Column | Dangerous explanation – NRC

If you listen carefully, you will hear the sigh of relief that rustles through the political and intellectual establishment. Thanks to Trump, the middle is back, people say: populists are in the defensive now that their ideological allies are turning against Europe. In the latter Poll VVD and CDA are on profit, and BBB and PVV on loss. « The middle can again be the service, as it should be in a democracy, » wrote former PvdA politician Frans Leijnse satisfied The correspondent.

Former VVD party leader Klaas Dijkhoff also anticipates a return from the middle. In the magazine Maarten! He argues for cooperation with the PvdA: although that is « emotionally difficult », but politicians have to recognize « that the political landscape is being rearranged. » « It is no longer about socialism versus liberalism or market versus government, but about democracy versus non-democracy. »

Don’t get me wrong. I am also happy that the PVV, who does nothing good for the citizen and the political system, is now falling in the polls, and that the solid CDA leader Henri Bontenbal is the new star to the firmament. It is time for the cabinet to release everyone (himself, the voters) from his suffering: « Nobody is busy with the country, everyone is busy with themselves and the image, » said « a Coality Source » against De Telegraaf. But should we really cheer like GroenLinks-PvdA, VVD, D66 and CDA together after the next elections form a cabinet? Is that explanation of parties in the political middle not exactly the problem on which populism pretends to give an answer? (‘Disagnate’ I minted in one three years ago column As a counterpart to ‘fragmentation’. The term is not excited, but you can always try again.)

A whole gang of political scientists has been pointing out for years that the depolitization of politics has been jointly responsible for the emergence of populism since the 1990s. People want something to choose, and that is not possible. As professor of political science Tom van der Meer wrote in Not the voter is crazy (2017): « A political middle that propagates that there is no alternative to current policy, denies and threatens the core of democracy. »

Democracy is also possible without trivializing the differences

There is little to be said about this. Yet among some people continue to exist for a reasonable center that solves the problems in harmony. For example, we saw that five years ago, when one Rally ‘Round the Flag-Effect was created in the fight against the virus. “ »Coronavirus Could Kill Off Populism”, Gideon Rachman wrote in the Financial Times. Trust in the cabinet of VVD, CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie rose from 50 to 70 percent in the first months of 2020, and Mark Rutte posed as an apolitical problem solver. « We can only achieve something by working with all reasonable parties, » he wrote in at the beginning of 2021 A letter to the voter.

An external threat such as a virus or a possible war offers middle parties a chance: voters return to the Establishment lap. But this is always temporary. It is as if your relationship crisis is suddenly overshadowed by a larger disaster: a dismissal, a sick child, a deceased parent. For a moment you stand shoulder to shoulder with your partner. But have the causes for the relationship crisis disappeared? No. That crisis makes a restart when the disaster is averted or the suffering has been suffered: we saw that after the first phase of the pandemic, when confidence took reasons and the PVV eventually won the elections.

In the meantime, an external threat kills the internal discussion. Not too much is being taken about the approach to the threat, because that takes time and/or the enemy plays in the card. And disagreement on other subjects is made small: it is not in the external threat, as Klaas Dijkhoff suggested Maarten!. But that is of course nonsense. Dijkhoff’s new contradiction ‘Democracy versus non-democracy’ is not about politics, but about the preconditions for politics. The conversation about this is important, but cannot replace the political content. It is as if UEFA would say: in this tournament we will not play football, but only discuss the VAR.

Defending democracy is also possible without trivializing the differences between middle parties. The issue ‘Market versus government’ still exists, unlike Dijkhoff thinks. Disagreements about the minimum wage, public transport connections, the teacher shortage, housing of labor migrants and the buy-out of farmers have not just disappeared because the US has an anti-democratic president. A political debate still needs to be conducted, and the opponents ideally do not all go to a cabinet. This leads to even more colorless politics and dissatisfaction among voters.

Perhaps a cabinet with VVD, GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA, and possibly even more parties, will soon be the only option. But see it as a necessary evil, not as a triumph.

Floor Rusman ([email protected]) is editor of NRC

To share

Mail the editors