It was an outburst the likes of which have rarely been seen in public by the Prime Minister. Normally Mark Rutte saves himself from tricky situations with a joke or an expression of regret. Last week during the debate about ‘texting gate’, he couldn’t bring himself to do that anymore. According to the prime minister, the fact that he deleted text messages from his Nokia is not the main thing as far as he is concerned. The real problem is that the opposition in the House of Representatives immediately looks for something behind it, as if it is trying to hide something. Rutte denounced opposition parties that immediately end up with “whatever subject” “with distrust, with an absolutely fundamental feeling that the case is being bottled, cheated, etcetera”, according to the prime minister. “That happens time and again in the debates.”
Also read: Rutte himself decided which text messages were important and which were not – and that hurts
Perhaps Rutte is not the most appropriate person to make this point. His often faltering memory. The ‘lies’. The inadequate provision of information by successive cabinets. The attempt to neutralize a louse-in-the-fur Pieter Omtzigt (‘function elsewhere’). And now again the frequent deletion of text messages that could have been important for democratic control and parliamentary historiography. It all adds up not to inspire the confidence that the prime minister is asking for.
Rutte himself is not afraid to use mistrust as a political weapon. In the autumn of 2009 a motion of no confidence against the Balkenende IV cabinet, which he submitted himself, was the prelude to his premiership. Rutte himself also led a government for many years based on distrust of citizens. See the Benefits Affair, in which thousands of parents were falsely accused of fraud. That affair understandably also led to mistrust in the opposite direction, because can a government that profiles ethnically and is strict with citizens but not with itself still be trusted?
Yet the prime minister has a point: mistrust reigns. Giving the cabinet the benefit of the doubt is now seen as a sign of weakness in the House of Representatives. Debates have been getting tougher for years, the language used in the plenary room is getting coarser. According to Rutte, his ministers no longer get the chance to explain “in a calm way”. “Colleagues say: we like the job, but the debates in the House of Representatives are complicated and sometimes unpleasant and the rage is going on.” Although it is also best to understand the opposition here. This prime minister has been in power for a long time, does not shy away from rough language and only takes the opposition seriously if it suits him or if he really has no other choice. During the formation, Rutte never gave the ‘left bloc’ (GroenLinks/PvdA) the benefit of the doubt.
Journalism is also sensitive to the lure of mistrust. D66 leader Sigrid Kaag was rightly asked critical questions at a press conference about the cross-border behavior of a party prominent, but hardly got a chance to answer, the atmosphere was so hostile. On the other hand, journalism is becoming increasingly difficult to do. Politicians and administrators hide behind spokespersons, and increasingly lawyers too. Anyone who asks the government for information has to wait a long time for a lot of lacquered text. Journalists are more likely to face attacks on their personal integrity when they don’t like their job. Against NRC-journalist Joep Dohmen has now opened a ‘reporting point’ by a former CDA deputy, an embarrassing display in the way politicians deal with the media.
Healthy mistrust is the cork on which a healthy, open society floats. It should be the basic attitude of every citizen, journalist, civil servant or politician. But what if it becomes toxic? A democracy in which everyone fundamentally mistrusts each other is a democracy that is going crazy – and yes, that is a worrying development. Finding a way out is not easy. This is a high chicken-and-egg discussion. Did it start with social media or with the rise of ‘opinion TV’? Or does it mainly have to do with the greatly increased individualization, even in the voting booth, and the strong fragmentation of the political landscape?
Regardless of where the problem comes from, it should lead to serious self-reflection in everyone. No one benefits from destructive mistrust. Except for populist forces: for them, mistrust is the ‘earning model’. They just have to sit back and say, you see, even the political or social center no longer believes in it. Toxic mistrust is a dead end. So it’s good that Rutte is starting up this discussion, but he – especially he – can now also set a good example.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of May 28, 2022