Mijn bijdrage deze week aan www.newropeans-magazine.org
Holland looks very much divided between right and left. But the main division is between an open and closed society argues Veronique Swinkels from Newropeans.
Coalition talks in the Netherlands have resulted in right-wing government supported by the far right. Negotiators reached agreement on the details of a coalition agreement between the liberal VVD and Christian Democrats (CDA). A second agreement on parliamentary support by the Freedom Party has also been finalised. VVD and CDA have only 52 of the 150 seats in Dutch Parliament. Together with the PVV they have 76.
All eyes were on the CDA, as many members of the party have expressed grave concerns about the cooperation with the anti-Islam Freedom Party. Two dissident CDA MPs threatened the coalition's one-seat majority. After an emotional party congress these two MP’s gave up their reservations.
They must have done so under enormous pressure. In their press conference they comforted their followers by saying they will be very critical on safeguarding Christian Democratic values.
Holland looks very much divided between right and left. But the main division is between an open and closed society. The conservative parties like PVV, VVD, CDA and also the socialist (SP) choose for a narrow Dutch perspective. In their views Europe and the world only have a pure economic function. Even though the PVV only supports the parts of the coalition agreement on immigration, security and elderly care they enormously influenced the total coalition agreement. CDA and VVD were so eager to govern that the PVV could literally dictate certain passages in the agreement. (Holland
will get f.e. 500 animal cops????) Because of CDA’s insecurity (CDA was the party that lost the most seats in the elections) and because they completely lost touch with their voters their presence in the agreement is hardly felt. More liberal and innovative reforms suggested in the political programmes of the VVD are difficult to find. In this coalition the PVV is treated as the expert, as the only party that has the real solutions to the problems of today. But no solution that equals Islam with all the social problems can help us get anywhere.
Professor Aarts explains in Radio Netherlands Worldwide that "PVV is not, as the critics suggest, stirring up or exaggerating social problems in order to score points with his radical solutions. The unrest already existed." Research in Holland shows that voters have regarded security, immigration and asylum seekers as the most important problems since the early 1990s. Back then politicians "hardly" reacted to this. The professor points out that "the established parties failed to reflect the views of this section of the population in parliament. In that sense, the PVV has a well-defined role within the democratic system.”
Professor Aarts has a point. The social problems are realistic. The crisis increases social problems because we will have to make choices in which certain groups in society will receive less or pay more. An open and international society worries people because they see they we will have to share prosperity. We should not deny these feelings. We have to learn from the popularity of right wing politicians. It is important to understand what they offer to their voters especially in the acknowledgment of their worries and problems.
The first rule in conflict resolution is to show people they are listened to and taken seriously. In Holland the negative reactions of the mainstream parties towards the PVV-voters show they still have some lessons the learn on this topic.
Holland looks very much divided between right and left. But the main division is between an open and closed society argues Veronique Swinkels from Newropeans.
Coalition talks in the Netherlands have resulted in right-wing government supported by the far right. Negotiators reached agreement on the details of a coalition agreement between the liberal VVD and Christian Democrats (CDA). A second agreement on parliamentary support by the Freedom Party has also been finalised. VVD and CDA have only 52 of the 150 seats in Dutch Parliament. Together with the PVV they have 76.
All eyes were on the CDA, as many members of the party have expressed grave concerns about the cooperation with the anti-Islam Freedom Party. Two dissident CDA MPs threatened the coalition's one-seat majority. After an emotional party congress these two MP’s gave up their reservations.
They must have done so under enormous pressure. In their press conference they comforted their followers by saying they will be very critical on safeguarding Christian Democratic values.
Holland looks very much divided between right and left. But the main division is between an open and closed society. The conservative parties like PVV, VVD, CDA and also the socialist (SP) choose for a narrow Dutch perspective. In their views Europe and the world only have a pure economic function. Even though the PVV only supports the parts of the coalition agreement on immigration, security and elderly care they enormously influenced the total coalition agreement. CDA and VVD were so eager to govern that the PVV could literally dictate certain passages in the agreement. (Holland
will get f.e. 500 animal cops????) Because of CDA’s insecurity (CDA was the party that lost the most seats in the elections) and because they completely lost touch with their voters their presence in the agreement is hardly felt. More liberal and innovative reforms suggested in the political programmes of the VVD are difficult to find. In this coalition the PVV is treated as the expert, as the only party that has the real solutions to the problems of today. But no solution that equals Islam with all the social problems can help us get anywhere.
Professor Aarts explains in Radio Netherlands Worldwide that "PVV is not, as the critics suggest, stirring up or exaggerating social problems in order to score points with his radical solutions. The unrest already existed." Research in Holland shows that voters have regarded security, immigration and asylum seekers as the most important problems since the early 1990s. Back then politicians "hardly" reacted to this. The professor points out that "the established parties failed to reflect the views of this section of the population in parliament. In that sense, the PVV has a well-defined role within the democratic system.”
Professor Aarts has a point. The social problems are realistic. The crisis increases social problems because we will have to make choices in which certain groups in society will receive less or pay more. An open and international society worries people because they see they we will have to share prosperity. We should not deny these feelings. We have to learn from the popularity of right wing politicians. It is important to understand what they offer to their voters especially in the acknowledgment of their worries and problems.
The first rule in conflict resolution is to show people they are listened to and taken seriously. In Holland the negative reactions of the mainstream parties towards the PVV-voters show they still have some lessons the learn on this topic.
RSS Feed