|
For a country so prone to tolerance and compromise, it seems odd that such a large number of MP's held similar opinions about the EU constitution without even so much as intense internal political debate within parties. In a nation with a huge bandwidth for differing points of view, 85 percent of Parliament managed to hold on to the same one: all hail the constitution. But when 62 percent of all voters reject a proposal of such a huge magnitude - we're not talking relatively minor issues such as alternative power sources or even economic policy here - it seems obvious that there's a bit of a gap between the elected representatives and those whom they represent.
Now it's true that if new elections were held right now, the parties that supported the treaty would still hold a majority. (BTW: Thank God. I don't want either Geert Wilders or the Maoist Socialist Party running the country. And neither would I like to see Mr. Rouvoet as prime minister, however much I respect him as a person.)
But parties aren't monolithic entities. Ideas can change, even party identities can. Blair managed to reform a considerable part of his Labour Party. Why? Because he was capable of (1) selling new ideas about how to be a socially conscious democrat after the old perceptions had become obsolete in post-Thatcher Britain to (2) a party which desperately needed new legitimacy with the voters.
Sounds familiar?
The EU until now wasn't much of an issue with Dutch voters: partly because citizens could hardly affect the process anyway other than participate in elections legitimizing an immature European Parliament; partly because it was unclear to them how much Europe already affected them. About half of all Dutch laws are the result of EU directives, according to weekly Elsevier, but this usually wasn't perceived this way, other than the odd sensationalist report about how the European Commission spent the day arguing the curvature of bananas.
As a result of all this, 'Europe' wasn't a subject of note in national campaigns. Politicians are quite human (well, sometimes) in the sense that they will choose the easy way out in a social context. Why disagree with your party peers and even engage in a possibly poisonous debate if there's nothing to be gained for your own career, and everything to lose? One might by accident antagonize people who could jeopardize one's climb up the ladder, or even forfeit the chance of a cushy seat in Brussels in the end.
Whenever consensus is rewarded, group think is the inevitable result. (I'll just say 'slam dunk case' right here so you don't have to bother in the comments.)
Now it seems we may enter an era in which the advantages for MP's to agree with their fellow party members on Europe may be offset by the losses of not daring to be different. A politician which can both articulate his love for a united Europe as well as promise voters to critically monitor the road to integration for pitfalls, might be acting in the best interest of both the people and his career. After all, his party could reap electoral rewards, which wouldn't necessarily reflect bad on him. As 90 percent of humankind consists of opportunists whose most important, or even sole, skill is judging likely winners and rallying behind them, more party members would follow. (I am in a good mood today. Normally, I put the percentage at 99,9999 percent. Don't even ask about my dark moods.)
Presumably, this is one of very few reasons the Netherlands still has tax-deductible mortgage interest payments (which in my view should be abolished immediately as they drive up real estate prices, but anyway. Different debate for a different day). Voters are willing to punish parties who are even considering bringing the subject up. Even the Labour Party, whose voters don't own houses as much as those of (for example) CDA or VVD, is careful not to lead the way in the mortgage debate. Likewise, after Wednesday, only a very foolish party leader would misinterpret the Dutch citizen's willingness to be similarly assertive about 'Europe'.
Granted, this willingness is recent. But it wasn't until recently that it became impossible for the voter to ignore Europe. Only with the euro, and the subsequent price hikes in the Netherlands, did this change. It didn't help much that Greece got into the EMU by cooking the books, and how France and Germany got away with flouting Eurozone budget rules.
The combination of the referendum (finally feeling direct control over a process which seemed until recently to be ungraspable) with these political and economical realities have given 'Europe' a sense of importance to the voter. Political parties would be wise to capitalize on that. They can no longer afford to ignore the citizen's wishes, for the simple reason that other parties won't make the same mistake, and instead reap gains which could have been theirs.
Elections are a marketplace of ideas. And it seems to be a buyer's market for EU stock right now. Which party will cash in on it first?
|
