Politics is the problem, not the solution, according to many voters

A minister who is not allowed to wait in the open air for the official car that has yet to arrive. Security guards who, before a minister goes anywhere, explore the area to see if there are any security risks. Service cars with a security car behind. Police stations in front of houses of ministers. Members of parliament who are advised by the security services not to make a planned visit. All the spontaneity that makes life beautiful, reduced to well-planned and fully thought-out scenarios.

What was largely invisible in the Binnenhof for a long time – the insecurity of politicians – became increasingly visible in the past year. And where it was first mainly PVV leader Geert Wilders who had to live his life within the frameworks that the security services offered him, insecurity now affects many more politicians. Online polarization and threats are increasingly translating into the real world. Many politicians, both ministers and MPs, can no longer move freely through The Hague.

Talk to politicians about what a political year this has been, and that insecurity almost always comes up. And what is often added: statements by politicians of other political parties lead to an increase in the number of threats – especially Forum for Democracy is mentioned. In January, a man with a burning torch stood in front of the house of Minister Sigrid Kaag (Finance, D66), he was sentenced to six months in prison for that. A month earlier he had stood at the door of Hugo de Jonge (Public Housing, CDA). Christianne van der Wal (Stikstof, VVD) also received unsolicited home visits from angry farmers.

Last year, politicians reported threats much more often (1,072 times) to the Police Politicians Team than in previous years. Minister Dilan Yesilgöz (Justice, VVD) pointed to the “increased social unrest” about, among other things, corona and nitrogen policy. Because more and more people need security, the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee is setting up a new unit to protect ministers, among other things.

Read also: FVD invited ‘boss’ of Kaag’s attacker to the House of Representatives

Increase ‘disturbing’

This spring, the AIVD wrote in its annual report that it saw some of the anti-government protests radicalise. The intelligence and security service calls the increase in the number of threats to politicians, among others, “disturbing”. And the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) wrote last month that the nature of the terrorist threat in the Netherlands is changing. The belief in conspiracy theories within groups where radical anti-government thinking is already prevalent can “give rise to extremist and even terrorist acts.”

This is the reality that politicians in The Hague also experienced last year. And part of that grimly menacing atmosphere could be explained by increased polarization. Research by the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP), which will be published on Thursday, shows that three-quarters of the Dutch think that differences of opinion on social issues are increasing. Moreover, satisfaction with the functioning of Dutch democracy is declining. This decrease is stronger than in other EU countries.

“The Dutch are gloomy,” says SCP researcher Emily Miltenburg. The Netherlands is going in the wrong direction, say almost half of the citizens. Politicians like to be seen as a solution, but it is striking that people spontaneously mention politics when asked about social problems.

The Dutch believe that the cabinet is unable or unwilling to solve the major problems of our time. “If you ask people about trust, they mention a substantive issue, such as housing or energy. The Supplementary Affair is also a recurring theme, as an example: look what a mess they are making in The Hague. The scandal in itself is terrible, the institutional racism that it brought to light, but people mainly blame politicians for the aftermath: the fall of the cabinet, the chaotic parliamentary debate on April 1, 2021, the wrangling, the lying.” This is reflected in low confidence in politics: half of the Dutch say they have that in the cabinet, 52 percent in the House of Representatives. Factors that normally contribute to the restoration of confidence – national elections, economic recovery or a major external crisis such as corona – are not obvious in the short term. There is therefore no reason to assume that confidence in politicians will increase in the short term, says Miltenburg.

Politicians themselves seem to play a major role in the growing concerns about polarization. Citizens are not only concerned about Hague’s inability to solve problems, but also about “hostility and aversion” in the political debate. They are annoyed by politicians who do not allow each other to speak, show no respect, or only address their own supporters.

This is the paradox: while politicians notice that angry citizens are increasingly reporting on the doorstep of the House of Representatives, or even in front of their own homes, citizens point to politicians as the cause. Emily Miltenburg says: “Group discussions show that people are very concerned about debates on TV and in the House. There they see discord, hardening and coarsening. When we ask further questions, people think en masse that things are going completely wrong. The short fuse, the manners.”

Political scientists have been writing alarming pieces about what they call “affective polarization” for years. It is not about a rejection of each other’s ideas, but more of each other’s being, each other’s identity. What this leads to, political scientist Eelco Harteveld showed this year in a so-called political thermometer. It showed that citizens can be roughly divided into three political blocs: centre-left, centre-right and radical right. The first two blocs are mostly tolerant of each other, while they have very negative views of the radical right. And vice versa, radical right-wing citizens think very negatively about other citizens.

And at the same time, none of this tells the whole story about 2022. While citizens are very concerned about polarization in politics and society, it often plays less of a role in their daily lives. The SCP writes that “across the board there are no indications of political-cultural polarization”. The SCP also sees ‘no movement to the extremes’ on many themes, although citizens have started to look slightly more negatively at people who think differently.

People quickly get annoyed by harsh expressions

Emily Miltenburg researcher SCP

Researcher Emily Miltenburg says that people often say that they should have a strong opinion about everything, the so-called “positioning pressure”. About nitrogen, gender issues, corona, agriculture or Putin. “But if you ask further, citizens admit that the hardening hardly plays a role in their daily lives. People say: but I live in a bubble, life ripples on with me. Or people avoid politics, as a coping mechanism to keep it fun.”

The SCP certainly encountered aversion to dissenters. But then, according to Miltenburg, it was mainly about “an aversion to extremes” in the public debate. “People are quickly annoyed by fierce expressions, from angry farmers or from climate activists.” The idea that the Netherlands is so divided, and is becoming increasingly divided, is, according to her, mainly an image. Elections show that: most Dutch people stick to the status quo politics of the political center, which characterizes the last Rutte cabinets. “Everything is quickly called polarization, by politicians and by the media. Even the wolf debate is described in those terms. We simply should not mistake debate between supporters and opponents for polarization too quickly.” According to Miltenburg, doing so is risky: “The idea that society is polarized can fuel perceived hostility. ‘False polarization’ can have consequences for our democracy.”

Read also: The House of Representatives is an ‘extremely unsafe’ workplace, according to the MPs themselves