Tightly packed in the converted livestock market halls of Den Bosch, the members of the Party for the Animals are doing their best to leave the past behind them. They are out, they want to continue after the battle within the party and they want to go into the elections with Esther Ouwehand as leader and party leader.
But that is not possible, says Esther Ouwehand herself. She would love to lead the party, but she says she can only do so if she is completely cleared of the integrity violations she has been accused of recently. Ouwehand also believes that these allegations should be investigated by the party. In the meantime, she will withdraw as party leader and party leader.
A shock wave goes through the Brabanthallen when she says those words on Sunday afternoon. Throughout the day, members expressed their support for Ouwehand in motions and with standing ovations. There was one shout of ‘boo’, and that was when a member proposed removing Ouwehand’s name from the list of candidates. The proposal was rejected by 96 percent of the 1,500 attendees.
Yet that is not enough, says Ouwehand. “There is still a hitch here,” she tells the audience. “You have a party leader against whom integrity reports have been made.” She calls her withdrawal while those reports are investigated “the cleanest route.” She talks seriously, although she tries to keep it light: “I’m counting on me to be back in no time and for you to say: when are we going to get rid of her?”
Apotheosis
The withdrawal is the new apotheosis in a conflict that is gripping the top of the Party for the Animals. In recent weeks, that conflict has come into the spotlight in full force, after the sudden announcement from the party board that Ouwehand would not be nominated again as party leader. The evening before, Ouwehand had complained in an internal letter that the party management was standing in the way of the professionalization and democratization of the PvdD.
Also read: The other side of Esther Ouwehanda reconstruction by NRC about the power struggle at the Party for the Animals
Ouwehand seemed to have won that battle with the party board. A week after the first announcement and after a lot of criticism from the supporters, the board decided to nominate Ouwehand after all and withdrew. Since then, a new, temporary board has been formed. It seeks rapprochement with the members and praised Ouwehand on Sunday as “a great figurehead of the party”.
Order seems to be restored and for a moment the party on the surface looks as peaceful and carefree as the smooth jazz that sounds through the conference hall during the breaks. Until Ouwehand’s speech, the conference even exuded the enthusiasm of a party that has rediscovered the fire within itself and feels that there is room to carry out long-cherished wishes.
PvdD members are speaking out en masse in favor of issues that Ouwehand raised in her leaked letter. They use motions to insist on a “professionalisation” and for the freedom of factions in municipal councils to participate in coalitions without interference from the party leadership. Ouwehand had accused the board of blocking coalition participation from higher up.
In terms of content, the members seem to be just as eager for a mature course. Some early PvdD members still have difficulty with the broader agenda that the party is pursuing. They want the party to stay as close to the animals as possible. But a motion to keep the focus on animals, nature and the environment was rejected by a majority. A majority also believes that there should be room for ‘people things’. A woman who switched from GroenLinks six months ago welcomes the fact that the party is expanding. Another agrees: “We are part of nature!”
Man and horse
That urge for innovation is dominant on stage all day long. But in the shadow of the spotlight, the old administration has not yet completely played out. After all, the integrity reports about Ouwehand are in the hands of that old board. Ouwehand and the new board, which is supposed to investigate the reports, have never seen those reports, they say.
And not only that: as far as the new board knows, all reports against Ouwehand that need to be investigated also come from the old board. After Ouwehand came into conflict with the board members and founders, the party leader and her political assistant exchanged ideas about a plan to “bring conflict into the board,” a memo showed.
According to the directors, Ouwehand consciously undermined the board with her attitude, and this was further exacerbated by the letter she sent in September. Their reports would relate to that.
In recent days, a lot of attention has been paid to Niko Koffeman, co-founder and member of the Senate for the party for years. Koffeman, who is not on the board himself, does not comment at the conference whether he voted for or against Ouwehand’s candidacy: he relies on his voting secrecy. But he does want to say that he finds it “regrettable” that Ouwehand talked about trouble with the founders in her letter. “Then call man and horse, and say what the fuss is.”
And that call for professionalization and democratization? “Hole concepts,” says Koffeman. “I didn’t find anything undemocratic today.” He sighs: “All those parties that lose elections, I can imagine that you will have discussions: shouldn’t it be a little more professional? But for a party that has never lost an election, I think: where does that come from?”