Elections in the Netherlands (again)

Thing is, every time I try posting something longer than a paragraph or two, A2K goes dead, page not found - been like that for days now, if the site wasnt offline altogether.

The whole backstory to that sordid affair is here in the Theo van Gogh thread (and in subsequent posts).

Baffling and fascinating. What a mess.

Yesterday's parliamentary debate was supposed to close the whole affair off. Immigration minister Verdonk (to know more click the above link, dont feel like rehashing everything again, its all there and in just a few posts) had, under pressure from her fellow ministers, found a legal solution, if a rather far-fetched one, to allow her to let Hirsi Ali keep her citizenship after all. The false name she gave when applying for asylum in the Netherlands fourteen years ago was the name of her (maternal?) grandfather, and according to (Somali?) law she was actually allowed to carry that name herself, so literally speaking she hadnt actually given a false name at all. Hirsi Ali didnt know that, hence why she had herself said in interviews etc that she'd given a false name.

(cont in next post..)

(cont from previous post)

Anyway, that was the idea. The opposition lambasted Verdonk for having (re)acted rashly, chaotically and unjustly, but the government parties were behind her, as was the far right, so, she seemed safe. All's well that end's well (for the Cabinet).

There was one little problem. The legal 'solution' that Verdonk had come up with included a written mea culpa, signed by Hirsi Ali, in which she took on all responsibility for the affair herself. Both government and opposition politicians asked whether that had really been necessary. Verdonk and PM Balkenende stuck to the line that it had been a legal necessity, otherwise the solution would not judicially have held water.

Then, by 2 at night with the debate continuing, Balkenende had a slip of the tongue, and the truth came out. Well, purely judicially speaking, he said in response to another question, it hadnt been necessary in his opinion, but its inclusion 'was also necessary to arrive at a solution that would be acceptable for the Minister' (Verdonk).

Hirsi Ali herself echoed this: no, she did not agree with the mea culpa she'd signed at all, but she had been given to understand that without it, she wouldnt be able to keep her passport - that it was a necessary part of the political compromise - so she'd signed it to be done with the affair already.

(cont in next post)

(cont from previous post)

So there's a whole new picture. OK, I'll do the basic rehash after all. See if I can get it through.

Here's Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch, passionate agitator against the dangers of Islam, pleader for the emancipation of Muslim women, who's lived under permanent police protection ever since Theo van Gogh, with whom she made the controversial film Submission, was brutally murdered by a Muslim fundamentalist. Publicist, prominent Member of Parliament. The darling of the populist right, who consider her a hero of free speech, but also respected for her bravery and genuine convictions (if not her counterproductive tactics) by most on the left. Perhaps the most famous Dutch woman abroad today.

Now here's a TV news report that 'reveals' in detail what she had in basic version already admitted herself years ago. That when she came to Holland as asylum-seeker, she had given a false name and bent the truth. As thousands of asylum-seekers do. Turns out she'd come via Kenya and Germany, not directly from Somalia - et cetera. Immigration Minister "Iron" Rita Verdonk, then embroiled in a leadership contest for the right-wing VVD (saliently also Hirsi Ali's party), and profiling herself as a rules-are-rules kind of politician, almost immediately declares that in that case, Hirsi Ali should never have been given her citizenship, and in fact literally speaking 'had never become a Dutch citizen'.

Mayhem ensues. In a dramatic, tearful parliament session, Hirsi Ali resigns as MP. Her furious fellow MPs force Verdonk to promise she'd find a way to ensure that Hirsi Ali could remain a Dutch citizen after all. She gives in, but hours later repeats to the press that she'd done nothing wrong. The Prime Minister then puts her on probation to execute the will of parliament.

Meanwhile, Verdonk loses the VVD leadership referendum among party members - by a whisper; but remains wildly popular among the party's wider electorate and that of other rightwing parties.

This is where the new info comes in. Hirsi Ali had already announced she'd move to the US to take on a prestigius post at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute. Also because its safer for her there; her latest humilation in Holland was that prospective neighbours in The Hague won a lawsuit barring her from moving in because her presence would endanger them and lower property values. Now, forced by her Cabinet colleagues, Verdonk comes up with a way to accomodate Hirsi Ali. But, defiant about still 'having been right', she uses the fact that Hirsi Ali has no choice, nowhere to go if she doesnt get to keep her Dutch citizenship, to pressure her into signing a mea culpa that relieves Verdonk from any guilt and any responsibility in the affair.

Lowly behaviour, yeah.

(continued in next post)

And thats what the government has fallen about. Faced with this new info, deep into the night parliament adjourns for a few hours to discuss. On the other end of the political spectre, the Green Left's Femke Halsema, a personal friend of Hirsi Ali, drafts a motion of lack of confidence in Verdonk. The other leftwing parties and the Christian Union are bound to support it, but thats no majority. Then the Democrats, a small centrist, liberal party that is the junior partner in the rightwing government (and on whose few seats the government's majority depends), decides to back the motion too.

Since the far right still supports the government, it still doesnt get a majority. But the government now has a problem. It decides to ignore it. Defiantly, it declares that Verdonk will stay, and the motion will have no consequences. Now the Democrats have a problem. Last year they already once declared they would blow up the government over a renewed Afghanistan mission, and then swallowed it anyway.

This time, they dont back down. Either Verdonk goes, or we go, their parliamentary leader Lousewies van der Laan says. The Prime Minister and government call her bluff: Verdonk stays. Van der Laan promptly withdraws her party's support for the government, leaving it without majority.

The ministers all resign; the Prime Minister goes to the Queen to hand in the government's resignation.

Thats how it all came to pass.

Now the question is: new elections, or a minority government of the Christian-Democrat CDA and VVD, that would have to look for additional support in parliament for each law to pass?

The List Pim Fortuyn, who were in an extremely rowdy and chaotic government with CDA and VVD in 2002, the shortest lived government ever, has already announced that it might support CDA and VVD if they would 'take it seriously'.

If you want to know more (or less :wink: ), you can also read this article - it's the best of the six or seven foreign-press accounts I've read about the government crisis:

NYT: Dispute Over Minister Topples Dutch Government

But if you're still wondering who this Ayaan Hirsi Ali was in the first place, this article contains the clearest characterisation:

Dutch government falls in row over MPs passport

Now, see if I can somehow copy all the above into the Van Gogh thread...

This raises an interesting question though, doesn't it?
I mean, Hirschi Ali admits to having lied about her identity and background when she entered the Netherlands. On grounds of which she is stripped of her citizenship.
(While I personally felt this was quite harsh, and most probably a way for Verdonk to garner more support in her own party for leadership, I have to say that this isn't the first time contradicting stories regarding Hirschi Ali have surfaced. Besides, I think people who are found out to be liars have no business in a government job.)
Now, material is being presented that makes it appear as if Mrs. Ali has not given false information by giving that fateful last name when she did. Now, I ask you. If a person of political fame commits an act in the past which (s)he feels constitutes a lie, and it is later proven that what was done was legal after all... Does this exonerate her/him?
Is it the intention behind a deed, or the deed itself, that should be judged when dealing with prominent personalities such as Ayaan Hirschi Ali?

Naj.

No. That logic doesnt hold water with me at all. I mean, it's a loophole, a legal loophole, and a rather tortured one at that. IMO.

However, to me that question is irrelevant, because I disagree with you on your previous take:


I mean, yes, of course, in principle, people who have lied are not people you'd want to represent you, least of all in parliament.

But I do think context counts.

For example, take the purely hypothetical example of a politician who is found to have lied about having had sex with an intern. To me, that lie (if not the act itself already) makes the politician a cad. But should he be excluded from a government job because of it, even a prime one?

There's lies and lies...

I know most Dutch dont agree with me, but I personally have no problems in empathising with someone from Nigeria, Afghanistan or Somalia, who through violent conflict, poverty or a combination of both has gotten adrift in some third country and cant come home again, and deciding to do what it takes to try his luck in a country where there's actually a future for him.

Europe's asylum policies, Holland's in particular, by now are very drastic. Countries like Iran and Somalia are considered "safe countries" that people can be sent back to (as we recently heard when Verdonk tried to deport gay and christian asylumseekers back to Iran). You can only get political asylum if you can prove that you, personally, have been persecuted. That they've taken your brother or uncle doesnt count. The third country rule means that any evidence that you've passed through a safe third country (say, Germany, or Poland, or Ukraine, or Turkey, or ... follow the trail back home) will be used to send you back there. Moreover, you cant change anything in your story. If you arrive at Schiphol Airport, from a country where you can not trust the police, in a fully foreign place, and you 'play it safe' in your first hearing, not telling them some things or changing some details, you're stuck, because changing your story later on will be considered proof that you "lied" and reason to send you back.

Well, et cetera. You know the story.

In that context, many asylum-seekers, even ones that would probably be considered bona fide, take the safe route and tell a story that is bound to get them accepted.

Hirsi Ali told such a story. It is not that she was a "luck-seeker", as the Dutch prefer to call people who flee mere poverty or hopelessness. Her father was a politician in Somalia, her family was on the hitlist. Her problem was that from Somalia, she'd gone to Kenya, a safe third country, so that alone would ensure she wouldnt be allowed into Holland. So she told a story that would get her in.

I'd do the same...

Does that make her a bald-faced liar who has no business in government or parliament? I beg to differ...

So yes, the loophole the government found is a tortured one. The reason they used it is because they want to avoid at all cost having to take a second look at all those other cases of asylum-seekers, some of whom actually were real political refugees, but who have been thrown out of the procedure because they were caught giving a false name or the like.

I, on the other hand, am kind of hoping (but not holding my breath) that people will take their sympathy for Hirsi Ali as a cause to have a second think about those other, similar but less famous people as well...

Sorry, that was long (again)

Actually, nimh, I agree with with you regarding the somewhat extreme immigration laws the Netherlands seem to use these days. Now, I feel I need to elaborate on my position regarding Mrs. Hirsi Ali (sorry for the misspelling in my previous post).

I admire her for her guts. I admire her for taking a position and keeping it, unwavering, even under many deaththreats. I think her cause is just, although I don't agree with her methods. And I feel Verdonk was out of line regarding the way she handled Ayaan's case. But I don't think she was out of line in regarding this a serious issue which merits further investigation.

Now, when a certain American president was found guilty of committing acts of a sexual nature with an intern, I thought that the americans had a right, nay, the duty even, to seriously investigate the case, and then decide whether or not such a person was fit to rule a country. I had my own opinion in this matter, which was that said president should be penalized certainly, but not impeached, since I believed he was a capable president. But I could understand and appreciate that america at large wanted more then that. After all, the man represents his country and should act like it. When he shows questionable moral fibre, this does reflect negatively to the nation he presides, after all.

I think Ayaan Hiri Ali should have been fired from her position in the government. The dutch government should have offered her a good job in a non-political venue. Not stripped from her citizenship, certainly.
Nor evicted from her apartment.

I think any person who is publicly exposed as a liar (no matter the reason for lying) has no business in a democratically elected government, and should resign.

I wouldn't feel very comfortable with robots and computers governing me.

Delete that "computer" in the post above - if only a few act like mine ... ...

Sooo cynical... True perhaps, but... Sooooooooooo cynical.

Ah, no, that's just my fine humour. :wink:

OK, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one (agreement on the other issues noted).

Nipicking on unrelated issue, btw: Ayaan Hirsi Ali had no position in government; she was a Member of Parliament.

Diplomatically frased as ever, nimh.
I'm usually not such a hardliner, I seek solutions in the gray middle.
But if a politician is caught lying it means a. (S)He cannot be relied upon to represent the people in an honest manner, and, furthermore, b.) (S)He can be called incompetent since the lie has been found out. I also think there is no place for incompetence in a government, which is probably why I will never make myself a candidate

And thanks for the little nitpick

The Queen has decided: former Prime Minister Lubbers gets the task as "informator" (a kind of mediator / negotiator) to quickly form a new minority government of Christian-Democrats and VVD.

The government is to rule until early elections, which will be held sometime this November. Also, as a minority government it will have to search for extra support for every law or policy on an ad hoc basis, though it can count on the List Fortuyn to support it in most cases.

It will however be a "missionair" government, that is to say: a government with full governing competency. Normally, when a government falls and then remains in place only until early elections are held, it is a "demissionair" government, which is generally agreed to not have the right to undertake any major new policy. This time, it will be different, hence Lubbers' role: a proper new government will be formed for the time until November, which will be able to draft a fully-fledged budget for the coming year (due in September), decide on a new Afghanistan mission, etc.

It's a sort of compromise (it's Holland after all); the opposition had demanded a "demissionair" government and elections as soon as possible (probably in September); Christian-Democrats and VVD were assumed to prefer governing on with their minority government until the regularly scheduled elections in the spring of next year.

They can still be happy though; having a "missionair" government means that they can draft (and take credit for) a "happy" budget in September that will please many voters just before the next elections. Expect some handouts.

Meanwhile, here's the take of cartoon figures Fokke and Sukke on the solution of the Hirsi Ali case that was supposed to keep Verdonk and the cabinet in place (and then failed, anyway):



Headline: Fokke & Sukke have found another loophole

Fokke: "Ho, stop!"
Sukke: "According to Somalian law, the Cabinet hasn't fallen at all!"

Well, I'm not sure of that. I'd have to read into Somalian law, and it's capacity to influence dutch law. And my somali is really crappy.

;-)

Was it here, where there had been the discussion about the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD ?

Nevertheless, I'll just post the link:

Dutch court lets paedophile party contest country's general election