Joop van Holsteyn

Never a dull moment: Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch parliamentary election of 2002

The 2002 parliamentary election in the Netherlands will always be associated with the name of Pim Fortuyn. His murder only nine days before the election was the first political assassination in the Netherlands in more than 300 years. The sudden success of the new party he had founded, coupled with the major losses for the Labour and Liberal parties, made this an historic election. This article attempts to understand the motivations of the voters at this election, in particular the voters of the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF). It is first shown that the conventional wisdom, which assumes voting based on religion and social class, and voting along ideological issue lines, has lost its ability to explain voter behaviour in the Netherlands. An explanation based on retrospective economic voting is also rejected. The success of the LPF is accounted for by the popularity of Fortuyn and his appeal among those who had cynical attitudes towards government or who were dissatisfied with the performance of the incumbent government. The popularity of Fortuyn is shown to have been related to political issues, in particular those relating to asylum seekers and the integration of foreigners in the country.

The Dutch Parliamentary Elections of 2006

The elections that were held on 22 November 2006 were the third in a trio of dramatic elections that have produced a turbulent beginning to Dutch politics in the twenty-first century (Van Holsteyn and Irwin 2003; 2004). The first election was held on 15 May 2002 and will always be associated with the name of Pim Fortuyn. He shook up the political establishment and changed the nature and style of political debate and electoral campaigns in the Netherlands. Fortuyn also put the issue of immigration and integration of ethnic groups high on the political agenda. His assassination nine days before that election rocked the foundations of Dutch politics. Despite (or maybe because of) his death the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) achieved unheard of success as a new party and gained 17 per cent of the vote, which gave the party 26 (of the 150) seats in the second chamber of parliament. As the second largest party in parliament, the LPF was invited to join a coalition with the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the liberal-conservative Liberal Party (VVD). This cabinet was led by Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA) and is referred to as the Balkenende I cabinet. With its leader gone, the LPF stumbled from one incident to another and after 87 days, yet another crisis in the party led the CDA and VVD to withdraw their support for the Balkenende I cabinet. New elections were called for 22 January 2003. At this election the LPF lost 18 of its 26 seats. The social-democratic Labour Party (PvdA), under the new leadership of the young and ‘charismatic’ Wouter Bos, who put economic issues back on the political agenda, was able to recover most of its dramatic loss of 2002 and gained 19 seats to reach a total of 42. The CDA was again the largest party with 44 seats. Although to many observers it initially seemed logical to have the largest party and biggest winner form a coalition together, after long negotiations it proved impossible for these parties to reach an agreement. Not only did policy differences arise, but a lack of chemistry between Balkenende and Bos also led the former to turn to

From May’s Laws to May’s legacy On the opinion structure within political parties

For over 40 years now, the debate on the hierarchical opinion structure within political parties has been colored by May’s laws of General and Special curvilinear disparity. Their essence is that, compared to non-leaders and top leaders, the mid-level of sub-leaders of parties consists of radicals as regards their ideological, substantive positions. Persistent as this vision is, however, there have been few comprehensive empirical tests. In this paper such a test is employed for Dutch parties, consisting of: a) a comparison of average positions on issues and in terms of left and right of voters, members and MPs; b) a comparison of the full opinion distributions on particular political issues for these groups; and c) an exploration of perceptions among top leaders and sub-leaders of the opinion structure within their party. We conclude that there is not enough support to uphold May’s laws any longer. His laws should be dismissed, but May’s legacy should consist of a more open study of the opinion structures of parties, which are still crucial actors in Western representative democracies.

The Dutch parliamentary elections of March 2017

Democratic elections fulfil various purposes, such as the selection of representatives, influencing public policy, providing a mandate for office holders, and legitimising the political and administrative system. However, the specific role that elections should serve in providing for a new government is dependent on the existent political and electoral system and is often problematic. ‘A supposed inability to install a government sometimes is raised as an argument against an electoral system’ (Katz 1997: 102–3). This argument is warranted in the Dutch case. The Netherlands is a prime example of an established parliamentary democracy with a difficult and often slow translation of the electoral results into a new government (for a general review of the Dutch system, see Andeweg and Irwin 2014). ‘Important as they are, elections seldom have a determining impact on the formation of a government’ (Andeweg and Irwin 2014: 140). This is demonstrated by the fact that elections for the Dutch Second Chamber or lower house were held on 15 March 2017, but a new governing coalition was not installed until 26 October 2017. The formation of this cabinet had consumed 211 days, much longer than the post-war average of some 80 days (Andeweg and Irwin 2014: 147). The post-war record of 1977 (208 days) was broken after a somewhat uneventful campaign, which nevertheless resulted in an election with a surprisingly high turnout, the breakthrough of new parties, and a Second Chamber without genuinely large parties. The latter was important for the long process of forming a new government coalition. In the end a majority coalition was formed consisting of the liberal-conservative Liberal Party (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, VVD), the religious centre-right Christian Democratic Appeal (Christen Democratisch Appèl, CDA), the progressive-liberal Democrats ’66 (Democraten ’66, D66), and the orthodox Calvinist Christian Union (ChristenUnie, CU) that could count on only the smallest possible majority of 76 seats out of 150 (for the number of seats of all parties, see Table 1). For the third time in a row the position of prime minister fell to Mark Rutte (VVD). This new centre-right cabinet is generally referred to as the Cabinet Rutte III (2017–).

Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945

Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945. By Mark N. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 294p.

According to the Polls: The Influence of Opinion Polls on Expectations

70.00 cloth,

Days of Blue Loyalty. The Politics of Membership of the Fine Gael Party

24.99 paper. According to Mark Franklin, “As the vexing questions of political science can be regarded as puzzles, the particular topic of voter turnout could be called the ‘grand enchilada’ of puzzles of political science…. [A]lmost everything about voter turnout is puzzling, from the question of why anyone bothers to vote at all to the question of why certain variables appear to explain voter turnout in some circumstances but not in others.” He makes this bold but true statement in the preface (p. xi) of his comparative study of turnout in more than 20 established democracies since World War II. Voter turnout is one of the more frequently studied topics in political science, but the results of all these scholarly efforts remain rather poor and unsatisfactory. We still know distressingly little about why some people vote and others do not, why turnout is much higher in some countries than in others, and why in so many countries there seems to be a steady and irrevocable decline in turnout in national elections.