After the Dutch general election of 25 May 1977, a cabinet formation took place in the Netherlands. On 19 December 1977, this resulted in the first Van Agt cabinet. The coalition was formed by the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD).
During the first five months, negotiations took place under formateur Joop den Uyl about a cabinet of Labour Party (PvdA), the largest party, CDA and D'66. This got stuck four times, and informateurs were asked to bring the parties together again. After the fourth time the break turned out to be permanent. Within a month, the CDA managed to reach an agreement with the VVD. Six members of the CDA parliamentary groupthe loyalistsvoted against the agreement, but tolerated the cabinet, so that the cabinet retained a majority.
The formation lasted 208 days and was then the longest Dutch cabinet formation. Due to its long duration and unexpected outcome, it is known as the "mother of all formations".
Background Den Uyl cabinet The Den Uyl cabinet led by Prime Minister Joop den Uyl had PvdA, D'66 and Political Party Radicals (PPR) as a coalition. As part of the progressive cooperation for the 1972 Dutch general election, these parties had a joint government program: Keerpunt 1972. During the cabinet formation of 1972-'73 the denominational parties Christian-Historical Union (CHU), Anti Revolutionary Party (ARP) and Catholic People's Party (KVP) to play each other off. The latter two provided ministers and tolerated the cabinet as an extra-parliamentary cabinet.
During this period, KVP, ARP and CHU were in the process of merging into the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA). The actual merger did not take place until 1980, but the parties already wanted one list of candidates. Intended lead candidate was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Dries van Agt, from the KVP. He was appreciated for his principled position in the abortion debate and the way in which he regularly antagonized the PvdA.
Relations within the cabinet were poor and the 'fighting cabinet' fell just before the elections. The low point was the personal attack by PvdA MP Aad Kosto on Van Agt in the debate on Menten case on 23 February 1977. Kosto called Van Agt an incompetent minister who was unsuitable as a political leader. A month later, the cabinet fell after the cabinet crisis over land policy, one of the four major social reforms that the cabinet had announced on the basis of Keerpunt '72.
Distribution of seats
The PvdA won ten seats and reached 53 seats, the highest score by any party to date. The CDA obtained 49 seats, one seat more than its predecessors in 1972. After the elections, the CDA parliamentary group consisted of 26 KVP members, 12 ARP members and 11 CHU members. The VVD won six seats and ended up with 28 seats. D'66 increased from six to eight seats. The remaining parties dropped from 31 to twelve seats in total, and did not play a meaningful role in the formation. Based on this result, PvdA and CDA already had a majority of 102 seats. Supplemented with D'66, this would be 110 seats. On the other hand, the combination of CDA and VVD also had a narrow majority of 77 seats.
Hostage takings The election campaign and formation were interrupted by hostage takings by South Moluccan youth. Two days before the elections they hijacked a train at De Punt and held a primary school in Bovensmilde hostage. These actions largely brought the campaign to a standstill. The hostage takings would last until 11 June 1977, during the formation. It meant that the PvdA could not celebrate its election win and that the formation only got underway later. Van Agt, as Minister of Justice, was particularly busy with the hostage takings and the parliamentary debate afterwards.
Formateur Den Uyl (1)
After discussions with her advisors and the parliamentary leaders appointed queen Juliana Den Uyl as formateur. The PvdA parliamentary group advised appointing Den Uyl as formateur, although some members urged caution. Van Agt also advised appointing Den Uyl as formateur, because an information round was sooner would lead to rigidity in the CDA parliamentary group. Wiegel expressed his doubts about the stability of a cabinet of PvdA and CDA given the fall of the previous cabinet. He also pointed out the fact that CDA and VVD together had a majority. Juliana ultimately gave Den Uyl the task of "forming a cabinet that can be expected to have the confidence of parliament to enjoy". Den Uyl stated that he aimed for a majority cabinet of PvdA, CDA and D'66, with a progressive character. A large part of the CDA parliamentary group reacted negatively to this interpretation that it had to have a "progressive character".
Negotiation strategies For the PvdA, cabinet participation was not the most important thing and cabinet participation could only take place if they had the upper hand. This strategy was written down in the note 'What to do with a gain of ten seats?' by Ed van Thijn, who replaced Den Uyl as PvdA negotiator. The main goal was electoral success in the 1978 provincial elections. A "certain tension relationship" with the CDA would be good for this, the so-called "polarization strategy" that the party has used since 1966. In terms of content, the reform proposals of the previous government had to be achieved, the standard of one percent growth per year of the collective sector had to be adhered to and it had to be guaranteed that an initiative draft on abortion would be ratified with a countersign. The party board and congress had imposed the majority strategy against the wishes of the parliamentary group and Den Uyl. This stipulated that PvdA had to have as many ministers as CDA and D' 66 together, to prevent PvdA from being voted out in the Council of Ministers. PvdA had to claim Justice to keep Van Agt out of the cabinet and another post next to Finance in the socio-economic triangle. Van Thijn's note leaked and was published in de Volkskrant on 9 June, which immediately fueled distrust within CDA.
For the CDA, the priority was also not entirely on the success of a cabinet, but on the formation of real unity in the CDA. Within the parliamentary group there was division about governing. with the PvdA. ARP members led by Wim Aantjes were in favor, while KVP members such as Frans Andriessen and especially CHU members wanted to enter into confrontation. In any case, the starting point for participation in a cabinet with the PvdA was equality. For example, the CDA wanted as many ministerial positions as the PvdA. They did not want D'66 in the coalition anywayafter all, the party was not needed for a majorityso they thought that PvdA itself should give up ministerial positions for D'66. Another place for PvdA in the socio-economic triangle was out of the question, because Den Uyl, as Prime Minister, was constantly interfering with it. Van Agt had to return to Justice if he did not want to remain in Parliament. The CDA preferred to discuss abortion first and discuss the reform proposals in a broader socio-economic context.
The division was not only substantive, but also arose from personal ambitions. Although Van Agt was easily elected as party leader at the first party meeting, the election of the deputy party leader exposed a tribal war. Andriessen was initially chosen over Aantjes, who reacted angrily. The minutes of this meeting were subsequently leaked, after which Van Agt persuaded Andriessen to withdraw in order to maintain unity. This time no election was called, meaning the vice-presidency fell to the number two on the list; Aantjes. CHU leader Roelof Kruisinga was mainly interested in a ministerial post and contacted PvdA members about this. Aantjes also had a lot of contact with the PvdA. Andriessen, on the other hand, had the most contact with Van Agt of the three. CDA policy officer Joop van Rijswijk noted about the internal cooperation: "In fact, our parliamentary group has a four-person leadership. But this leadership collective [...] exhausts itself in eyeing each other and distrusting each other and in running under the feet of the party leader."
Negotiations
In the first two weeks, the parties managed to reach an agreement on three of the four reform proposals. Due to the hostage takings and their settlement, substantive negotiations did not begin until 27 June. There had been a lot of fuss about the order of topics to be discussed in the weeks before. Eventually they started with land policy, because the previous cabinet had fallen on that issue. The negotiators virtually managed to settle this protracted issue in one evening, with agreement on the most important points arranged on 5 July. That day they reached agreement on the capital gains tax and on 8 July on the works councils, two of the other reform proposals. Van Agt managed to win important points in all three, to the dissatisfaction of the left flank of the PvdA.
The pressure was then greater for PvdA to score on the last of the four reforms; the capital growth sharing (VAD). At the request of the CDA, this was combined with the discussion about the 'Memorandum regarding the financial, social and economic policy to be pursued' (also known as Memo II) drawn up by Den Uyl. It proposed four billion in austerity and wage moderation, but also attractive measures for the trade union movement. The CDA thought the cuts were insufficient and did not believe in the proposed wage moderation. Employers and the right part of the CDA parliamentary group were also dissatisfied with the automatic price compensation. On 12 July negotiators discussed the VAD again, with Den Uyl increasing pressure on D'66 and CDA to agree quickly. Van Agt submitted nine amendment proposals to the VAD. Den Uyl accepted three of these suggestions, but Van Agt continued to refuse.
On 15 July Den Uyl subsequently gave back his assignment. Den Uyl indicated that he was "bitterly disappointed", but the impression was that he had stopped too early. Van Agt stated that a solution had to be found for the VAD, because the PvdA and CDA were dependent on each other. He indicated to his group that he was prepared to drop a number of demands regarding the VAD. The top of the CDA suspected pressure from the trade union FNV, as well as a political maneuver, in which PvdA hoped to have a better negotiating position if a formation attempt between CDA and VVD had failed.
Informateur Albeda
After the break, Van Agt was asked to be a formateur, but he requested that the Queen not have to accept the assignment. Vondeling, Van Thijn and Wiegel had advised the queen to appoint Van Agt as formateur of a cabinet of VVD and CDA. Thurlings advised against this, because the options for a cabinet of PvdA and CDA had not yet been exhausted. Van Agt also first wanted an attempt by an informateurs from PvdA or CDA. Investigating another cabinet was undesirable for him, because it had a high chance of failure and would therefore undermine CDA's negotiating position. Nevertheless, the queen took the advice of the majority and ordered Van Agt to form a cabinet on 18 July. This was to the dismay of the CDA, which suspected her of being in cahoots with Den Uyl. Van Agt requested that the queen not have to accept the assignment, to which the queen complied.