The Appointed Mayor: An Undemocratic Practice in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, mayors are not directly elected by the public but are appointed through a process in which the municipal council and the King’s Commissioner nominate a candidate, with the final appointment confirmed by the King. This system is often defended with arguments such as administrative stability, continuity, and professionalism. At the same time, it stands in direct opposition to the fundamental democratic principle that citizens should have direct control over who governs them. The system of appointed mayors is therefore a relic of a political tradition originating from a time when citizen participation was limited, and the democratic mandate of the population carried less weight (Diploma Democracy, Bovens and Wille, 2017).

While historically the appointment served to protect parties and local elites from political volatility, today it poorly fits a society in which citizens have increasing access to information and political means to influence governance. This creates a democratic deficit where the voice of residents has little effect on one of the most important functions within the municipality. The consequences are tangible in policy choices, civic engagement, and trust in local government.

A system without direct public influence

The role of the municipal council in the appointment

Supporters of the current system emphasize that the municipal council, which is democratically elected, has an advisory role in nominating candidates. According to this reasoning, the council represents citizens and functions as a buffer against impulsive or populist choices. In theory, this indirect democratic mechanism provides sufficient legitimacy to the appointed mayor, similar to parliamentary systems where indirectly elected officials wield considerable power (Governance and Politics of the Netherlands, Andeweg and Irwin, 2014).

In practice, however, this is limited and problematic. While the municipal council formally has a significant role, the ultimate decision rests with higher levels of government, particularly the King’s Commissioner and the national government. The King’s Commissioner, who has no direct mandate from the population, plays a decisive role in selecting and advising candidates. The appointment is then formally confirmed by the King, leaving citizen influence practically absent. This creates a significant distance between residents and the person who governs their municipality.

Moreover, the process largely occurs behind closed doors. Discussions in confidential committees often happen in private, and candidates have little opportunity to present their qualities publicly or communicate their vision to residents. In this system, party loyalty, personal networks, and strategic interests often outweigh competence or local support (Governance and Politics of the Netherlands, Andeweg and Irwin, 2014). The public’s voice is minimized, and citizens have no direct influence over the selection of their mayor.

In cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht, this process has been evident in controversial appointments. Candidates have sometimes been withdrawn or shifted due to political considerations, while citizens had little opportunity to express their preferences. This has led to public debate and calls for reform, but the structural dependence on national politics remains.

No accountability for poor governance

A fundamental feature of democracy is that citizens can hold leaders accountable and, if necessary, replace them. In the Netherlands, this mechanism is absent for mayors. When a mayor implements deeply unpopular policies, mismanages crises, or fails to address important local issues, the public has no direct way to intervene. Administrative interventions are only possible via complex procedures at higher government levels, which are rare and often slow.

This creates a governing elite that is less inclined to listen to residents or adapt to local needs. Without electoral pressure, there is little incentive to engage with citizens or revise policy when public opinion shifts (Lokaal bestuur en democratie in Nederland, Van Ostaaijen, 2020). In extreme cases, a poorly performing mayor may remain in office for years because the system shields them from democratic pressure. This effect is amplified in smaller municipalities where political networks are stronger and oversight is limited.

Party interests over local needs

Although the appointment is officially neutral, political party affiliation plays a decisive role. Candidates with strong ties to national or provincial party structures have a substantial advantage. Those who have demonstrated loyalty to the party or strategically align with influential figures are more likely to be selected, regardless of their experience, knowledge of the local context, or support from residents.

This system creates a scenario in which the most important public figure in a municipality is chosen based on political convenience rather than competence or popularity. It undermines public trust in local government and reinforces the perception of a political elite that privileges itself over the citizens it represents. The prioritization of political networks over public preferences has been identified as a structural flaw in Dutch local governance for decades (Politieke geschiedenis van Nederland, Daalder, 2004).

Historical context

The tradition of appointed mayors dates back to the Batavian Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the 19th century. At that time, the system was seen as a way to ensure national stability and prevent local politics from being dominated by party struggles or populist movements. Mayors were considered neutral, professional officials who stood above local political factions.

In an era without mass democracy or broad citizen participation, this system was logical. Mayors coordinated governance, oversaw public safety and enforcement, and served as intermediaries between local elites and central authorities. It was a rational mechanism to maintain continuity and minimize conflict (De veranderende rol van de burgemeester, Boogers and Schaap, 2012).

However, society has changed dramatically since then. Citizens are more informed, politically aware, and have more tools to influence governance. Social media, local news platforms, and civic initiatives make it easier for residents to be involved and scrutinize political decisions. The current appointment system is aligned with an old model that barely acknowledges these new forms of citizen participation.

Counterarguments and why they fall short

“The municipal council is democratically elected, which is sufficient”

Defenders of the system argue that it does not matter that the mayor is not directly elected, because the democratically elected municipal council provides legitimacy. In this view, the mayor functions as an executor of council policies.

However, this ignores the considerable authority and influence mayors hold. They are not merely administrative figures but the public face of the municipality and often the first point of contact during crises. Mayors oversee public order, police cooperation, safety policy, and emergency responses. These responsibilities grant them significant power over citizens’ daily lives (De veranderende rol van de burgemeester, Boogers and Schaap, 2012). It is inconsistent that a figure with such authority is not directly accountable to the electorate.

Councils also rely heavily on the mayor for expertise, coordination, and policy execution. In many municipalities, mayors significantly influence policymaking and strategic decisions, even if this influence is not formally recognized. Therefore, indirect legitimacy through the council is insufficient to adequately represent citizens.

“An appointed mayor prevents populism”

Some claim that electing mayors could result in populist, inexperienced, or controversial leaders. They argue that the appointment system protects professionalism and prevents local politics from being dominated by charisma or emotion.

This argument is paternalistic and anti-democratic. It implies that ordinary citizens cannot make informed choices and that political elites must decide on their behalf. Democracy inherently allows people to choose their leaders, even if the outcome is not optimal for elites. Research shows that directly elected mayors in countries like Germany and the United States often function effectively and are accountable to voters (Directe verkiezingen en lokaal bestuur, Denters, 2006).

International examples indicate that populist or incompetent leaders rarely destabilize governance when elections are well-structured. German mayors often possess strong administrative capacity and broad public support. In U.S. cities, nonpartisan elections allow independent or community-focused candidates to compete effectively.

“Stability and continuity are more important than direct elections”

Another argument is that appointed mayors provide administrative stability, continuity, and a long-term perspective, as they are shielded from election cycles. Proponents claim this allows more efficient governance and enables mayors to focus on complex policies without campaigning.

This argument overvalues stability and undervalues accountability. Democracy involves periodic evaluation, competition, and the possibility of change. Stability should not justify limiting citizen influence. Many elected leaders worldwide provide stable governance while remaining accountable. A directly elected mayor can offer both continuity and democratic legitimacy, provided term limits, reelection, financing, and transparency rules are clear (Lokaal bestuur in Nederland, Hendriks and Karsten, 2014).

Without accountability, stability can lead to stagnation. A mayor not facing electoral pressure may become indifferent to public concerns or resist reforms. Democratic competition encourages responsiveness, adaptability, and innovation. Stability alone does not justify maintaining a system that excludes citizens from selecting local leaders.

How can it be improved? The benefits of an elected mayor

A directly elected mayor offers several advantages:

• Greater democratic legitimacy: Citizens can directly influence who governs them (Diploma Democracy, Bovens and Wille, 2017). Residents can evaluate candidates based on policy, vision, and experience.
• Better accountability: A mayor facing reelection is more likely to act in the public interest and respond to citizens (Directe verkiezingen en lokaal bestuur, Denters, 2006).
• Less backroom politics: Direct elections reduce the influence of party elites, insiders, and opaque procedures (Politieke geschiedenis van Nederland, Daalder, 2004).
• Increased civic engagement: Local election turnout is often low. Direct mayoral elections could boost public involvement (Governance and Politics of the Netherlands, Andeweg and Irwin, 2014).

International examples

In Germany, direct mayoral elections have long been the norm (Directe verkiezingen en lokaal bestuur, Denters, 2006). German mayors enjoy broad mandates and legitimacy to address complex issues.

In France, mayors play a central role in municipal governance (De veranderende rol van de burgemeester, Boogers and Schaap, 2012). Electoral systems vary by region, but the principle remains that their authority rests on democratic legitimacy.

In the United States, mayors of major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are directly elected, often through nonpartisan elections (Diploma Democracy, Bovens and Wille, 2017).

In the United Kingdom, some cities, like London, have introduced directly elected mayors, improving accountability and visibility without destabilizing parliamentary democracy (Directly Elected Mayors in the UK: Leadership and Local Governance, Copus, 2018).

These examples demonstrate that direct elections strengthen local governance, improve transparency, and clarify leadership roles.

Conclusion: time for change

The current system of appointed mayors is an anachronism incompatible with modern democracy. Arguments defending the system, such as stability, protection from populism, or indirect legitimacy via the council, do not outweigh the democratic principle that citizens must have a direct voice in choosing their leaders.

The Netherlands, a country proud of its democratic values, transparency, and civic engagement, maintains a system that prevents citizens from electing one of their most important local leaders.

Transitioning to directly elected mayors would enhance legitimacy, accountability, citizen participation, and leadership grounded in the will of the people. Only with direct mayoral elections can local government in the Netherlands be considered fully democratic.