? that politics can never be merely a matter of technocratic efficiency or individual freedom. It is always also about moral choices and community values: what do we as a community find valuable, what do we protect, and how do we together give meaning to justice? For Sandel, politics is also a moral
dialogue.

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, argues the opposite: that redistribution isolates property rights. For him, any form of compulsory redistribution is an infringement on individual freedom, comparable to forced labor. But practice shows that freedom without access to basic provisions remains empty. Those without education, healthcare, or housing cannot exercise their freedom. Inequality that is not corrected thus undermines the freedom of many to the benefit of a few.

Immanuel Kant offers another foundation. In his categorical imperative he states that we must never treat people merely as means, but always also as ends in themselves. Justice and political policy must therefore prioritize human dignity. This idea closely aligns with the principle of human rights: universal rights rooted in the dignity of every person, regardless of origin or position.

Emmanuel Levinas radicalizes this perspective by stating that ethics begins with the Other: in the gaze of the other lies our responsibility. According to Levinas, no political or legal order can be just without this primary responsibility for the vulnerable other. This means that policy derives its legitimacy from the extent to which it protects the most vulnerable – refugees, the poor, the sick, the marginalized.

Jean-Paul Sartre, from existentialism, emphasizes the radical freedom and responsibility of every individual. Freedom is not a luxury for him, but a given: we are “condemned to be free.” This also means that we are responsible for the choices we make and the society we form. For Sartre, injustice is not only a structural problem, but also an existential challenge: each individual chooses whether to conform to oppression and inequality, or to take responsibility for solidarity and justice.

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum translate this into practice with their capability approach. Freedom means for them not only formal rights, but the real opportunities (capabilities) people have to shape their lives. Without education, healthcare, or social security, freedom remains theoretical.

Claude Lefort points out that democracy is not a fixed system, but a dynamic process. The “empty place of power” means that power does not belong to an elite but must constantly be legitimized by the people. Inequality and exclusion threaten this dynamic, because they concentrate power in the hands of a few and thus erode the democratic rule of law.

The common thread of all these thinkers is clear: true freedom and justice exist only when human dignity and solidarity are central. Freedom and equality are not opposites, but reinforce each other. They require institutions that not only protect the rights of the strong, but also guarantee the opportunities and dignity of the vulnerable.

 

5.2 Religions share compassion: core values transcend differences

People find meaning in stories, rituals, and beliefs. Whether religious, philosophical, or secular, they remind us that humanity is rooted not only materially, but also morally and spiritually. A society that leaves room for meaning strengthens connection and respect. Meaning gives people direction, hope, and a sense of responsibility for each other and for the world.

The world religions share core values that transcend politics and lay a moral foundation that can be broadly supported: compassion, care for the poor, justice, and stewardship. Christianity calls: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40) – a radical appeal to place the most vulnerable at the center of society.

In Islam, zakat (almsgiving) is one of the five pillars: solidarity with the poor and vulnerable is therefore not optional, but a core obligation of faith. The Qur’an emphasizes: “Whoever saves one life – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely” (Surah Al-Ma’ida 5:32) – an expression of universal dignity and connection.

Buddhism speaks of karuna (compassion) as one of the highest virtues. The Buddha taught: “Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal law.” In this lies deep wisdom for societies struggling with polarization and division.

In Hinduism, dharma is central: the duty to act justly and bear responsibility, not only for oneself but also for the community and nature. In the Bhagavad Gita it says: “The highest dharma is that which serves others and causes no harm.”  Thus, meaning is linked to active care and justice.

The Catholic Church emphasizes in its social teaching the principle of solidarity and the preferential option for the poor: policy must focus in particular on the most vulnerable. Pope Francis writes in Fratelli Tutti: “We are all brothers and sisters. No one is saved alone; we can only be saved together.”

The Dalai Lama reduces these values to their essence: “My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.” With this he transcends religious boundaries and places compassion at the heart of the human experience.

Some see religion primarily as a source of division or a threat to secular politics. But often this is not about religion itself, but about its misuse for power and exclusion. As theologian Hans Küng stated: “There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions.” When religions and worldviews are addressed in their shared core values, they
form a bridge to universal compassion and connection.

6. A Just and Humane Netherlands – General Principles

A humane Netherlands is not an abstract idea, but a set of guiding principles that can shape our daily reality.  It is the translation of core values – humanity, justice, freedom, equality, fraternity, and the rule of law – into practical foundations for policy, governance, and social life.

These principles serve as a compass in times of uncertainty. They ensure that decision-making is not guided only by short-term interests, but also by what is fair and humane in the long run. They remind us that laws and institutions exist not for their own sake, but to serve people in their dignity and freedom.

General principles for a just and humane Netherlands include:

• Humanity as a starting point: every policy must take the human scale into account. Behind statistics and regulations are people with dreams, fears, and vulnerabilities.

• Justice as the foundation: laws and governance lose their legitimacy without fairness. Policy must distribute burdens and opportunities equitably, correcting inequality where necessary.

• Freedom as lived practice: freedom is not only the absence of constraints, but the presence of real opportunities. Citizens must be able to raise their voices without fear, live in safety, and make meaningful choices.

• Equality as a guarantee: no one may be systematically excluded from participation in society, regardless of origin, faith, gender, or income. Equal opportunities in housing, healthcare, and education are essential.

• Fraternity as solidarity: society is more than a collection of individuals. It is a community in which people care for one another, across differences of culture, belief, and generation.

• The rule of law as protection: institutions must limit power, protect minorities, and guarantee that fundamental rights apply to all, even when under political pressure.

Taken together, these principles provide a framework that links ideals with practice. They invite politicians, civil servants, and citizens alike to look beyond narrow self-interest and to strengthen the bonds of trust and responsibility.

A just and humane Netherlands means making conscious choices – in housing policy that prioritizes affordability and inclusion, in climate policy that combines sustainability with fairness, in social security that offers both protection and opportunity. It means a democracy in which citizens are not spectators but co-creators, and in which public debate remains grounded in facts, respect, and compassion.

Ultimately, these principles remind us that justice and humanity cannot be postponed or outsourced. They must be lived in the choices we make every day – as individuals, as communities, and as a nation. Only then will the democratic rule of law remain not a fragile construct, but a living reality that protects us all.

7. Democracy, Rule of Law and Society in Balance

Democracy is more than a system of elections and procedures. It is the living practice of freedom, participation, and responsibility. A humane Netherlands requires a democracy in which the rule of law and society remain in balance – where citizens feel represented, where rights are protected, and where politics serves the common good rather than narrow interests.

A healthy democracy rests on three pillars: free institutions, active citizens, and a strong culture of dialogue. Without these, the rule of law becomes fragile and society falls prey to polarization.

Democracy means that power is distributed, controlled, and continuously legitimized by the people. It is not a static structure but a dynamic process in which new voices and perspectives must always find space. As Claude Lefort describes, the democratic arena is an “empty place of power”: no one owns it, it must constantly be filled with debate, representation, and accountability.

The rule of law provides the legal foundation of this process. It ensures that even in times of political tension or majority rule, the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups remain protected. The separation of powers, independent courts, and strong checks and balances prevent arbitrariness and guarantee that law remains above power.

Society, finally, is the living context in which democracy and the rule of law gain meaning. Without social cohesion, trust, and solidarity, institutions remain hollow. Only when citizens experience that their voices count, that justice is served, and that freedom is real, does democracy truly live.

7.1 Challenges to democracy today

Today democracy is under pressure worldwide. Populism presents itself as “the voice of the people,” but often excludes or stigmatizes minorities. Authoritarian tendencies undermine the independence of the judiciary, the media, and civil society. Digital platforms amplify disinformation and polarization, making it harder to distinguish fact from fiction.

In the Netherlands too, trust in institutions has declined. Scandals such as the childcare benefits affair revealed how citizens can be crushed by bureaucratic systems. At the same time, participation is uneven: highly educated citizens find their way into politics more easily than those with fewer resources, reinforcing inequality in representation.

7.2 Restoring balance: institutions, participation, and trust

A democracy in balance requires restoring trust in institutions, broadening participation, and strengthening the culture of dialogue.

• Institutions must be transparent, accountable, and accessible. The state exists to serve citizens, not the other way around. Laws and regulations must be tested against their human impact, with room for redress and protection against arbitrariness. 

• Participation must be deepened. Beyond elections, citizens should be able to participate through citizens’ assemblies, local forums, and digital platforms. Diversity must be guaranteed so that all voices are heard, not only the loudest or most powerful. 

• Dialogue must be fostered. Public debate must be about listening, not only speaking. Politics is not a marketplace of slogans but a shared search for what is right and just. 

7.3 A humane democracy

A humane democracy combines the strength of institutions with the vitality of society. It recognizes that democracy is never finished but always a task. It means citizens are not treated as consumers or clients, but as co-creators of the public good. It means that the rule of law is not seen as an obstacle, but as a shield that protects us all.

In such a democracy, justice and freedom are not opposites, but reinforce each other. Equality and fraternity are not rhetorical, but tangible in daily life. Society in balance means: no one is left behind, power remains limited, and the common good guides politics.

As Václav Havel once said: “Democracy is not only about freedom, but also about responsibility.” Only when we accept that responsibility – as citizens, politicians, and institutions – can we build a just, free, and humane Netherlands.

8. Imagine a Netherlands…

Imagine a Netherlands where every child grows up with equal opportunities, regardless of their background or the income of their parents. Where education is not a privilege, but a foundation of freedom and self-development for all. 

Imagine a Netherlands where housing is not a source of despair, but of security. Where young people, families, and the elderly can live affordably and safely. Where cities are green and sustainable, and every person can feel at home. 

Imagine a Netherlands where healthcare is not a battlefield of budgets and bureaucracy, but a place of humanity and compassion. Where nurses, doctors, and caregivers are supported and valued, and where the dignity of patients always comes first. 

Imagine a Netherlands where migration is not viewed through fear, but with wisdom and fairness. Where we honor our international obligations, and at the same time invest in integration, participation, and shared identity. Where diversity is not a source of division, but of enrichment. 

Imagine a Netherlands where democracy is alive – not just in the voting booth, but in neighborhoods, schools, and online forums. Where citizens are co-creators of policy, and politics is again about dialogue, trust, and the common good. 

Imagine a Netherlands that takes responsibility for the planet. Where climate justice is not an afterthought, but a guiding principle. Where we leave future generations not a scorched earth, but a sustainable and livable home. 

This vision is not naïve. It does not ignore the difficulties or the resistance. But it dares to dream – and to act. Because every great change begins with imagination. To imagine means to see what is not yet there, but what could be. It means to believe that humanity, justice, and democracy are stronger than cynicism and division. 

A humane Netherlands is not something we can take for granted. It is something we must build, protect, and renew – every day, with every choice, with every voice raised for justice and compassion. 

So let us imagine. And let us act. 

 

9. Now is the Moment

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.” – Abraham Lincoln

Now is the moment. Not tomorrow, not in some distant future, but today. The challenges we face – polarization, inequality, climate change, and distrust – are too urgent to postpone. Every delay increases the costs, the suffering, and the division. 

Now is the moment to choose humanity over cynicism. To see not the threat in the other, but the possibility of connection. To build bridges where walls are rising. To protect the vulnerable where indifference tempts us to look away. 

Now is the moment to take justice seriously. To recognize that institutions and policies are not neutral but always carry moral choices. To ensure that laws protect not only the powerful, but above all those who cannot protect themselves. To make equality, solidarity, and freedom visible in concrete policies: in housing, in healthcare, in education, in climate action. 

Now is the moment to strengthen democracy. To move from a spectator democracy to a participatory democracy. To acknowledge that citizenship is not passive, but active. To ensure that voices are heard not only in elections, but also in daily life, in neighborhoods, workplaces, and schools. 

Now is the moment to embrace the international dimension. Our challenges do not stop at borders. Climate, migration, security, and economy demand European and global cooperation. A humane Netherlands therefore means a Netherlands that
takes responsibility – not only for its own citizens, but also for the world we share. 

Now is the moment to dare to dream. Because without imagination there is no change. A humane Netherlands begins with the belief that another future is possible. That justice, solidarity, and compassion are not weaknesses, but strengths.  That we can resist cynicism and fear – and build trust and hope instead. 

Every choice counts. Every law passed, every debate held, every policy designed is an opportunity to shape the future. The young woman on her bicycle through The Hague symbolizes that future: free, hopeful, vulnerable, and strong. Her freedom is our freedom. Her safety is our safety. Her future is our future. 

Now is the moment. Let us not look back later and say: we saw the dangers, but we did nothing. Let us be the generation that dared to choose humanity. The generation that rebuilt trust. The generation that proved democracy is stronger than division. 
Now is the moment – for a just, humane, and democratic Netherlands.