Hugo de Jonge walks into a room at the Ministry of the Interior in The Hague, where the CDA member has been outgoing minister since September. He stands at a desk, on which lies a large copy of the Constitution with a gold-colored cover, and leafs through the pages. He knows some articles by heart. Article 23, on freedom of education. Also Article 22, about the right to public health (‘that’s what I was about first’) and the right to housing (‘that’s what I’m about now’). He recites from memory: “The government is taking measures to promote public health. Promoting sufficient housing is a matter of government concern.”
It is not these articles of law that De Jonge is now concerned about. The Minister of the Interior is “somewhat the guardian of the democratic constitutional state, the constitution and fundamental rights.” He has prepared himself, papers are spread out on the table.
De Jonge has two messages: “The first is, have confidence in the democratic constitutional state. But the message that immediately follows is: be vigilant.”
Who are you addressing with this?
“To everyone who is worried about the election results. The rule of law and institutions are robust. Anyone who thinks that all kinds of fundamental rights are at stake should realize: gravity is impossible to change, and the Constitution comes pretty close to that. It takes at least two cabinet terms to make a change. And even if you win 37 seats in the elections, the next day you will still have to adhere to that Constitution.”
What do you mean by vigilance?
“The first way in which the rule of law comes under pressure is not with laws but with words. Accusing judges of bias can undermine the rule of law. Calling journalists ‘scum off the ledge’ [wat Geert Wilders deed, red.] also. Calling representatives a ‘fake parliament’ is a qualification of one of the most important institutions of that democratic constitutional state, which can ultimately have a corrosive effect. In short, be vigilant.”
Are you worried?
“Yes of course.”
About what exactly?
“That the importance and gravity of this theme are being neglected.”
At the formation table?
“Yes. What struck me last week, during the parliamentary debate on the election results, is the message from some parties that are also at the formation table. They said: we all want to change something in the Constitution, for example abolish the Royal House.” GroenLinks-PvdA has this in its election manifesto. “Yes, that would also be a major change, but it concerns the structure of the state. That is something completely different from the ban on discrimination, freedom of education or freedom of religion. That’s one false equivalenceincomparable greats side by side.”
About 800 meters away, in the House of Representatives, informateur Ronald Plasterk, one of De Jonge’s predecessors at the Interior, talks with the leaders of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB about a new cabinet. At the request of parties that have questions about the PVV’s anti-rule of law plans, this week the Constitution, fundamental rights and the democratic constitutional state were discussed.
“At first I thought: geez, is this really necessary?” says De Jonge. “And now I think: no matter how bad it may be that it is necessary, it is very good that it is happening. And that they take the time for it. You simply cannot afford to shrug your shoulders at everything we have built together over the past 175 years.”
Is a formation table the right place for that? By definition there is negotiation.
“Given the outcome, it is good that these parties are sitting around the table. But quite a few statements have been made by one of the parties at the table, the PVV. I just mentioned a few. And what has been said by Wilders must be denied. They will have to find a form for this, otherwise it will be very difficult for them to achieve political cooperation. Moreover, there is a whole pile of private member’s bills from the PVV that conflict with the rule of law or are in flagrant conflict with it. The ban on Islamic expressions, for example. You cannot ignore that by saying that you only want to look ahead. Then you are legitimizing an anti-rule of law attitude.”
Deny – how should Wilders do that?
“What has been said must be retracted. Of course I have ideas about how, but I am not at the formation table. I think they should find a way to do that. They will have to make agreements about how they relate to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
In your opinion, is the rule of law negotiable?
“Conversations with each other quickly turn into negotiations. But not everything is negotiable, especially the rule of law.”
You argue for firm agreements at the table. What is the risk if that doesn’t happen?
“That in a while we will see that more has been destroyed than we would like. That good people no longer dare to choose a job as a judge, for example, because there is greater political influence on the judiciary. That good people no longer dare to choose a job as a Member of Parliament or as a minister. That journalists will write different stories than they would like to write in complete independence. Look, democracies never develop in just one direction. We have seen that in Hungary and Poland.”
In the parliamentary debate on the election results last week, the forming parties surprised everyone when VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz, also on behalf of PVV, NSC and BBB, submitted a motion calling on the Senate and the cabinet to “take care” with the distribution law. That law has already been adopted by the House of Representatives. And while Yesilgöz himself is part of the outgoing cabinet that devised the law and considers it necessary. After arguments, including in the cabinet, that call was withdrawn.
You said that it is good that the rule of law is discussed at the formation table. But how much is your confidence? Last Friday you accused Yesilgöz of constitutional juggling because of that motion.
“Constitutionally monkey cages, I said.”
That gives little encouragement for the formation discussions.
“That motion was unwise. But we talked about that in the cabinet. And now we’re just going back to work.”
You see it as an incident?
“Well, I hope it was an isolated incident.”
You are now dismissing it as an accident, not as a well-considered motion.
“I don’t know how long they thought about it. But at least not long enough.”
Is there still a functioning Rutte IV cabinet?
“Yes, we will have to. The formation does not end tomorrow.”
That doesn’t sound very nice.
„Let me rephrase that. The cabinet is outgoing, but of course people’s problems are not at all. People are simply asking for a cabinet that can take charge of the country.”
How do you explain the PVV’s election victory?
“This is because migration was a major theme in these elections. This symbolizes a greater feeling among voters who feel that they have no control over life and that the government is not there for them. They feel unprotected. Geert Wilders has proven to be best able to capture that feeling of unease and powerlessness. Not because of his program, but despite his program. I can say it during this Advent season: people are looking for a messiah. Only to unfortunately conclude that not every messiah is capable of performing the miracles attributed to him.”
The National Voter Survey (NKO) shows that PVV voters mainly chose that party because of its anti-migration positions.
“I don’t think it works that way when people choose themes. Migration is the topic that comes closest to people, where they see the effects in their environment. And they linked that to the powerlessness of The Hague to do anything about it. The political flanks can be blamed for migration, but the center has been skirting around this complicated issue all this time. Wilders has been the mouthpiece of that ‘we’re fed up with it’ feeling.
“Some say: his voters had his full program in mind before they cast their votes. I don’t see it that way. If that were the case, they would know that a vote for the PVV was clearly not in their interests, because his program offers no solutions.”
Also read
all 342 municipalities in the Netherlands
According to the NKO, PVV voters believe that Wilders’ program is close to their own positions. Isn’t it possible that they mean it when they say they like his ideas?
“Two and a half million people?”
According to the research, yes. Why wouldn’t those be considered votes?
“I think we should be modest in those kinds of interpretations. Look, in any case, migration has been a very important theme, and that is very understandable. That does not mean that the answer of the person who best captured that theme is also shared by all his voters.”
You are responsible for anti-discrimination and racism policy. There are Muslims who are concerned about the results. Have you sought out any groups from that community?
“Not very specific. The message for them too is: have confidence in the robustness of the rule of law. The fact that 37 seats went to the PVV also means that 113 seats went to other parties. I understand the concern, but I don’t know if conversations with me would change that.” When asked, De Jonge says that he does not know whether the number of reports of hatred against Islam has increased after November 22. “We don’t keep track of it that way.”
At the end of the conversation, De Jonge says that the House of Representatives also has a responsibility to protect the rule of law. “Most parties simply struggle with the question of how to deal with PVV or FVD. It’s as if you have agreed to play football together and someone comes onto the field playing rugby. It’s complicated, and I’m not saying I’ve found the perfect way. But the way we often choose, including in the past with FVD, is to pay no attention to it. The idea was: then this type of expressions will only grow. So that doesn’t work. If you don’t pay attention to weeds, they will overgrow the entire garden.”