Pays-Bas

• ‘Dutch citizens feel a major disconnect from politics’

  The special theme of the 2018 State of Civil Society Report will be ‘reimagining democracy’. The report will explore how citizens and civil society organisations are working to build more participatory forms of democracy, and how civil society is responding to the citizen anger and sense of disconnection that is driving more extremist and polarised politics in many countries. Ahead of publication, we’ll be interviewing civil society activists and leaders in countries experiencing these trends. Here, CIVICUS speaks to René Rouwette, Director of Kompass, a civil rights organisationin the Netherlands. Kompass seeks to make human rights accessible to all and strives for ordinary people to exercise as much influence on laws and policies as large companies. It brings people together around projects on racism, refugees and ethnic profiling, among other issues.

  1. How would you describe the state of democracy in the Netherlands?

  The Netherlands scores very high on the international Democracy Index. Still, I am concerned about specific developments affecting democracy in the Netherlands. Many Dutch people do not feel represented in Dutch politics. Citizens feel a major disconnect from politics, especially towards the European Union as well as at the national level. Political parties are losing members and are increasingly unable to recruit new ones, and many people who are still involved are actively seeking a political job rather than trying to challenge their parties, and change their country or the world. As local newspapers are disappearing, there is hardly any awareness about local politics either.

  Many unhappy voters have turned to the right and the extreme right. And at least one such extreme right-wing party, the Freedom Party, is highly undemocratic. Its leader, Geert Wilders, is actually the party’s only formal member, which means he is the only one who can make decisions regarding the topics the political organisation will tackle and the positions it will take. This is a true anomaly among Dutch political parties.

  The political landscape is polarising.  After years of consensus politics, the left and right in the Netherlands are increasingly apart. People are locked up in echo chambers, so they resist any information that does not conform to their beliefs and show very little interest in finding common ground. Parties at the centre of the political spectrum are struggling, and are increasingly accommodating language from the extremes, and especially from the extreme right. The landscape is highly fragmented. A record number of 81 contenders, many of them single-issue parties, registered to compete in the national elections that took place in March 2017. Thirteen of those parties made it to Parliament, making it very hard to reach consensus.

  A major issue of current democratic tension in the Netherlands is focused on referendums. Over the past few years, referendums were introduced at the local and national levels. Almost all votes so far have resulted in wins for anti-establishment forces. In the first national referendum that took place the Netherlands, in April 2016, two-thirds of voters rejected the European Union accession treaty with Ukraine. As a result, the ruling coalition decided to put an end to referendum opportunities at the national level. People are now angry about the government’s unwillingness to follow up on the referendum results as well as about the decision to suspend referendums.   

  2. Has the practice of democracy in the country changed (for better or worse) over the past few years?

  More than with democracy, I think that the problem in the Netherlands is with human rights. 

  When talking about human rights in our country, you always have to start by saying that the Netherlands is not China, and that we are doing better than Rwanda and Uganda. There is a general feeling that human rights are something for other countries to be concerned with and it all comes down to issues of such as the death penalty and torture. But that is not what Eleanor Roosevelt and her colleagues meant when they drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are about many other things as well, including housing, schooling, education - a minimum standard for basic rights, in every country. 

  The Dutch mind-set towards human rights is actually very contradictory, as Dutch people also tend to be pioneers and innovators. I think it is very un-Dutch to consider the human rights status quo as good enough, and to settle for an increasing mediocrity. While holding firm to the feeling that human rights are an issue for other countries, it is worth noting that Rwanda is now scoring better in terms of women’s equality and Uganda now scores better in terms of human rights education than the Netherlands. While the Netherlands is actively involved in bringing human rights to other countries, Dutch school kids score very low in terms of their knowledge of human rights.

  At the same time, human rights have increasingly become an issue of political contestation. Political parties right and centre have openly criticised human rights and human rights treaties. They have even fought the Dutch constitution on this. The new government, established after the latest elections, is now investigating how to get rid of refugee treaties. A coalition of Dutch civil society organisations (CSOs) has recently concluded that in the past five years the human rights situation in the Netherlands has deteriorated. The victims of this deterioration have been not only refugees and Muslims living in the Netherlands, but also ordinary Dutch citizens. Human rights are about rights for all; the power of human rights is that they are all important. There are no left-wing human rights and right-wing human rights. Let us stick to that.   

  3. In which ways have the recent elections altered the political and ideological landscape? Has the political conversation deteriorated as a result of the challenge posed by Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party?

  There is a major international misconception that the extreme right lost the Dutch elections. This is wishful thinking. In reality, Geert Wilders’ party increased its presence in the Dutch Parliament, from 12 to 20 seats. Moreover, a new extreme right-wing party, the Eurosceptic and nationalistic Forum for Democracy, also won two seats in the Dutch Parliament. Leftist parties have become very small in comparison to their past selves.

  At the same time, parties at the centre have increasingly accommodated language from the extreme right, so the public conversation has definitely changed for the worse. Even in the left, among social democrats, there are voices calling for ignoring refugees’ basic rights. The Christian-Democratic Party is obsessed with winning back political power, and references to exclusion have therefore become vital to their political strategy. It is going to be hard – not to say impossible – for these parties to return to their traditional positions and, in fact, to their core ideologies. But of course that there are still some good people with a heart for human rights within those parties, and we should work with them to make things better.

  4. What is progressive civil society doing, and what should it do, to resist the rise of authoritarian, isolationist populism?

  The major current challenge for Dutch civil society is to bridge differences and to start working together. In the past, many CSOs have focused on competition rather than cooperation, and on their own cause rather than the general cause. I have a feeling that this is changing, and that is for the best. CSOs can all contribute to a cause from their own experience and skills, as long as we share an agenda. An interesting trend in Dutch civil society, as well as at the international level, is that new CSOs tend not to focus exclusively on themes anymore, but rather on specific skills and assets. As a civil rights organisation, for instance, Kompass focuses on using lobbying experience and techniques to advance human rights. There is another new organisation in our country that focuses on litigation. We need to cut internal discussions short, and start working on outreach. 

  It is important to note that CSOs are setting the agenda again: that civil society is being able to frame issues rather than just respond to issues put forward by other actors. We have some things to learn from the (extreme) right, who have managed to communicate a clear message through their own media, as well as through the mainstream media. It is important for us to take a position, and not appear as indifferent.

  At the same time, it is important to avoid taking a high moral ground. Actively seeking polarisation will bring us nowhere. The election result was clear, and the fact that so many people abandoned progressive and left-wing parties needs serious consideration. Parties that criticise human rights treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights now have a majority in Parliament; it is important to take stock of this. Polarisation might be useful to bring together very leftist or progressive groups, but it will alienate many others, even those in the centre. It is important to find a common ground: to persuade rather than accommodate or win discussions.

  What we can learn from commercial lobbying is how to build political support among parties that do not necessarily agree. In the past, some CSOs were of the opinion that they had a role in raising problems, but that it was politicians’ job to come up with a solution. That approach just does not work in the current political setting and climate. We do not need to create moral upheavals, but to propose concrete solutions and actions. The reason why companies are spending such enormous amounts of money on lobbying is that it works. We need to learn from what they are doing.

  • Civic space in the Netherlands was recently downgraded from ‘open’ to ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that rates the conditions for civil society in every country in the world. This downgrade was influenced by increasing infringements of protest and expression rights and a rise in hate-inducing and harmful speech during the election.
  • Get in touch with Kompass through theirwebsite orFacebook page, or follow @KompassNL on Twitter
• INTELLIGENCE ARTIFICIELLE : « Il doit y avoir un équilibre entre la promotion de l’innovation et la protection des droits »

  CIVICUS parle avec Nadia Benaissa, conseillère en politique juridique chez Bits of Freedom, sur les risques que l’intelligence artificielle (IA) fait peser sur les droits humains et sur le rôle que joue la société civile dans l’élaboration d’un cadre juridique pour la gouvernance de l’IA.

  Fondée en 2000, Bits of Freedom est une organisation de la société civile (OSC) néerlandaise qui vise à protéger les droits à la vie privée et à la liberté de communication en influençant la législation et la politique en matière de technologies, en donnant des conseils politiques, en sensibilisant et en entreprenant des actions en justice. Bits of Freedom a également participé aux négociations de la loi de l’Union européenne sur l’IA.

  Quels risques l’IA fait-elle peser sur les droits humains ?

  L’IA présente des risques importants car elle peut exacerber des inégalités sociales préexistantes et profondément ancrées. Les droits à l’égalité, à la liberté religieuse, à la liberté d’expression et à la présomption d’innocence figurent parmi les droits touchés.

  Aux Pays-Bas, nous avons recensé plusieurs cas de systèmes algorithmiques violant les droits humains. L’un de ces cas est le scandale des allocations familiales, dans lequel les parents recevant des allocations pour la garde de leurs enfants ont été injustement ciblés et profilés. Le profilage a surtout touché les personnes racisées, les personnes à faible revenu et les musulmans, que l’administration fiscale a faussement accusés de fraude. Cette situation a entraîné la suspension des allocations pour certains parents et prestataires de soins, ainsi que des enquêtes hostiles sur leurs cas, ce qui a eu de graves répercussions financières.

  Un autre exemple est le programme de prévention de la criminalité ‘Top400' mis en œuvre dans la municipalité d’Amsterdam, qui profile des mineurs et des jeunes afin d’identifier les 400 personnes les plus susceptibles de commettre des délits. Cette pratique affecte de manière disproportionnée les enfants des classes populaires et les enfants non-blancs, car le système se concentre géographiquement sur les quartiers à faibles revenus et les quartiers de migrants.

  Dans ces cas, le manque d’éthique dans l’utilisation d’outils d’intelligence artificielle a entraîné une immense détresse pour les personnes concernées. Le manque de transparence dans la manière dont les décisions automatisées ont été prises n’a fait qu’accroître les difficultés dans la quête de justice et de redevabilité. De nombreuses victimes ont eu du mal à prouver les préjugés et les erreurs du système.

  Existe-t-il des tentatives en cours pour réglementer l’IA ?

  Un processus est en cours au niveau européen. En 2021, la Commission européenne (CE) a proposé un cadre législatif, la loi sur l’IA de l’Union européenne (UE), pour répondre aux défis éthiques et juridiques associés aux technologies de l’IA. L’objectif principal de la loi sur l’IA de l’UE est de créer un ensemble complet de règles régissant le développement, le déploiement et l’utilisation de l’IA dans les États membres de l’UE. Elle cherche à maintenir un équilibre entre la promotion de l’innovation et la protection des valeurs et des droits fondamentaux.

  Il s’agit d’une occasion unique pour l’Europe de se distinguer en donnant la priorité à la protection des droits humains dans la gouvernance de l’IA. Cependant, la loi n’a pas encore été approuvée. Une version a été adoptée par le Parlement européen en juin, mais il reste encore un débat final - un « trilogue » - à mener entre la Commission européenne, le Conseil européen et le Parlement européen. La Commission européenne s’efforce d’achever le processus d’ici la fin de l’année afin qu’il puisse être soumis à un vote avant les élections européennes de 2024.

  Ce trilogue a des défis considérables à relever pour parvenir à une loi sur l’IA complète et efficace. Les questions controversées abondent, y compris les définitions de l’IA et les catégories à haut risque, ainsi que les mécanismes de mise en œuvre et d’application.

  Qu’est-ce que la société civile, y compris Bits of Freedom, apporte à la table des négociations ?

  Alors que les négociations sur la loi se poursuivent, une coalition de 150 OSC, dont Bits of Freedom, demande instamment à la CE, au Conseil et au Parlement d’accorder la priorité aux personnes et à leurs droits fondamentaux.

  Aux côtés d’autres groupes de la société civile, nous avons activement collaboré à la rédaction d’amendements et participé à de nombreuses discussions avec des membres des parlements européen et néerlandais, des décideurs politiques et diverses parties prenantes. Nous avons fermement insisté sur des interdictions concrètes et solides, telles que celles concernant l’identification biométrique et la police prédictive. En outre, nous avons souligné l’importance de la transparence, de la redevabilité et d’un mécanisme de réparation efficace dans le contexte de l’utilisation des systèmes d’IA.

  Nous avons obtenu des résultats significatifs en matière de plaidoyer, notamment l’interdiction de l’identification biométrique en temps réel et a posteriori, une meilleure formulation des interdictions, des évaluations obligatoires de l’impact sur les droits fondamentaux, la reconnaissance de droits supplémentaires en matière de transparence, de redevabilité et de réparation, et la création d’une base de données obligatoire sur l’IA.

  Mais nous reconnaissons qu’il y a encore du travail à faire. Nous continuerons à faire pression pour obtenir la meilleure protection possible des droits humains et à nous concentrer sur les demandes formulées dans notre déclaration au trilogue de l’UE. Celles-ci tendent vers l’établissement d’un cadre de redevabilité, de transparence, d’accessibilité et de réparation pour les personnes touchées par ces enjeux, et à la fixation des limites à la surveillance préjudiciable et discriminatoire exercée par les autorités nationales chargées de la sécurité, de l’application de la loi et de l’immigration. Elles s’opposent ainsi au lobbying des grandes entreprises technologiques en supprimant les lacunes qui sapent la réglementation.

  Le chemin vers une réglementation complète et efficace de l’IA est en cours, et nous restons déterminés à poursuivre nos efforts pour faire en sorte que le cadre législatif final englobe nos demandes essentielles. Ensemble, nous visons à créer un environnement réglementaire en matière d’IA qui donne la priorité aux droits humains et protège les personnes.

  ---

  Contactez Bits of Freedom sur sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook, et suivez@bitsoffreedom sur Twitter.