Acceso usuarios
Emiel Geurts, Carla Hoetink
This article examines contested images of ideal parliamentarism and ‘parliamentary honour’ in the Dutch House of Representatives between 1840 and 1910. It does so by analysing a unique historical dataset of personal statement procedures (persoonlijk feit) invoked by parliamentarians who felt insulted, intended or not, by a previous speaker. Throughout the period at hand, many such personal statements revolved around clashing notions of what parliament entailed and outlooks on political representation. What did Members of Parliament expect of each other in terms of style and focus of representation, the purpose of debate, and the role of constituencies? And how did these expectations shift over time? This article asserts that in the nineteenth century, personal statements were used to challenge the dominant Liberal notion of what was deemed proper to discuss in parliament. By contrast, the early twentieth century saw a shift in the usage of the personal statement from challenging the content of parliamentary politics to its form in a period of greater proximity between parliamentarians and their constituency.
