OPINION
The
Wilders effect
How
the far-right rabble-rouser hijacked Dutch politics.
By TOM-JAN
MEEUS 2/8/17, 4:01 AM CET
THE HAGUE — Just
over a month before the Netherlands heads to elections on March 15,
conventional wisdom in political circles has it that the man expected
to win — right-wing rabble-rouser Geert Wilders — will be unable
to form a governing coalition.
But while he may not
become prime minister, to dismiss him would be a mistake. No
political leader has had a larger impact on Dutch politics over the
past decade than Wilders, a harsh critic of Islam, immigration and
the European Union.
In the decade since
his Freedom Party (PVV) won its first parliamentary seats in 2006,
Wilders has reshaped the politics of a country with a long tradition
of tolerance and liberalism. Policy debates, political language,
media attitudes, party landscape — all have been affected by
Wilders’ politics.
Whatever the
ultimate outcome of the election, expect the controversial “Dutch
Trump” to keep playing an outsized role.
Between a rock and
hard place
Last month, Prime
Minister Mark Rutte, a fiscal conservative, set the stage for the
final campaign months. He pointed out that there is no chance — “I
mean, zero” — that his party will govern alongside Wilders after
the election.
In
the meantime, Wilders also managed to change the media’s attitude
towards him. Skepticism toward him has largely disappeared over the
years. Reporters are now eager to land his quotes.
This all but
certainly isolates the far-right leader from power. In a fragmented
party landscape, Wilders currently has the support of about 20
percent of the vote in the polls. Rutte — who is, on policy terms,
Wilders’ closest available partner — comes in second with 16
percent.
But then Rutte has
also made another big campaign move. He published an open letter that
partly echoed the anti-immigrant sentiment Wilders has been cashing
in on. Rutte advised immigrants who refuse to accept Dutch cultural
standards to leave the country: “Act normal or leave,” he wrote.
Observers from
outside the country were stunned. Rutte’s strategy “could have
come from President Trump’s playbook,” wrote the New York Times.
In Dutch political
circles, however, none of this came as a surprise. Over the past four
years, Rutte has done fairly well in second-tier elections largely
thanks to similar remarks. During a campaign for regional elections
two years ago, he said he preferred Dutch nationals fighting
alongside the Islamic Sate in Syria to die on the battlefield instead
of returning home.
Rutte’s party has
also struggled to respond to Wilders’ crude remarks on people of
Moroccan descent. In 2014, the populist leader said he would “take
care” of reducing the number of Moroccans allowed in the country.
Late last year, he was convicted, but not punished, by a Dutch court
for inciting discrimination.
Rutte has pointed to
Wilders’ remarks as an important reason for his unwillingness to
govern with the far-right politician. But Rutte’s party — like
most in the country — has shied away from attacking Wilders on the
topic during the campaign. After all, Wilders’ conviction only
boosted his support in the polls.
Wilders has boxed in
his opponents: The harsher they criticize him, the better his chances
of winning the election.
Co-opting the left
And so instead,
politicians from all stripes have started copying his language. The
new leader of the struggling Labor party, Lodewijk Asscher, has made
“progressive patriotism” his campaign slogan. The leader of the
Green Party, Jesse Klaver, who could become the new face of the Dutch
left, attacked “the elites” in the early stages of the campaign.
The left has
suffered the most from Wilders’ rise. As a former MP for Rutte’s
party, Wilders has long held right-wing economic views. After his
criticism of Islam and immigration turned out to do very well with
less educated voters — traditional supporters of the left — he
suddenly opposed attempts to slash funding for health care and other
welfare state programs, confessing behind closed doors that these
policies made no sense to him.
The effects were
huge. Together, progressive parties traditionally held close to 50
percent of the vote. They are now down to 30-35 percent in most
polls, largely because voters have flocked to Wilders.
Scarcity tactics
In the meantime,
Wilders also managed to change the media’s attitude towards him.
Skepticism toward him has largely disappeared over the years.
Reporters are now eager to land his quotes. Wilders’ controversial
statements tend do be a boon for ratings and clicks — and he knows
that.
So he simply ignores
tough questions and hardly ever sits down for one-on-one TV
interviews. Instead, he holds back — and his tactic has worked
remarkably well. Because he hardly ever responds to requests from
individual political reporters, when he grants one newspaper a long
interview, his remarks tend to get picked up by every outlet.
Like Trump in the
U.S., Wilders regularly bashes “the media” on Twitter. And with
his more than 700,000 followers, he easily beats the circulation of
most newspapers.
Scandal erupts again
and again in his party. Over the years, his MPs have gotten in all
kinds of trouble — for thing like urinating in a neighbor’s
mailbox or running a porn company. Last year, Wilders’ spokesman
was caught stealing close to €200,000 of party money to pay for his
cocaine and alcohol addictions.
As a consequence,
the party has become an extremely secretive affair. There is no
democracy there: His party does not allow citizens, or even PVV
politicians, to become party members. The only exception to this rule
is Wilders himself, meaning that he never faces opposition within his
party. Investigative reports on the inner workings of the party show
a distrustful party leader with little respect for his MPs, whom he
often refers to as incompetent or crazy.
The contrast with
his public performances is striking. The electorate perceives him as
a strong and confident leader. But in his party he is known as being
too suspicious to build longstanding relations, even with his closest
allies.
But the bottom line
is that none of the scandals or inside reports have harmed his poll
numbers or his reputation among supporters. So most political
reporters have accepted that reality — and cover him by mainly
running his quotes and tweets.
And Wilders gained a
huge psychological victory when the editors of the country’s major
news outlets invited him to a closed door session last September.
Though some were rather critical of his media tactics, the overall
message was quite clear: We’re eager to talk to you, despite the
fact that you’ve refused to answer our questions for so many years.
The Wilders way
Not only did Wilders
manage to shrink the left, he catalyzed its fragmentation.
A new pro-immigrant
party emerged two years ago, after the left had internalized parts of
Wilders’ criticism of Dutch immigration and integration policies.
The governing Labor party had vowed to get tougher on immigrants who,
in their eyes, failed to fully integrate in Dutch society. When two
Labor MPs — both Muslim and of Turkish descent — disagreed, they
were kicked out of the party.
[The
Denk incident] confirmed what Dutch political analysts have seen
happen for over a decade now: At the end of the day, things go
Wilders’ way.
They founded Denk
(“equal” or “balanced” in Turkish —and “think” in
Dutch), a party that mirrors Wilders’ confrontational style. Where
Wilders criticizes Muslims and immigrants for not acknowledging the
supposed superiority of Western culture, Denk criticizes him for not
acknowledging their contributions to Dutch society. Denk soon became
a huge success in immigrant circles, where frustration with Wilders’
abrasive politics has been simmering for years.
Denk attracted a TV
personality with Latin American roots, Sylvana Simons, who soon
became a leading figure in a toxic debate over Zwarte Piet (Black
Peter), traditionally celebrated as Santa Claus’ servant on Saint
Nicholas, a tradition widely perceived as racist. The debate pitted
“traditionalist” Dutchmen against immigrants in a polarizing
atmosphere, out of which both Denk and Wilders benefited politically.
Pollsters had
predicted huge success for Denk. Then, in late December that year,
news broke that Simons had left Denk and started a party of her own.
A typical Dutch outcome — in a country where close to 30 parties
will compete in elections — that shrinks the chances of both Denk
and Simons’ new party.
The incident showed
that the Netherlands’ immigrant population — and their supporters
— are clearly susceptible to a party that mirrors the style and
tactics of Wilders, setting the stage for further polarization and
fragmentation in the future. And it confirmed what Dutch political
analysts have seen happen for over a decade now: At the end of the
day, things go Wilders’ way.
Tom-Jan Meeus is a
political columnist for NRC Handelsblad. He was awarded best
political writer of the Netherlands in 2015.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário