The Dutch expression “soft whenever possible, tough when necessary” seems to indicate the balancing act of Dutch legal and policy professionals when they manage society. Balancing is needed because “possible” and “necessary” are unsettled criteria. The “soft” approach is also visible in Dutch legal culture and is indicated by terms such as pragmatism, tolerance, and tact.

This chapter will argue that the “soft whenever possible” approach is characteristic for Dutch legal culture. After presenting the characteristics of this policy tradition three case studies will be discussed: the approach toward illegal drugs that is strongly influenced by a concern over health, the development of euthanasia that is guided by the willingness to put ourselves in the shoes of those who suffer, and the stubborn paternalism toward divorced parents to take responsibility for their children. The last example is the exception that proves the rule, since it is at odds with the basics of Dutch legal culture.

The Paradoxes of Beleid

Dutch legal culture is fundamentally paradoxical. On the one hand it needs rules, because rules give clarity and legal certainty. At the same time, however, Dutch legal culture tends to be nonlegalistic and pragmatic. Rules should only be applied if they serve a goal, and not for their own sake. The dominant train of thought is that rules cannot cover everything, and compliance needs agreement with the people who are addressed by those rules. The Dutch word beleid covers this characteristic. It is a cultural marker that is difficult to translate. The English term “policy” only partially covers its meaning. The Dutch language dictionary offers contradictory definitions of beleid. On the one hand, it lists that beleid means to manage and administer (besturen) on the basis of facts and expertise, which implies top-down planning (this is the “policy” part). On the other hand, however, it defines the term as a considerate approach (bedachtzaamheid), preferably by hearing all those concerned and giving them a say. These meanings are contradictory: one can either make decisions against the wishes of at least some of those concerned, or one can come to an agreement with mutual consent – which implies nondecisions in the case of a veto or resistance – as if leader and led are on an equal footing.