OPINION
Netherlands
braces for sharp right turn
Tradition
of compromise succumbs to a new appetite for conflict.
By TOM-JAN MEEUS
10/4/16, 5:55 AM CET
THE HAGUE — One of
Europe’s most liberal countries is on the brink of turning
decisively to the right. Ahead of the elections in the Netherlands on
March 15 next year, polls show a tight race between center-right
Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his political foe Geert Wilders, a
right-wing firebrand with staunch positions on Islam (ban the Quran),
the EU (get out) and immigration (close all borders).
Two dominant
politicians who once were close allies are now in a position to
possibly trash the Dutch Left, a political force that has reliably
collected close to 50 percent of the vote since World War II.
Fiscal conservative
Rutte blends a typical right-wing agenda — small government, low
taxes — with the Dutch tradition of governing by compromise.
Far-right Wilders breaks with that tradition and routinely attacks
the consensus building attitude of the political class.
The fight pits the
“old” Netherlands against the “new,” and the culture of
compromise against a new appetite for conflict and polarization. The
hot button issues are immigration, religion (read: Islam) and
terrorism.
For Rutte and
Wilders, this is all very personal, too.
While popular
culture loves to hate compromise, voters tend to support the
politician most skilled at delivering it.
As prime minister,
Rutte is known for striking policy deals with parties from across the
political spectrum — from the far Left to the far Right, from
evangelical Christians to anti-religious progressives.
Winning the next
election would most likely mean he becomes the leader of a coalition
government of four or five parties, a complicated setup that reflects
a particularly Dutch paradox: while popular culture loves to hate
compromise, voters tend to support the politician most skilled at
delivering it.
Wilders has spent
most of his life fighting this style of politics. As a member of
parliament for the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD),
he fiercely fought for a harder line on immigration, Islam and the
EU’s relations with Turkey. When that failed, he decided to start a
party of his own in 2004.
He drew inspiration
from VVD’s former leader Frits Bolkestein, who detested what he saw
as an opaque consensus culture, and adopted the confrontational style
that made Bolkestein a cult hero in right-wing intellectual circles.
Controversy became
Wilders’ brand. He framed Islam as a violent political ideology and
has refused to soften his position, despite being under 24/7
protection because of Muslim terrorist treats since 2004.
When rumor had it
that Wilders planned to release a documentary film on Islam in 2008,
government ministers, agencies and lobby groups threatened to hold
him personally accountable for any possible response from the Muslim
world.
A few of his
staffers later revealed to me that Wilders had serious panic attacks
at the time, but in public he did not waver. The incident reinforced
his public image: Here was a politician who would simply never cave.
In 2010, Rutte
became prime minister at the head of a shaky coalition government.
Wilders’ parliamentary support was crucial. He promised to vote for
Rutte’s economic and social policies. In return, Rutte toughened
Dutch policies on immigration and some cultural issues. Wilders
reserved the right to distance himself from Rutte on any other issue,
protecting his reputation on issues like Islam and the EU.
This all ended very
badly. During negotiations for another austerity package in the
spring of 2012, Wilders unexpectedly decided to withdraw his support
for the government, leaving Rutte in limbo and forcing him to form an
unpopular coalition government with the Labour Party.
The aftermath was an
existential and occasionally nasty fight between the two politicians.
Wilders has been on the rise the last couple of years. Rutte,
meanwhile, has long been on shakier ground.
His austerity and
reform policies are widely denounced by the general public. He has
suffered badly in the polls, and the Labour Party is close to total
collapse.
Meanwhile, despite
problems within his fragile political party, Wilders has managed to
lead the polls for much of Rutte’s tenure. He has pounced on the
prime minister at every chance, attacking his policies on refugees,
terrorism, the euro and the welfare state. In the midst of the
refugee crisis late 2015, Wilders held a 10 percentage point lead
over Rutte.
***
Things have improved
for Rutte over the summer. He is closing in on Wilders, with the rest
of the parties far behind. The EU refugee deal with Turkey, which
came together while Rutte was EU chairman, helped spread the
perception that the migration crisis is under control. And the Dutch
economy is finally doing well. Most citizens are far more confident
about their financial circumstances than in 2010, when Rutte first
took office.
The new Netherlands
could well become a country that prefers conflict and confrontation
over consensus and tolerance.
Rutte has framed the
next election as a choice between him and Wilders. For Dutch
politics, this is unprecedented territory. The campaign pits two
right-wing parties against one another, instead of the traditional
fight between the Right and the Left.
In Dutch political
campaigns, the two leading parties typically gain from a two-way
fight, to the detriment of the other parties. So the most probable
outcome at this point will see Rutte and Wilders both do very well,
while the Left stands to suffer historic losses.
Particularly in the
areas of immigration, terror and Islam, this would mean a dramatic
turn to the right. The new Netherlands could well become a country
that prefers conflict and confrontation over consensus and tolerance.
For the past 40
years, the Netherlands have, with just two exceptions, followed the
U.S. electorate: When the U.S. turned to the left or right in a
presidential race, the Dutch did the same.
The Left recognizes
the danger — but it does not appear to have the power to do
anything about it. Their main problem is their failure to come up
with a serious alternative to either Wilders or Rutte.
All of this will
play out against the backdrop of the United States’ presidential
election in November. The Dutch will be watching particularly
closely.
In many ways, it is
their election, too. As the U.S. goes, so goes the Netherlands. For
the past 40 years, the Netherlands have, with just two exceptions,
followed the U.S. electorate: When the U.S. turned to the left or
right in a presidential race, the Dutch did the same.
This explains why
Dutch politicians have always been happy to criticize American
policies, but eager to copy American politics. Rutte may be critical
of the U.S.’s social policies, and Wilders may strongly oppose
President Obama’s foreign policy, but both politicians have taken
plenty of advice from U.S. strategists.
Sources in Rutte’s
party attribute his path to power in part to his decision to turn to
U.S. Republican Party strategist David Winston when his party was in
deep trouble 10 years ago.
Wilders, meanwhile,
has been in close contact with many Republicans with Tea Party
credentials, agitators such as Steve King, Michele Bachmann and Tom
Tancredo, whose aggressive approach to politics has served as a
template for Wilders.
The Dutch will
likely make a decisive turn to the right next March. Just how far
they go is in the hands of the American voter.
Tom-Jan Meeus is a
political columnist for the Dutch paper NRC Handelsblad. He worked as
a U.S. correspondent and was awarded best political writer of the
Netherlands in 2015.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário