Patrick Simpson

In the Dutch public broadcasting system, any association with enough paying members can claim time to broadcast programs. Two new associations have found enough members and both will make programs for the so-called ‘silent majority’.

The silent majority – being silent – is not a well-known group and is hopelessly under-represented in the current public media. However, members of the majority have appeared on television before, largely in news programs during street interviews. They are generally identified as the common man or the voice on the street and they can be recognized through their use of phrases like somebody should do something or it is all their fault. And with sound opinions like that, it is no surprise that they are also active in politics, in such political ‘parties’ like the Pim Fortuyn List (now sadly deceased after years of infighting), Proud of the Netherlands (currently dying after years of infighting) and the Party for Freedom (currently flying high in the polls; expect the scent of power to cause years of infighting). Their political principles are generally that things are someone’s fault and that something should be done.

Both new broadcasting associations are owned by the Telegraaf Media Group (yes, our public broadcasting system is open to commercial companies, we are a very inclusive society), which already caters to the silent majority through their newspaper ‘De Telegraaf’, which they like to call The newspaper for alert Netherlands. Some things the Dutch are currently alert about are the gradual improvement in the health of singer Frans Bauer and an alleged affair between prince Harry (of Britain, our princes do not behave like that, we are a very boring nation) and his ex. The newspaper is well-known for its prominent society page. Not for page-three girls. For that the silent majority is forced to turn to weekly magazines that also feature articles on cars, sex, crime, sex and sex. Which they do.

Our public broadcasting system may seem somewhat unusual, and the aforementioned article suggests this may be due to pillarisation, which Wikipedia describes as the denominational segregation of society. It was a typically Dutch (and Belgian, but we already have so little to call our own, so let us claim this one) phenomenon, which involved clubs and organisations coming in distinct varieties for Catholics, Protestants and Socialists. Due to this, each pillar had to be represented in our broadcasting system, which has lead to a wide variety of unique programming such as ‘QI’ (yes, the same as in the UK, but here it is socialist) and ‘Opsporing verzocht’ (which the English might know as ‘Crimewatch’. It is non-denominational here. Did I forget to mention there are also non-denominational pillars?).

In truth, I think the complexity of our broadcasting system may be due to something else. You see, if there is one thing that really separates the Dutch from the rest of the world, it is the desire to discuss, organise and codify matters to such an extent that the original purpose is no longer relevant or even recognisable. For example, our leaders’ response to the financial crisis was not to throw good money after bad, but to have a three-week meeting session involving representatives of the trade unions and employers’ organisations (we have many of both). After which they decided to codify a highly ineffective framework agreement to organise the throwing of good money after bad.

Another famous example is the Dutch soft-drugs policy, which is illegal not only by international standards, but also by our own laws. Not that that is a real problem in a country with a constitution that has an article stating that no court will judge the constitutionality of laws? How liberal is that? And what other nation would bother to start writing a constitution of 119 articles, only to make them irrelevant in article 120? And continue adding more articles after that?

The same can be observed in our language. We have rules that prescribe how to conjugate English verbs. In the Dutch language. Because your conjugation is just not good enough. Generally, the preterite of any English word is formed by adding ‘te’ to the stem of the verb, which is just the verb itself. Take, for example, the verb ‘to delete’. This verb is generally used by people who do not know said conjugation rule, as people who do know that rule generally also know the Dutch verb ‘verwijderen’. However, under the rule,  the first person singular preterite is ‘deletete’. Which is pronounced ‘delete’, just like people who do not know the conjugation used to do. And as a result we now have silent syllables, how cool is that? I hope that someday the language will be extended to include silent words, sentences and complete texts. Let’s begin by never pronouncing anything in ‘De Telegraaf’ ever again.