Elections in the Netherlands (again)

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

ok well you obviously know more about Dutch politics than I do. But if there has been a shift to the centre left in Holland, I very much doubt that reflects a more concensual attitude on the specific issue of Muslims and Islamism among ordinary Dutch voters.

Fair enough, you've definitely got a point there.

On a related note, I predict a very unpleasant election campaign next year when national elections are on. After all, having been stuck at 40% in the polls for years now, the right-wing government parties know they have little to hope from their socio-economic policy track record, in terms of popular appeal. The one issue they do still have a groundswell of popular support on is, you are right, immigration/integration exactly. So I wouldnt be surprised if the VVD would do everything it could to make the elections all about foreigners, asylum-seekers and crime.

I'm kind of afraid of that. To be honest, if I were them, I'd make plain-spoken Immigration Minister Verdonk, our own "Iron Lady", the new leader, and fight exactly such a rabble-rousing campaign. But it looks like they're shying away from that. The VVD's parliamentary leader Van Aartsen has just resigned in the wake of the disappointing local election results, but talk is of the centrist Rutte, rather than Verdonk, becoming his successor.

And actually - still replying to your point - even on this score these local elections do give me hope. You're right, it would be foolish to interpret the left-wing victory as a magnamonious gesture of multicultural tolerance. The voters swung to the left to such an unprecedented extent because they are fed up with the harsh economic policies of the right-wing government, period. (Otherwise the Green Left would have profited as much as the Socialists now did.)

But - notably - apparently they didnt let the 'softer' image of the left on immigration stop them [anymore] either. It's supposed to be the big achilles heel of the left, and the VVD made for a last-minute grab at it by highlighting in an ad how Labour is silent and vague about integration and street crime - yet it made no difference whatsoever. Doesnt mean it will again fail to make an impact next year, but it does give hope.

Perhaps, in fact, we are seeing the opposite of the Fortuyn effect now.

Pim Fortuyn showed that with a populist, anti-immigration/muslims appeal, you could bore into a groundswell of 15-20% of support. But the alternative scenario is what you had in the UK. Duncan Smith and especially Howard went full for the crime/Europe/asylum-seekers card. And it had zero effect. In fact, Cameron is now having to go for a Blair-type reinvention of his Conservative Party to rid it from its "nasty party" image that solidified in the process. If Rutte becomes the new VVD leader, then the party apparently thinks the lesson to learn this time round is that of Cameron, not Fortuyn.

I'll go even further. Of course the "lurch to the left" does not mean a frank popular endorsement of multicultural tolerance. But it does show that voters appreciate a balance in the message.

The voters liked the right because it was (or hastily turned) straight-shooting, no-patience, demanding on immigrant/integration. Adapt or go home. People liked that. But the message did come with a lot of harsh political manners, with polarised bitterness, intolerance bordering on heartlessness - and subsequent hostility in turn from black and Muslim youths. Society became a lot more divided and harsh.

It's not a fun country anymore - and outside the right-most quarter of the electorate, people dont only blame hardcore radical Muslims for that. They're well able to see the boorishness of the Fortuynist mindset too.

Now, on top of that, the government also chose to go for an each-for-himself, harsh economic sanitation line, uprooting core values of the welfare state (health insurance, rent controls, early retirement).

Perhaps it's all TOO loud, too hard, too egoistic, too hostile. There's been a lot of discussion in the (christian- and social-democratic centre) on the need for a return to basic common decency, in the years since the riotous Fortuyn revolution. The turn to the left may not equate with a sudden re-embracing of multiculturalism or anything, but it does signal a groundswell of sentiment that, hey! - this has gone too far. Lets all behave a little again. Be at least borderline decent instead of everyone yelling at each other.

The politics of the Livables, the Fortuynists and the Verdonk-type VVD'ers is one of constant suspicion and resentment. In its world, kindness, trust and patience are suspect signs of weakness, or even unreliability in the face of the enemy (eh, sorry: "challenge"). By shifting left, a chunk of centrist voters is saying, way I perceive it: hell, of course integration is important - but, in Cohen's 'infamous' words, "keeping the whole kaboozle together a bit" is at least as important.

It seems like a pretty dramatic shift in public sentiment.

herberts wrote:

The turn-around in the voting pattern of Holland is entirely due to the political backlash from its near-One Million Islamic population. [The] negative publicity against their Muslim community ensured that the native Dutchman would vote for the rightwing parties in this latest election. And so Holland's Muslim leaders mobilised their community into a counter-action to nullify this predictable swing to the right by the native Dutch voter. And they did this very successfully. [..] This time their womenfolk were driven to the polling booths in their 10's of 1000's by alarmed husbands who were heeding the advice of their imams and community leaders. [..] the normally idle and politically-indifferent Muslim youths were exhorted to attend the polling booths to vote for leftwing parties [..] And in this endeavour they succeeded beyond all their most optimistic and best expectations.

Well, herberts ... yes ... and no. But in any case you definitely brought up a very interesting topic.

So let me bore you about it for a while now. Because I for one am fascinated.

-> Yes, in Holland everyone who's been a legal resident for over five years has the right to vote in local elections.

The logic is: if you're legal, you pay your taxes, your life, too, is determined by the politicians, then you should have the right to have a say in it as well.

-> Yes, minority voters turned up in greater numbers than four years ago. Hardly by the extent you suggest though, in general, but more about that in a bit.

-> Yes, they overwhelmingly vote left-wing. Both Muslim and non-Muslim minority voters do, in fact. They've always done so. More about that in a bit too.

-> Yes, there's been strident campaigns to get the minority voters to turn out. But no, not just by the imams. By the political parties, by community leaders, by city governments themselves. And among Surinamese and Antilleans (not Muslim) as much as among Moroccans and Turks (Muslim).

-> But yes, imams did indeed call upon their congregation to go vote.

Of course, in your reality, they're damned if they do and damned if they dont. Imagine they'd have called on good Muslims not to vote? The outrage then!

In fact, look at the barrage of criticism imams have gotten from Dutch politicians these last five years about how they had nor cultivated ties to Holland, never taught their congregation anything it could use to function properly in Dutch society, instilled loyalty to the Turkish or Moroccan homeland and their politics rather than to Holland, turned them with their backs to Dutch society and institutions. Well, now they do encourage their flock to take part in Dutch politics and it's not good either. Personally, I think it was a good thing.

But - aside from that. I've got a couple of further relevant points here.

1) Turnout among minorities was up - but still low.

According to the NOS Nieuws site, turnout among minority voters, nationally, was 37%. That compares to a 58% overall turnout.

So still a 'native' Dutchman was more than 1,5 times as likely to vote as a Moroccan or a Surinamese.

2) Turnout increased among non-Muslim minority voters just like it did among the Muslims you talk about. More about that later.

3) The preference for leftwing parties was also as overwhelming among non-Muslim minority voters as among the Muslims you talk about. Of the Moroccans, 78% voted Labour, and of the Turks, 84%. But of the Surinamese and Antilleans (not generally Muslims), 81% voted Labour as well.

So apparently, neither on turning up or on what to vote, minority voters needed preaching imams to get inspired. My bet is that four years of borderline-xenophobe government policy was quite enough motivation in its own right.

4) The alternative to a leftist vote would have been, of course, a vote for a party of their own. If this had happened - if Muslim or immigrant parties had gained a serious foothold, your alarm I am guessing would have been even greater.

As it is, the only city where this happened was The Hague. Two separate "immigrant" parties newly made their way into the city council - be it only with 1 seat each. Appropriately, one is Muslim - the Islam Democrats - and one is mostly Surinamese / Antillean - "Solidarious Netherlands".

5) Then by far the most important point, of course:

There are NOWHERE NEAR the number of minority voters in the Netherlands to "force" the leftwing gains we've seen, like you describe it.

At most, one can argue that they did exactly that in Rotterdam - I'll come back to that. But not in the other main cities, and not nationwide.

I'll guide you through this one.

Step one: percentage of minority voters on the total electorate.

According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), there were this year some 2,2 million "allochtones" who were eligible to vote. On a total number of 11,8 million eligible voters. (Source: "Van 12 miljoen stemmers is 2 miljoen 'allochtoon'", scroll down on this (ugly but fascinating) page).

Almost half of those "allochthones", however, are Westerners. 320 thousand Germans lead that pack.

So in all, there were some 1,1 million non-Western allochtones eligible to vote. The biggest group among them, by the way, were the Surinamese (not Muslim).

1,1 million non-Western "allochthones" eligible to vote, on a total electorate of 11,8 million - thats just 9%.

However, we already noted that minority voters were even this time far less likely to turn out than 'native' Dutch.

I.e.: of every 100 eligible voters, 9 were non-Western. But their turnout was just 37%. 37% of 9 = 3,33 non-Western eligible voters who actually turned out. In total, of every 100 eligible voters, 58 turned up. So you have 58 voters, 3,3 of whom are non-Western. That's 5,7%.

Of yesterday's voters in The Netherlands, just 5,7% was a non-Western immigrant or child of a non-Western immigrant. That alone dooms your theory. Because 5,7% of the voters is not enough to create the kind of election victory we have seen for the left.

But that's not all, by far.

Step two: Minority turnout now was 37%. Four years ago it was lower - but not zero, of course.

In fact, despite all those campaigns, the increase in minority turnout was merely incremental.

For example, in Rotterdam four years ago 30% of the minority voters turned out. And in 1998, national turnout among minority voters was 32%. I have no national number for four years ago, but it must be somewhere in that area, then. 25-35%.

That is to say: most of the minority voters who voted this time, voted last time too. And the overwhelming majority already voted Labour back then as well (only in the mid-90s did a lot of Moroccans switch to the Green Left, when Mohammed Rabbae was one of its leaders).

So you had your 100 eligible voters in 2002 too, 9 of whom were non-Western "allochthones", 25-35% of whom turned up: that's like 2,5 of 'em. 2,5 on every 100 eligible voters; 2,5 on every 58 voters who actually turned out - because total turnout was 58% then too.

OK, so this is what we are talking about here. On every of those 58 voters who actually came to vote, back in 2002 only 2,5 were non-Western "allochthones", while this time it was 3,3!

All those Muslim womenfolk and youths that you talk about, who would normally not vote but this time were chased to the voting booths, on orders of their imams, made up ... 0,8 on every 58 voters. Slightly over 1% of the total number of voters.

But 1%, obviously is not the kind of swing we were talking about here. Labour alone made a multiple of that in gains.

And don't forget that there was also the Socialist Party, which made huge gains as well - without any substantial support from minority voters.

So those new left-wing voters must have come from somewhere else. From - gasp - white Dutchmen and -women.

5) You can check this conclusion easily by looking up election results by town and council, too. You will see that the left won significantly in towns both large and small. That means: whether there were many minority voters or not.

6) But, let's look at those big cities specifically. Because there's more interesting stuff to find out still.

IMES did a research on minority voter behaviour (more specifically: that of Turks, Moroccans and Surinamese & Antilleans) in yesterday's local elections. Here's the table with data.

What is most striking is that minority turnout differed greatly from city to city. In Amsterdam, only 31% of minority voters turned out. But in Rotterdam, 49% came.

This does not plead for the by-orders-of-the-country's-imams explanation, of course; it rather suggests that the local political situation played a determining role.

The reason is obvious. Amsterdam has a centrist city government, while Rotterdam has been governed by the Fortuynist Livables, who for four years have hammered on a strict-or-xenophobe (depending on your perspective) integration policy.

The details seem to corroborate that explanation. Eg, the difference in turnout is particularly striking among Moroccans: in Amsterdam, 35% turned up, in Rotterdam, 55%. But it was even more striking among Surinamese and Antilleans, who have no imams to send them on their way. In Amsterdam, 24% turned out; in Rotterdam, 51%.

The rationale again is obvious: the strident Livable Rotterdam government. After all, its alderwoman even suggested that pregnant Antillean teenagers should be forced to abort.

7) Looking at these two big cities, however, there are two further conclusions to be drawn. One pleads for your case and one against. But both are interesting.

-> In Amsterdam, turnout among these minority groups was a low 31%, as noted. In 1998, turnout of Turks, Moroccans and Surinamese & Antilleans in Amsterdam was 39%, 23% and 20%, respectively - an average of 25-30%. So almost comparable. Even if it was a bit lower still in 2002, the increase to 31% this time round can't have been all too big. Perhaps an extra 5% or 10% of minority voters that went to the poll.

5% or 10% of a group that in itself makes up slightly under half of the Amsterdam [changed/added!] population ("allochthones" make up 49% of the Amsterdam population, but non-Western allochthones only 40% - and a good chunk less of eligible voters*) [end of changed/added]. Thats good for an extra 5% in the polls - at the very most.

And yet, Labour, the Socialists and the Greens went from 53% to 68% - or up 15%. Labour alone won 11%.

It's a classic showcase of how the left won big in these elections, in numbers that can not remotely be reduced to the influence of of new minority voters.

-> In Rotterdam, however, the story is different. Turnout among "allochthones" shot up there, from 30% to 49%, after all. In a city where allochthones make up 46% of the population [added: and non-Western allochthones some 40%], if, again, probably a good chunk less of eligible voters, that makes a strong impact.

A quick calculation suggests they made up about a third of the voters this time, and just a fifth last time. Thats over 10-15% extra on the total vote - four-fifths or so of which went to Labour. And Labour won, indeed, an extra 15% of the vote.

So yes - in Rotterdam it does seem that a large, probably dominant chunk of the Labour gains was thanks to new minority voters - tho non-Muslim Surinamese and Antilleans as much as Moroccans! - coming to the vote when they didnt bother last time.

For me, this is a win-win conclusion. The nationwide lurch to the left in these local elections, from Amsterdam to little towns, goes far beyond an extra 1% of total voters being "allochthonous". Across the country, it was 'native' Dutch too who shifted to the left dramatically.

Yet at the same time, the specific example of Rotterdam shows that in a city where a Fortuynist party actually took reign - and Rotterdam was the only large city that ended up under Fortuynist leadership - a massive mobilisation of new minority voters does take place - and can revert the previous lurch to xenophobic politics!

[added: *eg, in Amsterdam, Turks and Moroccans make up 14% of the population, but only 10% of the electorate.]

realjohnboy wrote:

It seems like a pretty dramatic shift in public sentiment.

Sure, really looks like it.

Could it be, nimh, that the 'protest voters' swung back now to their usual favourites? (Something what's done here in Germany quite often.)

My name is Gert Leers, of Maastricht I am the mayor
Less kiddos on hash, thats my duty and my prayer
8 thousand kilo is what's sold here a year
cause to buy it, over a million tourists come here

Illegal growers, we cant control 'em
Forbidding doesnt help, a law cant hold 'em
I say regulate then you can legislate
And we can save society, expensive anxiety

Police wouldnt have to go catch those growers
And you could regulate the strength of the stuff for those blowers [..]

In this land where 16 millions move
I ask: what do we want to prove?
The joint, the stickie, made us famous
But the disadvantages, thats what they dont name us

This is Donner of Justice
Me and the police, it's just us
So throw that dope over the fence
Cause an addict Netherlands
Is something I'd rather not see [..]

Regulating is expensive
Sweet makes sour makes me apprehensive
With criminals on the lookout
I dont think thats what we should be about [..]

The policy may seem strange enough
But on this one, trust me, I'm tough!

Green Left leader Femke Halsema congratulates Labour leader Wouter Bos with his election gains; Socialist leader Jan Marijnissen in the background is another winner.