It started last night with putting a quick post together around an interview with Dutch Queen Beatrix, but instead of doing that I first watched the entire two-hour and twenty minute documentary (two parts) about her 25 years as a monarch which the Dutch celebrate today. It was fascinating stuff. It’s not just an interview with the queen herself, three former prime-ministers as well as the current one share some revealing insights and together with past news footage gives the viewer an excellent idea of how Dutch - and by extension European - society has changed over the last quarter century. If you’re interested in constitutional law, modern history and are able to follow Dutch, it’s a must-see. Three things stood out and deserve comment.

The first thing that struck me, and it never ceases to amaze me, is the incredibly influential role that a Dutch monarch can enjoy under the nation’s constitution. Although in theory, as we learned at school and at college, the role is supposed to be largely ceremonial, as head of state and head of the government the queen has the ability to get actively involved in matters of state. There are the weekly meetings with the prime-minister where pending affairs are discussed and as one of the former premiers disclosed, she would be quite pro-active by not shying away from giving some significant input on ministerial appointments. And that approach wasn’t restricted to domestic affairs. One of the incidents that got some attention in America was when she called Clinton to express her disappointment over the fact that a Dutch candidate did not get sufficient presidential support and thus failed to get appointed as head of NATO. Of course, this is also a function of her driven personality, but it seems watching the documentary that the four elected cabinet leaders were certainly amenable to take Queen Beatrix’ positions into consideration when developing policy and drafting legislation. In a lot of cases her input may have been minimal and she will no doubt have signed laws she didn’t like, but as an unelected official she was surprisingly active in helping out in the nation’s kitchen.

Yet despite her political instincts she remained notably absent during the aftermath of both the Fortuyn and Van Gogh killings. This is somewhat odd as the documentary makers point out that in both cases there was a rare call from Dutch politicians, public and media to let the queen come forward and unify the nation with a speech or other symbolic gesture. In the interviews the queen briefly refers to them as “political murders”, enabling her to duck any elaborate treatment of both assassinations. It’s a clever escape route, the queen does not get involved in politics, but in view of her active engagement in matters of state as well as her very clear concerns over the direction of the society she represents it’s odd that she declined to act on such a traumatic experience. Her visit to an immigrant youth center shortly after Van Gogh’s killing was designed to appease Muslim sentiments rather than native Dutch anxieties and was deemed to be inadequate.

She isn’t that quiet on Europe. Together with the current prime-minister she delivers a well-crafted pitch for the European Constitution in the documentary, the former touching on the efficiency of it, while the queen refers to the past-wars and violence that often tore the old continent apart. Her interviewer engages her on this topic and without missing a beat Beatrix points out the dangers of nationalism while underlining the importance of one’s own culture. Read into it what you want, but it was a gentle yet forceful push to encourage Dutch viewers to try and see the benefits of European integration arguing that it could still enable the preservation of their own national culture. To give you some material to reflect on this, picture an American president arguing that nationalism is a bad thing on the eve of an amalgamation with Canada and Mexico.

So, in summary the current Dutch monarch has been able to exercise a tremendous amount of influence on areas where in theory she shouldn’t have and in doing that she has used her powers selectively to promote certain causes. It’s hard to accuse her of enforcing a political agenda, but throughout her tenure she has often come out where she and the political leadership felt Dutch public opinion was headed and that was hardly ever on the right of the political center. As a result she must have been as baffled by the recent ruptures in Dutch society as the center-left political elites that have run the country for decades. It probably explains her unwillingness to step up to the plate with a symbolic speech to pacify and heal the Dutch nation after the recent political violence, it was too un-Dutch and way outside her comfort zone and, maybe in her and her advisers’ minds, too politically charged.

During her 1999 state visit to China I had the pleasure to meet her and talk to her and it was evident that her intelligence and her ability to creatively combine answers and respond to them skillfully was not just a rumor. Here is one sharp woman who will easily outdo many western government leaders in her detailed knowledge of a wide array of topics something that also reveals her diligent work. Despite her slight tilt towards the left and occasional lapse of judgment, I do respect her for her abilities and in the way she has modernized the Dutch royal family. Compared to the behaviorally challenged Windsors in Britain, the Oranje-Nassau family is a likeable bunch of ‘common royals’ with whom you can have a chat and a drink anytime. As a result the Dutch royal family is extremely popular at home.

More importantly she has remained consistent in repeating throughout her 25 years in office a message that is equally dear to the right: the collapse of moral values. Here’s a brief excerpt:

However, the Queen lamented the hardening of society, saying that it has become more superficial, pointing also to a greater emphasis on materialism. She said people have become ruder and that individualism is taking force.".

And:

But she regrets some changes in the Dutch character: "I believe that some of our matter-of-factness, austerity and moderation — which were part of the Dutch character — have become less visible

As her role as a monarch would warrant, a traditionalist at heart.

UPDATE: Arjan thinks I am too mild in my judgement and so do others:

By what earthly justification do the Dutch accept the moral and constitutional authority of an unelected head of state? Why do YOU? Don't tell me that Beatrix is nice and smart. That's neither here nor there. The very concept of the monarchy is impossibly at odds with the idea of democracy, is it not?

Yes, but anti-royalist movements have always been on the fringe of Dutch politics, they invariably failed to get traction. Both Fortuyn and Van Gogh by the way were staunch republicans.

The phenomenal approval ratings she enjoys indicate that the Dutch do not particularly care, underlining the maxim that every people get the government they deserve.