Every democracy carries the risk of falling back to a dictatorship. You can never protect a democracy enough. One of the most important mechanisms for this is the separation of state powers into legislative, executive and judicial powers. I am convinced that the judiciary has the most influence in the Netherlands. You don't hear much from them, but that is optical illusion or hearing fraud. Judges are virtually untouchable, they are appointed for life and they have the final say on almost all important matters.
Unfortunately, our society has never paid attention to the all-important question of who decides which judge is put on which case. As far as I am concerned, that is the biggest problem in the Netherlands. I know from experience that the vast majority of judges in the Netherlands are very reliable. But suppose that as a citizen you have a very heated dispute with the state, which is extremely sensitive. In that case, the state only needs to have a single faulty judge and control over the utterly unclear and unknown steering mechanism that determines the choice of the judge and it can manipulate the outcome of the legal dispute. A constitutional state is a state in which the government is subject to the law in the same way as its citizens. The question is whether this is the case in the Netherlands. A theoretical problem? Forget it. Company social worker Fred Spijkers had to lie to the widow of the deceased engineer Ovaa. It had flown into the air during a trial of a land mine that the Defense organization had known for years to be life-threatening. Just before that, an extreme accident had already happened with the same mine in 't Harde, in which a large number of soldiers were killed. Spijkers was ordered by the Ministry of Defense to lie in the crudest way to the widow Ovaa. Her husband would have been careless ..... Nails refused to cheat on Mrs. Ovaa. Not only did this cost him his job, he was even declared a psychiatric patient with falsified reports. One of the largest cesspools in our national history.
Ultimately, the Spijkers case came before the highest civil servant judge. The relevant president of the Central Board of Appeal turned out to be extremely biased. Important witnesses for Spijkers were not even allowed to speak and the hard-lying state attorney could always count on understanding nods from the president. Complaints have even been filed with the Supreme Court about the president's actions. Spijkers lost his case and was not awarded any compensation. Not long after that it turned out that this 'own judge' of the state, in a previous position as top official at the Ministry of the Interior, had already been busy with the demolition of Fred Spijkers. So he should never have heard this case. All this prompted the House of Representatives to intervene. As a result, Spijkers has received millions in damages and a knighthood. But now we come back to the separation of state powers. If the judiciary has ruled in the highest instance that Spijkers is not entitled to compensation, the other two state powers must respect that decision. Legally, the payment of compensation to Spijkers - against the purport of an established final judgment of the highest court - has the status of corruption in the government! This completely impossible state of affairs proves that something was right wrong here. The judge in question was never addressed. Perhaps because he had to remain available for other jobs …….