But is this political culture suitable for a period of war politics?

It was a week of war and mistakes from The Hague – but the latter, as politicians do, were neatly wrapped up in good intentions.

And so the House asked through a motion by Sjoerdsma (D66) to “structurally invest extra in Defense during this cabinet term”. And via a motion by Klaver (GroenLinks) to investigate the Russian financing of “parties, politicians and interest groups” since 2014.

It was twice overdue maintenance. For decades, the Netherlands has not met NATO standards for the growth of the Defense budget. And for years there have been television documentaries, books and articles, also in this section, about the ties of FVD leader Baudet with Kremlingezinde figures.

So even if you thought these steps were sensible, especially now that the Netherlands is supplying arms to Ukraine and is participating in the economic world war against Russia, you could not ignore the fact that they came rather late.

A well-known Hague flaw. Politics has become a world that mainly moves along with ‘current events’: the topics in talk shows, The Telegraph, on Twitter. Politicians who seek their views from voters, rather than voters from their views.

Constant attention to the abuses of today (‘the talk of the day’), rarely to the – tough – structural causes of those abuses. Politics that spread excitement and neglect solutions – because there is always new topicality; a new wrong.

And so this war is also a self-confrontation for The Hague. What has been dormant around corona now applies completely: is this political culture, the mixing of facts, excitement and entertainment, suitable for crisis management, especially now that a period of war politics is also approaching in The Hague?

Last spring the investor Alexander Ribbink, multimillionaire through his years on the board of TomTom, had a message for the election campaign. Ribbink, once a candidate for alderman for D66 in Amsterdam, was annoyed by the neglect of the Ministry of Defense.

He therefore did something un-Dutch: in his own words he threw “a large amount” at it to encourage politicians, partly referring to Putin, to increase the Defense budget by 2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) annually according to NATO agreement. increase.

The peace dividend had already been collected too exuberantly after the fall of the Wall, with the VVD supplying by far the most defense ministers since 1990: seven. “NATO and the Court of Auditors have been warning for years that the Defense organization was failing,” said Ribbink. Defense itself agreed: we can no longer even fulfill our constitutional duties.

Eventually he had contact with two politicians: he went for coffee with the then Minister of Defense Bijleveld (CDA) and was approached by her party colleague Knops (then campaign manager, now MP). Ribbink’s message resonated in the media, but according to the CPB’s calculation of the party programs less in politics: the VVD wanted to invest the most (2.6 billion), the CDA and the SGP quite a bit (1.1 billion), the CU a little. (half a billion), Ribbink’s own D66 100 million (“I canceled after the elections”), and the left mainly cut spending – the Denk party even withdrew 68 percent of the Defense budget.

But in the formation it tilted. The Russian threat became more manifest, and the December coalition agreement promised a structural expenditure increase of 3 billion euros during this cabinet term, with which the Netherlands would almost meet the NATO standard of 2 percent of GDP. Sjoerdsma’s motion this week aims to meet this even further.

Still, Ribbink was skeptical when I asked him about his success this week. Governing is foresight, he said, and “the fact that they are now turning like leaves on trees shows that we have not been governed very well in recent decades.”

The week also had something of a perfect storm. Now that Russia has gone to war in Europe and the US no longer wants to enforce peace in Europe, Germany returned out of the blue last week, Sunday morning 27 February 2022, as a military superpower in Europe – with which The Hague politics suddenly entered a new world. was standing.

Sometimes a week lasts for decades in politics, sometimes decades take place in a week: Germany as the new security umbrella for the Netherlands?

You can imagine that this also has something to do with political culture. For decades, the traditional Atlantic orientation of The Hague has caused politicians to imitate almost all attention-political tricks from the US. And that Hilversum copies the American custom of presenting journalistic work as a ‘show’. All entertainment.

Germany barely does that: successful German politicians keep a distance from it, and most media judges new political faces by the size of their electorate, not by their ratings.

In addition, Dutch politics in wartime must also organize communality, starting with a jointly supported national defence. But the system is increasingly supported by parties that himself can’t even keep it together.

This week MP Gündogan asked for relief in summary proceedings after her removal from Volt. It was war in Europe and the Dutch branch of a pan-European party fought its conflicts in court.

You thought: but don’t even these pro-Europeans see that you can only serve democracy if you can reach agreement with people from other worlds, with different views and styles, etc.?

It didn’t stand alone. Already in corona time, 50Plus and Denk fought their disputes publicly while their voters were among the hardest hit groups. Before that, Van Kooten-Arissen left the PvdD.

And within a year after the parliamentary elections of 2021, in addition to Gündogan, the numbers two of the CDA (Omtzigt), FVD (Van Haga) and Bij1 Gario) have also disappeared from their party. The list is gradually becoming disconcertingly long.

And whatever you think about this – in principle every MP should of course be independent –: it does not promise much good for the ability of politicians to organize collectively.

Next Wednesday, two topics are on the agenda that can also be classified under overdue maintenance, and which also contribute quite a bit to the high entertainment content of politics.

In the morning the presidency decides behind closed doors whether Baudet has violated the code of conduct for MPs because he refuses to cooperate in an integrity investigation now that he did not mention additional income of 85,000 euros from book sales in the public registers.

In the afternoon, the House debates about ways to counteract the coarsening of the debates, partly on the basis of proposals from House President Vera Bergkamp (D66). The House is expected to impose stricter standards on itself after years of tolerance. Then it becomes exciting: will politicians, including Wilders and Baudet, accept the new standards?

Here too, individual rights and the common interest clash. Either politicians continue to claim all the rights of expression that democracy offers them, or they give up some of their rights of expression for workable relations.

Just me or the others too: the dilemma is as old as democracy itself. But in today’s political culture the ego has become very magnified, and in times of war politics this can become quite a handicap.