My political involvement stems from a growing unease with how decision-making in the Netherlands, and also in Amsterdam, has shifted in recent decades: increasingly distant from citizens, increasingly driven by systems, technocracy and abstract models. Policy choices are often presented as inevitable or “scientifically necessary”, while the scope for substantive debate, local knowledge and human judgement is becoming increasingly limited.
I see this reflected in issues at all levels, from coronavirus and climate policy to concrete municipal measures. During the coronavirus pandemic, it became clear how quickly fundamental rights were subordinated to models and emergency logic, with little room for doubt, proportionality or moral consideration. I see a similar dynamic in the climate dossier: large-scale plans and measurement targets that fail to have an impact at the local level, while the consequences for quality of life, affordability and freedom are not sufficiently taken into account.
At the municipal level, this manifests itself in policies that profoundly affect the daily lives of Amsterdam residents, often without any real public participation. Examples include generic 30 km/h speed limits, traffic restrictions such as those on Weesperstraat, or large-scale redesigns that are rolled out as experiments without clear evaluation or democratic correction. So-called smart city projects also raise fundamental questions for me about privacy, autonomy and the further shift from human judgement to data-driven systems.
For me, democracy is therefore more than just voting periodically or speaking up after the fact. Citizens must have a real influence on decisions that affect their living environment, and that influence must be organised in a way that takes responsibility, plurality and knowledge seriously. This requires more room for direct democracy, transparency in decision-making and letting go of automatism in policy and administrative layers.
A fundamental principle in my thinking is that no profound social transition can succeed without a parallel development in consciousness. Political systems stagnate not only because of flawed structures, but also because of limited ways of perceiving, thinking and responding. Real innovation therefore requires inner practice: cultivating clear awareness, self-reflection and moral responsibility, both individually and collectively.
When people learn to perceive beyond fear, groupthink and ideological reflexes, space is created for creativity and truly free decision-making. That creativity cannot be suppressed in the long term by rules, systems or outdated forms of government. Any political system that loses its legitimacy will ultimately fail when people learn to trust their own perception, judgement and cooperation again.
My style is analytical and connecting. I ask questions where others draw conclusions, and I try not to simplify contradictions but to understand them. Freedom without responsibility degenerates into arbitrariness, but responsibility without freedom degenerates into coercion. For me, it is precisely in this tension that lies the core of a healthy local democracy and a liveable city.