Pac-Man politics: eating the rule of law bit by bit
image: Demonstration at the Malieveld in The Hague on 30 November 2025 ('PAIS-Protest'). Photo: ANP Hollandse Hoogte / Phil Nijhuis
Our constitutional democracy is under pressure. Politicians are increasingly bending rules and institutions to their will, often in small steps. PhD candidate Jorieke Manenschijn warns that through a combination of subtle changes we can cross a line without realising it.
The coalition parties in the Netherlands have just unveiled their plans for the coming years in a coalition agreement. That document mentions the words 'rule of law' no fewer than 17 times. The coalition claims it wants to strengthen the rule of law and counter 'threats from home and abroad'. But what does that mean in practice?
Restricting the right to demonstrate
One striking measure is that the coalition wants to restrict the right to demonstrate. This would give mayors more opportunities to intervene, for example by moving a demonstration faster. The coalition also wants criminal offences during a demonstration to face more severe punishment. It is claimed that too many demonstrations get out of hand and disrupt public order 'on a large scale'.
‘Restricting the right to demonstrate also affects peaceful protests.’
Jorieke Manenschijn, a rule-of-law expert who will defend her PHD dissertation on militant constitutionalism this week, argues that this perception is incorrect. ‘It strongly feeds the idea that demonstrations often get out of hand. But protests are held frequently, and the vast majority are peaceful.’
'The riots on the Malieveld are just that: violent riots – not demonstrations. These criminal incidents should be no reason to restrict the right to demonstrate, because that will also affect peaceful demonstrations.'
Manenschijn adds that demonstrating is an important way for citizens to counterbalance the government. 'It's kind of a corrective tool. We vote once every four years and hope that politicians will stick to their plans. When they don’t, demonstrating is an important way to express our dissatisfaction.'
Rule of law decay is often a subtle process
Amending the right to protest shows how politicians can reduce opportunities for dissent in society. The current budget cuts in higher education and public broadcasting also fit into that picture. It remains unclear whether the new coalition cabinet will completely reverse these plans.
‘One measure is not usually a problem — it’s the cumulative effect.’
Yet she warns against using terms like 'anti-rule-of-law' and 'rule-of-law decay' too hastily. In her view, not every change is immediately problematic – a constitutional democracy is allowed to evolve. Cuts in education or media, she argues, are not automatically anti-rule-of-law. There is sometimes a good reason, she says. ‘If more money has to be spent on the defence forces, it may make sense to make cutbacks elsewhere.' But she emphasises that the context of those measures is important. 'If these kinds of cuts go hand in hand with restricting the right to demonstrate, then alarm bells should go off.' Curtailing checks and balances is a well-known strategy employed by authoritarian regimes, she cautions.
Manenschijn points to plans in the Netherlands to ban face-covering clothing at demonstrations. ‘That’s a clear restriction on the right to demonstrate. At certain demonstrations – in the Netherlands too – it can be important to be anonymous. Sometimes, people don’t want to be recognised by their employer, or if they’re protesting against an authoritarian regime. Such a ban would mean that people would be more cautious about taking part in a demonstration.’
According to Manenschijn, the risk lies in the cumulative effect. 'It's never just one or two measures. They might add up to ten or twenty. And only afterwards do you realise that all those measures together have fundamentally changed something. By then, it’s too late.'
Science as countervailing power
It is often difficult for citizens to see when political decisions undermine the rule of law. Manenschijn believes that science has a crucial role to play in this respect. ‘We can say: something’s happening here that doesn’t align with how we’ve agreed to do things in the Netherlands. When citizens think, “This is really important, so maybe a rule can be bent a little?”, we need to explain why rules matter in a constitutional democracy – and why people should pay close attention when those rules are at risk.’
‘Science helps citizens understand what's at stake.’
That is why cuts in the budget for universities can also be a problem, she says. 'Science is an important form of countervailing power that provides citizens with good information, just like the media does. Science helps people understand what policy means for the democratic rule of law, so that citizens can, for example, demonstrate or make different choices when voting in an election.'
Jorieke Manenschijn defends her dissertation ‘Towards a theory of militant constitutionalism’ on 13 February 2026 at 13.00 in the Academy Building. Read the summary of her dissertation and follow the livestream of the defence.