Citizens have had enough of all those opinions. So that The Hague only waives too heat debate

How much space is there for dissenters? The murder of the American radical-right activist Charlie Kirk has given that question extra charge. In the first place because he was silenced. But also because of the vengeful reaction from the Trump world. Republican Congressmen and Make America Great Again (MAGA) prominent prominent people called on free speech, exactly the opposite of what Kirk said he would stand up for. Thus became the popular Late Night Show Van Komiek Jimmy Kimmel stopped by the American channel ABC, after a comment about the kirk murderer. It was clear that political pressure played a role in that decision.

The Netherlands is not America, but the cultural influence of the US is immense. Gaza, Charlie Kirk and the identity debate have led to a continuous discussion about who can and should not be heard. A fight between two participants in Podcast The spin doctor (EO), of whom a concept showed for people who were happy that Kirk was silent, led to calls on social media to her cancel. It also plays at university campuses, in talk shows, in families.

An increasing intolerance for dissenters is also politically visible, for example in a report That this month was published by Think Tank The Hague Center for Strategic Studies (HCSS). The think tank investigated the ‘autocratic sentiment’ among citizens. That investigation showed that almost half of the respondents, 48 ​​percent, would rather see ‘a decisive leader’ than a government looking for compromises. Citizens are frustrated, the researchers write about the lack of political results.

‘Messy democracy’

But there is an even deeper cause behind it. A large group of citizens simply has had enough of “the many opinions and polarization that make the debate unclear.” Democracy, with all those voices that just want something different, is seen by this group as “messy.” They long for clarity, control and ‘homogeneity’. HCSS warns: “Democratic disillusion, erosion of trust and the experience of more threat can (…) be operated by autocratically oriented leaders.”

The Hague tackled democratic disillusion this week with depolarization. The tone of the general political considerations in the Lower House was, consciously, mostly mild. You heard calls to “reach out each other,” there were calls for “connection,” and very often referred to the speech.

King Willem-Alexander had said on Prinsjesdag that “unfortunately in the Netherlands people seem to be opposed more and more often. On the street, online, at universities and not least in The Hague. With pronounced views, for or against, black or white.” A “living democracy” also has a debate and difference of opinion, but: “The right of one does not automatically mean the wrong of the other.”

This call sounded in the Chamber for two days, at least with the PVV-exclusive parties. PVV leader Geert Wilders dominated the first hours of the two-day debate with his contribution. Wilders had talked about ‘an Islam problem’, ‘an immigrant problem’, and had called for the closure of all Islamic schools. But after he had left the pulpit, a whole new debate seemed to have arrived.

The formation of after the elections, not an ideas struggle, turned out to be the most important theme for the political middle parties. Geert Wilders was not addressed at all by some. As if he was not until recently the greatest power factor in The Hague, with whom VVD, NSC and BBB just wanted to rule.

Zoom in

Turn Yesilgöz

VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz pretended that that had not happened. She now made permanent work of the “center -right coalition” that she wants, at least with BBB, CDA, JA21 and D66. It was the same Yesilgöz who, due to her behavior on X, regularly caused great social anger in recent months, for example when she accused singer Douwe Bob of ‘hatred’. For this she apologized and arranged with the singer.

One scene on Wednesday illustrated how complicated the old and the new Dilan Yesilgöz relate to each other. Esther Ouwehand (PvdD) asked Yesilgöz about her X-behavior, and said that the way in which she distance himself from Wilders is not sincere, “in view of the fact that they, for example, types like [de rechtse opiniemaker] Wierd Duk is just happily retweeting ”. Chamber chairman Martin Bosma intervened. He thought that was ‘not neat’.

Yesilgöz: “Jeetje, chairman, and now I have to connect, right?”

Bosma: “Think of the king!”

But a lot went wrong with this twist of the VVD leader, says political scientist Matthijs Roduijn (University of Amsterdam). “If you have worked with a radical-right party as the PVV for so long, it is not a very credible story. Certainly not because it is now excluding the PVV, but especially on practical grounds: you cannot make agreements with it. In addition, she has recently had GroenLinks-Pvda consistently painted it, a party that according to her is what the border is so what the limits are so what the border is what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what it is so what is the border with her. acceptable has been shifted. ”

The problem arises when voters no longer see other groups as a political opponent, but as an enemy

The middle parties tried to keep the mutual conflict small. They saw that in response to the growing social contradictions. But with that they forgot something important, says Matthijs Roodijn. Politics needs conflict. Polarization, he says, is not a problem in itself. If the parties distinguish themselves sharply from each other, voters helps to make an informed choice in the elections. “The problem only arises when voters no longer see other groups as a political opponent, but as an enemy. And if they approve everything that their own group does.” Political scientists call this ‘affective polarization’: citizens do not reject what someone else thinks, but what the other person is.

Christmas dinner

This week the middle parties avoided sharp contradictions, although the social unrest about Gaza is great. For example, the debate, in the words of Volt leader Laurens Dassen, went more and more to a Christmas dinner where an attempt was made to keep the contradictions small. The culture struggle was entirely for the flanks. The left -wing parties DENK and PvdD tried to get Gaza on the agenda, both in word use and in clothing choice. But that hardly succeeded. Caroline van der Plas (BBB) ​​repeated many times that she wanted to make the APB ‘not a Gazade debate’.

While The Hague avoids the substantive debate, for example about Gaza, it does take place elsewhere in a heated tone, for example at universities.

The space for this arises because politics does not conduct the debate, says Matthijs Roduijn: “Gaza keeps citizens very busy, that unrest needs a political translation. Politics must be an adult clash of ideas, what else do we have politically? As long as the limits of the rule of law are respected.”

To share





Mail the editors