Who can explain exactly what is in our national interest and what is not? More missiles on Russia, or not? More control over the new media, or leave it to the market? More weapons technology in your own hands, or together with the US? The most important thing, according to the leader of the largest opposition party, was that there was ‘clarity’. That the government called man and couple, and presented citizens with clear choices in the midst of international turbulence and uncertainties. And that was the problem.
In 1980, Joop den Uyl, because that’s who he was, fulminated in his fierce and eloquent manner: “The government cannot continue to watch passively. […] New unchecked power is being accumulated. We must stand up against this! That is a demand of democratic awareness. […] What threatens us most is the loss of people’s awareness that their voice counts, that they can influence developments, that it will not all happen to them, but that they will have a say and that they can choose. That realization, a precious achievement of a development process of recent years, which has clearly manifested itself in Dutch politics, will only survive if people are offered clear options. Without that, choosing loses its meaning.”
The greatest danger, according to Den Uyl, was not the Russians or the new media. “What is most dangerous and what is most to be feared is the depoliticization, the crumpling and concealing of the choices that need to be made.” And: “The most regrettable victim of this depoliticization will be our parliamentary-democratic system itself.”
As is often the case, Den Uyl was quite prophetic in his diagnoses. In times when it is lamented that we have either reached a low point in democratic confidence or are engulfed in hyperpolitical drama, his insistence on sobriety and clarity is refreshing. Especially because he did not think that ‘connection’ or ‘more trust’ should be sought. But precisely towards more substantive polarization and clarity. Because only in this way could clear choices be made. Den Uyl was the embodiment of the politicization of issues at a time when depoliticization was slowly advancing, as Ruben Ros did in his dissertation on Expert politics, 1917-1994 has shown.
And just like now, that was also a time when the Netherlands had difficulty defining its national interest. In light of the new arms race and the so-called ‘Second Cold War’, and the rise of new media (according to Den Uyl!), the government could not hide behind Europe, or behind the US.
The Netherlands was not alone in this. Philip Cunliffe recently explained in a magisterial book, National Interest. Politics After Globalization, explains that it has been precisely the past thirty or forty years in which ministers and politicians have forgotten the language of the national interest. He blames the governments of the West for this. And before he pointed out in his book The New Twenty Years’ Crisis. A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 to the alleged elitist jargon of scientists, who in their discourses on international politics in general about NGOs, advocacy and wrote about human rights, but preferred not to touch the dirty laundry of national interests.
Very practical: this weekend we are experiencing the tenth anniversary of Brexit. In Great Britain, that discussion, as described in detail, has been completely hijacked by the drama policy of Reform UK. ‘Take back control‘, was the mantra of UKIP (the forerunner of Reform UK). The Remain party came up with ‘stronger, safer, better off‘ (in the EU), but was soon expertly dismissed as ‘Project Fear‘. “People have had enough of experts,” Brexit spin doctor Michael Gove added.
True democratic representativeness needs clear choices
Den Uyl would have agreed with him. People have had enough of depoliticizing experts. Real democratic representativeness needs clear choices, and politicians and ministers who are prepared to explain them. And to communicate about this honestly. Including the consequences. This means that choices that the Netherlands makes for Defense procurement are clearly defended. That we honestly say how long it will take and how much it will cost, but also how important it is that we develop our own cloud systems for the DigiD system. Or, on the dossier that was in the news this week: that ministers recognize that there are international and therefore In the Netherlands there has long been a code black in hospitals and that a choice must therefore be made between groups of patients (instead of denying and obscuring this and leaving it to the doctors themselves).
Conversely, those politicians and ministers may also push back if there is anything wrong with it fake news noise is sprinkled into the process of deliberation. We can demand that issues of national interest involve a fair assessment of political choices. And that these choices are also mentioned and that it is even recognized that there are always choices. This means that the endless you-bin from the many right-wing extremist trolls and left-wing pacifists about how the war is ‘all NATO’s fault’ is not accepted as a valid argument (because, so whatEven then, killing thousands of Ukrainians is of course never a justified choice on Putin’s part and still requires decisive action on our part). It also means that absolutizing the will of the people (populism) or a ‘hidden truth’ (conspiracy theorists) does not count either. During corona times, there were still real choices to be made, precisely because there were so many uncertainties.
There is only one remedy against technopopulism and the hyperpolitics of conspiracies and drama: back into the House and learn to really debate substantively. Politicians who do not do this and who take their revenge on social media should no longer be taken seriously. And again read back what Den Uyl all said.