Not everyone responds enthusiastically to the call from Jesse Klaver of GroenLinks and Sigrid Kaag of D66 not to close local coalitions with PVV and FvD. “The parties shouldn’t waste so many words on it,” a commentary said in a statement de Volkskrant† The call would mainly play into the hands of Wilders and Baudet, while they do not even want to control.
From Belgium, where there has been a cordon sanitaire with regard to Vlaams Belang for a long time, these comments sound particularly recognisable. Characteristic is that the objections are often of a political-strategic nature, while it concerns a choice of principle. How do we deal with parties that systematically violate the basic principles of the democratic constitutional state in their program and political practice?
As early as 1989, so before the electoral breakthrough of the extreme right in 1991, all Belgian democratic parties decided by means of a short text not to conclude administrative agreements with (then) Vlaams Blok. Despite their numerous differences of opinion, the democratic parties are in agreement on this. The name cordon sanitaire is not very tasteful, but the content is still very valuable to this day.
After all, a democracy is an organized disagreement, a lively political struggle between parties with their own programmes, arguments and proposals. Embracing this ideological diversity presupposes the acceptance of a democratic minimum: fundamental human and fundamental rights, enshrined in the ECHR and the Constitution, such as the principle of equality and the principle of non-discrimination. What applies to Vlaams Belang, also applies to PVV and FvD. They dive below that democratic minimum. So there are good reasons not to work with them.
Former German President Joachim Gauck described it in his farewell speech in 2017 as follows: ‘Democracy is like a big tent in which togetherness ends when parties, movements and individuals violate the norms and laws of this democracy.’
robustness
Has the cordon worked in Belgium? Our answer is yes, both from the initiator at the time and from the politician who is active today. After all, more than thirty years later, there is still not a single level of government where the far right has ruled. So unless you view policy participation from the far right as positive, the cordon has worked. The cordon is often reflected on in Belgium, but the formal character does offer clarity and robustness.
Whether the cordon plays into the hands of Vlaams Belang? It is difficult to give an unequivocal answer. Vlaams Belang is again peaking in the polls today. But in the recent past, for example in the national elections in 2014, they only narrowly passed the electoral threshold – and then there was also a cordon. Moreover, the absence of a cordon in the Netherlands has not prevented the breakthrough of PVV and FvD.
Moreover, the fight against the extreme right is not a matter for the electoral calculator. It is not a strategic move, but a statement of principle about democracy. That ruling is voluntary, clear and unambiguous. What’s undemocratic about that? Precisely because the voter must judge with completeness of information, a preliminary ruling is a form of democratic hygiene and transparency.
Choise
Their own attitude makes a coalition with PVV or FvD very unlikely today. They don’t want to. But even that is not a convincing argument against a formal agreement. The choice between whether or not to govern with the extreme right itself would be a big mistake on the part of the other parties. In doing so, they would subordinate important fundamental rights to the whims of the extreme right.
According to SP party leader Lilian Marijnissen, D66 and GroenLinks look down on voters of the PVV and FvD with their appeal. Nothing is less true. There need be no contradiction between a resolute ‘no pasaran‘ towards parties and an empathetic and even curious attitude towards voters. Their concerns are indeed, as Marijnissen points out, often socio-economic: the peppered energy bill, the disruptive wealth inequality, the unaffordable rent.
respect
Putting these concerns at the heart of our political actions is the most meaningful expression of respect and also the logical route for a left-wing formation. To equate the motives of the voters with the xenophobia of the extreme right figureheads, that would be condescending. Taking voter grievances seriously (and doing something about them) is indeed essential in a vibrant democracy, but accepting or normalizing the anti-democratic translation of that message threatens democracy.
We therefore regard an alliance against the extreme right as a blessing for democracy. The appeal from Klaver and Kaag and the rather positive reactions from Mark Rutte (VVD) and Wopke Hoekstra (CDA) are hopefully a start. After all, this time begs for clarity, militancy and persistence. The fight against the extreme right should therefore not only be fought on the eve of the municipal elections.
The call could develop into a democratic offensive, a broad political grouping in favor of democracy and against the far right. This is an alliance that knows how to include all democrats, an assertive alternative to parties that constantly exclude people. Such a positive alliance could also mean a lot for the Netherlands. It is a real forum for democracy.
Jos Geysels is Minister of State and former party leader of the Flemish Greens. At the time, he was the initiator of the cordon sanitaire. Kristof Calvo is a Member of Parliament for Green and a former party leader. At the moment he is also a fellow at the Scientific Bureau of GroenLinks.