MP Geert Wilders and the leadership problems within the VVD Liberal Party

I've read a lot of what I feel are misinformed articles about MP Geert Wilders. For what it's worth, here's my take on recent events.
• First, in the Netherlands 'Liberal' means right wing, not left wing. The word has retained its original meaning of 'having a state with allows its citizens maximum freedoms'.
• Jozias van Aartsen has been in a struggle for leadership of the VVD party for quite some time. Van Aartsen is the chief whip of his party in the Second Chamber. He's an MP, and in the Dutch system, it's not possible to be a secretary at the same time (some European political systems allow this). Nevertheless, he has been vying for control over his party with Gerrit Zalm, the Dutch deputy prime minister and finance secretary (Chancellor of the Exchequer, if there are any Brits present), who is also a prominent member of the VVD.
• Geert Wilders was yet another threat to Van Aartsen's leadership. Wilders wanted the VVD to pursue a more right wing agenda. A confrontation ensued over a relatively minor point: the admission of Turkey to the European Union. Wilders was against it. Only a few years ago, many members of the VVD had been, so why did Van Aartsen make a big issue out of it all of a sudden? The truth is that Wilders had challenged Van Aartsen's leadership by giving the press a list of changes Wilders would have liked to make in VVD policy. The list was a pure provocation which Van Aartsen couldn't ignore. Wilders must have known. Even though Wilders at the time said the list would be the basis of his own political party, it's telling enough that it can no longer be found at Wilders' website.
• After the Van Gogh murder, the Dutch political landscape has changed, in the same way the American political landscape has after 9-11. Whereas a part of the electorate was already sympathetic to Wilders before 11-2, that part is growing by the day. So Jozias van Aartsen yesterday tried to get Wilders back into his own party. If Wilders does return, he will, as the prodigal son, no longer be a threat to Van Aartsen's leadership. On the contrary; Van Aartsen will be hailed for bringing Wilders back. Furthermore, Van Aartsen can give Wilders a lot more room to manoeuvre in the current climate.
• The truth of the matter is, of course, that returning to the VVD will offer Wilders many advantages. It is not easy to start a party from scratch. If elections were held today, Wilders would be in big trouble as some polls promise him 26 seats. Wilders would occupy one of them, but where would he get 25 qualified MP's to join him in the Second Chamber? After Pim Fortuyn was shot, his LPF (List Pim Fortuyn) party made a huge mess of things. Over two years after Fortuyn died, hardly a week goes by or his political offspring are once more bickering in the newspapers.
• Then again, of course Wilders refused the offer. The first rule of negotiating is that you don't say 'yes' to the first offer. Both Van Aartsen and Wilders will want to make sure they both look like winners. This is in the interest of both: if Wilders looks like a loser, he may not bring as many votes back to the VVD. And if Van Aartsen looks like a loser, potential Wilders voters will probably wonder why Wilders chose to return to such a weak party and withdraw their support as well.
This story will probably be ongoing for weeks, if not months.

10:08

permalink comment(s) (3) trackback(s) (0)

« 

 »