“It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks”

Acts 9: 5-6

The prick in biblical times was the wooden spike used to goad the oxen to plough the field. If the ox resisted, the spike would be applied a little harder. More resistance, more pain.

This remarkable cabinet formation process has now reached the point where everything hinges on the outlook of the Christian Democrats. The upcoming party congress will effectively decide whether the leadership’s decision to work with the PVV – even if they are not actually together in government – can go ahead. One can be cynical - party congresses, heavily manipulated and passaged, rarely overturn decisions already taken, especially if power is in the offing. But the divisions within the party for and against are very real. The enforced silence surrounding the cabinet talks, preventing any hint of what concessions Wilders may be forced to make, only heighten the tension and further emphasise the issue as one of principle not policy.

The party has not had to delve this deep into its soul since its first period in government (1977-81), when seven CDA ‘loyalists’ professed their aim to support the VVD-CDA cabinet so long as it stayed true to the christian principles of their party. Unusually, international politics were central in this, concerning the use of nuclear weapons and their place in Dutch (Western) security policy.  

Will there be CDA ‘loyalists’ in 2010? It is quite possible. A VVD-CDA minority cabinet (54 seats) with support from the PVV (24 seats) reaches a parliamentary majority of one, slim enough to collapse on matters of principle. But there is more than principle at stake here, despite the claims of the original loyalists interviewed in Trouw yesterday, and despite the CDA petitioners who associate cooperation with the PVV with undermining constitutional rights, such as the freedom of religion. The 1970s loyalists were determined not to split the party, and played their principled game always with that in mind. The current situation is much more unstable.

Wilders has been very successful in taking voters away from the CDA, as the election results in Limburg – Verhagen’s backyard – fully demonstrated. And the CDA’s success in attracting support from cultural minorities is now threatened by its apparent preparedness to sell their rights down the river. When Fortuyn came on the scene in 2002 he took votes from the VVD and the PvdA, with CDA as the safe haven for the undecided voter wanting stability. Now the CDA has lost that vote-winning haven. An optimist would say the VVD has temporarily become the safe bet, which CDA will regain in time. Playing the constitutional card will wake up the sensitive citizen and they will ‘do the right thing’ next time around. A pessimist on the other hand would speculate that Dutch voting behaviour has become so volatile that the whole notion of ’safe havens’ is no longer relevant. (needless to say, the notion of safe havens and Dutch politics is an uncomfortable combination at present, as the recent decision by the state prosecutor to investigate the Dutch military’s association with the Serb destruction of Srebrenica and Goradze painfully brought home). 

[From World Elections]

The CDA is therefore caught in a vice. Following its own regent-like identity and choosing for government means risking introducing painful public spending cuts and potentially losing more ground to a ‘blameless’ PVV. Rejecting this option means occupying the opposition benches with a rowdy PVV out to score points at any opportunity. The only way ahead, the gamble of Verhagen, is that this whole cabinet formation process will force the normalisation of the PVV, reforming its agenda, and reducing its support as a protest movement.

A chance meeting with a PVV-voting acquaintance a couple of days ago offered an opportunity to delve a little into this scenario. (for your information – being still on holiday, I did not want to talk politics. He brought it up, knowing full well we occupied different standpoints). The person in question, a former dyed-in-the-wool VVD’er turned Fortuynist, brough a whole new and rather scabrous meaning to the idea of kicking against the pricks. Two issues dominated the discussion. One was the lack of democracy within the PVV itself. My point that the party only contains two members, and that this control-freakery would surely complicate things should Wilders have to tolerate a PVV minister other than himself, was brushed aside as an irrelevant detail. Lack of members wouldn’t affect how they govern, and anyway ‘Wilders had a list of ministers in his back pocket already on 10 June’ was the answer (so we were told was my silent reply). The second issue was the intriguing nature of the PVV’s left + right agenda: Anti-immigration and defence of the health system. If the PVV wins out on some of its rightist demands, won’t it lose support from the lower incomes if in return it caves in to the VVD’s heavy public spending cutbacks? Isn’t the Verhagen strategy correct?

The answer to this was the clincher. Oh, does Wilders demand fewer cutbacks? My PVV-supporting acquaintance claimed to lack the figures and didn’t know. It was late by then and a couple of glasses of wine led me to utter the word ‘bollocks’, realising quickly it was time for bed. But the cat was already out of the bag. 

Wilders’ appeal may indeed come from parts of his agenda. But it comes above all from his prime-time media-orientated ability to raise mayhem at every turn. So the PVV agenda is contradictory? So a lack of party members means Wilders has to search for funding abroad? So the PVV has no members in the First Chamber of parliament? You can go on and its always missing the point. He may well be ex-VVD, a member of parliament since 1997, a Hague insider, but he’s staked his entire identity on ripping it all up. Why else would support for the PVV go up after he abandoned his stance on defending the pension age at 65? Because pensions are irrelevant. What counts is calling the bluff of his political enemies who think he leads a ‘normal’ party with a ‘normal’ support base. Giving the finger to the CDA and the PvdA counts more for GW supporters than running a coherent programme.

Dutch parliamentary expert Henk te Velde may think there’s no tradition of populism in the Netherlands, but I beg to differ. There has always been an undercurrent of resistance within a (generally) well-run country of regents and monarchs, and this occasionally bursts out into the open. Since WW II the Provos would be a fine example, as would the squatter movement in the 70s and 80s. Ok, I’m stretching things to link anarchic social movements with an anti-establishment ’party’ on the verge of government (probably been reading too much Greil Marcus), but I think there could be something to it. Its not similarity of agenda, its similarity of disdain for established authority. Wilders is turning this into a political art form, and it looks like a big section of the Dutch electorate will follow him whichever way he turns as a result.

Do you feel lucky, punk? [source here]

Quite a week. With Paars Plus buried on Tuesday evening, all eyes returned once more to Palace Noordeinde. Normal practice meant that the party leaders from parliament would once again troupe past the Queen to offer shreds of wisdom and hints of some way forward. Not so. A trio of trusted advisors came and went that evening: First Chamber chairperson Rene van der Linden, Second Chamber chairperson Gerdi Verbeet, and State Council vice-chair Herman Tjeenk Willink. Then at 10 o’clock former minister president Ruud Lubbers arrived as advisor, and left as informateur. Informateur? Lubbers? Time for a new round of comment on the role of the monarchy in the Dutch political system.

The NRC led off today with a piece on Lubbers’ wish that the leaders of the VVD, CDA, and PVV start talking, seriously. He left the door open for a VVD-CDA minority cabinet supported by the PVV from the parliament. Even though this is officially not within his brief. Pragmatism, desperation, take your pick.

Next came Mark Kranenburg and Pieter van Os on p. 3, doing the rounds of the constitution experts to check out if the Queen’s decision was legit. Huib Pellikaan pointed out that it is precisely in times of serious political division that the monarchy’s role is strongest, since the lack of a clear message from the party leaders allows the monarch to choose the path forward. We’ve seen that more than ever since June 9. Lodewijk Rogier added that this is really the last vestige of royal power within the Dutch political system, and therefore it is precisely during these periods that all (critical) attention turns to the Queen’s role. He has a point. Opening supermarkets and launching ships one day, setting the course for the future of Dutch politics the next. For some, it kinda grates.

Rogier then dropped a mega-hint that this problem can only grow. While he (and many) have faith in the qualities of the current monarch, “if this situation occurs with another head of state in the future, then you’ll see that the discussion will turn out differently.” A tough call for Willem Alexander.

But its one thing to focus on the monarchy, and another to consider for a moment that maybe the parliament is quite happy if she takes on this role and saves them from the headache. This point was rammed home, lastly, by the NRC editorial on p. 7. The monarchy maintains this influential role by cabinet formation because the parliament has allowed it to do so. There have been attempts to disrupt it. In 1971 parliament voted in favour of a motion to take over the appointment of the informateur. The legal basis for a democratic, ‘republican’ system exists – but is never used. Earlier this year the parliament once again agreed to discuss the naming of an informateur following the elections. Once again, this option was avoided when the chips were down. Moves to open up debate on a ‘modernisation’ of the monarchy (i.e. complete removal of the monarchy from politics) – as attempted by former D66 leader Thom de Graaf in 2000 – have so far led nowhere. The monarchy clearly still plays a crucial role, because the politicians are not willing to fill the space that would be vacated. Maybe royalty still is at the heart of Dutch national identity and political process. But by default. And if its based on personality not position – for how long?

So where is it all going? The day before the Paars Plus talks collapsed, Geert Wilders popped up with an op-ed – in the NRC ! – that was a translation of his response to the Muslims Debate site that wanted to know ’why he became anti-Islam’. The piece obviously caught a lot of media attention elsewhere – the original English version is available here. Wilders’ big statement before cabinet responsibility? Maybe.

Some trenchant details:

1) the inevitable quote from Churchill (all these right-wing Western civilisation types bring out Churchill, guaranteed every time);

2) Israel is clean and well-run while all Arab states are dirty, poor and chaotic (maybe divide US civil + military aid – $3 to 4bn a year, unconditional – by the Israeli population – 7.5m – and you’ll find out why, Geert).

But the big message of course is that Islam – and the all-powerful but unknowable Allah – takes away individual freedom, to the detriment of all:

“The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.”

A call to freedom! Enough to clear the air and lever his way into the government? Its not a million miles away from Maxime Verhagen’s human rights mantra, after all. Except for some minor details that the CDA might struggle with. Such as Mohammed being referred to as “a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile.”

So the question is – will Maxime swallow this, for the good of the nation? Or will he spit it out – for the good of the nation?

(De Pers, 18-1-2010) 

The parliamentary debate on the cabinet formation this week finally broke the ice on where the main parties really stand in relation to the PVV. Since it was the CDA that held the ‘keys’ to a right-wing majority cabinet, as Wilders put it, it was only fitting that it should be Maxime Verhagen who spelled it out, clear as day. The PVV is a threat to the democratic state. The party’s wish to ban the Koran, introduce a ‘hoofddoekjesbelasting’ and pursue an anti-Islamic foreign policy are dangerously controversial. In March this year Verhagen had already said that the PVV damaged the reputation of the Netherlands abroad. Now he has taken this line a step further.

Verhagen could have done us a favour by saying this more than two weeks ago, but credit to the CDA leader that he finally came out with a statement that puts the whole ‘PVV or no PVV’ deliberations into perspective. Calling these issues a threat to the democratic system also put them beyond discussion in cabinet negotiations. This is not policy, its democratic principle. In short, Verhagen basically named Wilders a pariah, outside of consideration. Having heard Verhagen draw the line, the other party leaders piled in to get an answer from GW. But he was not to be moved. You could almost hear his calculating mind weighing up whether it was worth it to launch an immediate counter-attack, but political prudence saw Wilders stay silent. For now.

Has Verhagen taken a fall for the sake of moving the cabinet formation along? His move was risky but could work out well for the CDA. Having broken the impasse and taken a stand, he may have set out the ground for a CDA revival by launching an appeal on principle to those doubting voters who left them at the polls on 9 June. In this sense he has nothing to lose. But in doing so he is closing out a right-wing cabinet and moving the CDA into the opposition, and that won’t be easy. The CDA is not used to that (since WW II it has only found itself in that position during the Wim Kok years of 1994-2002), and it will be sat next to an awkward, noisy PVV out to score points at any opportunity.

Verhagen’s move also effectively opened the path for the Paars-plus talks to get serious. With the CDA taking the brunt of the PVV, Mark Rutte was completely free to say he had no choice but to work with the Left, which of course he did. It was Wilders’ own fault, after all. GW’s silence was louder than any words. After weeks of dominating debate on the election hustings, he was finally put on the defensive. Verhagen’s move also fits with the court case against Wilders, set to continue this autumn, where he is accused of spreading hatred. A political and legal cordon sanitaire is coming into being, and its being led from the centre, not the left.

The ‘informateur’ Uri Rosenthal announced Friday that the first round of negoations for forming a cabinet were over and he had therefore completed his initial task. The expectation – and the advise of Rosenthal himself – was that two informateurs would be chosen, one representing the VVD and one the PvdA, to enable two-track negoations to continue next week. This would equitably reflect the stand-off between the two largest parties. It also indicated a long second round of talks in the offing.

Today however the Queen, whose task it is (having taken advice) to announce the informateur, pulled a surprise by declaring that there would be only one, and he is from the PvdA – Herman Tjeenk Willink, vice-president of the Raad van Staat (Council of State), the main political advisory body for the monarchy. This is quite a surprise, as it puts the emphasis squarely on a centre-left cabinet or at least a centrist cabinet involving both left and right. Significantly, Tjeenk Willink was informateur once before – in 1994, when Paars I (PvdA-VVD-D66) under Wim Kok came into being. Looks like we could be heading in the same direction.

The party leaders now identified to play a role in the second round – representing VVD, CDA, PvdA, D 66, and GroenLinks – have been invited today to speak with the Queen to discuss the state of play. So no Wilders, who reacted, predictably, that this was a scandal and a total rejection of ‘his’ voters. Since yesterday Maxime Verhagen of the CDA has suddenly shown an interest in taking part in cabinet discussions, after two weeks of holier-than-though sitting on the fence. The entire first round now takes on a sharper image – it was no more than manouevering to ensure that the PVV and Wilders could be shut out. By not including a VVD informateur and therefore not inviting Wilders to discuss matters at the palace, the message of the Queen today was crystal clear. This man Wilders is not ‘one of us’.

Wilders has denounced this ‘cordon sanitaire’, as well he might. What is so weak about this particular exclusionary tactic is that it has been accomplished with no single attempt to attack the PVV’s programme. This is a stupid mistake, mainly on the part of the VVD and the CDA. A head-on declaration of why they do not want to share a cabinet with the PVV on policy grounds would have given a clear message of principal and show where they stand. It would be pretty easy to do so – one really does wonder how many of the PVV voters have read the party’s programme, because its quite an unbelievable document. Instead both VVD and CDA pretended as if they might cooperate, passing the buck back and forth until the first round was over and Uri Rosenthal could report that there was no possibility for a cabinet that included Wilders. This simply gives Wilders all the ammunition he needs to tell his supporters that he’s being unjustly treated.

What makes the politically-tinted decision by the Queen today all the more interesting is the fact that Wilders has already spoken out against the existing political system in the Netherlands which continues to give the Queen an influential role behind the scenes. He favours the Swedish model that would keep the ceremonial aspect of the monarchy but remove them from the serious political scene. I suspect right now he might be thinking more along the lines of outright abolition.

The choice of informateur today, for instance, was not taken by her alone but on advice of others – however, the fact that she went against the advice of the first informateur, Uri Rosenthal, indicates already that something or other was being said and done in the last 24 hours that led to a different outcome. A PvdA informateur in current circumstances is truly a remarkable political decision. The intention of course is that this will narrow down the possibilities for a cabinet and get the job done. But the fear now is that its going to lead to a compromise cabinet either fudging things or being blocked by internal divisions. This is exactly what happened to Paars the fist time round, which led to the dramatic rise of Pim Fortuyn. Paars II could see the same happening with Wilders.   

And if it does, the already shaky ground for the monarchy could take a further jolt.

CDA and VVD were playing funny games last week, each one trying to avoid any sense that they wanted a coalition with Wilders’ PVV, while at the same time trying to shift the blame for not forming such a coalition to the other.  More proof that the establishment parties don’t know what to do with the Wilders phenomenon, and potentially the seeds of their own downfall. Wilders has been on best behaviour since the elections to show that whatever happens, he won’t be the one to blame should the talks collapse. This approach – shrewd, sensible, and exactly focusing on the weakness of the other parties – has succeeded and will almost certainly continue to do so. The most recent opinon poll places the PVV on 28 seats, only one behind the VVD, with Labour and the CDA sinking further. The dangers of closing Wilders out because of his intolerance and prejudice will only heighten his appeal for those who do not think they are heard by the other parties. Something is going on in the land and Wilders is the one who is picking it up.

Two pieces in the NRC this weekend put this situation in an interesting perspective. Many commentators tend to throw the various right-wing parties active (and increasingly successful) across Europe into the same basket to dismiss them all as reactionary xenophobes. True, there are big differences. But the recent success of both Wilders and Bart de Wever’s Flemish nationalists in Belgium has triggered another look. Former EU bureaucrat and NRC editor Derk Jan Eppink - a pure ‘insider’ – sees it as a reaction to the borderless world that we are all supposed to be enjoying, where cultural difference is to be enjoyed not feared, and where every product is available off the shelf or the web thanks to the boundless plenty of free trade: ”In the time of globalisation there is no place for village patriotism.”

Its the classic integration-fragmentation dilemma. Globalisation brings everyone together, but this is only in the eyes of the cosmopolitan elite – others exactly don’t want to be brought together. Its scary, unknown, not tradition, and costly. More and more people have seen their livelihoods and identities exactly undermined and undervalued by this borderless wonderland, whether its the EU or the WTO or some other far-away undemocratic body that seems to have claimed the right to deliver rules and regulations on everything. And because these counter-trends are opposed to the march of progress – more economic interdependence, more cultural integration - they are easily typecast as a kind of hopeless neanderthal reaction which should be either dismissed for their xenophobia or ridiculed for their simplistic conservatism. You don’t have to like this kind of politics, but you shouldn’t turn your back on what is happening either.

This scenario is now playing itself out in The Hague on a small but significant scale. The CDA, the key to a right-wing cabinet with the VVD and the PVV, pretended to go along with this by saying that the other two parties should first sort out a deal and then they would join the discussion. For both VVD and PVV this was useless – why sort out a deal which they would then have to re-negotiate with the CDA? As Wilders said, “you don’t negotiate with an empty chair.” By doing this CDA tried to claim it wasn’t their fault that it broke down. But its as transparent as can be.

The next alternative is the famous Paars-Plus, so named after the Wim Kok governments of the 1990s between Labour, VVD, D 66, with the addition of GroenLinks. But no-one expects this really to come together – the differences are too great, especially on hugely significant areas like public spending cuts, mortgage tax relief, and defence policy, and anyway why would the VVD, the big winner, sit down in a minority with three centre-left parties with mixed results from the elections?  A long and winding road is in prospect.

Not only that but the next issue is what this will do to the PVV. The VVD under Rutte is exactly trying to profile itself as the acceptable rightist alternative to the PVV. Joining all those lefties is hardly the best way to do this and will open up the VVD’s right flank to a surge of new pro-Wilders’ voters in the future. Especially as the cabinet, probably unstable, will try to push through painful spending cuts. The likely scenario then is a major election battle in two or three years time that will pitch principled left versus populist right like never before.

Is there a way out? Professor of political communication Claes de Vreese thinks so, looking at the similarities with the Danish situation. Since 2001 the Liberals and the Conservatives have held minority governments together by arranging for support from within parliament from the nationalist Danks Folkeparti, which held around 12% of the popular vote. By going along with key areas of the Folkeparti’s agenda – tough immigration laws being number one – the other two mainstream parties could rely on a governable situation. The Folkeparti also avoided actual participation in government, which would have undermined their anti-establishment, ‘outsider’ political profile.

Its an interesting option. It would require VVD and CDA to go ahead and form a minority cabinet with only 52 seats, requiring the extra 24 of the PVV to back them from the assembly to hold it together. It would give the PVV a chance to have influence without the responsibility of rule. It would also seriously test them out, because it would prevent a left-dominated cabinet, something which they obviously oppose and so something which they should work to avoid. Would it work, or would Wilders just go for broke and collapse the whole house of cards at the first opportunity? Who knows. But we are in unknown terrain in Europe these days. The UK has its first peacetime coalition since God knows when, Sarkozy chooses ministers from the left, the right, in fact anywhere he wants, and Belgium is about to be confined to the history books. The question is whether the Christian Democrats and the VVD can get a grip on what this would require from themselves to make it work. A cordon sanitaire approach against the PVV – even a pretend cordon sanitaire – is a road to nowhere, if not a road to disaster. Can they look beyond this? As Eppink says, it looks highly unlikely.

The Western Wall…….

In the last televised debate before the Dutch elections on 9 June, the party leaders were asked which country they would fly to if there was a plane ready to go. Several said Brussels, Femke Halsema of GroenLinks said Washington (huh? Oh, to discuss the state of the world with Obama), Emile Roemers of the SP said Berlin (by train, of course). Geert Wilders, as ever setting out his own path, said Israel, because it was a country that deserved support. In the context of the recent mayhem surrounding the Gaza convoys, this answer stood out. But Wilders has good contacts in Israel who support his political movement. Likewise in the United States.

As of this morning, the chances for a Right-wing cabinet in the Netherlands seem to rest with the Christian Democrats. Wilders appears to be genuine in his wish to govern: VVD+PVV+CDA could “become something really fantastic,” as he put it. For such a cabinet to be stable, it would need alongside its majority in the Second Chamber (where it would hold 76 of 150 seats) also a dominant presence in the First Chamber  – where so far Wilders has opted out. No problem – the PVV will participate in First Chamber elections next March, presumably covering that gap. The fact that Wilders is facing a court case in October concerning accusations of promoting hatred and discrimination has been declared to be no obstacle to his entering a cabinet. It looks like his jibe against the Socialist party – that they are always condemned to the opposition and therefore not worth voting for – was more than electioneering. He wants in.

A crucial detail about Wilders’ party, the PVV, is that it only has two official members: himself, and the Friends of the PVV Foundation which he formed as a finance-gathering apparatus. Dutch law states that every party with a membership of 100,000 or more can receive state subsidy. Wilders’ decision to keep his party in his own hands therefore also has severe financial consequences. Someone else aside from the Dutch state has to provide the money. Much of it comes from the US, where Wilders travels regularly. According to the Volkskrant, in 2008 Wilders even changed the statutes of the Foundation to ensure that it could be used to accept donations for legal cases – the grounds of which remain unspecified in the document – that he might be faced with.

The Dutch press has tracked down several of the principal financial sources for the PVV in the US. Two figures stand out: David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes. Horowitz runs the online FrontPage Magazine and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which with an annual budget of around 5 million dollars is an important financier of outlets such as Jihad Watch and Islam critic Robert Spencer. According to the NRC, it was Horowitz who introduced the Dutchman to leading conservative activists Senator Jim DeMint and Dick Cheney´s daughter Liz last year, and brought Wilders into contact with one of his own financiers who is not named.

Pipes is founder of the pro-Israeli Middle East Forum and has long been in favour of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Pipes also formed the Legal Project in 2007 to raise and distribute funds for researchers, journalists, and authors who face legal battles based on their critical statements about Islam – ‘jihad by court’, as they say. Wilders is of course an ideal recipient. In 2009 Pipes managed to round up “an amount in six figures” for Wilders in the USA. Interesting detail is that both Horowitz and Pipes belong to the Right of the Republicans but see Wilders mainly as a useful extension of their pro-Israeli agitating. Horowitz literally said in this article that he couldn’t make the same anti-Islamic comments as Wilders in the US because it would be too dangerous. Then there is the American Freedom Alliance, who honoured Wilders with a reception in the Reagan Library in October 2009. Officially the AFA doesn’t do fund-raising for the PVV. But of course, gatherings such as this are ideal for opening up private channels.

So what of Israel? Vrij Nederland covered that angle in an article last year. Interesting part of the narrative was the trail behind Wilders’ film Fitna, which appeared in many scenes to be a very close (if not identical) copy to the earlier 80-minute documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West, which Horowitz promoted in the US. Financial supporters for the film (which is meant to have cost $400,000) came from the obscure Clarion Fund and the orthodox Jewish religious/cultural organisation Aish HaTorah, based in Jerusalem opposite the Wailing Wall and closely linked to the West Bank settler movement.

In December 2008 Wilders spoke at the Facing Jihad conference in Jerusalem, where he also showed Fitna in Israel for the first time. There were few Europeans present, but several US neocons like Pipes and his blog-groupie Pamela Geller. The conference was organised by Arieh Eldad, former Israeli army officer and leader of the extreme right Hatikva party tht places itself on the no-compromise right of Benjamin Netanyahu. For these groups the West Bank should be emptied of Palestinians, who can leave to neighbouring Arab states, to ensure a secure Jewish nation – a crucial part of the global struggle against the Islamic threat. Financial support for the conference came from the Ariel Center for Policy Research, a base for the anti Peace Process hawks in Israeli politics, who propagate their views via the publication Nativ.

These links are all the more remarkable because during his time as a member of the VVD (prior to 2004) Wilders followed the line of that party – sympathy for Israel but critical of any moves that would disrupt chances for lasting peace. Wilders even spoke out against the West Bank wall and the continuing expansion of settlements. But his designs for the PVV as his vehicle to political power demanded a regular sizeable income, and that meant cozying up to the radical anti-Islamic Right. Again according to the Vrij Nederland, showings of Fitna in the US last year came with a $2500 price tag for those wanting to join GW at the top table.

The picture that emerges from these US-Israeli connections is quite revealing because they are not so much on the Right-wing but on the Right-wing of the Right-wing. The Vrij Nederland ended its  article (from October 2009): “With Wilders’ PVV in the government the Netherlands will place itself far outside the mainstream internationally. And that for a country that at the moment still so wants to work with the Big Boys.” The Big Boys of course means the US. The potential consequences for Dutch foreign policy and the Dutch roleand image in the world are mind-boggling.

The Dutch elections produced a big victory for the Right (VVD and PVV collectively gaining 24 seats), the collapse of the Centre (CDA loss of 20 seats), and fragmentation on the Left (PvdA and SP loss of 13, Groenlinks and D 66 gain of 14). The future course of the Netherlands currently rests with the VVD, a party of free-market conservatives who have never enjoyed the position of largest party before. The question being asked constantly is ‘Does Geert Wilders really want to govern or not?’ It is difficult to tell right now if he’s serious or if he’s playing games to end up in the opposition and target the next elections in (two? three? four?) years time when he can mobilise even more discontent across a recession-hit country.

Yet there was one failure on the Right which is worth reflecting on. Rita Verdonk’s Trots op Nederland (TON: Proud of the Netherlands) disappeared without trace in the elections last week, with no seats. 52,735 votes, 0.6% of the total, didn’t add up to anything on the night. This particular populist comet seems to have completely burnt up on trying to enter the parliamentary atmosphere. Rumours that Wilders would invite her to be one of his potential PVV ministers were killed off by a Twitter message from him yesterday.

So what happened to Rita? The Groene Amsterdammer turned its obituary page this week to a brief survey of the rise and fall of TON. Verdonk entered Balkenende’s second cabinet with the VVD in 2003, an unknown civil servant from the provinces who switched from working in the prison system and the mid-levels of the Ministry of Justice to become Minister for Immigration and Integration. In high tempo she went through a metamorphosis to become the hard-talking, straight-walking icon of non-compromise Netherlands: “Not Left, not Right, but straight ahead.”

In August 2003 she set out exactly what she meant: those asylum seekers who had been waiting for a decision on their case since May 1998 or longer could stay in the Netherlands (if they met specific conditions), while 26,000 who did not meet these criteria would be sent back to where they came. Even if they had established themselves in the Dutch workplace and society, and had children attending Dutch schools. It was a draconian measure that brought several cause celebres into the media of families, to all intents and purposes ‘Dutch’, being sent out of the country because their paperwork had never been confirmed by the Dutch state. Iron Rita was on her way.

She followed this up in 2004 and 2006 with new rules for integration and Dutch citizenship, involving special courses (with exams) for all those without permanent residence permits to ensure above all a sufficient knowledge of the language. This was a major change I remember well. A friend working in the asylum seeker world had told me already in 2002 with the coming of Pim Fortuyn that I should get my act together with Dutch citizenship and passport before the proverbial really hit the fan. He was damn right. I had a ten minute chat with a provincial civil servant to show I was half-competent in Dutch, and it was through. Under Verdonk it became a costly process of tests and assessments with no certainty of outcome. The ‘liberal’ Netherlands was changing fast.

Verdonk’s provocative rule-making was both loved and hated in parliament and beyond, and it began to cause waves within the VVD. Then things got out of control in April 2006 when she was implicated in underhand dealings concerning the Dutch citizenship of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then a VVD parliamentary colleague. Hirsi Ali had apparently applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992 using a slightly different name and date of birth, and claiming she was escaping from a forced marriage. This information was already in the public domain via media interviews she had given, but a tv documentary (from the leftist outfit Nova Zembla) homed in on these details deliberately – so it looks – to put Verdonk, the minister who made no exceptions, under pressure. Verdonk had to either abandon her strong stance for her political ally or renounce Hirsi Ali’s citizenship. It was a no choice situation. Hirsi Ali’s days in Dutch politics were over and later that year she moved on to semi-notoriety with the American Enterprise Institute.

Verdonk’s head-on collision with the VVD followed, failing to gain the party leadership in a run-off against Mark Rutte (51% of members’ votes against 46%) and then gaining 620,000 direct votes, 60,000 more than Rutte, in the 2006 national elections. It was clear she would either have to buckle under Rutte’s leadership or surf away on this tide of electoral support. She took her time, first checking within her own party what the chances were, and then, after being required by Rutte not to continue criticising his leadership in public, being expelled from the VVD in September 2007. It was not the kind of clean break that could be used to catapult a new movement, but instead a long-overdue embarrassing finale. Verdonk, determined that her moment had come, announced the arrival of TON already in October.

The early signs looked good. Verdonk capitalised on the need felt by many for a national identity that would differentiate ‘us’ from ‘them’ without any scruples. Opinion polls quickly placed her as a serious political force. But it soon became clear that as a party TON was on shaky ground. Even the financial background of TON’s launch was highly dubious. Her advisor Ed Sinke resigned, later complaining of a farcical organisation and a narcissistic leader who was not in touch with political reality. In late 2008 Verdonk’s (and previously Fortuyn’s) spindocter Kay van der Linde declared that TON was no more than ‘baked air’ (‘gebakken lucht’, a wonderful Dutch expression): ‘one person, no party, no content, no real standpoints, absolutely nothing. And the Netherlands says: I’m prepared to vote for that.’ But ultimately they weren’t. Verdonk’s programme collapsed more and more into a simplistic parody-populism, a mix of popular unease over street crime and government regulation, and dumb identity-politics. The campaign films for the election were quite something. Or worse. Or what about this.

In short, a populist movement is no more. For a while Verdonk picked up the trail left open by Fortuyn’s assassination and looked the most likely to succeed. Fortuyn, Verdonk, and Wilders all have in common that they are/were effectively a one-person party capitalising on popular discontent with the Hague ‘elite’ and compromise politics. In the end Verdonk lacked the skillful manoeuvering of Geert Wilders, who chose his moment to move out on his own instead of being unceremoniously excluded. Once separated from her ministerial position and party, she discovered too late that Wilders, already busy with his own movement from 2004, had already occupied her political space. She tried to convey the same angst, but TON was no more than a dumbed-down version of the PVV. Whatever one makes of the elections last week, I agree with the Groene: “A relief that the voter didn’t buy into it.”

Geert Wilders’ horoscope….

The Holland Bureau site crashed yesterday for some reason, resulting in loss of one post and delayed election coverage. Since there is so much out there right now, no point in duplication and time to let the dust settle.

But I’ll say this. A couple of months ago I was pretty much ridiculed at a conference in Amsterdam for even assuming that Geert Wilders would achieve a position of power come June 9. A typical liberal academic gathering, the PVV was compared to the Tea Party movement in the US and was typecast as a bunch of extreme no-hopers. The mood was cynical, mixed with the strong conviction that Wilders did not want to govern at all, just to cause havoc throwing bottles from the back.

The impression now is quite different. The message at PVV central from the first moment the results came in on wednesday night was that Wilders represented one and a half million Dutch voters, and clearly this constituency wanted to see their man in power. The sense was that Wilders, knowing it was unlikely he would make it into a coalition, was doing a fine piece of rabble-rousing to drive his supporters into an anti-left frenzy should he be shut out. But then today the bombshell – having held fast against the raising of the pension age from 65 to 67, which even the unions had reluctantly agreed to and which Wilders had cleverly used as a means to gain the grey-hair vote, he says now that its not a holy as he made out. He’ll throw it out if its an obstacle to a cabinet position.

Which leads to three conclusions. One is that this reeks of yet more opportunism from a political leader who is three times as savvy as his nearest rivals. Two is that he genuinely does want a ministerial position (and one wonders then if he will allow anyone else from his party also to take a ministerial position – my bet is no). Three is that he’s really taking the rabble-rousing to new heights because he knows its still highly unlikely he’ll reach agreement with the other parties. One is definite. And Two looks more likely than Three at this stage.

Which takes me back to that conference in Amsterdam. What do you think now, guys? Who is ridiculing who?

[For the full-size version on Politiek Barometer click here]

What to make of the Geert Wilders phenomenon? Recent revelations about his candidate list for the upcoming elections in June have cast doubt on his ability to put together a credible political movement.

Case No. 1: Lilian Helder, lawyer in Eindhoven, number three on Wilders’ list. In 2007 Wilders called for an Eindhoven imam, M. Kariman, to be deported due to his radical views. Kariman, who had a controversial record that included discriminating comments about homosexuals to schoolchildren visiting his mosque, ended up in a court case in 2006 because he refused to stop preaching. Defence lawyer for Kariman - Lilian Helder, on two occasions, 2007 and 2009. Huh? Ok, maybe this was a ‘road to Damascus’ moment for the future Wilders side-kick, and the Kariman case exposed to her the failures of weak Dutch multiculturalism. So, next -

Case No. 2: Gidi Markuszower, number five on Wilders’ list. Markuszower, member of the church council for the Dutch-Israeli synagogue in Amsterdam, has called for the council to declare that any jews who defend the Goldstone report should suffer a religious excommunication (cherem) – not welcome in the synagogue, in places of burial, or jewish communities. According to Markuszower the Goldstone report, the UN-sponsored investigation that accuses Israel of criminally excessive use of force in the invasion of Gaza at the end of 2008, is dangerously critical of the country. Wilders’ party stands solidly behind Israel as a force against ‘islamisation’ and the Goldstone report is hardly on their bedtime reading list, but Markuszower’s act has taken this just a tad too far. As De Pers noted, no ‘cherem’ has been declared, as far as anyone knows, since Spinoza was punished for ‘disgraceful heresy’ in 1656. Vrij Nederland added the nice detail that Markuszower was arrested for wandering around with a loaded weapon during celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel in 2008. So, a rampant Zionist, nothing new in the world of Wilders. Next -

Case No. 3: Mellony van Hemert, number nine on Wilders’ list. Van Hemert was listed on the party website as having obtained a PhD on the subject of child abuse. Diligent investigative journalism soon queried this claim, and low and behold, no counter-proof was available from van Hemert. A mistake of the party’s website, said Wilders. Questionable integrity, said the media.

There will no doubt be more of this in the weeks to come. The shift in the Dutch media has been dramatic. For months Wilders could do no wrong, controlling his parliamentarians with an iron fist, ensuring only his statements were reported, able consistently to track the restless public mood. The media followed willingly, part of the Great Game against the established order. And then Job Cohen stepped forward as the successor to Labour leader Wouter Bos. From that day – from that moment on 12 March when Wilders could only retort weakly about Cohen being a ‘tea-drinking multiculti-cuddler’ - the game had changed dramatically.

Wilders runs a very tight ship politically, determined to maintain control over everything. But who wants to join such a movement? The limitations have already been fully apparant in his decision to only run in two locations for the local elections, on the face of it a shrewd move to build a power base but now increasingly exposed as exhibiting a lack of reliable candidates. With Cohen suddenly offering a real alternative to the Bos-Balkenende migraine of recent years, the media has turned to picking away at the details of the Wilders juggernaut, previously unstoppable, now coming apart under the journalistic gaze. Are Helder, Markuszower, and van Hemert indications of a political movement running out of gas (in the form of credible candidates)? Sure, but its hardly big-style corruption. Do they also represent the gleeful media seeking out Wilders’ weaknesses now that the Labour party has produced a credible Leader of the Nation to restore normal political business? Absolutely. But he’s still pulling in more than twenty seats in the polls.

In mid-March Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen reported the results of an opinion survey on how other nations view the Netherlands. The purpose was to discover to what extent the domestic debate over Islam (“het binnenlandse moslimdebat”) was affecting the country’s trade position. The report also included details of the Dutch public diplomacy activities designed to promote positive opinion abroad.

The report makes interesting reading. The starting point is that the Netherlands has for many years held on to a positive image abroad (‘Nederland is een sterke merk’). In terms of recognition and associated values, the country is rated alongside the larger nations of Europe. Simon Anholt’s Nation Brands Index regularly places the Netherlands around position 10, 11, or 12 out of a total list of 50 nations tested. Leaving aside, of course, the dubious merits of a nation brand index, the point here is that a positive image can support the capability to achieve a range of foreign policy goals – in particular in this case the securing of favourable economic deals.

In 2008-2009 the Dutch trademark was tested in 15 countries: Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Egypt, Russia, Turkey, India, Indonesia, China, Brazil, USA. A mix of close European partners, BRICS, and important Islamic countries. Out of this lot the Netherlands received a positive judgement of between 5.9 and 8.3 out of 10. The scores – to the disappointment of the Ministry, were significantly lower in the non-European countries (with the exception of Brazil) than in Europe itself. In Turkey and Egypt the lowest scores were registered for Dutch moral standards and respect for other religions. Tough for the Ministry to take was also the fact that the Dutch are not recognised for being ‘open-minded’ or ‘tolerant’ – hard-working and friendly, yes, but thats as far as it goes. Lastly, the civil servants cannot be surprised to find that no-one regards the Netherlands as playing a leading role in the EU. The days of being one of the original path-finding Six are long, long gone.

Interesting result from the countries with a muslim majority: The values that the Netherlands likes to think it stands for - human rights, international law, international peace, and a reliable partner in international organisations –  are not accepted because they are selectively applied. The significance of this in the wake of the Davids report should not be lost. Likewise the Dutch are seen as predominantly pro-Israel, undermining its position as a credible partner in the Middle East peace process. And the ICC’s call to arrest Sudanese president Al-Basjir has gone down badly as well (the ICC’s location in The Hague placing it within Dutch foreign policy by proxy).

The response of Verhagen to these results was significant, because it didn’t take him long to draw direct links between some of the poor results and the ‘fear and hatred’ politics of Geert Wilders giving the Netherlands a bad name. So Wilders is damaging Dutch export capacity? This angle was explored by the Groene Amsterdammer in an article last week, which gave the word to among others the head of the Dutch employers’ association (Wilders damages the Netherlands “in an amazing way”). Funnily enough, the Groene didn’t have much interest in this approach, and instead focused on the damage to Dutch reputations coming from the impending withdrawal from Uruzgan. Is that going to have a negative effect in muslim countries? Unlikely. But it has in the US. Considering the trade balance with the US as compared with the Middle East, it is clear which is the most important trading partner – and where the Dutch trademark really matters.  

Incidentally, the NRC ran a nice reconstruction of the fall of the cabinet last weekend too. Biggest conclusion – it was complicated. Second conclusion – the crunch came when Verhagen, having obtained the letter from NATO Secretary General Rasmussen requesting an extension of the Dutch mission (with the acquiescence of Wouter Bos), then decided, without discussion, to send the letter to parliament and make it public. That careless attempt to force the issue and make Bos back down before the cameras exploded any trust between the two. So Bos, up to that point willing to find a way out, pulled the plug.

Final conclusion – Verhagen blew it, big time.