My liberalism goes pretty far. For example, I think that people should be free to live according to their crazy ideas, I think that religious communities should largely be allowed to decide for themselves what they preach and I think that parents should be allowed to send their children to religious weekend schools where they learn to only make friends with children of the same faith, or that the only true love is between a man and a woman.
That may all be horrible, but disgust is not a good ground for intervening. That is why the minister should not send his Education Inspectorate to such weekend schools. The government may only enter the private sphere for very good reasons.
In the discussion about a ban on political parties, sensible remarks can be heard about what is a legitimate ground for intervention. For example, the choice that makes other choices impossible should be prohibited.
On a personal level, suicide is an example of such a ‘final’ choice – you can’t undo it. An equivalent in democracy is the anti-democratic party. If he wins the election, it may have been the last free election. You should allow any political party in the system: the far right and the far left, the extreme religious or the extreme conservative – but not the anti-democratic ones, because that would allow democracy to commit suicide on a bad day.
The stupid thing is that such a fundamental debate should be held around such a bruised club like Forum for Democracy. It still feels like Spielerei. Like when Forum member of parliament Gideon van Meijeren calls for a storming of parliament. It’s like he’s running the American manual on how to organize a storming of the Capitol point by point, only without the desired result.
Read also: Should there be a separate law that allows for a ban on parties?
My more pragmatic side always tends to shout: leave them. They don’t put a dent in a packet of butter. The polder always turns out to be pretty mediocre ground for these kinds of quasi-fascist parties. Things are far from bad enough in this country. And the Forums of this world hold a staffing problem. The somewhat moderate members who want to associate with it ran away long ago. The remaining vain lords are beating around wildly, radicalizing and forfeiting their support.
My pragmatic self also wonders how effective such a ban on parties is exactly. The banned Vlaams Blok party marked the birth of Vlaams Belang. Politicians can vary and repeat their calls for the overthrow of democracy faster than the rule of law can punish them. Wilders was sentenced for his ‘fewer, less less Moroccans’ statement, but continues to repeat his so-called ‘Moroccans problem’ endlessly, such as last week after a football party that got out of hand.
Such a ban is therefore probably ineffective. Do we now have to hold a weighty debate about our democratic constitutional state and Constitution because of recent nonsense at splinter parties such as the Forum? Yes. In fact, it should have been sooner. Now the debate threatens to get bogged down again in an inaccessible technical-legal discussion. A political parties bill has been almost finished for many years. We need a fundamental debate, by our parliament. Preferably fast.
Because these kinds of scenes are normalizing at a rapid pace. While we are still sifting through every statement or retweet by FVD MPs in search of possibly obscure anti-Semitic references, another party with an open, explicit and practically executable anti-Islamic program has been part of parliament for years. That Fleur Agema sometimes says valid things about healthcare, people notice these days. And that Bosma is a great President of the House. Hate goes too.
That habituation occurs with Forum. In the meantime, they continue to gnaw at the pillars on which democracy rests. We need to better protect our freedoms in this country. Not because it’s so effective, but out of principle.
Rosanne Hertzberger is a microbiologist.
A version of this article also appeared in the December 3, 2022 newspaper