More parties than ever, but less and less to choose from

It came as a small shock when the votes of the municipal elections were counted: the low turnout (50.8 percent). Never before have so few people voted in local elections. Winners did not fail to emphasize how unhappy they were with that on Wednesday night. Losers saw an excuse in it.

Has half of the Netherlands dropped out politically, the crisis of confidence so deep that people no longer come to vote? “People no longer have any faith in politics,” said SP leader Lilian Marijnissen. Politics did not show itself from our best side last year, said CDA campaign manager Derk Boswijk. Minister Hanke Bruins Slot (Internal Affairs, CDA) has announced an investigation.

But beware of drawing too firm conclusions about this turnout, says political scientist Josje den Ridder. There is no such thing as the one who stays at home, non-voters have several reasons not to show up, according to an opinion poll by Ipsos this week.

A deep crisis of confidence? Not necessarily. Only slightly more than a quarter of the non-voters gave this as the reason, according to the Ipsos survey. Trust in politicians has fluctuated for years. After a dip at the end of last year, the year of the Allowances affair, the lengthy formation and the endless lockdowns, it has recently increased somewhat. Moreover, distrust of power can also be seen as part of critical democratic citizenship. “Last year, confidence in politics was also low, but turnout in parliamentary elections was 80 percent,” says Den Ridder. “If you have little faith in politics, you will not vote or you will vote for a protest party.”

The war in Ukraine may have dampened the turnout, says Den Ridder. “Important for the turnout is the visibility of parties and national leaders. In the media it was mainly about the war, the campaigns were cut back.”

Moreover, every local result, every polling station, is a story in itself. There are poor and prosperous municipalities where the turnout decreased. And in Edam-Volendam and Urk, two areas that are not immediately known for their great confidence in (earthly) authority, the turnout was high (Urk, 75 percent) or rose sharply (plus eleven percentage points in Edam-Volendam). There is therefore no clear explanation for the turnout and results.

Nevertheless, the results and opinion polls do point to underlying trends that touch the core of the Dutch political system – and threaten to erode. Politics shatters. As a self-reinforcing effect, that fragmentation can weaken the system. The multitude of participating parties makes it difficult for citizens to choose. In the Ipsos survey, most of those staying at home (32 percent) gave the reason not to vote because they didn’t know which party to vote for. That’s about double what it was four years ago.

According to Den Ridder, the norm has increasingly become that you have to make a well-considered choice for a party, that you have to delve into the political landscape before the elections. “During the pillarisation, it was different: voters were much more loyal. You basically always voted for the same party without thinking too much about it,” she says. Now “voters have started to choose.”

Block of unity

The more parties, the higher the threshold for making that well-considered choice. Does the voter have choice stress? Can. Especially in municipalities with the lowest turnout, such as Rotterdam, Roosendaal and Lelystad, the choice was huge. Anyone looking for a right-wing anti-establishment party in Rotterdam could turn to at least three parties. In Nissewaard (40.9 percent turnout) six local parties took part. Roosendaal had the second lowest turnout, with 35 seats divided among 10 parties.

But voters think that parties are too similar, the National Voters Survey showed last year. As one unit of unity, the middle parts in particular move in a certain direction on major themes. In 2012, for example, everyone was in favor of far-reaching cutbacks; in 2021 everyone for more state intervention in the economy. Fundamental ideological struggles are lacking, challenging that consensus is left to the flanks. Last year, the corona crisis sucked that battle even further out of the campaign. This year, the war in Ukraine did the same: in the only national TV debate, party leaders wanted to radiate unity.

That is the paradox: there is more and more choice, but for many voters less and less the feeling that there is something to choose. In the absence of competing political blocs, such as during the pillarization, the party landscape disintegrates into a jungle of partial interests, identitarian (lifestyle) parties and split-offs.

This fragmentation can increase representativeness – but apparently not for the large group of people who stay at home. In addition, it affects controllability. In many municipalities, at least four or five parties are needed to arrive at a majority council. That can make lectures more unstable. The expectations of citizens about what their municipal authorities can do are high, it turned out recently. Too high, maybe. If coalitions prove less capable of solving problems, those expectations can turn into something else: disillusionment and dissatisfaction.