Anyone who wants to see the new relationships in the House of Representatives could have experienced this last Monday evening in the Groen van Prinstererzaal in the House of Representatives. MPs debated with outgoing State Secretary Eric van der Burg (Asylum, VVD) about his budget for asylum and migration. A charged subject: the VVD had dropped the Rutte IV cabinet over it. Almost the entire election campaign was about asylum and migration, with the PVV winning as a result. Other topics, such as poverty or the housing crisis, were discussed, but especially if they could be linked to migration. And now, two months after the installation of the new House of Representatives, the four parties negotiating a right-wing coalition are setting the tone.
Gidi Markuszower (PVV): “The fortune seekers want to enjoy our prosperity, benefits and care. Many of them come to take, not to give. Many want to do everything they can to destroy this country.”
Ruben Brekelmans (VVD): “Many Dutch people are concerned about the lack of control over numbers [asielzoekers] completely fed up.”
Caspar Veldkamp (NSC): “The form and scale of migration in recent years are unsustainable.”
Mona Keijzer (BBB): “I’m quite tough about it. There is no place in society for people with anti-Semitic or anti-liberal thoughts, which are part of Sharia.”
This new situation – a very large right-wing and radical right-wing majority – places the left in a dilemma. What should you do: move along or provide counterbalance?
Control over migration
GroenLinks-PvdA, with 25 seats the largest faction after the PVV, mainly did the first through MP Julian Bushoff. He also talked about “getting a grip on migration”. He criticized the parties that “use big words, but are deafeningly silent to take measures to restrict labor migration.” Bushoff: “Companies reap the benefits, while we as a society bear the costs.” In other words: we all want more or less the same thing, but you have the words, we have the solutions.
The right determines the conversation in The Hague and the left has virtually nothing to gain from the topic of discussion, migration. Perhaps that explains the relative silence among the left-wing and progressive part of the House of Representatives after the elections. Nothing to be gained from the conversation of the day, and too small to move the conversation to another topic.
This problem for the left has everything to do with ‘issue ownership‘, as political scientists call it. Voters associate parties with a theme. If, for example in an election campaign, it is strongly about your theme, you will automatically win, regardless of whether you convince everyone of your ideas. During the 2021 elections, researchers for the National Voter Survey asked which topics voters attach to parties. When it comes to the economy, the VVD wins. When it comes to education, D66 benefits. The PvdA had a strong association with employment, GroenLinks with climate. And the PVV, of course, with migration.
“Left-wing parties in the Netherlands have never really come up with their own story about migration,” says political scientist Léonie de Jonge (University of Groningen). “And when there is a lot about migration, as is now the case, the radical right always benefits. The position of voters on this subject hardly changes, we know from research. Only: politics is supply-driven. The supply of parties determines voter behavior. Voters are not suddenly anti-migration en masse, the figures are quite stable. The issue has only been politicized and voters adjust their behavior accordingly.”
Copying those themes and pouring a social-democratic or left-wing sauce over them “doesn’t work in practice,” says Léonie de Jonge. Yet that is what left-wing parties are trying to do. Even before the rise of Pim Fortuyn in 2002, the PvdA started discussing whether the party should adopt a stricter migration approach, so as not to chase away the traditional supporters (white, lower incomes) in, for example, the big cities. Publicist Paul Scheffer, a PvdA member, wrote his essay in 2000 The multicultural drama and sparked a lot of debate, including on the left.
Since then, the left has become more critical without, as Léonie de Jonge puts it, having found a real voice of its own. In 2009, then PvdA leader Wouter Bos advocated “a civilized form of nationalism” when it came to migration and integration. Lodewijk Asscher, PvdA leader from 2016 to 2021, wrote a critical note about migration that never saw the light of day. It was all very sensitive in his faction and supporters.
Limit migration?
For the left, migration is “a balancing act,” says professor of sociology Niels Spierings, affiliated with Radboud University Nijmegen. “About two-thirds of voters, including many on the left, believe that migration should be limited. Many left-wing voters believe that the Netherlands has a moral obligation to pursue a humane asylum and migration policy.” But GroenLinks-PvdA does have two problems, says Spierings. Most voters are more in the political middle than their ‘hard’ supporters. Moreover: the united left knows that there will be no progressive coalition in the near future, things have become lonely on the left. It will therefore be necessary to bend with right-wing parties to make possible cooperation possible.
The cautious shift towards the middle was already visible in the election manifesto of GroenLinks-PvdA. It stated that the party may be prepared to conclude migration deals with third countries (which GroenLinks was always against). The program also mentions “concerns about pressure on scarce public facilities, such as housing, education and GP care”, and an erosion of social support.
This position, more in line with political fashion, was not rewarded during the campaign. The migration debate was dominated by Geert Wilders, and to a lesser extent the VVD, NSC and BBB – party leader Frans Timmermans hardly intervened. Not even when Wilders linked other topics, such as housing, to migration. Paul Scheffer said there last week about in de Volkskrant: “The left has always pointed out that there are also important other causes of the housing crisis. But you saw a clear dynamic in the TV debates: often only a few candidates participated, which were always mainly right-wing parties, making the right-wing discourse much more dominant. It was always Timmermans against the rest.”
Also read
Frans Timmermans, timidly looking for the political center
The Walloon model
What does work, she says, is the approach of, for example, the Parti Socialiste, the largest party in Wallonia. “They do not consider migration as a cultural issue, as a threat to traditional values. Their story is much more socio-economic, with the migrant and the traditional worker both benefiting from less income inequality. In this way they have managed to retain their support and distinguish themselves from the radical right.”
Can that also work in the Netherlands, instead of imitating right-wing parties? That will be difficult, says Niels Spierings. GroenLinks-PvdA has already largely lost its traditional support base. Voters are highly educated, urban, and the people for whom the party stands up more often vote for other parties. And those voters, says Spierings, cannot simply be won back. “Migration has become a much more important topic in recent decades and socio-economic themes have become less important, especially now that the economy is doing well. As a result, the left has much more difficulty setting the agenda.”
In addition, the left by definition has a more complicated story to tell, says Spierings. “To put it very roughly: right-wing parties tell their supporters that they are doing well and that they do not have to adjust or change anything. Right-wing parties are good at protecting their voters. Left-wing parties say: we have major problems, such as climate, poverty and discrimination. Everyone has to contribute. So there will be an asylum seeker center, so we will use the pronouns [voornaamwoorden] adjust, or you will have to eat one slice of ham less. Change is never fun, especially if the voter does not feel that urgency.”