Dutch voters grasp digital urgency better than their politicians

As the dust settled on a historically close-run Dutch election, a remarkable trend emerged. While party leaders were focused on traditional campaign issues, voters used their ballots to send a clear message: digital competence in parliament is no longer a nice-to-have, it’s a necessity. This grassroots movement, spurred on by initiatives such as NerdVote, has successfully propelled tech-savvy candidates into parliament, despite their low positions on the party lists. 

While the centrist-liberal D66 party and Geert Wilders’ far-right PVV were locked in a dead heat for first place, the real story for the tech sector is happening further down the ballot. Barbara Kathmann of the combined GroenLinks-PvdA (GreenLeft-Labour) party, a vocal advocate for digital rights and sovereignty, was set to lose her seat based on her party’s performance.

However, a massive preference vote campaign, which saw her gain over 25,000 personal votes, secured her return to the House of Representatives.

This outcome was no accident. It’s the result of a growing awareness among the Dutch electorate that the country’s digital infrastructure is both a vital asset and a significant vulnerability.

“The voters have sent a clear signal,” said Bert Hubert, a respected technologist and government advisor. “The political parties themselves placed their digital candidates lower on their lists. Now, the voters have said: ‘No, we are mobilising ourselves,’ and they organised 30,000 votes for Barbara.” 

Hubert, founder of PowerDNS and a former regulator of the Dutch intelligence services, is the driving force behind NerdVote, a platform that highlights candidates with demonstrable tech expertise.

He points to early data analysis showing that in university cities like Utrecht, Leiden and Delft, around 1% of all voters cast their preference vote for Kathmann as anecdotal evidence of a “Nerd factor” at play. 

The success of the NerdVote campaign throws a harsh light on a painful disconnect. While citizens are increasingly concerned about topics such as digital sovereignty, cyber security and the power of Big Tech, the upper echelons of the political parties appear to be lagging behind. Why were these expert candidates placed in seemingly unelectable positions in the first place? 

Hubert offered a blunt assessment. He explained that the composition of the electoral lists is often decided by “party dinosaurs” – influential party veterans who, in his words, “are people who print out their emails”. 

“They are all balancing interests when putting together the voting list,” said Hubert. “They need someone from the cultural sector, someone representing the Antilles, and eventually, someone falls off the table. Well, that’s usually the nerd. Because none of those party dinosaurs, and this applies to all parties, have any affinity with the topic.” 

This lack of affinity creates a dangerous blind spot. In a country that hosts the Amsterdam Internet Exchange (AMS-IX), a critical hub for global internet traffic, and where vital North Sea data cables make landfall, treating technology as an afterthought is a high-stakes gamble. “In our governing bodies, we have absolutely no respect for technology,” said Hubert. “It’s seen as sewerage: it’s important, but preferred to be underground, and not seen. And therefore, nobody is going to make policy about it. They all expect someone else to fix it.” 

This attitude has led to a situation where, despite a flurry of policy documents, concrete action remains elusive. Weeks before the election, at a ‘Digital Debate’ organised by 10 industry bodies, the frustration was palpable. While politicians from all major parties agreed on the need for greater European digital autonomy, the question of how to achieve it remained largely unanswered – a sentiment echoed by Kathmann during the debate: “We are simply not in the driver’s seat, and that has to change drastically. As far as I’m concerned, you could even legislate for that.” 

Queeny Rajkowski of the conservative-liberal VVD party did mention a €42bn investment fund for digital sovereignty, a promise the tech sector will be watching closely. But as Hubert noted, most significant funding for Dutch digital projects currently comes from Brussels, not The Hague.

“In The Hague, no real money is forthcoming,” he said, characterising Dutch politics as a “residents’ association meeting” focused on “petrol, foreigners and nitrogen”. It’s convenient, he argues, to “launder” digital policy through Brussels, which does seem to grasp the urgency. 

Their approach was not revolutionary but largely pragmatic. They started by migrating 70% of employees who only use basic office functions, while providing special support for the remaining 30% with complex use cases, such as intricate Microsoft Excel macros. “In the Netherlands, we often say: ‘No, we can’t possibly change, because one person in accounting has 47 Excel sheets with a macro link’,” said Hubert.

The German state’s success proves that a phased, practical approach is entirely feasible. 

The move also fundamentally changes their relationship with suppliers. As Hubert points out, negotiating with Microsoft about the price of Teams while using Teams for the negotiation call puts you at a disadvantage. “Can you imagine what a different negotiating position you have when you tell Microsoft, ‘come on over to our own videoconferencing tool’?” he asked. “That could likely save hundreds of millions.” 

With the election resulting in a virtual tie and a complex coalition formation process ahead, the future of Dutch digital policy is uncertain. The strong showing of D66, which now has several digitally astute MPs, including Hanneke van der Werf, a long-standing digital policy expert, and the newly elected Sarah El Boujdaini, who serves as senior advisor on Data and AI at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, offers a glimmer of hope. The re-election of the tenacious Kathmann through preference votes is a clear victory for digital awareness.

However, this churn of political personnel also creates systemic delays, a problem highlighted by D66’s Van der Werf in the Digital Debate. “If we get a whole new batch of digital spokespeople again […] that’s how we, to put it bluntly, incur a lot of delays here in The Hague,” she said.

However, the key question remains whether this newfound expertise in parliament will translate into a government that is willing to act. Many have called for a dedicated minister for digital affairs with real authority, yet Hubert believes this is putting the cart before the horse. “If people truly found it important, such a ministry would emerge naturally,” he said. “But now we’re trying to do the opposite: create a minister or ministry and then hope people will find it important.”

Hubert points to the current situation as evidence of the problem’s scale. “It’s absurd that we’ve placed digitalisation under a state secretary who also handles the Dutch Caribbean,” he said. “That already tells you we don’t find it very important – first, we give it to a state secretary, and second, we split that role with the Antilles.”

What Hubert would prefer to see first is coordinated, government-wide ICT policy. Currently, as he put it, “every forest ranger can buy their own IT”, leading to fragmented systems and leaving small government agencies at the mercy of their suppliers. Only when such rigorous policy is in place, he said, does a dedicated minister make sense. Or will digital policy remain an underfunded portfolio split with other duties? 

For now, the Netherlands is in a holding pattern. The voters have done their part, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of what’s at stake. It is now up to the “party dinosaurs” and the new coalition to prove they have received the message, and are ready to move beyond the paper tigers and finally start building a digitally sovereign nation.