Geert Wilders and the Real Story of the Election

Following-up, "The Dutch Coalition Government."

From Daniel Greenfield, at FrontPage Magazine:

Geert Wilders and the Real Story of the Election https://t.co/Jx82X5jiwG

— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) March 16, 2017

The Dutch Coalition Government

Following-up, "Dutch Election Sows (Shows) Extreme Political Fragmentation."

From, Matthew E. Bergman, a lecturer at University of California at San Diego, at the Monkey Cage, "The Dutch pushed back against Geert Wilders’s ‘Patriotic Spring.’ Here’s what you need to know":

Has the “Patriotic Spring” sprung? What’s next for #Netherlands after elections, now @monkeycageblog https://t.co/KC0Cpre7Qg

— Joshua Tucker (@j_a_tucker) March 16, 2017

What does a coalition look like?

In multiparty countries, the absence of a clear majority winner means parties bargain over policy and government positions until a coalition emerges that can earn the support of a majority in parliament. In the Netherlands, once that bargaining is done, a more formal coalition agreement then names the prime minister and cabinet, which then draws up the Government’s Statement of policy priorities.

This coalition bargaining process in the Netherlands generally takes about three months. Large parties hold a bargaining advantage because they require fewer partners to form a majority.

Since World War II, the largest Dutch party has been either the centrist Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), the social democratic Labor Party (PvdA), or the conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). Coalitions form around the leader of one of these three to be the prime minister.

As noted in Figure 1, the Labor Party (PvdA) suffered a loss of 26 seats. There are numerous parties of the left and center, along with smaller parties. But adding together the seats claimed by the PvdA, Green Left (GL), Socialist (SP), Christian Union (CU), Party for the Animals (PvdD), pensioners’ (50 Plus) and multiculturalism (DENK) parties falls far short of the necessary majority.

All the major parties during the campaign pledged not to work with Wilders, even though the PPV holds a sizable number of seats. In 2012, Wilders backed out of his governing arrangement with the VVD and CDA. That episode and his further radicalization and controversial statements may leave PPV out of the final coalition.

Cas Mudde and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser, Populism

Following-up, "Dutch Election Sows (Shows) Extreme Political Fragmentation."

At Amazon, Cas Mudde and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser, Populism: A Very Short Introduction.

Dutch Election Sows (Shows) Extreme Political Fragmentation

From Cas Muddle, an excellent scholar, at NYT:

MY take on Dutch elections. Headline by @nytimes doesn't really summarize different points made in it. #TK17 🇳🇱 https://t.co/9ZmoHAC936

— Cas Mudde (@CasMudde) March 16, 2017

The parliamentary election in the Netherlands on Wednesday was predicted to be the next populist show of strength after the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s election. The Dutch would be the first of a number of European countries to succumb to the right-wing populists’ siren songs in 2017, with the French not far behind.

It didn’t work out that way.

Geert Wilders, who is all too often described as a bleach blond or referred to as “the Dutch Trump,” did not defeat the conservative prime minister, Mark Rutte. In fact, he didn’t come close.

With more than 95 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, or V.V.D., came first with 21.2 percent of the vote, compared to Mr. Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which took only 13.1 percent. Mr. Wilders barely improved on his margin in the 2012 election (where he took 10.1 percent) and failed to do as well as he did in 2010 (where he got 15.5 percent of the vote).

The real story in Dutch politics isn’t Mr. Wilders’s rise, it is the unprecedented fragmentation of the political system. Together, Mr. Rutte’s and Mr. Wilders’s parties look set to make up only 33 percent of the Parliament, with 11 more political parties constituting the rest. This splintering of Dutch politics is making effective governance of the country increasingly impossible.

While previous Parliaments have counted 14 or more factions, what has changed is the relative size of the parties. In 1986, the top three parties together won 85 percent of the vote. In 2003, it was down to 74 percent. Today it is just around 45 percent.

Because of its proportional representation system of voting, the Netherlands is an extreme case. But the trends are similar across Western Europe: The main center-right and center-left parties are shrinking, smaller parties are growing and unstable coalition politics are becoming the norm. There are many reasons for this — from secularization to deindustrialization to the emergence of new political issues, like the environment or immigration.

The consequences have been painfully visible across Europe for some time. It took Belgium 541 days to form a government after its 2010 election. Both Greece and Spain were in recent years forced to hold second elections after the first Parliaments failed to form coalitions. In the Netherlands, forming a government is not quite as difficult, but the next one will most likely be a coalition of four to six parties.

If the Party for Freedom is excluded — and almost all parties have pledged that they will refuse to serve in a coalition with Mr. Wilders — the government will probably consist of five or six medium-size parties that span almost the entire political spectrum. Given that the conservative V.V.D. and the Christian Democratic Appeal are ideologically closer to the Party for Freedom than they are to, for example, the Green Left party with which they will be governing, the government will be rightly perceived as an anti-Wilders coalition.

This will play right into Mr. Wilders’s hands. He has long argued that the Netherlands’ political parties are all the same. Being the leader of the largest opposition party against an internally divided, weak “anti-Wilders” coalition is undoubtedly his second most desired outcome of the elections — after, of course, winning an outright majority of the votes.

The only way to break this vicious circle is for the parties in government to come together to support a positive program, one that justifies their cooperation and their decision to exclude Mr. Wilders...

Dutch Elections Today

Following-up from last night, "Immigration Fatigue Defines Dutch Elections."

And after the Dutch elections on March 15, 2017

I Will Make The Netherlands Great Again!#MakeTheNetherlandsGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/rZXo1QpOy0

— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) November 6, 2016

.@BlazingCatFur Dutch Vote Watched Across Europe With a Finger in the Wind. https://t.co/X4huwf0rhg

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 15, 2017

In less than 24 hours, Dutch voters head to the polls. Here's where the race stands now https://t.co/J2kNtCMYVj pic.twitter.com/asKQa62gzS

— Bloomberg Politics (@bpolitics) March 14, 2017

Geert Wilders Convicted of 'Hate Speech'

Well, perhaps Mr. Wilders might move here, after the new Trump regime comes to power. He'll have a nice welcome compared to "old Europe," the hateful Europe of far-left political correctness and oppression.

At the Guardian U.K., "Geert Wilders found guilty of inciting discrimination" (via Memeorandum).

And at Pamela's, "Islam in Europe: Freedom party’s Dutch MP Geert Wilders CONVICTED of heresy, WILDERS’ STATEMENT":

Freedom party leader Geert Wilders has been convicted of hate speech today in the Netherlands.

I have long known, admired and worked with Geert Wilders. I brought him to CPAC back in 2009. He spoke at our Ground Zero Mosque protests in 2010. He is one of the world’s foremost fighters in defense of liberty, a modern-day Churchill. He is a towering figure, iconic of the fight in defense of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. We oppose jihad and sharia.

The unending persecution of Wilders is the byproduct of Islam in Europe. Today he was found guilty of discrimination — hate speech — in other words, violating the speech laws under the sharia (Islamic law).

I predict this will backfire and Geert Wilders will go on to be elected Prime Minister in the next election.

Here is Geert Wilders’ response to his conviction:

Dear friends, I still cannot believe it, but I have just been convicted. Because I asked a question about Moroccans. While the day before yesterday, scores of Moroccan asylum-seekers terrorized buses in Emmen and did not even had to pay a fine, a politician who asks a question about fewer Moroccans is sentenced.

The Netherlands have become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and liberty are stronger than you. And so am I.

I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me. And you are wrong, too. Moroccans are not a race, and people who criticize Moroccans are not racists. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. This sentence proves that you judges are completely out of touch.

And I have also a message for Prime Minister Rutte and the rest of the multicultural elite: You will not succeed in silencing me and defeating the PVV. Support for the Party for Freedom is stronger than ever, and keeps growing every day. The Dutch want their country back and cherish their freedom. It will not be possible to put the genie of positive change back in the bottle.

And to people at home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished.

Millions of Dutch are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger.

But I will keep fighting for you, and I tell all of you: thank you so much. Thank you so much for all your support. It is really overwhelming; I am immensely grateful to you. Thanks to your massive and heartfelt support, I know that I am not alone. That you back me, and are with me, and unwaveringly stand for freedom of expression.

Today, I was convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count on it: I will never be silent.

And this conviction only makes me stronger. This is a shameful sentence, which, of course, I will appeal. But I can tell you, I am now more vigorous than ever. And I know: together, we aim for victory.

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, we are strong enough to change the Netherlands.

To allow our children to grow up in a country they can be proud of.
In a Netherlands where we are allowed to say again what we think.
Where everybody can safely walk the streets again.
Where we are in charge of our own country again.

And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.

There's video at the link.

PHOTO: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

BONUS: "Geert Wilders' Right to Speak."

Geert Wilders' Right to Speak

Dutch parliamentary leader Geert Wilders is speaking in Australia this week. Here's the editorial on the controversy, at the Australian, "Geert Wilders's right to speak":

FOR a liberal democracy that thrives on liberty, plurality and vigorous political discourse, the visit by controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders to these shores presents an opportunity to reaffirm these fundamental principles. When Mr Wilders was granted a visa last year, then immigration minister Chris Bowen rightly argued that Australian multiculturalism, our political system and our commitment to freedom of speech were strong enough to survive a visit by the Dutch MP.

Mr Wilders's views on the impact of large-scale Islamic immigration in Europe and the challenge that it presents to established cultures and the obligations of citizenship in Western countries are part of an important debate that Australians should be aware of.

Mr Wilders is the founder and leader of The Netherlands Party for Freedom. His political mission is to halt what he says is the "Islamisation" of his country. He argues that Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology enforced by violence and rigid adherence to it, quite different from the faith of Islam. In his article in The Australian earlier this week, Mr Wilders outlined his views that many will find challenging, but they were respectfully put and hardly deserve the vilification he has received from extremists. Mr Wilders's visit provides Australians with a window into a sociopolitico challenge in the northern hemisphere. How Islam can be absorbed into Western democracies, given the cultural differences between the two, is being debated and discussed in journals such as the centre-left magazine Prospect, where a recent contributor argued: "Islam's accommodation with the liberal-democratic societies of Europe and North America is one of the most urgent questions of our times."

Mr Wilders is welcome here, provided that he abides by the law, as all visitors must. Our laws include prohibiting racial vilification and inciting violence, but there is no suggestion he has come close to violating them. So far, it is his opponents who have displayed the illiberalism they accuse him of. A core duty of citizens in a free society is to welcome debate on contentious subjects. A mature country that is comfortable with its own laws, cultures and traditions would defend the right to express views that some of its citizens may not agree with. Last year, British preacher Taji Mustafa addressed a gathering in Sydney and argued for Islam to be spread throughout Australia, not as a religion but as a system of government. These views are repugnant to most Australians, yet they were allowed to be expressed. Moreover, a group of Muslims marched through the streets of Sydney last year under the black flag of jihad - also the flag of al-Qa'ida - spreading a message of religious hatred. Muslim leaders quickly denounced the vile protests.

While we do not face the same challenges that exist in Europe, flashes of Islamic extremism surface from time to time. The lesson is that our non-discriminatory immigration policy and the continuation of our largely harmonious multi-ethnic society - one of the most diverse in the world - depends on a tolerance for this diversity and a commitment to Australian values. Citizenship is not only about rights; it is also about civic responsibility, whether the citizens are Muslim, Christian or neither. Not everyone will agree with Mr Wilders's views, but we should all defend his right to express them.

More at Tundra Tabloids, "GEERT WILDERS SPEAKS IN AUSTRALIA, PEOPLE LISTEN…"

Also at Bare Naked Islam, "GEERT WILDERS IN AUSTRALIA," and Bill Muehlenberg's, "Why Geert Wilders is Right."

And at PA Pundits International, "Geert Wilders In Australia – If You Need This Much Security For Criticising Islam ..."

PHOTO: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."