Local Referendum Practice in the Netherlands and Flanders: Developments, Innovations, and Lessons

Referendums are common citizen engagement tools. Comparative studies highlight considerable variation in how referendums are embedded institutionally, administered procedurally and supported informationally (Setälä & Schiller, 2009; Suteu, 2025). This paper reviews developments and innovations in referendum practice in The Netherlands and Flanders. While neither the Netherlands nor Belgium has a strong national referendum tradition, municipal referendums are recurrent (Rosema, 2009). Their legislative basis varies across jurisdictions, translating into distinct practices. Moreover, recent years have witnessed innovations in referendum legislation, coordination and institutional embedding, prompting renewed scholarly attention to local direct democracy (Wagenaar, 2023). This article compares the evolving and increasingly innovative referendum procedures in the Netherlands and Flanders to identify patterns and transferable lessons across four dimensions: (a) ballot content, (b) expert involvement, (c) use of digital tools and (d) voter information. First, although referendums are commonly binary, one third of Dutch cases presented voters with multiple policy options, such as infrastructural or merger scenarios (Van der Krieken, 2019). More recently, several municipalities, including the city of Amsterdam, have adapted their referendum ordinances to include the possibility of a citizen counter-proposal. Flemish municipalities have experimented with parallel binary questions (Beckers & Billiet, 2009) and citizen counter-proposals (Kern, 2017). We examine how counter-proposals, multi-question and multiple-choice structures are employed to better align referendum outcomes with societal preferences. Secondly, in both jurisdictions it is common practice to consult referendum experts on aspects such as topic eligibility, referendum date, question wording and subsidies. Dutch municipalities each appoint their own referendum commission compromised of 3-5 experts (Van Praag, 2009), whereas Flanders has a central advisory commission, the VAV (Beckers & Billiet, 2009). We contrast the benefits and downsides of these two models. Third, signature collection for citizen-initiated referendums in the Netherlands is increasingly executed through digital means. The transition from paper to digital identification, and their potential parallel existence, is currently a salient issue. Flanders, on the other hand, has experience with digital voting in referendums (Berkvens & Verschuere, 2025). We reflect on the potential and challenges of both applications of digitalisation. Finally, we explore how both regions address concerns about uninformed voters and limited argument exchange. In line with growing academic attention to deliberative linkages (e.g. el-Wakil, 2020; Chambers & Warren, 2025), we assess how voter brochures and public campaign subsidies support informed choice. Though not as developed as in Switzerland, voter brochures are prominent in Dutch municipalities, and societal subsidies are a popular means to enhance information provision, factchecking and debate on the referendum issue. Flanders has witnessed experimentation with neutral information leaflets and municipal platforms aggregating pro and contra arguments. Taken together, these developments resonate with wider international trajectories to render referendums more participatory, informed and procedurally robust. Our comparative analysis offers a state-of-the-art, learning-oriented overview of local referendum practice in the Low Countries, highlighting practical opportunities for democratic innovation and informing scholarly debates. By advancing discussions on evolving referendum models, evidence on participatory designs and conditions for meaningful translocal learning, these findings speak to a broader international audience.