Author: Folkert Jensma
Publication: International Herald
Tribune, UK
Date: May 15, 2002
The death of Pim Fortuyn, assassinated
on May 6 as he campaigned for prime minister, leaves the Netherlands- in
fact, all of Europe-with many uncomfortable questions.
The most serious, of course is how
someone could be killed for his political beliefs. The Netherlands had
long though itself beyond such violence.
Fortuyn was a former sociology professor
who campaigned as a populist and said he hoped that this Wednesday's elections
would make him the nations first gay prime minister, had little patience
was the notion that his popularity was another sing that "right-wing extremism"
is on the rise throughout Europe.
Do Jean-Marie Le Pen's success in
France, Jorg Hailer's in Austria and Silvio Berlusconi's in Italy signal
a trends? Not entirely.
Fortuyn's popularity was undeniable.
He won the local elections in Rotterdam, the Netherlands's second largest
city, two months ago, and before his death his party was expected to win
up to 20 per cent of the vote this Wednesday. But his appeal was particularly
Dutch, and his politics were not easily categorized. His views were a curious
mixture of right, center and left.
Most famously, he said the Netherlands
was "full up" and sho0uld not accept any more immigrants. Yet he favored
reform of the country's social service bureaucracy and electoral system,
and he was a vocal champion of women's rights. He was also a strong supporter
of Israel.
Fortuyn managed to express all these
views in a clear and convincing manner. He had a gift for Americanstyle
sound-bite politics and combined charisma with personal charm. If his views
were contradictory, as they quite often were, he simply evaded critics
by instantly moderating or clarifying his statements. He had a talent for
rhetoric and looked great on television.
In short, Fortuyn was everything
Dutch politicians are not famous for. He was not dull, he didn't use jargon
and he was openly ambitious.
Dutch politicians are generally
moderate, in style and substance, working to build coalitions. Every opponent
is considered a future
partner and thus not to be insulated.
The political jargon produced by this system encourages a growing number
of votes to tune out.
Prime Minister Wim KOK further anesthetized
Dutch political debate in 19 by bringing the left-wing Social Democrats
and right-wing conservatives together in a grand coalition that lasted
eight years. Kok policies were built on their assumption that political
difference could be put on hold.
It was a sign of the times. Communism
had evaporated, Europe was unifying and liberalization was on everyone's
mind. National politicians inevitably became traveling negotiators with
Brussels, home of the European central Bank, New York home of the United
Nations and Washington.
Fortuyn single-handedly energized
and frequently inflamed this polite debate. He pronounced his opinions
on just about any subject, carefully enlisting every concern and worry
of the electorate. He captured the public's anxiety about problems from
traffic jams to hospital waiting lists to crowded schools, all in a relaxed
and pleasant manner.
He thought Islamic culture "backward"
and directly linked the high proportion of immigrants in the big cities
to "all our problems in health care, law and order and education."This
was not true of course- but not country has come to realise.
He was sharply criticized by other
politicians but drew support from those in the population who felt, as
he did, that many of the issues he raised were unaddressed by the political
establishment. There he did not have a point.
Fortuyn managed to mobilize large
groups in the electorate who usually stayed home during elections but now
recognized their own voice in his. These were low income voters in densely
populated neighborhoods that had changed the most because of immigration.
Typical Fortuyn voters no longer
feel at home in their own towns. The most popular name for baby boys in
Amsterdam these days in Muhammed. It used to be Jan.
Chartering to this audience, Fortuyn
favored policies like obligatory language courses and national laws against
Islamic fundamentalists who discriminated against women and gays.
Few politicians dared to disagree
openly with Fortuyn on theme issues. Infact, some felt that their agenda
was begins hijacked. They just wished that Fortuyn had mentioned that illegal
immigration is a European problem that requires a European solution-which
means traveling and negotiating not less.
Although some of his wilder statements
would have pleased Le Pen, Fortuyn wax not considered a "right-wing extremist"
by moist Dutch voters. He saw himself as a reformer's politics from within,
in the mold of Bill Clinton.
His party, the List Pim Fortuyn
recruited people from business, government, journalism and medicine to
serve as parliamentary candidates.
Now these candidates face an uncertain
future. They have decided to defer naming a new party leader until after
the elections. They presented this decision as a tribute to Fortuyn, but
it masks an uncomfortable truth: without him, there is no List Pim Fortuyn.
Can his party survive without him?
The most recent polls project it winning 28 of 150 seats in Wedensday's
elections up from 26 in a poll taken before Fortuyn death. But no one really
knows. Some feel that voters will have second thoughts about casting their
ballots in favor of a party whose leader in unknown.
Nevertheless, some voters will undoubtedly
support a leaderless party in the hopes that it will continue Fortuyn's
agenda. His assassination has enlarged the Shadow he cast the Dutch political
landscape.
It is not yet clear whether his
political message will find a home in other parts of Europe as well.
