Although Kees der Staaij is already in the Christmas spirit, there is no Christmas tree at his home in Benthuizen, South Holland. There is a pine branch with Christmas lights on the fireplace. “A Christmas tree is not a custom for us, it is not an important article of faith,” the former SGP leader explains. The Christmas tree is originally a pagan invention, which was later embraced by many Christians, but often not within the orthodox Protestant churches. “No Christmas tree is in line with current insights into sustainability,” he jokes.
The interview will take place on Wednesday morning, more than a week after his retirement from the House of Representatives after 25 years. The parliamentary debate on the cabinet formation has just started this morning: Van der Staaij does not have a television in the living room, but occasionally watches debates on his iPad. He serves coffee with marrow bones.
Can you already distance yourself a little?
“I am still involved, but I am too impatient to concentrate on watching a parliamentary debate all day long. So I often watch fragments again. On Tuesday evening I was curious about the debate on EU support to Ukraine and how the new House is positioning itself. Then I read back part of the plenary report. I have read the report from scout Plasterk in detail.”
Do you still think: what would I, as SGP leader, have thought of Plasterk’s advice?
“No, not that. I do notice that I find the formation really exciting and that I sit at home wondering: will there be a cabinet in the foreseeable future that will tackle the major problems? That’s a restlessness I feel. While I also think: Kees, you don’t have to feel responsible for that anymore, do you? I think it’s because of the previous formation. Then I was approached on the street by citizens who were so dissatisfied and asked me: is anything else happening in The Hague? This isn’t possible, is it? That is the risk of a long formation, that it becomes an endless squabble and confidence in politics decreases further.”
Do you now fear such a complicated formation again?
“Yes, forming a cabinet seems to have become more complicated. With a VVD that immediately says: we only want a tolerance construction. Exclusions and preconditions, for example at NSC, appear to have increased. I am not without understanding for those sensitivities, when you see how divisive the collaboration with the PVV was at the time at the CDA.”
In the Thorbecke lecture that you gave this week, you talked about polarization. You said that these political times are not unique, that polarization comes “in ebbs and flows.” That sounds reassuring, you are not worried about the PVV’s profits?
“I say: don’t be too scared about it. I use the comparison with turbulence in an airplane: if you are not familiar with it the first time, you will be shocked. You also pay attention to the faces of the flight attendants and what they say. Then it doesn’t help if you say emphatically: don’t panic. Then apparently something is going on. If you calmly explain that it happens regularly in an airplane, and that an airplane has a lot of shock resistance, then that can also be reassuring. It is the same with political polarization. In the Netherlands, over time there has always been an ebb and flow between poldering and polarization. A little sobriety and calmness helps, especially when you think about the resilience of our political system.”
You mean: the PVV cannot simply attack fundamental rights, so it is not that dangerous?
“To be clear: we do not support certain plans of the PVV, such as an asylum freeze and banning Korans, as they go much too far. I just don’t feel the need to make any further comments about how dangerous or threatening their ideas are. Because I indeed have the shock resistance of our system in mind. For a constitutional amendment you need mid-term elections and then a two-thirds majority in both Houses. People sometimes complain that it is so complicated to make constitutional amendments and that the Senate is also a kind of duplicate. From a conservative approach, I have always found that wise. A Constitution contains the wisdom of generations. Our bicameral system is a buffer against too abrupt changes. This way you automatically remove the sharpest edges, and parties are forced to seek a certain degree of consensus.”
What should politicians do with the PVV’s profits?
“Wilders’ win strongly reminds me of the rise of the LPF. Wilders has continued with the theme of immigration and what worries me is that so little has happened in this area in all these years. And now we are surprised by this result. I still remember that then State Secretary Job Cohen (PvdA) said in 1999: the asylum system is exploding. I heard then, and still now, from officials: the number of asylum seekers coming in is separate from what we think of in The Hague. That scares me, because politics is apparently not flexible enough to meet certain concerns. There is too much of an attitude of: citizens, you can find what you want, but we have internationally agreed on what it should be and how it should be done – that message is also delivered with a heavy moral charge. That is problematic.”
Back to your farewell last week, you received a long standing ovation from the House. How did you experience that?
“That was really special, it meant something to me. During such a period of farewell there are many moments when you notice that mutual solidarity rises above political differences. Jan Paternotte (D66) thanked me in our party magazine for my ‘enormous commitment to democracy, humor and collegiality’. While we were political opposites. That shows personal cordiality.”
What will you miss most about Chamber work?
“The collaboration with my own faction team. You not only work together, but you also eat and pray together. And outside working hours it continued on the faction app. As part of my detox process, I had first muted the faction app in recent weeks. That was already difficult, because I always reacted quickly to what happened there. On December 5, when I said goodbye, I had to muster up the courage to step out myself. Then the world really felt different.”
What won’t you miss?
“The long duration of parliamentary debates. I can talk for hours with fascination about how implementation organizations suffer from complicated rules, IT problems and labor shortages. But debates full of political accusations such as ‘you said this yesterday’ make me impatient. I often took a good book with me about polarization in politics, or read reports on my iPad. I once received an email from a viewer who said: you are on your phone. Then I responded: that is true, but I really get the essence. I always took seriously what others put forward, but sometimes given my experience, with all due respect, half a word was enough to know what someone was arguing.”
You have worked for years for a better parliamentary process – such as good manners. That doesn’t seem to have improved much.
“I do see progress. Years ago, the atmosphere in the House was one of addressing each other; I tried that too, with Wilders, when he called Minister Ella Vogelaar (PvdA) ‘crazy’. That didn’t help, Wilders then explained in detail why he thought ‘crazy’ was an appropriate formulation. Since 2021, the Rules of Order have included a positive provision that MPs must take the dignity of the House into account in their statements. I have the feeling that this has helped chairmen, that stricter action is being taken and that there are fewer incidents.”
The personal attacks continue to sound, as do controversial slogans. Aren’t you too positive?
“It can always be better. In my lecture I argue for more moderation in the debate. That emphatically does not mean the gray, colorless middle way, but is a plea for more eloquence. This means: a certain self-control and also tempering criticism, and having an eye for what is going well. This is how you strengthen community.”
That sounds great, but it is not how the House currently operates. How do you improve that?
“Informal contact should not be underestimated, also in counteracting hostile images of each other. I remember well how useful group leader trips were years ago. I was with Wilders in Tehran, and with Pechtold in the Antilles. Then you have personal conversations about your approach to life, what your hobbies are, how your children are doing. These faction chairmen’s trips have been canceled for fear of creating an image of the good weather in the Antilles. While those contacts are very valuable.”
How do you leave the SGP behind? The party seems stable, but the Christian parties are smaller than ever.
“I am grateful for the retention of the three seats, given the major political shifts. I certainly feel disappointment about the loss of the Christian bloc, how quickly it is declining. You also see something of the CDA in terms of ideas and people reflected in parties such as BBB and NSC, which requires some perspective.”
Are you gloomy about the secularized Netherlands of 2023?
“In 1998 I arrived at a gloomy time, during the years of the purple cabinets. That was the period of the bleak winds of secularization and major shifts in politics [invoering euthanasie, homohuwelijk, red.]. After that it wasn’t too bad again: the CDA returned as the governing party, and as the SGP we even gained influence in the first Rutte cabinets. From my faith I am convinced that the current spirit of the times is not our end point, because there is a God who reigns. I have also seen counter movements in recent years, whether it concerns revaluation of Sunday rest or broader criticism of prostitution due to human trafficking. I see little clouds appearing again as signs of hope.”
You are 55. What does life after politics hold?
“Public affairs really have my heart, so that is what I will look for. I still have a while to go before I retire, so I really want to get a serious full-time job. I have received urgent advice from many quarters to first recover from the Hague jigsaw. I don’t know exactly how long I can keep that up.”
Reading list