What Needs to Change: A Reflection on Dutch Democracy

It is election day in The Netherlands and I, like many, cannot help but be pessimistic. Only two years ago I found myself in this same place: the voting booth. It was my first time voting for the national elections and, even though I was far from content with the Dutch political situation, I was cautiously optimistic, hoping for improvement.

Now I am here again and my cautious optimism has made place for regrettable pessimism. Instead of stability and solutions, we experienced a tumultuous and disappointing two years, being left with even more problems to fix. The housing crisis is still ever-present, health care too expensive, unsatisfactory foreign policy regarding Ukraine and Palestine, you name it. In other words, the Dutch political situation has been nothing short of - what we euphemistically call - a poppekast, a puppet show. And although polarization is rampant, there is one thing that most everyone can agree on: the last cabinet has achieved nothing, for no one. Everyone is disillusioned.

Research indeed shows a growing decrease in trust in Dutch politics which comes as no surprise. The left obviously has little trust by virtue of having little representation in parliament and the right because of (unsurprisingly) unfulfilled promises of the right-wing populists. 

So, looking at the recent polls, I am not too hopeful. The left is still small, the PVV still big and other right-wing parties bigger than before. All things considered, I don’t suspect the next cabinet will fare far differently than its predecessor. In order for Dutch politics to take a different course, something more fundamental needs to change.

Normalization of the Abnormal

One major flaw of the current political climate that this campaign time has made crystal clear is the normalization of right-wing extremism. It is arguably the reason we got into this mess. This normalization of such dangerous and harmful thought has been an ongoing process that the past weeks of campaign time have only exacerbated. 

It was most agonizingly clear to me when I was filling out the Kieskompas, a test that helps identify which party matches your beliefs best. The specific statement in question that disturbed me was as follows: the solution to the housing shortage lies more in limiting migration than in building new homes. The survey-taker is asked to which degree they (dis)agree with this statement, ranging from completely agree to completely disagree plus a ‘no opinion’ option. Highly problematic. 

To posit that the solution to the housing shortage lies (more) in limiting migration is to lie. Research has shown that migration is not the reason nor the solution for our housing crisis. But here, in this test, this falsehood is entertained anyway as a statement one can agree or disagree with, no less. And so, a factually untrue statement is turned into a matter of opinion. The fact has become subjective.

And this is exactly whyI reproach the Kieskompas. By including such a question, they are directly aiding the far-right extremist agenda. Because whenever a fact is proven that disproves their argument, they try to paint the fact as opinion – the statement is not untrue, some people think it is untrue – or something along those lines. The power of the fact is diminished so that their ideas can still thrive unhindered. 

The Kieskompas is reinforcing this extremist right-wing idea that such a fact – limiting migration does not solve the housing crisis – is actually a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. By virtue of doing so, this unfactual position is presented as just as valid as a factual one. The Kieskompas presents it as just another opinion or stance and therefore contributes to the normalization of extremist right-wing rhetoric. 

Deplatforming Harmful Rhetoric

Unfortunately, this is just one of many examples. Harmful rhetoric, spread by parties such as the PPV, whether it’s unlawful, discriminatory, or flat-out untrue, is increasingly normalized in a multitude of ways.

But amid witnessing this depressing process over the campaign time, I did experience a glimmer of hope. The pan-European progressive Volt and the extremist right-wing populist Forum voor Democratie (FVD) were invited to a radio debate about climate. The FVD, whose founder Thierry Baudet is a known conspiracy theorist, has consistently denied the climate crisis which is why Volt decided to cancel the debate. 

Volt shared a statement explaining their reasoning for this decision, they stated: “After much deliberation—and against the backdrop of rapid radicalization in our society—we have come to the conclusion that we no longer want to give oxygen to a party that lies.”

It came as a very pleasant surprise. Where others contribute to the normalization of harmful rhetoric, Volt took a staunch stance against it. Moreover, they aptly lay bare the issue which I have tried to describe here. The right-wing extremist parties that spread such rhetoric are given too much oxygen. They are given too much platform to spread hate and lies. When they are given a voice, their rhetoric is heard and consequently normalized, thus becoming more attractive to voters. 

I do not mean to extol Volt, but I do applaud them for this action. It is exactly what we need more of in this country. 

It also reminded me of Belgian politics. There, a cordon sanitaire is in place which is an agreement between political parties to exclude a specific party from cooperation. The reason for such cordons is generally that the excluded party propagates undemocratic or extremist ideas. In the Belgian case it is the party Vlaams Belang – which shares many similarities with the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) – that is excluded. In Wallonia, there is also a cordon médiathique in place, an agreement between media outlets to not interview right-wing extremist politicians. Consequently, right-wing extremist parties never gain a foothold there. 

After Volt cancelled the debate, I wondered whether something similar could happen in The Netherlands. What if we did the same? What if the PVV was not invited to the TV debates? What if other parties agreed not to form a cabinet with them in advance? What if we did not accept non-acceptable behavior?

Strict exclusionary measures like these might seem unlikely, but they are not impossible. In 2017, there was actually an agreement in writing between the Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) and Christen-Democratisch Appel (CDA) to not form a cabinet with the PVV. This accord proves  these measures are not only exemplary for expelling harmful rhetoric, but do so at the very root of the issue, which is crucial.

How Can We Be Optimistic Again

What I have tried to make clear is that we need a more fundamental change: we must counter the increasing normalization of right-wing extremism. For it is this normalization – the Kieskompas being a prime example of it – that has led to the PVV being perceived as just as valid an option as any other. 

This is understandable. We have real issues in this country that need to be fixed and the PVV comes with simple answers. But if there is anything we have learnt from the past cabinet, it is that the PVV won’t solve the problems. Which is why we must make clear that the PVV is not a valid option, an unacceptable one. Because as long as right-wing extremism is normalized, the PVV, with their big empty promises, will remain an attractive option, as the current polls show. We must counter this normalization or the issues in this country will remain unsolved.

To be sure, I do not think that this normalization can be countered merely by measures like a cordon sanitaire/médiathique. For the normalization of right-wing extremist rhetoric is prevalent everywhere. When we look at left-wing and centre parties, many have adopted more right-wing stances as well, to varying degrees. They do this of course to attract a bigger audience amid a growing shift to the right, but they only end up validating right-wing extremist stances. By adopting more right-wing opinions, they help the PVV’s extremist right-wing rhetoric seem less extreme. Consequently, this strategy helps the PVV get larger, rather than themselves.

Instead, the left and center parties need to take a strong stance against right-wing extremism. They must delegitimate right-wing extremism by not even entertaining any of their rhetoric. They must take an example from Volt and stop giving them oxygen. Moreover, they must instead adopt more left-leaning ideas and provide the actual solutions that are highly needed.

All in all, I am not hopeful today. I will be watching the election results tonight with a heavy heart and expecting disappointment. Nevertheless, I have not completely lost faith in this country’s politics. I believe there is a way out of the mess we are in: if everyone, including you and I, points out the lies, holds the politicians accountable and, above all, makes it crystal clear that right-wing extremism is unacceptable, we can get out of this mess. So hopefully, when I am in the voting booth the next time, I can be optimistic again.