1
Populism and the European Union: the ambiguous case of Pim Fortuyn
MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam
Author: Saskia van Anen Main Supervisor: dr. M. Lok Second Supervisor: dr. L. Marácz Month, year of completion: July 2018
2 Table of content
Introduction 3
Ch. 1 Life of an outsider? 8
1.1 Childhood and young adulthood 8
1.2 Personal struggles 10
1.3 Career and becoming a public figure 11
1.4 Entering politics 12
1.5 Life of an outsider 15
Ch. 2 1992 - 1995: Een wereld te winnen 18
2.1 Common European army 18
2.2 United in diversity 20
2.3 Euregions 21
2.4 A backlash conservative 22
2.5 Conclusion 24
Ch. 3 1996 – 1997: Vijf voor twaalf in Europa. 26
3.1 The uniqueness of European countries 26
3.2 National identity 27
3.3 Migrants 29
3.4 Economy 30
3.5 Defence 31
3.6 Fraud and bureaucracy 32
3.7 Conclusion 32
Ch. 4 1998 – 2002: Een vurig pleidooi 34
Conclusion 36
3 Introduction
‘’Europa is heel divers, het is net een mens: het zwakke punt is het sterke punt. Europa is om lief te hebben en om te haten’’
The quote above demonstrates the ambiguous attitude that Pim Fortuyn had towards Europe. For him Europe was both to love and to hate. Fortuyn is not remembered for his outspoken opinion on the EU or the future of the Netherlands as a member state. A quick search online will give examples on how much Fortuyn was a proponent of European integration and even on expansion of the EU, at the same time he is often portrayed as a Eurosceptic without much elaboration on his views concerning the EU. Therefore, this thesis attempts to analyse what Pim Fortuyn’s views were regarding the European Union. His apparent devotion to the project of European integration is hard to rhyme with his populist reputation. Fortuyn is generally portrayed, in scholarly literature as well as public debate, as a populist. Not just any populist, but the most influential populist in Dutch contemporary history. It sometimes seems that Fortuyn personally has shifted Dutch politics to the right, and after he died it remained there, at the right end of the spectrum. His most obvious contribution is that he made the topic of Islam and Muslim integration negotiable and his criticisms on Islam is what made him most controversial at the time. He has this in common with current European populists, as a consequence far right politicians such as Geert Wilders are seen as his political heirs.
If there is one other thing that current populists in Europe share it is that they are outspoken Eurosceptic. Varied as their general standpoints may be if there is one thing they agree on it is their distrust to EU institutions and politics. The euroscepticism varies between the hard form which rejects European integration as a whole and is in opposition to the country joining or remaining a member of the EU, and the softer form which can be objections to integration because of national interests or concerns about EU policy. Either way, populists are not satisfied with the process of European integration. However, the case of Pim Fortuyn shows that this has not always been the case.
This thesis is related to research trends on populism. Although scholars disagree on the exact definition of populism there is general agreement on the aspect that populism includes some kind of appeal to the people versus the elites in power. Mudde and Kaltwasser define populism as a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated in two homogenous groups, ‘the pure people’ versus the ‘the corrupt elite’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people.1 Populism is a thin ideology
because it is a view of how the world is and should be and unlike thick-centred or full ideologies such as fascism or liberalism, populism only appears when it is attached to other ideologies. It is therefore not so much a coherent ideological tradition but a set of ideas that appear in combination with other ideologies. Mudde and Kaltwasser place populism first and foremost in the context of liberal democracy because populism is juxtaposed to liberal
4 democracy rather than to democracy per se. Therefore populism is in essence not against democracy it just defends an extreme form of majority rule.
Jan-Werner Müller disagrees with Mudde that populism is in essence not against democracy. According to Müller populists are a real danger to democracy and not just to liberalism. If they for instance are antipluralist or attack minority rights than it is a danger to democracy itself. And they are by definition antipluralist, this is the most important characteristic of populism. Populist claim that they, and they alone represent the people.2 The
corrupt elite do not belong to the people, they are not moral, neither are citizens that do not agree with the populists because they disagree with the will of the people. Müller also adds that populists do not necessarily represent the common good but they employ a symbolic representation of the people from which then policy is deduced. In this way their position is immune to empirical data. They can always play off the real people against the official outcome of a vote.3 The will of the people is determined by them it is therefore not a path to
more participation in politics. It is also always a form of identity politics because the distinction between the elite and people is a moral one, people can easily be dismissed as immoral and not part of the homogenous people.4
Another important characteristic of populism is that they create a sense of crisis. These feelings are then used to mobilize the masses and this process is often guided by strong charismatic leaders who present themselves as the voice of the people. Often this means they have a careful constructed image which portrays them as outsiders. This is an important image, given that populist politics is in essence a struggle of the people against the elite, it is crucial for populist leaders to present themselves as opposed to the establishment.5 A strategy
that Pim Fortuyn employed frequently and that is a central aspect of how he is often viewed by people, as an charismatic outsider versus the establishment.
Most explanations of populist success emphasize this importance of a charismatic leader who is able to attract a readily available electorate that is disappointed in or feels ignored by the mainstream political parties. When it comes to Pim Fortuyn this might have some merit as he already had significant support among voters without even having an election program. But according to Mudde in general this interpretation is problematic for two reasons. First, not all populist actors are led by a charismatic leader. Second, populism is a moral discourse that exists in society regardless of the presence of populist actors. Many citizens interpret political reality through the lens of populism.6 This means that there is
always a demand side for populism. Many people support some basic ideas of populism, most notably that the establishment is dishonest and self-serving or makes corrupt deals behind closed doors. But populist attitudes among people are not activated until there is a need for it or until the circumstances are suitable and the demand manifests itself. This is mostly some kind of perceived threat to society with which populists create a sense of crisis. Muller thinks
2 J.W. Müller, What is populism? (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press, 2016), 3. 3 Ibidem 102.
4 Ibidem 3.
5 Mudde, Populism, Ch.4 page 2. 6 Mudde, Populism, Ch.6 page 2.
5 that electoral success can neither be explained by some kind of feelings of anger, frustration or resentment among the voters. Those suffering from resentment are by definition weak and reactive. The self-understanding of resentful people is dependent on the strong. People need to be aware of the political consequences of such explanations because they end up confirming those people’s views of liberal elites, as being not just deeply condescending but also unable to live up to their own political ideals because they prescribe some form of political therapy for fearful and resentful citizens.7 The electoral success of populism is also broadly
related to the promises of democracy that have not been fulfilled. The crucial promise is that the people can rule. Populist speak as if such promise can be fulfilled, as if the people as a whole can develop a singular judgement, populism is hereby promising things that democracy cannot.
When it comes to how to deal with populist the prevalent opinion is to engage in open dialogue with them and their supporters. The aim should be to better understand the claims and grievances and to develop liberal democratic responses to them. However it seems if these liberal responses are decided in dialogue with populists, then they will have to have populists aspects to them. But populists represent constituents, just as any other politician so simply ignoring populists is reinforcing the sense that there is some kind of elite that do not care about what the voters want. There are two reactions of the mainstream to populism which do not work: a coordinated frontal attack on the populists and collectively portraying them as evil or foolish. A strategy employed by the mainstream parties during the rise of Fortuyn and which was not effective at all. Some established actors ague that populists can only be defeated by adopting part of their message, a strategy that consciously or not, has been adopted by the mainstream parties after the demise of Fortuyn.
Rise of populism in the Netherlands
In the Dutch contextthe rise of populism in the Netherlands is associated with Pim Fortuyn. There is a lot of debate on how to explain this rise of Fortuyn and the shift to right in Dutch politics. Some scholars attribute this sudden shift to Fortuyn’s personality. In these explanations style is more important than content and Fortuyn was mostly seen as a savvy politician who expressed the ignored concerns of a marginalized electorate.8 Then there are
those who claim that the dissatisfaction of the voters with immigration policies is not enough to explain the rise of Fortuyn because at the time of his popularity immigration numbers were relatively stable and the economy was good so this does not explain the Fortuyn revolt. Instead, media attention and the public reaction to his party had played a decisive role for the remarkable degree in which he was able to mobilize support.9 Reactions in the media and by
other politicians raised his popularity. They constantly reacted to him which made him more
7 Müller, What is populism? 16.
8 Oudenampsen, ‘’The conservative embrace of progressive values,’’ (PhD diss., Tilburg University, 2018): 3. 9 Muis and Koopmans, ‘’The rise of right-wing populist Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands: A discursive opportunity
6 visible in media. Other factors were Fortuyn’s mission to eliminate the tedium of Dutch politics, that he was a great speaker and that he to an unprecedented degree has brought his personal life into politics, and the public responded to this with emotional sympathy.
Other scholars look at it from the long term perspective and argue that the shift to right had already been a development before Fortuyn became a politician. For example Lucassen and Lucassen argue that although individuals matter for the rise of anti-immigration politics, alone they are not sufficient. Fortuyn did not just appear on the political landscape. There had to be some breeding ground for discontent.10 They claim that a crucial element of
the Dutch swift to right was the belief on both left and right that progressive elites were to blame for the rise of illiberal Islam and for the problems caused by descendants of immigrants. Such elites had forced multiculturalism on the Dutch population. In the nineties, before Fortuyn became a public figure, political correctness had already started to evaporate. The cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s had caused a political correctness which was nourished by feelings of guilt about the war and decolonization. Mainstream parties agreed that problems with immigration could not be politicized in order to avoid expressions of racist gut feelings.11 But all the time both left and right had been feeling discomfort with
immigration, so when the political correctness started to evaporate, it made the counter reaction that Fortuyn was a part of even more intense.
A similar argument is employed in The conservative embrace of progressive values by Merijn Oudenampsen. He explores how to make sense of the ideological shift to the right in the Netherlands. Oudenampsen sees Fortuyn as part of a broader intellectual movement. In the US and the UK the 1960s and the 1970s were a period of polarization that gave rise to both the progressive movements of the New Left and their conservative counterparts, the New Right.12 In the US this primarily took the form of Nixon winning the presidency in 1969
and in the UK it was Margaret Thatcher. The Netherlands has had a different experience due to its political culture of consensus. The 1960s saw the rise of New Left as a reaction to the events in the US and the UK but there failed to be counter response from the New Right. Dutch elites adapted to the changes rather than opposing them and as a consequence, in a matter of years, the country changed from a conservative, conventional and mostly Christian society to a progressive, critical and secular one.13 According to Oudenampsen the switch to right that
accompanied the rise of Pim Fortuyn was a belated reaction to the New Left. Fortuyn was just one of the most visible figures in this movement that Oudenampsen refers to as the Dutch New Right: a fusion of neoliberal and neoconservatives ideas. Same as in the 1960s established elites chose to accommodate to the conservative undercurrent. Therefore Fortuyn is part of a broader intellectual movement that also contains Frits Bolkestein and Geert Wilders. Oudenampsen also sees Fortuyn as a neoconservative. What made him different and what made the whole New Right in the Netherlands different is that because of Fortuyn they had
10 Lucassen and Lucassen, ‘’The strange death of Dutch tolerance,’’ The journal of modern history 87, no. 1
(2015): 73.
11 Ibidem 96.
12 Oudenampsen, ‘’Conservative embrace,’’ 6. 13 Idem.
7 to contend with the progressive view on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and drugs. The Fortuyn revolt was therefore ambiguous from the very start. On the one hand it was a conservative return to the past, on the other there is the progressive character of the politics of populist right.14 The Dutch New Right could present itself as the
defenders of these accomplishments against the backward Islam culture. Fortuyn presented progressive vales as self-evident, thereby separating them from the progressive roots of the 60s and 70s. They simply had become Dutch values. With this focus on the Dutch New Right Oudenampsen pays no attention to the European aspect. Therefore my thesis will focus on Fortuyn, populism and Europe.
What is also important in Fortuyn views regarding the EU is organicism. This doctrine conceives of society as a harmonious organism, a historically developed reality. Society is not malleable but develops as a gradually evolving organism. Abstract principles and rational reasoning are mistrusted in favour of intuition, experience and tradition. It is seen as a thin ideology connecting the thick ideologies of Christian democracy, liberalism and socialism.15
There is plenty of literature that is concerned with the sudden rise of popularity of Fortuyn. The ideas of Fortuyn concerning Europe do not get that many attention. It is sometimes mentioned, but more as a random statement that Fortuyn made, without further explanations. With my thesis I hope to contribute to this lack of literature about Pim Fortuyn’s views on the EU. In order to do this I will first describe Fortuyn as a person and the events that surrounded his ascendance in Dutch politics. His personality and reactions to him as a person are an important part in explaining his appeal and why the populist aspect is important. The last chapters will analyse his books to see what his views about Europe were and if they have changed at all during the campaign period.
14 Oudenampsen, ‘’conservative embrace’’, 166. 15 Ibidem 49.
8
Chapter I
Life of an outsider?
In order to understand the Fortuyn revolt first we need to try to grasp the person behind all the controversy. Therefore, this chapter will be a biographical one, it will describe briefly the life of Pim Fortuyn and attempts to understand who he was as a person. It will also try to relate his personality to populism because as political scientist Paul Taggert has said: ‘’populism requires the most extraordinary individuals to lead the most ordinary of people.’’ The chapter will argue that it was not just his political views but also his personality and the way he presented himself that contributed greatly to the impact he has had on Dutch society.
Childhood and young adulthood
Pim Fortuyn was born in 1948 in Velsen-Driehuis in Noord-Holland. Fortuyn describes Driehuis as a decent village but also extremely boring because not much happened there ‘’Driehuis was saai en ik was, en ben nog steeds, hypergevoelig voor saaiheid.’’16 Fortuyn was part of the
babyboomer generation and during his childhood Dutch society was to a large extent divided in different zuilen: catholic, protestant, communist, socialists and liberals. The different groups had their own political parties, newspapers, associations etc. In general the life of the Dutch people mainly took place within their own zuil. The Fortuyn family were a middle class catholic family. They were not rich, but not poor either. Pim was the third child, he had two older brothers, two younger ones and a younger sister. The father was frequently gone for work, he traded in envelopes and paper, he and Pim were not close. His father was a conformist, Pim was different and according to himself, special: ‘’Deze bijzonderheid vervulde hem met diepe weerzin en angst en hij trachtte mij keer op keer over Te halen om niet zo opvallend en afwijkend te zijn’’.17 Neither was he close with his grandfather ‘’opa vindt mij geen echte vent,
meer een meid en daar moet hij niets van hebben’’. He seemed to have felt more accepted by and attracted to the women in his family, he frequently spoke of his mother as a modern and above all ‘’beeldschone en krachtige vrouw’’ and his grandmother was also very fond of him.18
All in all he felt his youth had been idyllic, although at times very boring. It was predictable and clear. The only thing that really ruined it was ‘’het verschrikkelijk katholiek lager onderwijs’’.19 He thought his school was a catholic repressive institution led by abusive
nuns. Fortuyn had no warm memories for these teachers at all who mainly tried to ‘’alle katholieke verboden door de jonge strotjes te duwen. Alles wat afwijkt, wordt zonder enig mededogen veroordeeld en zo mogeijk met wortel en tak uitgeroeid.’’20 His mother, who
16 Pim Fortuyn, Autobiografie van een babyboomer (Uithoorn: Karakters Uitgevers B.V. 2002): 38. 17 Ibidem 58.
18 Ibidem 30. 19 Ibidem 39. 20 Ibidem 41.
9 secretly hated all these catholic rules and rituals, frequently protested against the nuns if she felt one of her children was being mistreated, for instance when Pim’s brother was expelled for knocking of a Maria statue of her pedestal. This in contrast to the father who rather be seen as a good catholic. This made Pim see his father as weak.21 This aversion of catholic school
did not mean he disliked Catholicism as a whole. Fortuyn would remain catholic the rest of his life, he later confirmed in numerous interviews. It was not all negative, as a boy he was fascinated by the rituals and the way that the pope and other Catholics high in hierarchy would dress. He even wanted to be pope for this reason, something that was endlessly repeated by interviewers during his short political career, up to the point that Fortuyn was really tired of talking about it.
After primary school Fortuyn attended HBS Mendel college in Haarlem. Again a Catholic school for boys but a more Enlightened one. Teachers here taught about the Reformation and that there was more than the Catholic truth. During this period Fortuyn starts wearing suits, which made him stand out, joins the debating club and becomes more assertive. It is according to him where he developed his personality. The school had about 450 students until the Mammoetwet entered in 1967. He hated this because the school had to expand and merge with a Catholic school for girls. But mostly because the rector Hutjens, who Pim had a special relationship with, got overwrought because of it.22 During his political career he
frequently talked idyllic about his own school period before the Mammoetwet and about what a political mistake it had been. In this way he based his political views on his personal experiences. It could also be nostalgic as populism is in essence nostalgia. Populists view the nation as a community of pure hardworking people who are suffering the consequences from decisions made by the elites. The whole vision of populism harks back to the past, often coloured with nostalgia.23 Fortuyn often talks nostalgic about his school period before the
Mammoetwet and felt that schools needed to return to that period of small scale education. After his graduation Fortuyn had decided that God did not exist for him personally, although he remained catholic. He gave up any thoughts of becoming a priest and went to Amsterdam where he studied sociology at VU. Here he becomes active in student movement. National politics did not interests him in this period. Fortuyn and his fellow students rather were interested in world events such as the Vietnam war or Fidel Castro, Dutch politics were boring. Although for Fortuyn this attraction to Fidel Castro ended quit abruptly when he heard that they deny the existence of homosexuality in Cuba.24 How a country treated its
homosexuals and women was an important standard for him to judge the extent of their civilization and it remained so.
21 Ibidem 44. 22 Ibidem 107.
23 Piet de Rooy, ‘’That’s not politics! 2002 populism,’’ In A tiny spot on the earth: the political culture of the
Netherlands in the nineteenth and twentieth century (Amsterdam University press, 2015): 269.
10 Personal struggles
His homosexuality becomes more of an issue during his study period. Around the age of 22 he realized that he was gay. During his time in Amsterdam his intimate friends knew he was gay but in broader circles it just did not exist. For Fortuyn realizing he was gay opened his eyes. He had always felt different than the other men and now this was partially explained. Now it was time to develop a homosexual identity because: ‘’Een homoseksuele geaardheid bij jezelf erkennen is één, het is feitelijk de gemakkelijkste fase. Een homoseksuele identiteit ontwikkelen is echter heel wat moeilijker en een kwestie van jaren. Sommigen slagen daar nooit in.’’25 Obviously Fortuyn’s gay identity has developed, by the time he was a public figure
he was very openly homosexual and it had actually become a part of his public identity. His homosexuality was emphasised by the media. Whenever it was necessary to describe Fortuyn in the media the fact that was gay was always mentioned. Fortuyn himself was also very open about it. It was not common for a politician to be openly gay and Fortuyn would take this a step further by telling interviewers about his experiences in darkrooms and equating it with a religious experience.26 This contributed to his status as someone who was different, an
outsider. He also used it for his political message because he defended his anti-Islam statements as a defence for progressive values such as gay rights and women emancipation. He did not express his opposition to Islam, immigration and multiculturalism in a traditional right wing discourse but with an appeal to endangered progressive values.27 These values
were an accomplishments of Dutch society and needed to be protected against Islam. His homosexuality also shielded him from associations with the more traditional right wing parties because they frequently opposed gay rights before the rise of Fortuyn. In fact a sizeable element of the Dutch populations was still deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality and Dutch women were significantly underrepresented in business and politics.28
Fortuyn also struggled with other issues such as depressions to such an extent that he decided to undergo psychoanalyse. In his autobiography he writes that in his childhood he has developed a fear of abandonment ‘’Mijn hele leven staat in het teken van afscheid nemen, in het verlaten worden door voor mij emotioneel zeer belangrijke mensen.’’29 Who these people
are is not made clear. Boyfriends must have had a part in this because he also notes that he is mostly appealed to people who will eventually leave him. He states that psychoanalysis has not made him a happier person, but it did made him sadder, wiser and less egocentric. Whenever he feels depressed he sees it as a period of introspection and sensitivity in which he experiences a high sense of empathy instead of ‘’een uiting van de zinloosheid van het bestaan in algemeen.’’ These periods are alternated with periods of hyperactivity and joy. These periods are the most difficult for his surrounding because he demands a lot of attention during active periods. Therefore he does not have a lot of friends, but many acquaintances.
25 Ibidem 194.
26 Interview by Theo van Gogh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWtsqidvf4k 27 Oudenampsen, conservative embrace, 164.
28 Ibidem 174. 29 Ibidem 254.
11 His true friends are very important to him, however he claims, they know he wants to keep evolving his entire life. ‘’Wie dat niet kan of niet wil bijbenen, raakt vroeg of laat in de gevoelsmarge van mijn leven en verwordt tot een goede en dierbare herinnering. Wie dat niet wil, moet meedoen op zijn of haar manier, maar wel meedoen, dat wil zeggen, zelf groeien en creatief zijn.’’ Relatives after he died confirmed that he did not have many friends. He was not easy to deal with as he needed a lot of attention and always wanted to be right. Some say that he was nice to be around as long as they avoided a confrontation, because that led to a discussion that he would always win. This aspect of being hard to deal with made him a lonely person. The outsider aspect was also present in his family. His father and siblings were more entrepreneurs, voting on the right end of the political spectrum. Pim was left and studied Marxist sociology, this lead to intense debates at the family table and it was always him against the rest.
Career and becoming a public figure
Fortuyn is often seen as someone who went from the extreme left end of politics to the extreme right. During his time at Groningen University (RUG) he was asked by a colleague in 1972 to become a member of the communist party. This is not unusual because communists at the time were very influential at the university. He did not feel much for becoming a member as he disagreed too much with communist regimes elsewhere and he did not like Marcus Bakker. However it did made him feel isolated, not being a part of the conservatives nor the progressives. Therefore he decides to become a member of the labour party PvdA. During this period he starts to realize that national politics is the way to achieve political ideas. The lively debated between Joop den Uyl and Hans Wiegel who introduced the notion of ‘’de mensen in het land’’ also contributed to this idea that national politics mattered.30
Fortuyn’s interest in national politics continue and from here on and he wants to be a part of it as well. Fortuyn terminated his PvdA membership In 1989 when Joop den Uyl told him he did not fit in with the party culture. Fortuyn was very disappointed because he had come to admire den Uyl. After this he decided that as an outsider he would have far more influence on politics.31 It’s interesting here that Fortuyn decided for himself to be an outsider,
apart of the established parties in order to have more influence. Apparently he already realized at this point that not being part of the mainstream could be more effective if he wanted to realize his own political ambitions.
This soon proved to be the right strategy for Fortuyn because he started to become a public and slightly controversial figure. Some of it because of the publicity attached to the function of developing the OV student card or his position as bijzonder hoogleraar arbeidsvoorwaardenbeleid at Erasmus University. This did not last long because his colleagues felt he was not academic enough but it did yield him the nickname ‘the Professor’ which the media kept using during his political career. This could be seen as another rejection in his life
30 Ibidem 229. 31 Ibidem 298.
12 but Fortuyn himself states that quitting as professor in 1995 has been a liberation for him because he wants to be able to write without constraints, and to write for a larger audience than scientific work could offer. He also receives attention because of his columns in Elsevier and his books and he becomes a well know critic of Paars, the Dutch cabinet existing out of PvdA, VVD and D66.
In 1997 he writes a book about the subject of Islam in which he argues that there needs to be a debate about the norms and values that underlie our multicultural society. The Dutch people need to be more aware of their identity. According to Fortuyn there are fundamental differences between western humanist and Christian societies on the one hand, and Islamic societies on the other. When it comes to equality between men and woman or separation of church and states, our society is higher developed. Therefore immigrants need to adapt and we need a public discussion otherwise it will cause problems in the future. This has basically remained his position on Islam and it was what made people react to him the most. The book aroused a lot of anger in the media. His was accused of racism and stigmatizing an entire group of people. The most well-known reaction to this book was in a television debate with Marcel van Dam which ended with van Dam calling Fortuyn ‘’een buitengewoon minderwaardig mens’’. In the reactions to the book Fortuyn was accused of placing an entire group, Muslims, outside of the Dutch people because they did not integrate sufficiently and therefore did not contribute to society. In fact, according to Fortuyn they were often part of an underclass of people that were dead weight in society. Dead weight because they make no contribution to society at all while the hard working people have to pay for the social costs. Fortuyn found it a disgrace that he was accused of racism because he just wanted to have an open debate about these issues. According to him the anger aroused came from the taboo that the left elites had established on the subject. Herein already lies the classical populist reasoning, he defends the entire Dutch society against the faults of the left elites who he blames for the problems with integration. Even before he went into politics there are these populist viewpoints that he voiced. Although Oudenampsen would call it the conservative appropriation of progressive values. Fortuyn took the emancipation of women and gay rights and portrayed them as an achievement of the whole of Dutch society. The challenge that remained was to defend this cultural achievements against the threat of Islam.
Entering politics
After having been part of the public debate as a columnist and opinion maker for some time Fortuyn announces on 10 August 2001 in the television program 2Vandaag to participate in the upcoming parliament elections in May 2002. Whether he would join an existing party or form his own he would announce in December. He did say which options he was considering, at the moment he was an advisor to CDA ‘’wie weet, bloeit daar nog iets moois op’’. Another option would be Leefbaar Nederland (LN), a fairly new party formed out of local variants. If that would not work he would run for parliament with his own list, List Pim Fortuyn. In an episode Andere Tijden one of his personal friends looks back at that period and state that
13 Fortuyn did not really feel like starting his own party at that point. That was such a hassle and LN already did all this work. The 2Vandaag announcer claimed that with Fortuyn’s entrance into politics ‘’op het Binnenhof kunnen de messen worden geslepen, want Fortuyn is nu al zeer omstreden’’32 In November that year LN announced that Pim Fortuyn would be their leader,
chosen out of 21 candidates. He accepted with a speech and ended with his new slogan ‘’at your service’’. Fortuyn has made clear from the start that LN would have to adapt to his views. Chairman Jan Nagel did not find this a problem at the time. However he may have regretted this soon after when it appeared that Fortuyn and LN were not that good of a match, it only lasted two months.
Nationally LN did very well in the polls, in February they stood at 20 parliament seats until an interview with Fortuyn was published in the Volkskrant where he claimed that Islam is a backward culture and that if it were up to him no Islamic immigrant would be allowed to immigrate anymore.33 He also stated that article one of the constitution, the ban on
discrimination should be replaced with freedom of opinion. This interview was originally meant to pursue PvdA voters to vote LN but Fortuyn did not like to follow strategy. When the interviewer stated that LN would probably not allow him to say these things, he responded with ‘’daar moest ik me maar is wat minder van aan gaan trekken’’ After this statement LN had a meeting with him that night where they decided the party could not continue with him. The evening they made this decision would be termed de nacht van Fortuyn. When he drove off with in his Daimler with chauffeur he promised the press that surrounded the car that they should make no mistake about it, he would become the next prime minister of this country. He looked confident but in reality, he was broken. He even told his friend Peter Langedam that he was going to quit politics at that time. 34
Fortuyn had always seen himself as a man with a mission and with great commitment.35 His mission was to prepare the country for modernisation and it was unlikely
that a setback like this was going to stop him from pursuing this permanently. He started his own list LPF. Before LPF was even officially established the polls showed that he took with him most of the LN votes. Without a program or a candidate list LPF already stood at 16 seats in the polls which had risen to 22 in February.36 Meanwhile the mainstream parties had already
began to show signs of nervousness at this time. The issue of foreigners, immigration and asylum seekers often combined with the issue of crime had moved to the top of the political agenda as a result of speeches and interviews by Fortuyn. The other parties were put on the defensive when it came to these subjects.37 As a reaction to far right politician Janmaat
mainstream parties had decided not to politicize migration. This was considered dangerous and anti-immigrant sentiment was to be avoided. Parties or politicians who did appeal to these
32 ‘’2Vandaag,’’ 10 August, 2001.
33 ‘’Fortuyn: grens dicht voor Islamiet,’’ Volkskrant, 9 February, 2002. 34 ‘’Pim en zijn volk II,’’ Andere Tijden, 14 September, 2006.
35 Fortuyn, Autobiography, 355.
36 Joop van Holsteyn, ‘’Pim in de peiling,’’ Montesquieu Instituut, Accessed 13-6-18.
37 Holsteyn and Irwin, ‘’Never a dull moment: Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2002,’’
14 kind of sentiments were to be marginalized as much as they could. But in the meantime immigration was a genuine concern among the population. Fortuyn spoke about these concerns and as a result he kept rising in the polls. In this way he was very successful in mobilizing the masses. As a result he was accused by the mainstream parties of playing into people’s emotions and fears. The mainstream parties apparently saw a Dutch population that was very angry and emotional about some issues and all that was needed was a populist like Fortuyn to trigger these emotions and then the whole country would turn far right. Unconsciously they have probably widened the gap between the people and the establishment by confirming that there is such a thing as the angry voter and that only Fortuyn could play into this anger. Meanwhile the condescending elite was powerless.
Fortuyn’s first electoral success were the municipal elections in March 2002. He did continue with the local variant Leefbaar Rotterdam and won about thirty percent of the votes which made it the largest party. The debate that followed the election results that evening was the first debate between the leaders of the national parties: Melkert (PvdA), Dijkstal (VVD), Rosenmöller (Groenlinks), Balkenende (CDA) and Fortuyn himself. This debate later turned out to be the start sign for a winning national campaign. Fortuyn appeared content and confident and was probably very relieved as well after the results while the others appeared to sit there reluctantly and somewhat surprised with their losses. Especially Melkert whose party had lost big in Rotterdam seemed a poor loser because he sat there with a long face and seems very unhappy with Fortuyn’s success. Hereby giving Fortuyn the opportunity to be the winner at the table and urging Melkert to look a little happier and stating that ‘’Nou dat klinkt niet erg enthousiast meneer Melkert. Dat belooft nog wat te worden!’’
According to Jan ‘t Hooft, one of Fortuyn’s closest friends, the period leading up to this election had been so exciting for Fortuyn that he could barely sleep, it was such an important moment for him, the moment that he finally had proved to the establishment what he was able to do.38 After this debate the national campaign and media centred as much on Fortuyn
as on the issues that were debated. His personality became a central issue and relying on the comment above Fortuyn perceived this as him against the establishment, finally being able to prove himself. Fortuyn had been announcing for some time that whether it was integration or education or anything else, the political elites were handling it poorly. His election success in Rotterdam was a confirmation from the voters that he had been right all along. Something that was very important for him, also in his personal life. He was accepted by the voters and although it may have been Fortuyn against the elites, this time it also looked like he had the people on his side. Being an outsider obviously paid of electorally. When media after his death asked a fan what appealed him to Fortuyn the most he answered: ‘’de strijd van Pim Fortuyn als vrijheidsstrijder voor het Nederlandse volk, tegen de overheid, tegen die regentenkliek, tegen dat establishment. Dat vind ik verder veel belangrijker dat het feit dat hij de allochtonenkwestie heeft aangekaart.’’39
38 ‘’De dag dat Pim Fortuyn won,’’ AVRO documentary 2014. 39 ‘’Pim en zijn volk II,’’ Andere Tijden.
15 Despite this enthusiasm for Fortuyn among some people there was also resistance. Some people felt he might pose a danger to society. This had led to some incidents that shocked him deeply. For example when he walked through a crowd on the day of the municipal election who were scanting that he was the Dutch Hitler or the Dutch Jörg Haider. Or at the book presentation of his election campaign, when he had barely sat down surrounded by the media, a woman came to the fore and threw a pie in his face, after which two more pies followed while saying ‘no racism’. The cake throwers later stated that the action was meant to breach the charisma of what they saw as an extreme right politician.40 Although
he reacted calm at the moment he later said he was horrified about this incident, it might as well have been a bullet. It shocked him that he was able to arouse this much anger with people. Just after the incident he called for a campaign without demonization of his person. He turned to the prime minister Kok on camera saying that ‘’U ben minister-president van alle Nederlanders, dus ook van mij’’ The prime minister Wim Kok had stated that Fortuyn caused hatred and divisions in society and the he was a danger to democracy which has made clear in the introduction is a very ineffective way of reacting to populism. It also made Fortuyn feel that he was demonized and that with what other politicians and the media were saying about him he felt that all civilization had abandoned this campaign. In an interview with the TV show he has said that ‘’Als ik had geweten wat me allemaal boven het hoofd hing, had ik het nooit gedaan.’’ Also, the fact that he was pushed in this extreme right corner by the mainstream parties, did not completely have merit. Because his reasons for opposing Muslim immigration, defending women emancipation and gay rights, found some echoes on the left and therefore cannot be simply dismissed as right-wing xenophobia as they did at the time.41
Life of an outsider
The fact that the mainstream parties opposed him, strengthened his position as someone who opposed the elites. Fortuyn was an eccentric politician, a very open person, whether he said things to shock, provoke or just wanted to have an open conservation he said things that other politicians just could not. He could easily talk about his sex or love life in interviews and how disappointed he was that it did not work out with the love of his life. He could also be impolite, impatient, or as he put it ‘’een driftkop’’. This was and still is not common practice among politicians but he seemed to be able to make statements or behave in a certain way that other politicians just could not do and the people would accept it. Due to statements that were perceived racist at the time the established parties distanced themselves from Fortuyn, which ultimately only made him more accepted by the voters as the man who was not part of the elite but spoke for the people. The reasons that these elites distanced from him were his comments about Muslims. Integration was a genuine concern among part of the population and now there was a politician who did not just ‘’listen to them’’ but took it a step further
40 ‘’Boete voor taartgooiers naar wijlen Pim Fortuyn,’’ Trouw 15-10-2002
https://www.trouw.nl/home/boete-voor-taartgooiers-naar-wijlen-pim-fortuyn~a1f82d61/
16 stating that there is an actual crisis going on and that the elites are ignoring this. As Fortuyn said: ‘’Het is vijf voor 12. Niet in Nederland maar in Europa. We hebben hier een vijfde colonne van mensen die het land naar de verdommenis willen helpen’’. This sense of a perceived threat or crisis is characteristic for populism but it was also because of the reactions of the establishment, who denied these problems, that Fortuyn could present himself as a man of the people. After all the elites did not live next to a Moroccan family of which the woman would not even greet him on the street, but he did. He lived among the common people in Rotterdam and therefore saw these problems every day. The fact that his house was not exactly common did not matter, it was about a city where he saw a significant underclass developing itself and the problems that this could pose for the future.
Except for statements he was also an outsider in the way he dressed and presented himself, he had a certain style. An expensive style with ties and suits and a certain decadence that he displayed by letting himself be driven around by a chauffeur and having a butler at home. Appearances seemed as important as the content of his arguments. His personal life and public life were intertwined to such a point that the human Pim Fortuyn predominated and the privet person and the politician could not be distinguished. All these manners he had made the people see him as real and authentic, not because he was an ‘ordinary man’ but because he did not pretend to be one.42
After Fortuyn died he mostly got portrayed as someone whose life was characterized by rejection. Ten years after his death Elsevier dedicated a magazine to him, in where they state that if there is one thing his friends and acquaintances agree on is that he was driven by the feeling of being an outsider. All his life he had craved to be a part of the establishment.43
He had felt like a misfit in his family as well as in working life. This is what drove him the most and what gave him his ambition. The establishment had listened to him for years in the role of advisor, they had used his ideas and then rejected him as a person. Herein must we search for Fortuyn’s determination. They also note that his life had been a concatenation of unfulfilled dreams. He did not became professor in Groningen, he did not get state secretary nor mayor of Haarlem, positions that he apparently has pursued at some point. They made him quit as professor at Erasmus University, he was not allowed to continue with OV-jaarkaart en at last did not become Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Even the love of his life seemed impossible.44
This is the way Pim Fortuyn is mostly remembered, for all the things he has failed at instead of what he did accomplish. Not just by his former colleagues of Elsevier but also by other media. When it comes to the memory of Pim Fortuyn it seems to be prevalent that he failed, that he was rejected by the establishment, that he did not belong. Why is this? It seems to be that because Fortuyn was so out of the ordinary people are looking for reasons to explain this. That there has to be a particular explanation for him to be the way he was, and that reason is rejection. This of course fits in perfectly with the populist discourse, that of a
42 Dick Pels, De geest van Pim. Het gedachtengoed van een politiek dandy (Amsterdam: Anthos, 2003): 39 – 40. 43 Liesbeth Wytzes, ‘’Buitenstaander op zoek naar erkenning,’’ Elsevier, 2011, 6.
17 charismatic outsider that articulates the will of the people against the elites who just act in their own best interests. When you look at Fortuyn from this outsider perspective than his life seems like a tragic hero story. An outsider fighting his whole life to be accepted and fails every time until ultimately he decides he does not need the elites to accept him and the fight becomes one of him against the elites. Ultimately he found acceptance as an outsider in the love of the people who had been as disappointed with the elites in power as he himself had been. And as he finally found this acceptance he dies for his ideals and in defence of Dutch values.
Of course when you approach it from the other angle than there are also plenty reasons to assume that this rejection was not so prevalent. That maybe although rejection was part of his life it does not mean that his life is characterized by it. His relationship with his father was a problem but on the other hand he was his mother’s favourite child. In school he had a special bond with the rector. He build up a significant network of people during his student period in which he was a social person and very active in student organizations. He attained his PhD and he did became a professor, although not at RUG. When it comes to his political career it seemed like he was indeed going to become the next Prime Minister, which seems like the ultimate political acceptation by the voters.
But given that populist politics is in essence a struggle of the people versus the elite, it is crucial for populist leaders to present themselves as the true voice of the people, which means one the one hand a separation from the elite and on the other a connection to the people.45 And Fortuyn did just that. He convinced the voters he was not part of the elite but
instead an honest man known for his ‘’zegt wat hij denkt en doet wat hij zegt’’. And that he was the only one who knew what was right for this country. Of course this is not all political strategy, it is also his personality as his family have characterized him as someone who always knows best, no matter what the subject is.
Fortuyn himself also presented himself as an outsider. In the final chapter of his last book he here claims that to Paars (the establishment) most of the constituencies are outsiders. He states that outsiders to Paars are ‘’dat zijn mensen die beschikken over een onderbuik en daarin allerhande foute tot zeer foute gevoelens hebben opgeslagen, die gemakkelijk te bespelen zijn door populistsiche onverlaten’’46 He knew he was a populist or at
least perceived as one and he thought populists might have a point, why not listen to your gut feelings? Are we that evil that horrible things will happen if we do?
Does all this mean he was populist and that all his views should be examined through a populist lens? Not necessarily. There are many populist characteristics that do not pertain to Fortuyn. He did not place the will of the people above anything else, in fact, he also felt that in some cases majority did not rule and it was the politicians job to educate them. In this way he could be elitist as well which is quite the opposite from populist. Maybe these contradictions fit in perfectly with his personality which is many times described as one of
45 Mudde, Populism, Ch. 4 page 10.
18 contradictions. Although we could say that he used populist rhetoric in distancing himself from the mainstream and that a combination of populist rhetoric, an extraordinary personality and some unfortunate reactions by the established parties made him a political success. The next chapters will elaborate on Fortuyn’s views on Europe and wonder how those fit in this populist mode of thinking.
Chapter II
‘’Er is een wereld te winnen voor een land als Nederland in Europa’’
47The quote above is a remark written down by Pim Fortuyn concerning the establishment of the European Union. Clearly he thought the process of European unification could be beneficial for the Netherlands. Fortuyn had many views about Europe, although they are not all this positive. In almost every book he has written he mentions and also criticises the EU and the role of the Netherlands in the process of European integration. Fortuyn was mostly known with the Dutch voters because of his frequent performances in debates and on television shows. However, his views on society and the European Union can also be derived from his writings. Numerous times in interviews and debates he refers to his books when he is asked a question. Therefore it is these writings that this chapter will focus on in order to examine what Fortuyn’s opinions on the EU were. The period chosen is 1992 – 2002 because in 1992 he wrote Aan het volk van Nederland which was his first book written for a more general and less specialized audience. After his death in 2002 there have been no more new publications. The chapter is divided in three parts because of the multitude of times Europe is mentioned, the current chapter wil treat the period 1992 – 1995. The columns are also a wonderful rich source as they were his immediate reaction to European developments. Because of Fortuyn’s emphasis on national values and culture his views on the EU can be quit surprising. It would be more likely for Fortuyn to be associated with nationalism than with Europeanism but this chapter will argue that Fortuyn was a Europeanist in certain ways.
A common foreign policy and European army
The year 1992 was an important year for the EU, as it was the year that the Treaty on the European Union was signed in Maastricht which officially established the EU, formerly the European Community. The treaty also expanded the scope of integration and prepared for the implementation of the European Monetary Union (EMU). The establishment of the EU and the unifying of European countries ‘’to an ever closer union’’ was generally seen as a positive development. Integration was barely challenged, this was known as permissive consensus. Especially in the Netherlands there was a lack of public discussion about the EU in society and in politics. Despite this lack of discussion, according to the Eurobarometer in 1992, the Netherlands had the highest levels of support for EC membership. In 1992 85% percent of the
47 Pim Fortuyn, Aan het volk van Nederland. De Contractmaatschappij, een politiek-economische zedenschets
19 population supported Dutch EC membership, versus 4% who did not. It was during this period of overwhelming support for the integration project and the European Union that Pim Fortuyn wrote Aan het volk van Nederland in which he discussed the European Community from military, economic and identity perspectives.
Fortuyn starts off with the statement that almost all western democracies are in state of crisis. He summarizes twentieth century history and the shifting world order after the disintegration of the Soviet-Union. After the Second World War the balance of power was bipolar, divided between the United States and the Soviet-Union. After the end of the Cold War the balance of power changed. Fortuyn sees Germany’s role as one of considerable importance in the framework of the European Community. Japan would also have a dominant role in the new world order.48 In the light of this new world order Fortuyn was an advocate of
a NATO of two pillars, an American pillar and a European one. However, because England resisted this idea too much he thought it would not be implemented. England rather maintained its special relationship with the US than investing in the EU because, according to Fortuyn, the country was afraid to loose influence in a European bond with respect to France and Germany. The Netherlands depend too much on the US as well. The Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, van den Broek ‘’gaat zich bij voortduring te buiten aan overtrokken en vernederende loyaliteitsbetuigingen aan het adres van de Verenigde Staten.’’49 The Dutch
government needs to realize that Germany is our main trading partner, and therefore the focus of foreign policies should be on the east, not the west.
At this point, the European military dependability on the US mostly determined how Fortuyn thought of Europe. He felt that the Dutch political parties were blind to the possibility that the EC could be independent when it comes to matters of peace and stability in the world. He would rather be united in a European bond, therefore the Dutch government had to support the German-French initiative of a jointly army corps which would ultimately develop in a European army. For the Netherlands, not supporting this common army has been a missed opportunity for gaining influence in a new system of security in the world. And the earlier they will support this, the bigger their influence will be.50 The role that the EC should play in security
matters should not be determined by the status quo because they are still fostered in the victory of liberal capitalism that they have claimed for themselves. Furthermore, it is of the upmost importance that the EC creates its own safety policy and a foreign policy that is in agreement with that. This policy will have to result in an EC common military. This is even more important than establishing a monetary union because that will be established anyhow and for a common army a lot more efforts and creativity is needed.51 In his later work Fortuyn
would become a lot more critical of the establishment of EMU because he thought it was an elite project. 48 Ibidem 20. 49 Ibidem 21. 50 Idem. 51 Ibidem 22.
20 Fortuyn often employs populist rhetoric because he blames the Dutch elites that they haven’t supported this idea of a common army and now the country has far less influence that it could have had. Pretentions for a national army in the Netherlands are misguided, the country is too small to form an army that could act independently. At best, we could have a specialized army, to assist UN missions when possible. But these kind of decisions cannot be made without broad public debate. Fortuyn also emphasises that this does not mean that the EC should be a federation such as the US. This would not be possible in Europe because of the individuality of states.
United in diversity
Another area in which the EU is discussed by Fortuyn is in relation to Dutch identity and the Dutch royal family. As a result of the unification of European countries problems with Dutch identity will come to the fore. Fortuyn states that in a unified Europe we have to be more aware of what our national identity is, about who we are as a people, in order to move freely in the world.52 Due to our history as a colonial power and a trading nation the Dutch are too
inclined to adapt to other cultures. There is a dangerous aspect in this quality, namely that if we adapt too much, we might lose track of who we are as a people. This would be harmful for the EU as well, because diversity in people, cultures and languages is one of Europe’s biggest weaknesses, but it is also the biggest strength.53 It is interesting that Fortuyn already uses the
official EU slogan ‘’United in diversity’’, which according to the official EU website, only first came in to use in 2000. Concerning the role of the Dutch royalty, Alexander in particular, Fortuyn feels it is his main task to symbolize and stimulate the Dutch search for a national identity, concretely by conducting historical research in every century into the areas of economy, arts and culture, state administration, geography, dealings with outsiders, the colonial empire and so forth. The conclusions of such research about our identity will have multiple outcomes and it will provide different answers to pressing current questions.54 This
may be an unusual task for a king, but a little less odd when the king studied history, maybe Fortuyn had this in the back of his mind when proposing it. National identity is very important for Fortuyn, this fits in with populism because they tend to focus on the nation. But the main difference is that Fortuyn approaches it from a European perspective. The Dutch have to define themselves within the EU to make the EU stronger instead of defining themselves against Islam which later started to dominate his writings.
But religion did have a role in his arguments because although the countries should use their diversity Fortuyn also thought that West-European countries have certain aspects and experiences in common, one of those is a shared religion. ‘’In our part of Europe’’ culture, norms and values are predominantly formed and determined by the Church and religious denominations. Religious institutions have therefore given Western European countries their
52 Ibidem 174. 53 Idem. 54 Ibidem 176.
21 common cultural basis. Fortuyn gives the advice to European policymakers that they should be aware of this before expanding the EU further.55 He is sceptical about EU expansions with
countries that do not share the same religion and therefore culture. This could be a threat to western values such as equality and separation of church and state. This is also the case with migrants. Western European countries have three experiences in common that define the problem of foreigners and migrants. These are the Holocaust, the independence wars in the colonies and the influx of guest workers later in the twentieth century. The problem is that European countries have only partially examined their role in these experiences.56 Western
Europe would have to process these events in order to discuss the multicultural society openly without prejudices and taboos. Fortuyn thought that western people have a certain amount of guilt that prevents them from looking objectively at issues with migrants. This is not just a Dutch, but a west-European problem. This problem Western Europe has with migrants would become more and more central in his thinking.
Euregions
Fortuyn proposes some far reaching changes in the Netherlands in order to be able to benefit from the new opportunities the EU creates. However, he criticizes the Dutch minister of Internal Affairs who is not taken advantage of these opportunities at all, or how Fortuyn puts it, ‘’Er zetelt een dwerg aan het hoofd van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, terwijl we een Thorbecke nodig hebben.’’57 Thorbecke was an important figure in Dutch political history
because he wrote the constitution in 1848, referring to him indicates how important Fortuyn found the period of establishing the EU and how drastic the changes should be. He also stated that he was no Thorbecke just a simple sociologist from Rotterdam, therefore it is just a grand design without details. This is a tendency of populism that politics is for the people and should therefore be comprehensible to the people. Populist do not want to be bothered by details and by the implementation of decisions.58 However this does not change the fact that Fortuyn
thought of drastically different ways to adapt to the EU than the parties in power.
First he criticises the Ministry of Domestic Affairs because they still perceive of the Netherlands as divided in regions and provinces. They have not taken the process of European unification as a starting point to look differently at domestic governance. He finds that ‘’men is daar ziende blind en heeft absoluut niet in de gaten dat we op de drempel staan van een nieuwe tijd.’’ This new era is one in which regions are competing less within the nation but more and more in a European context. Borders are becoming more diffuse, especially in the border areas of the EU. The starting point of policy should be to acknowledge that the Netherlands increasingly will have to function in a European setting, economically, politically
55 Pim Fortuyn, De verweesde samenleving (Uithoorn: Karakter uitgevers BV, 2002), 103. 56 Ibidem 179.
57 Ibidem 199.
58 Piet de Rooy, ‘’That’s not politics! 2002 populism.’’ In A tiny spot on the earth: the political culture of the
22 and culturally. This will have consequences for domestic affairs as well. Fortuyn proposes a radical new plan for the division of sovereignty, namely the abolishment of Dutch provinces. In his design sovereignty will be divided between Brussels, Den Haag, the Euregion, the region and the gemeente. Tasks between these levels of government are divided according to the principle of subsidiarity. There would be five Euregions in the Netherlands: the North (current Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe and the Noordoostpolder), the Middle (Gelderland, Overijssel and Oost-Flevoland), the South (Limburg and Brabant) and the Northern Randstad (Noord-Holland, Utrecht, Zuid-Flevoland) and lastly the Southern part of the Randstad (Zuid-(Noord-Holland, Zeeland, Breda and possibly Antwerp).59 Euregions are governed by a directly chosen governor
and are in turn divided in regions which are not necessarily bounded by country borders. The daily governing of these smaller regions will be done by the Stadhouder elected by the people of the region. The smallest unity will be the gemeente, this needs to be as small as possible, no more than 20.000 people in order to promote as much direct contact between politicians, civil servants and civilians.
A backlash conservative
According to Oudenampsen in the mid-1990s Fortuyn had embraced the New Right agenda which combined neoliberal with neoconservative ideas.60 His book De Verweesde samenleving
was even proclaimed by other leading conservatives as the most conservative book since the early twentieth century.61 However these accounts do not take into consideration his view on
the EU. In the book Fortuyn contemplates on the fact that the traditional nation-states in Europe are disappearing and he seems to think that this is not necessarily negative but that we do need to adapt. Due to economic expansion, national economies are just no longer national. West-European countries have responded to this by forming the EU. He writes that ‘’hoewel het niet duidelijk is wat de volgende stappen in de Europese eenwording zullen zijn, is het wel helder dat de samenwerking eerder toe dan af zal nemen en dat Brussel een niet meer weg te denken gegeven is, ook niet voor hen die nu de nationale trom roeren. Geen verstandig mens is voor de afschaffing van de huidige samenwerkingsvorm.’’ Fortuyn criticizes the content of the debates which are largely about the direction of state building processes within the EU and the degree of state sovereignty, while it should be about the adaption of national policies, in the case of the Netherlands this should be the earlier mentioned system of Euregions.62 In this system the national government in Den Haag will stay the centre in which
the coordination between the five Euregions is handled. National interests in the framework of the EU are also defined in Den Haag. The Euregions carry out almost every other executive tasks that are now still executed by the national government and the provinces. In this way, local governments are able to respond to European developments that are beneficial for the region. The country will exist out of small communities who are outward looking, the
59 Fortuyn, Aan het volk, 201.
60 Oudenampsen, conservative embrace, 170. 61 Idem.
23 communities are then aware of their own common identity but still consider it in relationship to others.
These findings do not coincide with claims that this is a very conservative book. According to Oudenampsen it is a plea for the reappraisal of authority. Fortuyn describes the progressive revolt in the 60s and 70s as an erosion of the patterns and norms that bind society together. As a consequence society is orphaned.63 Women emancipation led to decline of the
attention giving role of the symbolic mother and the rebellion was aimed against the symbolic fathers of society as well. The result of the progressive wave is a young generation adrift who lavish the pleasure of house parties with XTC. This is a traditional conservative critique of society. Except that with Fortuyn the symbolic father can be gay and does not want to go back in time to a period that is lost. Fortuyn wants to adapt to changing circumstances.
Conservatism represents the politicization of traditionalism. It is the product of a specific historic situation, the moment when a perceived threat arises to established ways of life.64 Fortuyn’s plea for adapting to the EU can be identified as a backlash conservative
movement which emerges when institutions are considered to be beyond saving or seem to have been taken over by progressives. There is no ancient regime that needs to be restored, that is a lost cause. Instead society must be reinvented for instance by abolishing provinces and making them Euregions.
Applied to Europe this has some merit as well. Although it is not obvious from the Verweesde Samenleving but at a later point Fortuyn did express severe criticism on EU institutions. Although Fortuyn still believed that the Netherlands should adapt to European unification by implementing his system of Euregions, he also started to express severe criticism on the EU and on EU institution building. Especially on the European Parliament. According to him the process of European unification is unique but it is being perceived of in the same way as nation states have formed their institutions in the past. What he meant is the fact that national institutions such as a parliament are being copied on the European level.65 The EU should not be a copy of the nation state but ‘’veel beter is het om de EU te zien
en te behandelen als een supranational orgaan op basis van stevige, levendige, niet-bureaucratische natiestaten.’’ In such a Europe there is no need for a European parliament. The controlling function in the EU should instead lie with the national parliaments.66 This is
also obvious because only 35 percent of Dutch citizens have voted for the European parliament, therefore it has no legitimacy. Because of globalisation European integration is a process from which there is no return. Continuing globalisation requires a large internal market that can function in the world economy. Therefore resisting the EU as an economic community is senseless. The economic process and internationalization define the dynamics of the EU. In the meantime, political support for the project is too small. ‘’Het Europees parlement leeft nergens in Europa en is dan ook een regelrecht wangedrocht.’’67 He considered
63 Oudenampsen, conservative embrace, 189 64 Ibidem 177.
65 Pim Fortuyn, A hell of a job. De verzamelde columns (Rotterdam: Speakers Academy, 2002) 50. 66 Ibidem 51.
