PVV's profits do not make the Netherlands Hungary

Journalistic curiosity serves the rule of law better than platitudes about “populists,” says historian and political scientist Theis Bogers.

With the Freedom Party being the largest party, the rule of law is in decline. The Netherlands follows Hungary and becomes an autocratic state. Whoever remains silent about this is an accomplice!

At least that's why there has been a surge in journalists, columnists and occasional commentators since the election. However, the diagnosis made about Dutch policy does not correspond to practice. In addition, the lack of interest in the reasons behind the election results is striking.

Curiosity is a prerequisite to understanding what is going on

Politicians described as right-wing populists in countries as diverse as Poland, Hungary, Italy, the United States and the Netherlands are presented as one and the same. This removes insight into mutual differences. Even an ounce of curiosity about the local conditions that gave rise to it is still missing. However, curiosity is a prerequisite to understanding what is going on.

In addition, the outcome of the Freedom Party's participation in the national government is presented as a fait accompli: just as in Hungary, the Netherlands faces an authoritarian regime. Those who cling to such a deterministic view turn their backs on the past and the present. After all, history does not unfold according to predetermined formulas, regardless of place and time.

Right-wing populists are accused of assuming “us versus them” thinking. This is sure to happen, just as “us versus them” thinking occurred many years ago among socialist and social democratic politicians who pitted property owners against the working class. Many interpreters themselves also use “us-them” thinking. There is an allegedly monolithic group of evil populists at odds with the rest of the right-thinking people. Without exception, the translator himself implies that he belongs to the latter category.

Consensus among journalists

What is striking about the journalists who explain the Freedom Party's election victory with a degree of drama is the degree of consensus among them. Although they work for radio stations and newspapers that have their own nominal identity, they converge in their interpretation of the election results. But the attractiveness of election winners is linked to voters' aversion to that consensus.

It is natural for citizens to be vigilant towards those in power. Especially when a party makes proposals that are against the rule of law. But by presenting the Freedom Party's election victory as a turning point after which the civilized state ceases to exist, other parties are elevated to beacons of righteousness and protected from criticism. Dangerous sight. There are plenty of examples in history of well-dressed rulers who turned out to adhere to constitutional principles.

More useful than clichés about populists is why the FPO became the largest party and now gets a third of the total votes in the polls.

In her seminal 1967 work on political representation in Western democracies, political scientist Hannah Pitkin argues that representatives should be responsive and take the interests of voters into account when making decisions. She rejects the paternalistic attitude among politicians because it marginalizes the voter. In this way the democratic constitutional state is undermined.

Opposing patriarchy

The leaders of the parties that won the elections – Wilders, Umzigt and Van der Plas – opposed managerial paternalism in their own way. In short, it is clear that the majority of voters not only want to govern, but also want to be heard. Curiosity about what moves voters and how they interpret their interests is more useful to the democratic constitutional state than generalizing to populists.

Read also:

The Netherlands should not become Hungary: civil servants must also speak out

Civil servants, journalists and judges must take a neutral stance. This could be dangerous against populists, says John Morin, a law professor and former diplomat.

The PVV is the largest party, what does this mean for the legal system?

Is the legal system more vulnerable after the Freedom Party won the election? Where was the proven leftist alternative? Two philosophers search for answers.