The revelation in a tv documentary on Monday night that Maxime Verhagen wanted to mobilise the AIVD to find out about Geert Wilders’ plans with Fitna has kicked up a major storm in parliament this week. The opposition has been busy peppering the cabinet with demands for an explanation. Yet somehow the words ‘storm’ and ‘teacup’ come to mind. And Wilders himself has remained pretty much out of sight.

On Tuesday the parliament demanded a response from Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner, but he adopted the classic ‘neither confirm nor deny’ approach, and gave the usual rejoinder that all matters discussed by the ministerial council and concerning the AIVD are secret and shall remain so. But any opportunity to undermine the cabinet is worth seizing, so we had the spectacle of Tofik Dibi (Groenlinks), Alex Pechtold (D66), and Jeroen Recourt (PvdA) falling over themselves to table questions and haul Donner back to parliament for further interrogation on Thursday.

Dibi wants the CITVD to investigate, because after all MPS should be allowed to express their views freely and if necessary should receive the protection of the security services to do so. Pechtold thought this was a cheap shot, instead demanding that Donner and Verhagen walk the plank while facing a barrage of criticism from the irate opposition. Recourt protested that this was evidence of an undermining of the democractic system – ‘Nixon-like practices’, for which Nixon (read: Verhagen) had to resign. All three of them then joined forces to submit a list of 11 questions for Donner and Verhagen, including the following: Can you provide an overview of the members of parliament who have been eavesdropped or surveilled by the intelligence services? If not, why not?

What is going on? Firstly this is not only an opportunity for more cabinet-bashing, but more specifically Maxime-bashing, the real entertainment for a large section of the parliament (including a large chunk of his own Christian Democrats). So far Donner has taken the flak, and on Thursday he responded true to form (plenty of outraged indignation etc). Secondly this seems to be yet another chance for taking the AIVD down a peg or two, it being a popular target for those afraid that the ‘secret state’ is forever undermining the democratic system. Others disagree – aivdwatch has pointed out that we need the AIVD to watch out for serious breaches of democratic protocol, as the case of Wilders’ PVV colleague Gidi Markuszower illustrated not so long ago. And Roelof Bouwman has reminded us that not so long ago members of the Communist party, the Pacifist Socialists, even the Farmers party were regular targets for security service surveillance as ‘threats to the state’.   

Wilders, of course, has been here before – back in 2007 the Telegraaf printed a story, leaked from the AIVD, about Wilders’ visits to the Israeli Embassy which triggered a list of questions from GW  himself for the then Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst. The Minister denied the allegations but refused to go any further than that. Vrij Nederland (among others) jumped in to question the right of the AIVD to leak judgements on a politician’s loyalty to the press.

So four years ago the Left backed Wilders against the security service, saying he should be allowed to visit the Israelis any time he wants. In 2011 the Left again backs Wilders on suggestions of surveillance of his Fitna project, even though the security service clearly rejected this task. GW as an unjust target of state power? Do Dibi, Pechtold and Recourt really know what they are doing?

[Results of an online poll run by Spits, after PVV MP Fleur Agema had suggested in 2009 that police should shoot at rioting (Moroccan) youth]

In this day and age, we are (unfortunately) becoming used to the dodgy wheeling and dealing of elected politicians and the way they ‘bend’ the law for their own gain. One might say these forms of corruption have been there since the dawn of democracy, but there does seem to be a trend that makes recent  years stand out. There is a connection between how electorates are becoming less loyal to particular parties, less tolerant of mis-management,  less trusting of official messages, and the declining attractiveness of the political profession for career-minded individuals. The expense-fund scandal that tainted almost every MP in the House of Commons last year is just one example of a wider malaise (although the master stroke of this story was Private Eye shifting the focus on to the Barclay brothers, the tax-haven millionaire owners behind the Telegraph‘s pious ranting over MP’s expenses, exposing the exposers as it were). Why take endless media-hyped flack in the public eye when the commercial sector will pay five times as much? What is public service worth these days, when the ability of governments to really change things – witness the inability to deal with the causes of the financial crisis instead of the consequences – is so limited? Why become a politician?

This last question has a special significance in the Netherlands at the moment. The CDA-VVD coalition, supported from the assembly by the PVV, rests, with 76 seats, on a slim 1 seat majority. And that majority is now apparently on the skids because one of the PVV’s MPs, Eric Lucassen, was convicted of sexual harrassment while serving in the army. In 2002 Lucassen, then an instructor at the military training school in Ermelo, was one of 10 soldiers convicted of trading diplomas for sex with female trainees. He took the case to appeal, but it was rejected. Now the case has come to light, and Wilders, the politician who wants more police on the streets and a no-tolerance approach to law and order, has a serious problem in his own backyard. If Wilders requires Lucassen to withdraw from parliament, the majority can only be stitched together with the help of the two MPs from the hard-core Calvinist SGP.  

What was clear was that Wilders, the man who usually wraps the media around his little finger, was for once put on the back foot by the sudden negative attention: “This is not the way that you want to attract publicity as a party” he said, with a weekend of head-scratching and escape-hatching before him. For he knows that his decision on the Lucassen case could have far-reaching consequences not just for the coalition, but also for his party as a credible political faction. Meanwhile Rutte exuded confidence as usual yesterday - while his first cabinet might potentially be on the rocks already, his main political competitor was the one feeling the squeeze.

The way Wilders seems for once to be running away from the media instead of facing them down is quite exceptional, as this newscast shows:

No party is squeeky clean, but the Lucassen case is just the latest in a remarkable series of events surrounding Wilders’ political colleagues. And here we are not talking not only corruption, but also violence. The PVV Honour Roll:

Dion Graus: a whole dossier of legal cases, disputes, accusations, unpaid bills, false declarations, violence, and doctored CVs. And that was after he became an MP in 2006.

Hero Brinkman: Notorious for challenging the lack of democracy within the PVV -  and for allegedly using violence to obtain a beer at the parliament’s press centre in September 2009.

Marcial Hernandez: Spent the night in a police cell in September 2010 after head-butting a civil servant in a pub brawl in The Hague. The case remains open.  

Gidi Markuszower: Was fifth on the PVV electoral list, but withdrew in April this year due to negative publicity. Then Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin had informed Wilders that Markuszower was “a risk to the integrity” of the Netherlands, referring in cryptic language to the fact that the prospective MP had been in contact with a foreign intelligence service. Since Markuszower had been cautioned for possessing a firearm during a celebration for the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel in 2008, it seems clear who the foreign intelligence service was.

Mellony van Hemert: Was ninth on the PVV electoral list, but withdrew in April this year due to revelations over her false claim to be a psychologist and doubts over the truthfulness of a book she intended to publish on a notorious murder case.

Arjan Brogt: Was 34th on the PVV list, but withdrew in April this year after he was forced by a judge to repay 1500 Euro from false declarations he had submitted while member of a student association.

Jhim van Bemmel: irregular financial transactions surrounding the closure of his business New Tech Partners.

After the clear-out in April, when three of the above were purged from the party candidate list, Wilders must have hoped that the PVV wagon would hold together. But the reputation of Graus, Hernandez, and now Lucassen are raising new doubts. It is not known exactly how Wilders checks potential PVV candidates. In contrast to other parties, where individuals rise up through the committees and the caucuses, the PVV was thrown together rapidly, clearly without the benefit of major checks. It is up to each party to check out their candidates, no-one else. Hence the way in which this new case reflects strongly on Wilders’ management style.

Despite his conviction, it is not compulsory that Lucassen withdraws from parliament. After all, his party boss is in the dock these days as well, for inciting hatred. Perhaps Wilders will manage to turn this one around as well. But in contrast to his usual split-second political manipulations, this one is giving him a real headache. HP / De Tijd added to the mix over the weekend by throwing in one of those useless but nevertheless provocative statisitcs that journalists sometimes dig up: At present 20% of the PVV parliamentarians have been involved in criminal activities, a figure higher than the 13.8% of Moroccan youths who have seen the wrong side of the law in ‘problem-town’ Gouda. As of Monday afternoon, Wilders is still yet to react in full to the Lucassen affair.

[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.