It is alarming that confidence in democracy in the Netherlands has fallen this year. The fact that the House of Representatives seems incapable of defending itself against an increasingly subversive fifth column in its own home is equally true. Because both developments belong together, they are even ominous.
At the beginning of this month, twelve social scientists under the auspices of Erasmus University published a shocking study into the effects of the corona virus on democracy. In the Netherlands, ‘mutual trust’ between citizens appears to have declined slightly and ‘institutional trust’ has even declined sharply in recent years. Only 29 percent of citizens have confidence in the national government. At the start of the pandemic, it was 69 percent.
The Netherlands thus becomes a ‘low-trust society’. In short, a low trust society à la Ukraine, which also only scores 35 percent on the democracy report of the American think tank Freedom House. This decline is not of today or yesterday. In 2010, the SCP surveyed that 74 percent of citizens had confidence in democratic institutions. Just before the virus outbreak, confidence had fallen to 66 percent. Many politicians and talk show analysts soothe that numbers just go up and down. In the early 1990s, during the WAO crisis after ten years of Prime Minister Lubbers, confidence in democracy did not go beyond a meager 69 percent.
The analogy may be reassuring, but it does not hold.
Agitation and propaganda
The difference with thirty years ago is the political constellation. At that time there were nine factions in the House of Representatives and the CDA, PvdA, VVD and D66 had more than 90 percent of all seats. Now there are nineteen political groups and these four democratic parties control less than 55 percent of the vote. Moreover, a large part of the other seats are occupied by politicians who do not use the House of Representatives as the legislative and controlling body, but as a stage for agitation and propaganda. Just like the fascists and Stalinists in the interwar period, who saw parliament as a ‘stand for agitprop’ to destroy the system itself, the Baudet phalanx a little over a century later did not shy away from visions of violence or provocations. The parliament now is therefore more unstable than then.
Also read this article by Leo Lucassen: PVV and FVD stir up rioters
That’s worrying enough. But it gets worse because the House of Representatives is led by a half-hearted presidium. Since Wednesday, the question has even arisen whether parliamentary democracy is in safe hands with a presidium that treats the parliament as if it were meeting in a psychotherapeutic session.
Vice-chairman Tellegen thought this would correct FVD member Van Houwelingen. “This is not exactly what we had just agreed. It’s a shame again,” she complained after Van Houwelingen had held firm with his prediction that tribunals would be set up in the foreseeable future to try fellow politicians such as Sjoerdsma (D66). Chamber chairman Bergkamp used similar euphemisms earlier that day. “Very annoying”, she found it that Volt member Gündogan and her mother are intimidated with hate mails from the corner of Denk and Baudet. The fact that FVD member Van Meijeren said in response that he was “proud” of his chasing “followers”, well, that “didn’t do the House any good”.
martyrdom
Members of parliament enjoy a certain degree of immunity during parliamentary meetings. Justly. Delegates must be able to argue for a republic, socialism, the night watchman state or constitutional changes. It is only once they have been hammered that their immunity expires. Also rightly so. Countries where parliamentarians are exempt from any criminal responsibility are generally corrupt. But this subtle form of immunity only works if the president strictly monitors the rules of procedure. Those regulations state that if a parliamentarian or minister “confirms or encourages unlawful acts” the chairman can deprive him/her of the floor or exclude him/her from the meeting.
It was as ready as a log on Wednesday. Sanctions other than ‘rephrasing’ by Tellegen would have been conceivable. But unlike NSB member and later SS member Rost van Tonningen, who was punished in 1939 when he once labeled a parliamentarian as a ‘cover of child abusers’ and after a suspension also a ‘traitor’, Van Houwelingen and Van Meijeren free on Wednesday.
Also read this article by Bas Heijne: Also Baudet down in a tragicomedy of ego and envy
Of course, there is a tactical problem. Don’t you give the FVD parafascists exactly what they want if you cut them short in parliament? After all, just like Islamic jihadists, they crave martyrdom. They don’t want to be an interlocutor at all, they want total power. They are already horny at the prospect of a hatchet day.
Strategically, however, such considerations are naive and dangerous. Because of two reasons. Too much subtle dimensioning undermines the resilience of parliament. Opponents of plural democracy see every millimeter of space allowed to them as a sign of the weakness of the defenders. They see the struggle for power as a zero sum game. It is no coincidence that they are allies of Russian President Putin, who has mastered this binary worldview to perfection.
Fighting in parliament
Long-suffering also opens the floodgates for them Umfeld to push boundaries. PVV leader Wilders immediately chose sides last week. “A tribunal is right for politicians who are destroying our country,” tweeted the man who has spent more than half his life in parliament.
Just like the Verkhovna Rada in Kiev, the House of Representatives will become the Ukrainian parliament where some deputies do not turn their backs for a few blows and therefore do not enjoy any respect from their voters. Fighting in a parliament often produces a funny picture for television viewers overseas who want to wallow in their sense of superiority. But for the citizens in their own country it is a disaster.
Chamber chairman Bergkamp called on her colleagues after a ferocious Wednesday for a “conversation about inadmissible expressions”. It sounded again civilized therapeutic. But with that approach, she missed the seriousness of the matter. The issue is not etiquette in parliament. It is now a question of defending the parliament itself.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 20 November 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of November 20, 2021
#Tackle #verbal #abuse #room