When the fight against ‘the overcrowding of the Netherlands’ was a left theme

You see the possibility almost daily closer Come: the PVV that will remain the largest party on 29 October. And the impasse after that: Geert Wilders who cannot form a majority coalition because almost all (medium) large parties reject him as a coalition partner.

It would give a fiery discussion after election day. Is it democratically to keep the largest party out of power? Is a minority cabinet not better? It has also happened several times before that the largest party ended up in the opposition.

I recently had to say something on the presentation of the book A left story Van Coen van de Ven (De Groene Amsterdammer). A handsome reconstruction of the merger of PvdA and GroenLinks.

In this book, the Progressive Agreement from 1972 passes by sideways. That was the policy program with which PvdA, D66 and PPR (a precursor of GroenLinks) participated in the elections at the time. The PvdA of Joop den Uyl defeated the KVP that year, a CDA follower who had been the largest party almost continuously since the war, with sixteen seats difference. A breakthrough: the period of progressive dominance in land politics began, which would eventually last ten years (1972-1982).

You can argue that the PVV victory of 2023-a difference of twelve seats with number two GL-PVDA-was a similar breakthrough. Certainly if the PVV would remain the biggest this year.

The interesting thing is that both the PvdA then (with D66 and the PPR) and the PVV now opposite The post -war political order place

At the time, the PvdA wanted to break the power position of the confessional middle parties, which later formed the CDA, with tough polarization. Wilders now increases the contradictions in a similar way (“Dutch people want their country”) and holds the post -war political movements responsible for this.

Out of the air

There are also interfaces in terms of content. I laid Turning point ’72,, ” The election program Van PvdA, D66 and PPR with which the progressive dominance began, in addition to the PVV positions in the Hague in recent years.

• The PVV dropped Rutte I because she did not want to comply with the budget requirements regarding the European Monetary Union. Turning point Was skeptical about the monetary Union.

• The PVV sought the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 friendship with Russia. Turning point Wild recognition of the GDR.

• The PVV says it is for NATO but rarely supports NATO missions in practice and alludes to the election program on stopping the support of Ukraine. Turning point Manto on departure from NATO.

• The PVV wants an asylum stop and less migration. Turning point wanted more legal certainty for refugees but less labor migration and an ‘active [sic] Population policy “against” the overcrowding in the Netherlands “.

There are also basic differences – Turning point Was very optimistic, the PVV is mainly alarmist-but the thematic similarities also show that the appreciation for PVV positions does not fall out of the blue.

That overlap also turned out to be around the independence of Suriname in 1975. The Den Uyl cabinet (1973-77) accelerated the decolonization from ideological motifs, but also played a role that “people are concerned [begon] to do about the increasing Surinamese migration to the Netherlands ”, such as emeritus professor of post -colonial history Gert Oostindie in 2001 noted.

Three-quarters of the Dutch, for example, supported a (unconstitutional) visa obligation for Surinamese in a NIPO survey from 1972. It meant that both left and right -wing voters took this position in a large majority, such as Jesse Frederik last year demonstrated in The correspondent.

The progressive dominance at the time had little influence on migration views: in 1982 a sloppy 40 percent of PvdA and VVD voters found that they “received less help and rights than Surinamese, Turks and Moroccans”.

Nevertheless, the Den Uyl cabinet entered history as the left-most cabinet ever. It was partially extraparlementary: The confessional KVP and ARP and the left PPR supplied ministers but did not support the coalition. It brought countless near-crises and often disappointing results.

Little of some international pretensions ended up: in a commitment to the US, Den Uyl even increased NATO obligations to 3 percent of GDP at the end of his term of office, a level of expenditure that the country has not been since 1983 has achieved.

And of the four proposals with which Den Uyl wanted to reform society, only one survived the history: the works council.

The first cabinet participation of the PVV as the largest party, after Wilders’ breakthrough in 2023, lasted not a year and went even more dramatically. The promised “strictest asylum policy ever” brought political crisis after political crisis and never got off the ground under PVV minister Marjolein Faber.

In 1977, Den Uyl was by no means punished for his first cabinet: the PvdA won again and increased to 53 seats. And now Wilders also enjoys a high rating at his own supporters, so that he starts with a spacious virtual lead on the final weeks of the campaign.

But after that second breakthrough, in 1977, the PvdA made a miscalculation: the party awarded itself an almighty position in the formation and, how Dutch, was punished for her self -overestimation.

In that formation, the PvdA continued to try to play its candidate coalition partner, the CDA of Dries van Agt. He eventually found a back: tired by all PvdA requirements, he threw it at an agreement with Hans Wiegel’s VVD. The Van Agt I cabinet was a shaky whole that nevertheless lasted for four years (1977-1981).

The established order had recaptured its place in the power center: the PvdA ended up in the opposition as the largest party.

Apart from a short intermezzo, the PvdA remained there until the end of the progressive dominance in 1982. That year Den Uyl made his match the largest for the third time in ten years. Nevertheless, CDA and VVD almost immediately managed a coalition that adhered to the public finances and transferred facilities to the market.

Not CDA party leader of Agt, but the Rotterdam former entrepreneur Ruud Lubbers became prime minister: the then number four of the CDA list would fulfill the position for twelve years.

And Den Uyl accepted that in 1982, although the largest, again became no prime minister. In the debate about the government statement, he did not show a man of resort. Are opening sentences: “The cabinet that presented itself to the Chamber yesterday is a fully -fledged parliamentary cabinet. That is a good thing.”

And it is a realistic scenario that the country awaits a similar outcome this year. It looks like the leaders of four (medium) large parties-VVD, CDA, D66, GL-PVDA-continue to emphasize in the final weeks that they exclude Wilders.

Only then, as Mark Rutte, as a party leader, proved several times, the idea of ​​voters mature that a voice on the PVV has no influence on power formation.

In addition, it is probably inevitable that every new cabinet, regardless of the composition, carries out such a strict anti -migration policy after the elections that it takes the PVV wind out of the sails.

Shortened VVD

It probably also requires – so shaky the established order – that the election result of these (medium) large parties does not have too many fluctuations. Because the result of GL-PvdA and/or the CDA is disappointing, or if the VVD sinks completely, then it is uncertain whether the established order will still stand at all.

For example, if a short -wicked VVD under the successor to Dilan Yesilgöz no longer wants to co -hedge, it can have major consequences for the manageability of the country. And that in a democracy that is already known for its unpredictability.

In addition, the factor of influencers democracy, so that political influencers can force that choices are not made on the basis of rationality but on the basis of popularity.

It turned out in the previous formation, when VVD and NSC prefer statements for a totol in a cabinet with the PVV. After this Wilders Pieter Omtzigt and Dilan Yesilgöz put pressure on social media. He spread a column in which Omtzigt was called “a Catholic sneaker”, and called Yesilgöz “sour.” That work. Eventually they could not resist the pressure.

In short, a formation is no longer only decided in the meeting rooms in The Hague.

The most basic difference with 1982 is that there was a model democrat at the time, Den Uyl, who, as the leader of the largest party, respected the right of other parties to form a majority cabinet together.

Many right -wing voters were told – again – influencers that it would be undemocratic if the largest party does not deliver the prime minister. That too was refuted in 1982 by the facts: Lubbers, the Prime Minister who took office at the time, became very popular and gave his party a number of monster victories.

It is of course not possible to say how long the dominance of radical-right is. But what you can foresee: the real test for the democratic attitude of this movement, its leaders and her voters, is near if the PVV remains the largest on 29 October.

Give as a gift





Part





Mail the editors