Buitenweg benadrukte in haar speech dat de Groenen niet met simpele antwoorden moeten komen op complexe problemen, zoals populistische partijen plegen te doen. Wel moeten de problemen en antwoorden in heldere en eenvoudige woorden naar buiten worden gebracht.
Hier de integrale tekst van de speech van Buitenweg (in het Engels).
May 18, 2002
Dear Green friends,
Its been a long and alienating two weeks for the Dutch Greens. Many of you have followed the events in the Netherlands via the media, and I think it is therefore appropriate to give here some clarifications. The sad and worrying outcome of the Dutch elections screams for a comparison with the outcome of elections in other countries. When comparing it to France for example, it seems clear that right and left populism is winning, and that the social-democratic project needs serious elaboration. One could also look at Denmark, Italy and Austria, but it shouldnt be forgotten that the Dutch election was in many ways also specific.
September 11, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. May 6, the murder of Pim Fortuyn. Uncomparable, but it seems sure that these two events have had an electoral impact.
The 11th of September has contributed to a sense of insecurity in our societies, which, all over Europe, seems to benefit the parties that are perceived as the champions of internal security and a one-sided repressive approach to crime. The sudden worries about islamic fundamentalism changed the nature of the already ongoing debate on the multicultural society. Increasing polarisation created favourable conditions for the anti-migration and anti-islamic rhetoric of right-wing populist, such as Pim Fortuyn.
Also, and this is more specific, it seems that the weakness of the ruling purple coalition has made the country particularly vulnerable to politics-as-entertainment, populism and xenophobia. Purple had long turned grey, and many people didnt feel represented. The constituent parties social-democrats, conservative liberals and progressive liberals - no longer had a common project, after they resolved the problems of unemployment and budget deficits or at least claimed to have done so. These parties were also unable to define credible new projects of their own, in order to convince the voters that it mattered which one of them would get their vote. The social-democrats in particular have made the same mistake as Jospin in France: in trying to attract voters from the middle range of the political spectrum, they ended up with too bleak a profile. I am also convinced that it is a mistake to make issues of the right, such as repression of crime, the core of the campaign of a left-wing party. People will vote for the real thing. The left-wing or green approach to crime should not be a pale version of right-wing discourse, but a different approach, which does justice to the complex nature of the problem and is embedded in a wider vision of society.
There is a lot to say about Pim Fortuyn. He was a very good debater, could simplify things, and became the ultimate media-hype. He was extravagant, explicitly gay, anti-establishment, but also in many ways conservative, authoritarian, and longing back to the simplicity of life and society of the fifties. Fortuyn was not himself a racist. But he clearly mobilised xenophobic sentiments. We were worried about his enormous popularity and his provocative style, and have taken a strong stand against his ideas. In the midst of the most exiting and polarised election campaign since years, Pim Fortuyn was shot. The first political assassination in The Netherlands since 1672 put the country in a state of shock, grief and anger. The funeral ressembled the burial of Princess Diana, and many people felt that their only hope in politics had been killed. According to them, freedom of expression was apparently no longer possible, due to the political correctness of the Left. So the social-democrats, GroenLinks and the progressive liberals are accused of having demonised Fortuyn. Many of Fortuyns followers continue to say that the left contributed to a political climate in which the idea of murdering him could spring to the killers mind. Hate mail and other threats have reached a point where it is necessary to surround prominent politicians, including our own party leader Paul Rosenmöller, by several bodyguards a very unusual phenomenon in Dutch politics.*
To our great bewilderment, the accusation that the left was indirectly responsible, was echoed by part of the Dutch press and intelligentsia. However ridiculous, this accusation clearly has cost us votes. GroenLinks lost about three percent in the last week before the elections, and ended up with a slight loss, in comparison to the 1998 elections. One can be proud that we have not been halved as other parties were in the swing to the right. But our expectations were higher. The polls promised 10%. And it is from this perspective a disappointing result.
The fear of further polarisation and the chaos within the ranks of Fortuyns party has made many voters decide in the last minute to vote for the christian-democrats, as a beacon of stability. Their score of 28% is a curious reward for years of powerless opposition and a silent election campaign. Fortuyns party obtained a staggering 17% - which means that no less than 26 of his political heirs will make their entry into parliament.
The combined result of condolence votes for Fortuyn and stability votes for the christian-democrats is, as I said, a huge sway to the right in the Dutch parliament. Christian-democrat leader Balkenende will now have a pivotal role in the formation of the next Dutch government, which most likely will be a coalition with the List Pim Fortuyn and the conservative liberals. The last suffered a painful loss, but the party is indispensable for a right-wing majority.
Of course, a right-wing government including the political heirs of
Fortuyn is a grim prospect, both for The Netherlands and for Europe. For once we hope that European Commissioner Bolkestein is right. The senior conservative liberal pointed to the chaos within the Fortuyn party and
predicted that such a coalition will not live long. We will have new
elections within a year, according to Bolkestein.
Are there lessons to be learned from the Dutch election tragedy? I think there are. I dont pretend to have an exhaustive list of solutions on how to get across the green alternative. It would also be strange to have figured out the way to the future in only three days after the elections. The antipolitical nature of populist politics requires special analysis and thinking. But two remarks I would like to make already now.
Migration and the multicultural society feature high on the electoral agenda. We should seek the debate also with people who express the negative sentiments on the street, including right-wing populist parties. Especially because of our position that migration is an inevitable or even desirable consequence of globalisation, we have to acknowledge and respond to the tensions that can arise in multicultural societies, for instance when people cannot communicate with each other. Our realistic appreciation of migration obliges us to take the lead in inventing and promoting ambitious integration policies, as the German Greens already have done.
It is not only migration, but also other aspects of globalisation which foster a sense of insecurity. The world is changing fast, and people dont feel they have a grip on it. This lends some attraction to simple nationalistic solutions. The illusionary promise that cross-border problems can be solved without international and European cooperation, but by closing the borders, is part of the anti-European discourse of all populist parties. The answer is not to respond with simple Green solutions, though it would help if we manage to put our ideas to the forefront in simple wordings. But we have an obligation to win back the decision-making power of the electorate. If we are convinced that only as Europeans, we can influence the course of globalisation, we should show that it is possible to regain on a European level the democracy and accountability that has leaked away from the national level, or rather; from national parliaments to the national executives and their secret European gatherings. We should clearly point out why, for instance, the British idea to have an EU president appointed by the national governments is totally unacceptable. Public accountability, parliamentary control would disappear from European decision-making. Remember that one extra reason why the Dutch social-democrats lost half of their votes last Wednesday was the perception, not unfounded, that they had become a small and powerful administrative elite which tried to silence its parliamentarians and did not listen to either its party members or the people on the street.
Let me finish by assuring you that we as GroenLinks are worried about our future government, but not about ourselves. Our election campaign was successful until it was cancelled. Our programme is realistic and radical. We have entered many local governments since the local elections in March. In parliament, our opposition skills are well-developed. We are more determined than ever to make a difference in Dutch politics and show the relevance of our green vision.