Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Dutch Elections Countdown: The Political Parties

by Nomad Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 07:00:27 AM EST



On November 22, national elections are held in the Netherlands and the battle between parties is getting fiercer every day. Today: An introduction to the fragmented Dutch political system.

Past Wednesday, the deadline of the Kiesraad(Dutch Electoral Council) cancelled the ambitions of a large chunk of potentially new parties. A grand total of 79 parties had previously been registered, wanting to participate; a total of 26 parties have passed the steep hurdle of collecting enough signatures in the electoral districts. Although that's 8 more parties compared to the 2003 general elections, chances are that some of these new parties will still be scrapped - as their statutes need to be validated. We'll see how many finally will contribute. What is clear, however, is that a total of 14 parties will be represented in all electoral districts, of which there are nineteen for national elections (a somewhat arbitrary choice). The majority of those selected 14 are traditional political parties, combined with a ragtag of new initiatives that spawned during the past 3.5 years of Balkenende II (and III), and I'm confident that these 14 parties will dominate the political spectre of The Hague until November.

So who are they?


De nationale verkiezingen in Nederland vinden plaats op 22 november en de strijd tussen de deelnemende partijen wordt met de dag feller. Vandaag: een introductie van het gefragmenteerde politieke systeem.

Afgelopen woensdag verliep de deadline van de Kiesraad waarmee de ambities van een kluit nieuwe partijen de grond in werd geboord. Een totaal van 79 partijen waren geregistreerd bij de Kiesraad om deel te nemen aan de verkiezingen; 26 van deze partijen is het gelukt om de nodige handtekeningen in de kiesdistricten bij elkaar te sprokkelen. Dat zijn er acht meer in vergelijking met de verkiezingen van 2003, maar onder voorbehoud: sommige partijen kunnen nog worden geschrapt omdat hun statuten moeten worden getoetst. Het is even afwachten hoe veel partijen uiteindelijk mee zullen doen. Wel is duidelijk dat 14 partijen meedoen in alle negentien kiesdistricten. De hoofdmoot van deze 14 partijen wordt gevormd door de traditionele politieke partijen, aangevuld met de kleine partijen die afgesplitst zijn gedurende de afgelopen 3.5 jaar. Ik ben er eigenlijk van overtuigd dat deze 14 het politieke debat tot november zullen domineren.

En de deelnemer zijn...




CDA (ChristianDemocrats)
PvdA (Labour)
VVD (Liberals)
SP (Socialists)
Fortuyn (Fortuynists)
GroenLinks (Greens)
Democraten 66 - D66 (Social Liberals)
ChristenUnie (ChristianUnion)
SGP (Political Reformed Party)
EénNL (Hard-Right, former Fortuynists)
Groep Wilders / Partij voor de Vrijheid  (Wilders Group, former VVD)
Nederland Transparant (New party for increasing transparancy)(
Partij voor de Dieren (Pro-animal party)

And one blank list with one candidate.

Anyone wanting to understand Dutch politics should not become disheartened at seeing the diverse fragmentation present within the political system. Many have argued (and I agree) that the fragmentation forms the very core of understanding how Dutch politics works (or doesn't work, depending on whom you talk to).

The Hague has always been habituated by a large number of parties. This has roots in the Pillarisation of the Netherlands, early 20th century, and its divisionary lines within the population were rigorously adhered. Each pillar in itself had its own class differences between rich and poor in different shades. The three traditional political parties of today, CDA (ChristianDemocrats), PvdA (Labour) and VVD (Liberals) all have their origins in the movements that were stirring pre-1945, and I should leave it at that.

Next time: The Dutch parties on the right.

A note on Wiki: I've begun chiselling at the wiki section on the Dutch elections, but I couldn't get the links of the 2005 diaries from koenzel and Oui to work. Any help to solve that would be appreciated.


CDA
PvdA
VVD
SP
Fortuyn
GroenLinks
Democraten 66 - D66
ChristenUnie
SGP
EénNL
Groep Wilders / Partij voor de Vrijheid  
Nederland Transparant (
Partij voor de Dieren

En 1 blanco lijst met 1 kandidaat.

Een ieder die de Nederlandse politiek wil begrijpen moet niet de hoop verliezen bij het zien van de fragmentatie in het politieke bestel. Velen hebben betoogd (en ik ben het daarmee eens) dat de fragmentatie de kern essentie van het functioneren (of het niet-functioneren) van de Nederlandse politiek vormt.

Den Haag is altijd al gekenmerkt door grote aantallen verschillende partijen. Dit had zijn wortels in de verzuiling binnen Nederland begin 20e eeuw en er werd strict gehouden aan deze scheidslijnen binnen de bevolking. Elke zuil had in zichzelf ook weer klasse verschillen tussen arm en rijk. De drie traditionele politieke partijen van vandaag, CDA (Christenen), PvdA (Socialisten) en VVD (Liberalen) hebben hun origine in de politieke bewegingen actief voor 1945. En daar zou ik het voor nu maar bij moeten laten.

Volgende keer: The rechtse Nederlandse partijen.


Update [2006-10-14 12:49:21 by Nomad]:: The Political Barometer gives the following projected seats of a total of 150 for 13 October:

CDA: 46
PvdA: 47
VVD: 25
SP: 13
Fortuyn: 0
GroenLinks: 6
D66: 2
ChristenUnie: 6
SGP: 3
Wilders: 1
Partij voor de Dieren: 1
EenNL: 0
Others: 0

Display:
Bilangual diaries are a bitch. Hope this is readable.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 07:01:43 AM EST
Welcome to the club.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 07:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're side-by-side diaries are fantastic both you, Nomad, and you, Migeru.  I found the spanish easier once I was in the rhythm.  But the dutch!

(Nomad, do you call "dutch" "dutch"?  It reminds me of "deutch".  Is there Nederlandisch?)

Een totaal van 79 partijen waren geregistreerd bij de Kiesraad om deel te nemen aan de verkiezingen; 26 van deze partijen is het gelukt om de nodige handtekeningen in de kiesdistricten bij elkaar te sprokkelen.

A total of 79 parties were [ge]registered with the Kiesraad and deal the new ones(?) the name(?) and the verkiezingen....  26 of these parties are very ... and the ... hand taking in in the (hand taking in - taking things in, counting votes perhaps) in the Kies district(s) with elkaar te sproskkelen.

You Nomad, and you Migeru, and dvx, Alex, all of yez with your side by side translations, broken into paragraphs...  I thank you all mucho mas.

I cannae pay you back in kind.  Well, I try, by offering Ongleesh and Inglish, but, well...[hole in ground leading to a usu. drinkable water source, dug by humans.]

Hey!  Fantastic diary, Nomad.  I hope you'll do one on what you think the left in The Netherlands is becoming.


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 06:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
congrat too, but i do not get the point to write in another language than English here, since it is the lingua franca on this site and very few are able to read Dutch (and those who can, are usually fluent in English).

whatever, it is nice.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 10:28:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am glad to see diaries both in English and in the original language of the writer. And reading the Dutch text side by side with the English version helps my Dutch studies. :-)

You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--
by tzt (tzt) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 10:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe we can attract the 50% of the EU population who don't feel confident that they can express themselves in English. It's about inclusion.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Oct 14th, 2006 at 07:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
dominate the political spectre of The Hague

The Hague is haunted by the ghost of a politician?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 07:05:58 AM EST
Questions:
  • Labour v. Socialist: is Labour social-democrat and the Socialist a "left party"?
  • CDA and ChristenUnie: similar question.
  • What's the deal with Fortuyn and EenNL? What is "Fortuynism"?
  • VVD and Wilders: why the split.
  • VVD, Wilders, D66: what does "liberal" mean in the Netherlands?


Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 07:11:27 AM EST
Brief answers for now. I hope to provide more thorough ones in the upcoming two diaries.

Labour vs Socialist: Labour was the traditional blue collar, socialist party, whereas the SP was the radical, fringe left, originally Maoist(!). SP is still more to the left of Labour, but has seen through the past few years a slow shift towards Labour, losing the more radical points. Not to mention it has some really good ideas on several topics (I think).

CDA and ChristenUnie are somewhat alike: ChristenUnie is the more orthodox, and conservative version but with different ideas on economy, environment etcetera. There is interesting parallel between the SP and ChristenUnie: both parties are largely carried by their sympathetic frontman.

Fortuynism is the common Dutch term for the heritage of Pim Fortuyn's ideas. Fortuyn's former party is dead, and is polled for years now on zero projected seats. EenNL is the reincarnation of two former Fortuynists, Marco Pastors and Joost Eerdmans who are both outspoken on the immigration debate. Pastors is a populist, Eerdmans is more of an academic. Sallient detail: rumours have it that Rita Verdonk has had talks with EenNL.

Wilders broke from the VVD when the party decided negotiation for accessions of Turkey should begin, somewhere 2004. There had been previous disputes, but Turkey was the breaking point. One more conservative, if not extreme, voice on the right. Most of his ideas are brazenly aclash with the constitution. As you see, EenNL, Fortuyn's party and Wilders have splintered the hard right to pieces. None of the three parties have been projects with many seats.

Liberal: in the European liberal version, both economically as philosophically. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_Netherlands

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 12:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Labour v. Socialist: Sort of, yes. Labour is social-democratic, and the Socialist Party is socialist. The socialists are a bit more socially conservative IMO, otherwise they are a typical left party.

The ChristenUnie people are more deeply religious. Sometimes they have suprisingly liberal positions. The CDA also incorporates the Catholics, and the Christenunie is formed out of a number of smaller, less mainstream protestant churches.

EenNL is sort of a split of the Fortuyn party. Fortuynism is the politics of the murdered Pim Fortuyn. It's a kind of patriotic populism with a libertine twist. Sort of like Sullivanism.

The VVD was being too middle of the road for Wilder's tastes under the leadership of Jozias van Aartsen, which is why he went away. He may also have daydreamed about making a similar kind of breakthrough as Fortuyn managed, but he doesn't have the required charisma. The VVD has since veered right and back left again. Currently, they're still a bit more right-wing than they were under Van Aartsen, but also more modern.

A liberal in the Netherlands is someone in the general tradition of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls (in Dutch history Thorbecke is the most important liberal, certainly from the VVD viewpoint). There are a lot of different viewpoints expressed in that tradition. Generally, liberals are modernist in the sense of believing in progress, areligious, and most believe in the free market. Liberal doesn't have the left-wing connotation that it has in the US (don't know how it is in the UK), nor the libertarian connotation of neo-liberalism (although both liberal parties are pro-market, only a wing of the VVD is really neoliberal).

Specifically, the D66 party came out of the progressive movement of the '60s (as the name indicates), and the VVD is a continuation of one of the oldest political parties, after several splits and recombinations. The VVD is something like the party of business and the middle class. D66 is on life support. There is a new party called LibDem, but I don't know if they made it.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 01:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
UK Liberalism was influenced by Adam Smith (particularly in the nineteenth century) and more by John Stuart Mill. 'Economic' liberalism seems to be making a bit of a comeback in the Liberal Democrats but the predominant school of thought during the past century has been the New Liberalism (sometimes called social liberalism) introduced by the early twentieth century Liberal governments.

The Liberal party and its Whig predecessor, opposed royal absolutism and promoted the gradual reform of the political system, which eventually led to democracy. Under its great nineteenth century leader. W.E. Gladstone, the party slogan was 'peace, retrenchment and reform' - by which was meant no imperial adventures (such as in Afghanistan), low public expenditure (although the election promise to abolish income tax did not bring Gladstone victory when he tried it) and reform (votes for the working class).

The old programme was rather eclipsed by the start of the construction of the welfare state. Later stages of this programme were implemented by Labour governments, but a lot of the ideas came from Liberals like William Beveridge.

The more right wing strains of British Liberalism drifted off and joined the Conservative Party between 1886 and about 1950.

British liberals regard the Labour Party as the competition and the Conservatives as the opposition, but try not to be characterised as centrists.

by Gary J on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 04:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a good descriptor.

Personally, I think the VVD is gradually becoming more neoliberal, and I also suspect Rutte is a neoliberal trying to hide he is.

Interesting that there are two different answers to Migeru's questions and they are both correct...

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Sat Oct 14th, 2006 at 05:46:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dutch politics is like an elephant, I guess :-)

I don't know about Rutte, I think he's going to be pragmatic. Sometimes he says something that sounds neoliberal, but he also uses populist left-wing rhetoric. So it's kind of hard to say who the real Rutte is, but he sees himself as being on the left wing of the VVD. Under Verdonk the VVD would really have had a classic Thatcherite neoliberal agenda, so that's what I meant by saying they veered right and then a bit back to the center again.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Oct 14th, 2006 at 07:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a great deal to be said for it. It creates a need for more concensus politics while at the same time trimming the partisan imposition of dogmatic change.

Finland has many political parties also, and the country has been managed by coalitions for many decades - without major problems.

But an interesting back story has just emerged from 1993 (during a centre/right coalition). Finland was apparently very close to financial meltdown in the global conditions of the time. Only by increasing debt to some 6 billion € was disaster averted. Everyone in business was very aware of the conditions - we were all struggling. A friend of mine became bankrupt. Many businesses I was working with cut their communications budgets severely. It was a tough time.

No-one knew how tough until a book just published reveals the touch and go nature of the government's remedies. The principal remedy was to avoid panic. One overleveraged bank - SKOP - disappeared. Another overleveraged bank -KOP - was forced into a merger with SYP, to eventually merge with Swedish banks to become the Nordea of today.

IMO the fact that there was a coalition in place enabled the concensus that was necessary for tough solutions and thus survival.

13 years later, Finland has a lively, diverse and healthy banking system that maybe is the world's most advanced in terms of online transactions. Finand's international debt rating is triple A. The economy is highly competitive in a collaborative sort of way. We are still spending more than anyone else on R&D, and even my local supermarket sells Maldon sea salt ;-)

But it was close - very close, way back in '93

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 08:02:49 AM EST
The principal remedy was to avoid panic.

Economic policy is all about managing expectations.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 08:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just as advertising is about changing perceptions.

Just as art is about changing perceptions.

Is it easier to change minds rather than change reality? Or is it easier to change reality by changing minds?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 08:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is how does one incorporate harsh reality into an economic system which depends on perceptions.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 08:40:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Advertising is nearing the end of its useful life, if it ever had one. Controlling processes by perceptions is no longer useful.

So hand much control over to the process. The perception will BE the reality then.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Oct 13th, 2006 at 01:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Many have argued (and I agree) that the fragmentation forms the very core of understanding how Dutch politics works (or doesn't work, depending on whom you talk to).

I agree with you that this is, indeed, the secret of Dutch political success...the strength of the Dutch system.

The Dutch system used to make use of oversized coalitions...meaning that instead of just looking for the minimal winning coalition (50%+1 votes), the Dutch habitually included more parties and larger majorities even when they were not necessary for governing. As I understood it, this served as a way of creating more of a governing political and social consensus. The term "consociational political system" used to be used to describe this.

So, I'm curious, because I haven't been keeping up with Dutch politics lately, if the oversized coalitions still are a habit.

Thanks for this very informative diary.

by gradinski chai on Sat Oct 14th, 2006 at 07:46:59 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]