Schadenfreude

So the much lauded rightwing coalition of CDA (Christian democrats), VVD (neoliberals) and LPF (idiots, mostly) has collapsed. Oh dear. And I was sooo enjoying the LPF soap.

So what happened to the Revolution, the New Politics the LPF would bring? What happened to Pim Fortuyn’s heritage? Well, it turned out that stuffing a party full of nitwits, egotrippers and cocky businessmen is not a good idea. Without Pim Fortuyn as leader to guide them, power struggles erupted. The party had no vision, no experience and no leader. It was part of a coalition with the two parties with the worst reputation for power games, whom both had long experience in keeping coalition partners down. The LPF never had a chance.

All of which means there will be new elections soon. Until then, there’s nobody governing the country and important decisions cannot be taken… What this will mean for the upcoming decision about extension of the EU, to which the Netherlands has to give its consent, is anybody’s guess.

Anti-semitism?

You may have heard of Wim Duisenberg, the first ever president of the European Central Bank. You will probably not have heard of his wife, Gretta Duisenberg. Even I hadn’t, really, apart from her being “the wife of”. However, she is more then *just* Wim Duisenberg’s wife, as she’s herself involved in political activism. The Palestinian question has her special attention, so much so she took part in the big demonstration against the Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories on April 13th this year. For this demonstration she bought a Palestinian flag and walked with it in the demo. So far, nothing serious.

Her troubles began when she hung the flag from her balcony of her house in the posh Amsterdam Rivierenbuurt. Her next door neighbours, Ron and Rosa van der Wieken did not like this, especially when it became clear she wasn’t going to take it down soon. Understandably, since those neighbours where Jewish and had family living in Israel. To them, the flag was a symbol of “a bloodthirsty regime” [1] so they complained to Gretta. She however found this to be an overreaction: “Palestinians have to look at the Israeli flag and in the barrels of Israeli tanks every single day. In the freedom of Zuid-Amsterdam you must then not be so sensitive.” [1] Since Amsterdam-Zuid was also the place where during the War many Amsterdam Jews were deported to the camps, this did understandbly not sit well with her neighbours.

Then, when Gretta Duisenberg called on the van der Wieken to talk about the case, a fierce argument started up, during which she supposedly made anti-semitic remarks. Ron van der Wieken was supposed to have said that “she was a salon bolsevik” and “was partly responsible for what happens to his children. She from her side was to have said that “rich Jews” [1]were partly responsible for the repression of the Palestinian people.

So far, I would say, and so would most sensible people I hope that both parties were ummm not at their most intelligent so to speak. They let their politics and their emotions get the better of them. It happens, *i*’ve had it happen. But of course it didn’t stay with that.

The van der Wieken were not satisfied with the outcome and complained in an article in Het Parool, the Amsterdam evening paper. This was read by H. Loonstein, the chairman of Federatief Joods Nederland, who immediately pressed charges (presumably based on article 137 of Dutch criminal law which forbids discrimination and is overtly broad in its reach. Loonstein stated that Gretta Duisenberg’s remarks were “a classic anti-semitic image“: “making rich Jews responsible for the suffering of the world” [2].

If you ask me, slightly over the top. Yes, it is an anti-semitic stereotype, but that does not mean Duisenberg was antisemitic or even made anti-semitic remarks. But the most bizarre twist is still to come. To combat this anti-semitic behaviour, what did Loonstein also do? He pressed charges with the World Jewish Congress, requesting if Wim Duisenberg could not be declared a persona non grata in the US! This is not confirming an anti-semitic stereotype? Let’s call in extralegal pressure to be sure we win? Oy gevalt.

[1] These quotes are from the NRC article ‘Dát bedoel ik met joodse lobby’ (“this is what I mean with Jewish lobby”).
[2] These quotes are from another NRC article Aangifte tegen vrouw Duisenberg (Charges pressed against wife of Duisenberg).

Dutch elections update

Last time I wrote about the aftermath of the parliamentary elections was on May 21st high time to take another look at what’s been going on. There is also some older news I hadn’t found the opportunity yet to comment on, so let’s kill two birds with one stone.

Oops

In the previous post about the elections I wrote about several MPs from the losing parties drawing their conclusions and leaving the Tweede Kamer, but they were not the only ones. Leon Geurts of the Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF) was number 27 on the LPF election list, the last one elected but withdrew his application two days afterwards because he had lied about his qualifications. According to an article in Limburgs Dagblad [1]he lied about having an university level degree when in fact he still had to finish his study. He got into trouble because he couldn’t remember under which professor he did his thesis and because he insisted he got his degree in 1971 — when he was fifteen years old…

Coalition building

Everybody here knows that the only sensible coalition that could be formed after these election is the combination of LPF, VVD and CDA, as I described on 16th May. Every other possibility is either incredibly unrealistic or leads to a minority government. Yet until recently the VVD swore it would not and could not take part in the new government. Piously their current leader, ex-minister of finance Gerrit Zalm explained that the voters did not want the VVD in the government because the VVD had lost so heavily in the elections. He said that the VVD should be in the opposition this time and that others should form the government -naming a coalition of CDA,LPF and the SP (!) as a serious option.

This was of course so much bullshit. Zalm is an experienced politician and he knows he holds the aces in these coalition negotiations. His party has little to lose. As one of the losers in the elections there’s far less pressure on the VVD to be in government then there is on the CDA and LPF. In fact, four years of opposition could well be very beneficial to the VVD in rebuilding their support at the CDA and LPF’s cost. Especially since any coalition not including them would be a weak or even a minority one.

Let’s not forget the internal dynamics of CDA and LPF either. CDA is a party accustomed to governing, having been part of every coalition from World War II up till 1994, when the first VVD-PvdA-D66 cabinet was formed. After eight years of wandering aimlessly through the desert of opposition, blundering from one crisis to another they hunger for their reward. Not being in government this time would be unthinkable. This of course means the CDA has the disadvantage in any negotiations. Their own strength lies in their being the biggest party, without whom no real government is possible either.

For the LPF, their massive victory, coming from nothing to 26 seats in parliament is both a blessing and a handicap. Fast growing new parties do not tend to last long in Dutch politics. If they went in opposition they would both lose voter support (since they then cannot deliver what they promised) as well as run a very real risk of disintegrating, going under in internal squabbles. The example of the senior citizens parties, (who made a good showing in the 1994 elections, but then all but disappeared in the 1998 elections and who this time are gone for good), should be burned in their members’ brains. Even in government it will be difficult enough to survive and keep the support of the voters.

In my view, it will be difficult anyway for the LPF to make their voice heard in this coalition. Both CDA and VVD are experienced in working in coalitions; they’re also coalition partners of old. Any third party runs the risk of being mangled between them. D66 knows of this, as it happened to them in coalition with PvdA and VVD. The LPF itself can be summed up in one word: inexperienced. Their MPs are all outsiders, not trained in politics and hence could be easy prey for the CDA VVD stalwarts.

They blundered already this weekend, when several prominent LPF members called for a general amnesty for all illegal migrants in the Netherlands, whose number is estimated to be around 100,000. [1] The very next day the LPF came back on that statement. [1] Apparently they now wanted a general pardon only for those illegal immigrants who had lived in the Netherlands for longer then five years, had a job, knew the language and had a clean record. This, according to party spokeswoman Zeroual, responsible for the LPF’s migrant policies, was what the LPF had always had as their policy. It’s one example of the inexperience of the new party

It makes sense for Zalm to want to profit as much as possible from both parties weaknesses. By playing hard to get, he got a that much better negotiation position then he would have if he was too eager even if everybody knows it’s a farce. His policy is an understandable one, but somewhat reprehensible, symbolic of old style politics that should vanish in the Brave New Era of political openness the LPF was supposed to
usher in. It’s not quite there yet…

[1] Article in Dutch

Heads are gonna roll

Losing the elections is not without consequences, as the three parties of Paars (purple): PvdA, VVD and D66 are finding out now. Heads were gonna roll.

The first to draw their conclusions were the three leaders of the ex-government parties. Both Ad Melkert of the PvdA and Hans Dijkstal of the VVD resigned [1] after the disastrous election results for their respective parties. Thom de Graaf of D66 was reelected by his party’s Tweede Kamer faction as their leader after he had given up his position.

But the three faction leaders were not the only ones who decided to quit their jobs. Ex-minister Jan Pronk was reelected but decided he would give up his seat. He felt his the PvdA needed new blood and decided to set an example. His example was followed [1] by staatssecretaris (underminister) Margo Vliegenthart also of the PvdA and minister Roger Van Boxtel (D66). He is trading places with Boris van der Ham, the only new person on D66’s election list.

For Van Boxtel the main reason for leaving was that he felt he was the “embodiment of Paars-2” [2] and that the heart of his ministerial responsibility, minority policies, had become the “playfield” [3] for the rise of the LPF. Apparantely, he said, agitating about problems is valued more then working towards solutions. Not that these solutions have had much visibility
or success. As a minister he had a newly created portfolio concerning the big city areas in the Netherlands and integration of minorities, covering terrain already under the responsibility of other departements.

So far then, we have two PvdA MPs and one D66 MP quitting to make place for new blood. This however still leaves all three of the ex-govermental parties with an abundance of older, long serving MPs, since most of the newcomers were on as it turned out to be unelectionable places in their respective parties election lists. Whether this will be a handicap or an advantage to the parties is of course still unclear. On the one hand you can question whether the longer serving MPs can get themselves out of the ruts their parties are in, on the other hand having a cadre of experienced MPs may serve well in dealing with the great mass of inexperienced LPF firsttimers…

[1] Article in Dutch.
[2] “de belichaming van Paars-2”
[3] “speelveld”

Fortuyn and paedophilia

Last Sunday, the Scotsman posted an article accusing Fortuyn of being a powerful advocate or(sic) paedophilia. Several weblogs like e.g. Privateer and Atrios immediately followed up to this article and expressed their outrage at this vile, vile behaviour. Even going so far as to draw, in Privateer’s case totally unfounded conclusions about the Dutch media.

In reality he argued in a column he wrote for the Dutch opinion magazine Elsevier for just a little bit more common sense in dealing with paedophiles. He did that at a time, in late 1999 when paedofilia was very much in the news as a result of various (unrelated) sexual abuse cases coming to the light in a short period and there was a lot of free floating angst about it.

He started his article by reminiscing about how he himself used to “play doctor” when he was young and how that was dealt with sensible by his mother, without too much fuzz. He then contrasted this with the current denial of any sort of sexuality for children. As an example of the dangers of this, he offers that case in the US where a small boy rubbed himself against his little sister and got treated as a sex offender.

In his view paedophilia is like homosexuality or heterosexuality: a sexual preference you’re born with and cannot change. This means of course that a paedophile’s sexual urges will not disappear. He or she will always be sexually attracked to children. Therefore, there will always be the danger that a paedophile will act on their instincts; even prison may not deter them.

Fortuyn then tells how the US handles this problem of recidivism. In the US when a convicted paedophile is released from prison he has to register with the police where he lives and this information is made known to the public. This, he argues leads to mob justice: in the US (suspected) paedophiles are chased out of their homes, beaten up or worse because they cannot hide and start a new life. He warns that this could also happen in the Netherlands, if the same sort of legislation becomes law.

Pim Fortuyn then recalls the late seventies and early eighties, when paedophilia was no longer a taboo subject, but openly discussed as something that may not always be wrong, depending on circumstance. This was largely due to the efforts of then PvdA senator and paedophile Brongersma, who for years had fought for acceptance of paedophilia as not always being automatically wrong or harmful. In the sexual climate of the seventies, after the liberation of sex by the Pill and the growing acceptance of homosexuality as something normal, the existence of children as sexual beings gradually won terrain and this combined with Brongersma efforts led to paedophiles being treated more sympathetically. Less emphasis on the paedophile as a child raping monster and more on paedophilia as a sort of mental illness, as a condition which in itself was no reason for condemnation, but as something a paedophile must learn to live with within the boundaries of the law. This model was largely abandoned in the late eighties for again the paedophile as monster. Fortuyn laments this and pleads for more open discussion, for rebreaking of the taboo.

This does not make Pim Fortuyn a advocate of child molesters. It makes him somebody concerned with the black and white, emotional way the subject of paedophilia is treated in public discourse. You can disagree with him on this, but that’s not a good reason to subject him to a posthumous smear campaign. Yes, quotes from this article taken out iof context do sound bad, but do not show the whole picture. It is clear to me that Fortuyn is not advocating paedophilia, let alone actual sex with children, as well as a return to the more enlightened viewpoints of the seventies.