Here comes my long overdue update on the Dutch government formation (I owe you one on Belgium too, but there isn’t much to report, except the lack of progress, and whatever that could be taken to imply). We had “elections in the Netherlands”:https://crookedtimber.org/2010/06/09/dutch-elections-first-results-and-open-thread/ early June, and the right-liberals, VVD, emerged as the biggest party. They first tried to form a coalition with the Christian-Democrats (CDA) and PVV, the party of Geert Wilders (in fact, it is not a party, but a ‘movement’: Geert Wilders is the only member and the other people do not have any formal power, and from what we can gather in the media also not much real power.) But CDA refused to enter any talks/negotiations if VVD and PVV did not first come to some rough agreement between the two of them. So that turned into nothing.
Dutch politicians then tried to form a coalition with VVD, PvDA (social democrats), D66 (liberal democrats), and GroenLinks (the Greens). They talked for a while in what seemed to be constructive meetings, but VVD pulled out – they didn’t think an agreement on important matters was possible (especially how much and where to cut the government budget) .
Next round, and this time the CDA was willing to talk with VVD and PVV. And in just a few days, they decided that they would start negotiating on a coalition agreement for a government consisting of VVD and CDA only, with PVV supporting/tolerating this coalition from the parliamentary floor (the Dutch word is gedogen, which cannot be properly translated). Such a minority government which is supported by another party from parliament, that does not deliver any ministers, has never been seen in Dutch history before. Since the PVV has currently no members in the senate (elections are due next year), the VVD-CDA-(PVV) coalition has currently no majority there, and thus on its own are not able to pass any laws. Yet some commentators have said that this is not a serious problem, since by the time the first new pieces of legislation need to pass the senate, new elections for the senate will have taken place, which would presumably lead to a majority for VVD-CDA and PVV there too.
Clearly not everyone is happy about the prospect of a right-wing government which is supported by an Islamophobic/xenophobic party. There is lots of debate in the written press, and several individual members of the VVD have said that a liberal party cannot collaborate with a party that violates basic constitutional rights such as the freedom of religion. An increasing number of members of CDA are raising their voices against a coalition which is supported by Wilders’ party. Notably in this respect is “a petition”:http://wijstaanvooronzegrondrechten.org/, which by now has been signed by more than 1,000 CDA-members, who are opposing a VVD-CDA government which is supported by Wilders. Yet what Wilders always does – to divide – he does here too, since “another petition”:http://wijstaanachterhetcda.org/ with as many supporters has been created, which supports the potential VVD-CDA-(PVV) coalition. Since the CDA is a democratic party, the members will decide on whether they approve of any agreement that their leader will make with VVD and PVV, so it is as yet entirely unclear whether these negotiations will lead to a government.
What I am most amazed about (and this is not an original insight, more people have voiced it in public), is that CDA and VVD allow the PVV to play this role of being in power without delivering any ministers that will actually run a ministerial department. Wilders probably doesn’t have the right people for that in his party, and moreover it is unlikely whether he would be able to keep any PVV ministers under control, whereas now he basically rules the party single-handedly. So with this deal that VVD and CDA will form a government, and PVV will support them in parliament in return for some of his demands being realised, the PVV only has the benefits but not the burdens of being in power. If they can’t make mistakes, they are unlikely to be punished at the next elections; so in this set-up, it seems likely to me that the PVV will only become stronger at the next elections. Surely that cannot be what VVD and CDA want?
So what is in it, then, for VVD and CDA? First of all, actual power to rule, of course. In addition, by having the most right-wing government possible, they will take further steps in dismantling the welfare state. The VVD wants to cut the budget with 18 Billion Euro’s (we’re talking here of a small country with 16 million inhabitants). In my view, a nice place to look for cuts would be in the excessive tax deductions for home-owners, which cost the Dutch state 11 Billion a year and this figure will only grow when the total volume of mortgages increases. It is a well known fact that this fiscal measure benefits the richest decile in the population the most (since there is no cap on the level of the mortgage for which one can claim tax deduction). Instead, VVD and CDA want to cut in those sectors that are most important for the worst-off or most vulnerable people, and also for the middle-classes, such as the government-funded long-term care for the disabled and fragile elderly. There have been for a while alarming reports about the quality of elderly care and care for the disabled, and there are absurdly long waiting lists in the mental health sector (for diagnosis, treatment, or access to special needs education for children), and if I think of the massive need for investment in primary education (and other levels of education too, in fact), then I really think these budget cuts are going to be hard, unjust, and will create deep damage for years to come. Ironically, of all three parties in the negotiations, it is Wilders’ PVV which is most ‘social’ when it concerns the Dutch social security system/welfare state. He is, for example, claiming to protect the subsidies that flow to care for the elderly, and claims to aim to spend more money on nurses. However, the latest news is that he has agreed with the massive cuts in return for tougher migration laws. So that shows his priorities.
VVD, CDA and PVV have agreed not to speak to the press until they reach an agreement, so apart from these rumors and small leakages, there isn’t much else known on how much progress they have made. Will try to keep you posted.
{ 13 comments }
Doctor Slack 08.19.10 at 12:17 am
Instead, VVD and CDA want to cut in those sectors that are most important for the worst-off or most vulnerable people
Quelle. Fucking. Surprise.
EWI 08.19.10 at 2:32 am
Quelle. Fucking. Surprise.
Indeed. And here in Ireland the Fianna Fáil government are lauded by the media for their ‘courage’ in delivering the Irish state pension fund to the banks and cutting savagely on health and social services.
sg 08.19.10 at 4:37 am
and of course, the more restricted benefits become, the easier it is for Wilders to run his anti-immigrant arguments at the next election…
Cheryl 08.19.10 at 6:43 am
Ingrid,
You casually mention the mortgage rebate, but I think that the various plans on the table why many left-leaning voters went right this year. While some parties had sensible plan (1% less rebate each year until gone, as per the UK) other parties on the left had clearly populist measures that their own party economists thought were insane– (setting the cap at a level which makes no sense at all in the urban environments). While I haven’t heard anyone with a budget background who believes the rebates should stay, I often haven’t heard anyone sensible think that there can really be a quick win on the rebate without crashing the housing market. It has to be gotten rid of, but it’s a long-term fix.
The people want cuts in the vierde macht. I don’t think they’re going to like what they get from their voting choices, but the parties in power should consider where that anger comes from…
Cheryl
Guido Nius 08.19.10 at 7:21 am
Maybe there is little progress in Belgium but the progress that we have is in the direction of left-leaning government. Also, the much criticized ‘cordon sanitaire’ (keeping the extreme right out of any form of government or government discussions) has worked.
But isn’t it at least a little bit so that your Dutch left was incapable of accepting the fact the VVD won and in so doing made it impossible for them to lean to the left. Whatever else we may think of the policies the right would enact, it is still a democracy and the party that wins – even if they win on a charter that we oppose – should be able to leverage that win into policy, no?
George Berger 08.19.10 at 7:59 am
Thanks for posting this, Dr Robeyns. I’m a Dutch citizen of American birth , who is now a permanent resident of Uppsala, Sweden. I agree with everything you say, and would like to bring this discussion a bit up-to-date.
First, I’m not at all amazed by the willingness of the CDA and VVD to give Wilders this major role. Two things are relevant. (1) CDA and VVD have right-wing components that are at least as xenophobic and conservative as Wilders. The only difference is that they have been more low-key than Wilders (Rutte), while letting Wilders say what I believe they really think. They were inhibited by their desire to be seen as following the traditional (and often phoney, huigelachtig)behaviour patterns of Dutch party members (I can say this better in Dutch: nuancerend, beschouwelijk, relativerend, concensuszoekend). They gain by letting Wilders enact their desires; later they can build upon these achievements. (2)Wilders gains by exercising power with no responsability for formal accountability. With these gains and his big mouth, Wilders might well attract additional support for the next elections.
Second, there has been one distressing new development. It will take a bit of history to explain. During the previous financial crisis, the Internet Bubble, the sitting Dutch government used the reserves of the pension funds to obtain needed cash (afgeroomd). In plain language, they stole the money of those of us who paid their pension premiums. A while ago the present government gave the pension funds five years to get their finances back into decent condition (a feat made difficult by the previous theft). Some pension funds, e.g. the ABP, have not yet met this demand, although the five years have not yet passed. Well, last weekend it was announced by Minister Donner that many pensioners will suffer reduced pensions within several months (before the 5 year deadline). Why this sudden, policy-changing, attack on the income of myself and many others? I can only speculate but strongly believe that this is the first outcome of the “negotiations” now going on between Wilders, CDA, and VVD. All worked out in secret meetings, and most likely in conformity with Wilders’ demands on coalition-forming. Hardly democratic and quite upsetting, as I know from my contacts.
As you say, Wilders’ priorities are made clear by the developments you cite. But the deterioration of the Dutch system of social security, healthcare (not only mental health), and especially care for the elderly, has been proceeding apace under all Dutch governments except Paars 1 since about 1983, following the formation of the CDA in, I think, 1977. With Wilders in a decisive position this demolition shall speed up. One main difference might be (as you imply) a tougher immigration policy (tough enough already, thanks to R. Verdonk and J. Cohen.) All this is a danger to Dutch citizens and a very bad example for the entire EU.
chris y 08.19.10 at 8:03 am
Instead, VVD and CDA want to cut in those sectors that are most important for the worst-off or most vulnerable people, and also for the middle-classes, such as the government-funded long-term care for the disabled and fragile elderly.
Well, join the club.
George Berger 08.19.10 at 8:14 am
Thanks for that Chris. One can also consider Denmark.
Norwegian Guy 08.19.10 at 9:16 am
This arrangement looks similar to what they have had in Denmark with the Danish People’s Party since 2001.
But isn’t it at least a little bit so that your Dutch left was incapable of accepting the fact the VVD won and in so doing made it impossible for them to lean to the left. Whatever else we may think of the policies the right would enact, it is still a democracy and the party that wins – even if they win on a charter that we oppose – should be able to leverage that win into policy, no?
The problem is, this could be reformulated:
But isn’t it at least a little bit so that your Dutch left was incapable of accepting the fact the PVV won and in so doing made it impossible for them to lean to the left. Whatever else we may think of the policies the right would enact, it is still a democracy and the party that wins – even if they win on a charter that we oppose – should be able to leverage that win into policy, no?
chris 08.19.10 at 8:33 pm
I don’t see how any one party can be said to “win” elections like the Netherlands’, unless it outright wins a majority (which is wildly unlikely and didn’t happen). A clear majority of Dutch voters don’t support PVV (or any other one party you care to name).
Instead, VVD and CDA want to cut in those sectors that are most important for the worst-off or most vulnerable people
Does CDA actively want that, or is it something they agree to as the price of being in a ruling coalition? I was under the impression that cutting benefits to the most needy is VVD’s agenda, but CDA is more lukewarm to it or even divided over it than actively wanting it. (On the other hand I rather suspect that I haven’t quite got my head around what CDA is and what it wants.)
George Berger 08.19.10 at 9:20 pm
@Chris–One aspect of today’s CDA ideology is due to Balkenende. it is called “Mantelzorg,” with “Mantel” derived from the Dutch biblical phrase “Mantel der liefde.” The cloak of love, or whatever it is called in the King James. It preaches the withdrawl of the state from the private sphere. This is understood to mean reducing the role of the state in the fields that Dr Robeyns mentions and. I agree with her. Implementing Mantelzorg involves your friends, relatives, and neighbors caring for each other as much as possible. This notion is used to justify budget cuts. However, cuts got seriously underway during the 3 cabinets of which R. Lubbers was the PM. He’s CDA. So I believe that serious cuts have been a constant factor in CDA policy notions since at least the Lubbers era. I don’t know how one can quantify this, I do not know what proportion of the CDA membership supports cuts (and to what degrees), and I don’t know how to compare it with the VVD’s wishes at any given time. But yes, they actively do want cuts.
When Balkenende was a student at the (Calvinist) Free University in Amsterdam he belonged to a group called the Christian Socialists (cf. Blair). He wrote a document for this group that is the basis for Mantelzorg. It argues for a diminished role for the state.
Guido Nius 08.20.10 at 10:11 am
Chris, small wonder then that people have difficulty with democracy then sometimes because if I control 1% of the electorate – and either other extreme party at any point in time only 49% – it I can have an almost complete but fully arbitrary influence on policy. I mean: form is crucial in this (clearly PVV cannot claim absolute victory) but formality does not suffice for legitimacy. I think that if the PVV gets the percentage they get, it is important to take that into account when making policy (without, obviously, necessarily even considering their propose policy); it, at the least, is necessary to direct policy in a direction that alleviates the irritation that underpins this irritation that caused that vote.
Ingrid Robeyns 08.20.10 at 6:58 pm
Cheryl, I agree that changing the mortgage tax deductions will need to be a long-term strategy, and hence that this is not immediately going to deliver the savings for the pubic budget that this coalition wants to find. Note also that I am not against any new restrictions on welfare state provisions – I am, for example, in favor of raising the age for entitlement for a public pension to 67, at least for those groups that did not work already 40 years or those that worked in physically taxing jobs. So I do not take the simplistic position that we should leave the welfare state as it is – I agree with the basic position that we need to keep our public finances in order and not get into extreme debts, and also need to think about the long-term prognosis. But that’s even more reason to not postpone starting to change the mortgage interest tax deductions policy. We are facing a serious aging of the population, with all the economic consequences that come with it, and I find it simply mind-blowing that parties that claim to be economically responsible don’t want to touch the mortgage interest tax deductions at all. It is just like putting your head into the sand.
I am not one of those people who believes that we should simply ignore the signals that the voters send, if we don’t like them (see for example my posts on Belgium – I did not vote for the seperatist flemish party, but I think their demands are rational and reasonable, yet also conservative and they lack solidarity with the Walloon people and inhabitants of Brussels).
But in the Netherlands the situation is importantly different – Wilders runs his ‘party’ like a dictator, he is spreading hate between social groups under any definition of that activity, and his policies are unconstitutional and creating a group of second-class Dutch citizens (those that have an islamic background). I think these are the reason why other parties need to be very careful to form coalitions with him.
Comments on this entry are closed.