Dutch Elections: First Results and Open Thread

How Christian are the Christian Democrats? (And what kind of Christian, I guess.) Seeing the kind of religious fervor that can be produced in the US by parties that don’t have “Christian” in their name and have to at least pretend to be open to people of other beliefs, I’m a little alarmed by the idea of an *explicitly* Christian party.

They are at least nominally Christian, though you would hardly ever notice it. Very occasionally they will throw their religious core voters a bone. So the Netherlands could only legalize euthanasia and gay marriage, and semi-legalize marijuana, when they were out of power for a while. Even more ridiculously, it took ages for evolution to become an obligatory topic in the central exam for secondary education (i.e. including for Christian schools). But the Netherlands must be among the countries with the weakest support for organised religion, so they aren’t remotely comparable to the Democrats let alone the Republicans. No major Dutch politician ever makes a statement of personal faith in a campaign. Apparently it would freak out too many potential voters. The Queen is protestant and does mention God in her speeches.

There are two smaller orthodox religious splinter parties. The larger is a rather sympathetic left-evangelical party, of the kind which takes Christian charity seriously. Then there is a tiny wacko fundamentalist party.

Christian intolerance is not a threat in Holland. Christianity of any kind is by now a minority belief system. Cultural intolerance against Muslims clearly is a threat, but that is a mixture of xenophobia, protest voting, some Christian intolerance, and secular anti-clericalism.

Two-in-the-morning typo: it should read “centre-left PvdA”.

In fairness, while N-VA is likely to be the largest party, three-quarters of Flemish voters are likely to support other options, which is not quite the same voting for De Wever “en masse”.

By the way, D66 and GroenLinks are both progressive parties which I think is worth mentioning. I personally think better descriptions would be “Progressive left-wing green party” and “Progressive center-left party”. And yes, both of them are practically civil libertarians. SGP is very conservative and wishes to implement a theocracy, but economically they’re not even that far right (less so than the VVD). PvdD is very similar to GroenLinks other than its stated primary goal of animal welfare (e.g. the abolition of the bio industry).

A little background information for those who are interested. The rest are pretty much as you would expect them to be from the descriptions. Except maybe VVD, for which it should be noted that economic liberalism and social liberalism are two separate things, and it’s mainly economy that binds the party together. Socially they’re not that great all the time and there’s a whole conservative wing in the party too.

Paars Plus (VVD+PvdA+D66+GroenLinks) is a possibility, as is a right-wing coalition (VVD+CDA+PVV). Potentially supported by the a non-cabinet SGP, who also don’t like muslims very much (VVD+CDA+PVV+SGP).

I don’t particularly like either combinations. Paars (Purple) in the 90s was the start of many of the privatizations and corporate liberalizations that have occurred almost everywhere and have led to the shameful situation that we’re in today. But it’s still better than an all-right coalition which would be outright terrible.

From what I can tell, of the mathematically possible three-party coalitions, one is forbidden (having the three tradtionally-dominant large parties at the center, VVD+CDA+PvdA, in the same government isn’t allowed), one has been ruled out in advance (PVV+VVD+PvdA — the PvdA officially won’t join with Wilders’ lot), and two are highly implausible (VVD+PvdA+SP would founder on the fact that VVD and SP have practically no common ground, and PVV+VVD+CDA would amount to self-injury by CDA, since PVV’s demogogery is repellent to many of its remaining supporters).

The build-your-0wn-coalition tool here suggests that VVD+PvdA+D66+GL is the stablest four-party coalition, but from what I’ve read, D66 is liable to want a lot in exchange for participating. No VVD+PvdA government is possible without the support of two or more of the smaller lefty parties, and if D66 stays aloof, thus leading to (for instance) VVD+PvdA+GL+CU, they’ll be well positioned, with their goo-goo-ish emphasis on clean-hands principledness, to pick up support next time from disappointed GL and even CU voters, after a year or three of those parties getting steamrollered in government, and/or blamed for the next government’s inevitable fall. GL in particular needs to be careful about looking too eager to be a junior partner at any price.

But I don’t read Dutch, so I’m sure I’m missing a lot of nuances.

Must the coalition be formed by the party with the largest number of seats? Because based on the results @ 9, I don’t see VVD as holding all that much moral high ground over PvdA in representing the choice of the voters. The coalition table that Mr. Nielsen Hayden links to treats Center-Green-Red and Center-Left-Red as at least technically valid four-party coalitions, albeit very slender ones. Or would CDA be unlikely to participate in a left-weighted government?

From what I can tell, of the mathematically possible three-party coalitions, one is forbidden (having the three tradtionally-dominant large parties at the center, VVD+CDA+PvdA, in the same government isn’t allowed)

I don’t know where you got that from, but that’s just wrong. There’s certainly no law against that, rather more that it’s such an improbable coalition that it has never occurred before. ( Wikipedia’s list of post-war governments.) What usually happened is that either the right or the left of centre parties won, which resulted in a right or left of centre coalition, with the CDA and its predecessors joining up with one or two of the winning parties, usually either VVD or PvdA and with D66 as the traditional pinch hitter when a third party is needed.

This pattern was broken in the nineties, when you got Paarse coalitions without the CDA and currently the situation has become so convoluted that any coalition will be awkward.

When I blogged about this last night it still seemed that the VVD, PVV and CDA would not have a majority, but since then it’s become clear they could form a coalition on their own. This is therefore now the most likely coalition to form, with the two big winners in an election that could be argued to be won by the right, while the CDA has never let embarassement about electoral loss stand in the way of government participation.

So we’re likely in for a rightwing, not very stable government as the PVV may be turning into the LPF and disintegrate under the pressure of government. It may be that the PVVor VVD fsck up negotations so much that other coalitions come in play (happened to the PvdA two elections back.)

@20: You would say that the Socialist Party is “culturally conservative?” I hadn’t gotten this impression at all, and poking around their website I see that they’re in favor of gay marriage, they’re in favor of legalizing “soft drugs” (meaning marijuana and what else?), they have very nice things to say in favor of asylum seekers, they want stronger enforcement of equal pay laws, etc. What am I missing?

I don’t know where you got that from, but that’s just wrong.

I’m guessing he got it from Abi Sutherland, the resident of the Netherlands who posts at his blog: “Apart from the forbidden coalition (for historical reasons, the three central parties may not form a government)”. I don’t know if she learned it from the Quirksmode blog whose coalition builder Mr. Nielsen Hayden already linked to @ 15, or if she and Peter-Paul Koch picked it up independently. Mr. Koch attributes it to “sacred rules” that are not in the constitution, but which are supposedly traditionally followed:

1. The largest party takes the initiative.
2. The coalition contains exactly two of the three large parties (CDA, PvdA, VVD).
3. The coalition contains at least one election winner.

So if these traditions are correct, and still hold unofficial sway, my query @ 17 is answered: VVD gets first shot, and PvdA steps up only if VVD fail to put together a government. However, if Mr. Wisse is unfamiliar with these traditions, then perhaps they are not particularly sacred, and a Center-Green-Red or Center-Left-Red coalition is still possible? Or is there anything more formal granting VVD its priority?

@mds:
Yes, I got it from PPK. He’s on holiday right now, but perhaps we can query the matter when he returns.

According to one of the news sites here (nu.nl), the Queen will begin consultations on the cabinet this evening. From the article I’m reading (http://www.nu.nl/nieuws/2266606/beatrix-begint-donderdagavond-met-consultaties.html), the Tweede Kamer may have something to do before formal negotiations begin, in which case they’ll start early next week. It looks like Rutte will have the initiative.

Sitting around your average lunch table in Amsterdam today, most of the talk was about the PVV. Who voted for them and why? Would they go into government, or would they set some impossible demand and stay outside? (Wilders has issed a “nuanceering” on his stance that the AOW age is a “breekpunt”, a commitment he won’t sacrifice to get into government. Turns out he will negotiate on it.)

Interesting times ahead.

On the question of a coalition of the Big Three, today’s NRC Handelsblad remarks:

Een brede coalitie van de ‘oude stromingen’ VVD, PvdA en CDA? Het lijkt onwaarschijnlijk, gezien de programmatische verschillen, maar ook omdat winnaars als de PVV, GroenLinks en D66 bij die optie buiten de boot zou vallen.

A broad coalition of the ‘old warhorses’ VVD, PvdA en CDA? It seems implausible given the differences in their programmes, but also because it would exclude winners like the PVV, GroenLinks en D66.

(Sorry about the translation.)

So if it is really taboo then it must also be taboo to mention the taboo, but I’m going with not-taboo. (Disclaimer, I’m an immigrant and this is the second election I’ve experienced while here, and the first when my Dutch has really been up to the job of following it. And I still don’t get to vote.)

Oh and my own opinion, which I have not had occasion to revise since the first exit poll, is “Wat het ook wordt, ik ben er tegen”. (Translation left as an exercise.)

weserei@21: The SP is far from culturally conservative in a religious or intolerant sense, but I think Ingrid means that they are communitarian, rather than individualistic. They are also euro-skeptics and critical of multiculturalism. The PVV is ethnocentric and nationalist, i.e. communitarian gone really bad. As for gay marriage and the right to smoke pot, these are by now age-old Traditional Dutch Values. Islamic homophobia is used by islamophobes and anti-clericalists to slam Muslims. When the Amsterdam Gay community complains of harassment by Muslim delinquents, pretty much the entire nation is on their side.

As for the alleged left-wing economic policies of Wilders, I personally think reports of these are exaggerated. Wilders split off from the right flank of the VVD. He cynically adopted specific left-wing talking points because of their popularity. I am sure he will happily compromise these to join a government which implements right-wing economic policy. If anything, perhaps Wilders’ economic policy would be Bush-like: lower taxes, especially for the rich, protect the most popular entitlements, starve every thing else, end up with vast deficits anyway.

Speaking of which, Wilders is in contact with the main US neocon think tanks , and has been funded by them in the past. So David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes have arranged financial contributions to our fine election result.

@31: Apologies for performing a Danish hijack but the link between PVV and US neocons also rings a bell here. I haven’t made any systematic check of this (and I’m not aware of any studies of this – which doesn’t mean that they don’t exist) but on issues like immigration – and Islam in particular – and foreign and security policy, the similarities between DF in Denmark and US neocons have occasionally struck me. I doubt that there have been formal links or any kind of sponsorship, though.

When it comes to economic policy we should probably remember that US conservatives and neocons these days do not inhabit anything which bears any kind of resemblance to the physical world. I’m not quite sure that we can find any European parallels here beyond the libertarian fringe.

The PVV really isn’t all that interested in economics: it’s interested in getting the Moroccans out of the Netherlands and stop those layabout Antillians to stop wasting “our” money. Straightup racists, but hidden behind a veneer of semi-respectable Islamophobia. Anything else in their programme is tacked on.

The people who vote for them are a mix of young, new voters who like Wilders because he “talks straight” (and are a bit racist), older voters coming from the PvdA and living in old inner city neigbourhoods “invaded” by foreigners (and who are a bit racist) and of course a lot of white flighters living in new towns with barely a brown face in sight, but who are convinced walking down Kalverstraat will get them knived.

The PVV’s stance on the pension age is a sop to the last two groups, which would be the first to be touched by it, but isn’t actually all that important to the party. Evidence for this is that wilders was saying on the election night that this would be an “absolutely non-negotiable”, but said that erm, it could be negotiated the next morning.

Apart from these sort of gestures the PVV’s political programme strongly resembles that of the VVD: rightwing liberal, with lots of noises about getting rid of “leftie sacred cows”. IIRC Wilders is sponsored by some of the same interests as were behind Fortuyn (project developers).

The SP meanwhile is a properly old skool socialist party, rooted in local activism, with a long history of (succesful) resistance against neoliberalism and cuts in social spending. Like the PVV it’s opposed to raising retirement age, but unlike the PVV this is part and parcel of their whole social programme.

And that’s why you can’t just look at a given party’s election wishlist, but have to see it in the context of its history, its ideology and especially its actions. There are a fair few points on which the PVV and the SP agreed during this election (Holland out of Afghanistan, getting rid of the JSF, retirement age), but it makes no sense to say that this means they are similar parties.

Granted, it is true that the SP back in 2006 appealed to a lot of the people who now went for the PVV, as back then the SP fulfilled the role of anti-establishment party that the PVV plays now — Geert Wilders being too much of an unknown quality then. But the fact that, unlike the predictions, the SP didn’t fall back to its pre-2006 levels, shows there is a difference in kind between them.

Calling the SP populist is meaningless as populism is just cant used by neoliberal parties to insinuate unseriousness, where going against the neoliberal consensus means you promise bread and circuses.

Today a Dutch friend informed me that Wilders has already reneged on one election promise: the retirement age of 67 is now declared to be up for discussion. I wonder what this says about this creep. Two other points. (1) His election programme states that “everyone should be registered according to ethnicity.” (2) He would love to tax the wearing of headscarves by Moslim women. No country that seriously debates these issues is a member of the free world. I lived in that cesspool of intolerance for just under 36 years, am a Dutch citizen, and am glad I had the good sense to leave last year. I can say much more about the national character, but I don’t want to suffer a stroke.

@ Martin Wisse. I lived in Amsterdam from 72 till the beginning of January 09. You are correct to state that GW was a rather unknown quality in 06. That does not hold for me. As I recall, GW first showed up as spokesperson for the VVD in healthcare matters. That was in 03. His main subject was the need to completely trash the then half-trashed disability system in NL (the WAO). The verbal viciousness of his attacks on the disabled convinced me that he should be watched closely. It’s likely that these statements strongly contributed to the final destruction of the WAO in 07.
His subsequent statements about Moslim women were quite as offensive. I remember “Ik lust ze rauw,” I’ll eat them raw! He meant either the women, their headscarves, or both. Around that time he jumped or was pushed out of the VVD, as was Ms Hirsi Ali, with whom he cooperated on the film
Fitna, which I have never seen. All this contributed to the acceptability of Islamiphobia in NL, the good old Gesunde Volksempfinden that erupted the other day.
Well, I am writing this for the historical record, and to state that Dutch people could have been alerted as to the character of GW as early as 03. But in my 36+ years there I have seen too much unworldly and illgrounded self-satisfaction, indifference, gezappigheid, and the idea that it will all be ok in the end, to consider this to be a real possibility (admittedly, in Amsterdam). What was learned from the Nazi occupation, in which most of my family was murdered, with the help of Dutch cops, and the many who were paid. 7.50 Gulden per betrayed Jew?

Oh, and if you’re reading the Netherlands’ national character off the VVD platform, surely you should take into account that they’re a minority party. Sure, every party is a minority party — but that means that anything that isn’t supported by several parties is a minority viewpoint.

So George, where did you go instead?

Since Ingrid mentioned it – results are coming in and the N-VA (moderate nationalists) seem to get one in three of the Flemish votes. The good thing is that the extreme nationalists are on the move downwards and that the victory speech was more moderate than the one of the previous winner.