Responses to Black Pete - Incumbents reacting to grassroots organisations on a controversial Dutch issue

(1)

RESPONSES TO BLACK PETE – INCUMBENTS

REACTING TO GRASSROOTS ORGANISATIONS ON A

CONTROVERSIAL DUTCH ISSUE

BY

ESTHER MANGELSDORF

Public Administration, International and European Governance Leiden University, 2016

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration at Leiden University, March 2016

Scientific supervisor: Arco Timmermans Advisory supervisor: Erik van Venetië

Second reader: Gerard Breeman

(2)

2

Abstract

In times of increasing citizen involvement and activism, one expected to find substantial research on how incumbents respond to these pressures. However, it was found there was a surprising lack of previous investigation regarding these responses. This paper helped fill this gap and analysed how three different types of incumbents, a public, semi-public and private organisation, responded to grassroots groups regarding the controversial issue of Black Pete during Sinterklaas. The incumbents analysed in this study included Ahold, the municipality of Amsterdam and Platform Premair Onderwijs. In order to analyse these responses, a taxonomy of response strategies was also developed by combing the theory and empirical findings of two different authors.

Findings for this research include that all three incumbents responded in different ways to the issue, although all did change the appearance of Black Pete to their products or celebration helpers. Ahold and the municipality of Amsterdam were found to be open in their approach and Platform Premair Onderwijs was found to take a closed approach.

Significant findings for this research include that contrary to expected outcomes, the type of organisation, being private or public, did not have an impact on response strategies. Instead, the role of the media, and the nature of the issue were stronger in determining response strategies. Accountability structures were also helpful in explaining response.

(4)

4

Abbreviations

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NIMBY Not in my back yard

Platform or Platform PO Platform Premair Onderwijs (Platform Primary Education)

SAFs Strategic Action Fields

The Foundation Foundation for Public Primary Education Utrecht

UN United Nations

UN Committee The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Working Group The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent VIE Centrum voor Volkscultuur en Immaterieel Erfgoed (The

Dutch Centre for Popular Culture and Intangible Heritage VNG Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (Association of

Netherlands’ Municipalities)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptualisation of incumbent responses listed by Van Venetië 14 Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Response Strategies by Incumbent Organisations 15

Figure 3: Stakeholder Map 27

Figure 4: Overview of responses taken by Ahold, Municipality of Amsterdam and

Platform PO 47

List of Tables

Table 1: Van Venetië’s strategies of incumbents responding to grassroots

(5)

5

1 Introduction

The past few decades have seen an increase in citizen involvement in the joining and development of grassroots organisations, and are used as a way to voice citizen opinion and concern. With the help of today’s digital lifestyle, forming groups who share common beliefs or agendas has only been made easier and also much faster. Whilst a fair amount of literature has been devoted to grassroots organisations and how they are able to get their objectives met, there has been little mention of the strategies organisations take to respond to these pressures. This research will aim to help fill this gap by looking at the responses of three incumbent organisations to a Dutch national debate surrounding Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) during Sinterklaas in The Netherlands.

The purpose of this research is twofold: Firstly, to discover how public and private organisations respond to grassroots organisations and secondly, to answer how these responses can be explained. In order to answer this research question, a series of sub-questions have been developed which can be seen below.

Sub questions:

1. Where did the issue come from?

2. When was the issue taken up for each incumbent? 3. Why was the issue taken up?

4. Was there any contact from grassroots organisations? 5. Which grassroots took up the issue?

6. What type of grassroots were they?

7. Which grassroots organisations are more prominent/considered important? 8. Did incumbents react to one another?

9. Did incumbents discuss the issue together and/or come to joint decisions? 10. How did the incumbents react (or not react)?

11. How did the incumbents frame the issue? Did this change? 12. How can this reaction be explained?

1.2 Defining Grassroots

Grassroots organisations are not always clearly defined in literature. Looking at The Oxford English Dictionary (online ed. 2014), relevant ‘grassroots’ definitions are described as:

(6)

6 b. Ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organisation’s membership.

c. Polit. Used spec. to describe the rank-and-file of the electorate or of a political party.

Additionally, ‘organisation’ is described as:

a. An organised group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department.

b. The action of organising something.

When looking at literature on grassroots organisations, sociology professor David Horton Smith is a prevalent figure on defining what grassroots organisations are. According to Smith, grassroots organisations, or as he refers to them as ‘grassroots associations’, are “locally based and basically autonomous, volunteer-run non-profit groups that have an official membership of volunteers” (Smith, 1997, p. 269). Kempton et al. adds to the literature that the way they are formed is spontaneous and stems from citizen concern for a particular issue rather than formed by larger organisations (Kempton et al. 2001). Moore et al. also compares them to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and states grassroots are usually more informal, smaller in size with fewer resources and are usually newer than NGOs and that they also target more local problems (Moore et al. 2007).

By looking at the above mentioned definitions, this research paper will use the following definition of grassroots organisations:

- A grassroots organisation is a community based voluntary and informally structured organization, which aims at influencing a specific issue.

- In addition, as the Oxford English Dictionary (online ed. 2014) states it involves ‘ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization’s membership’.

This definition also explains why grassroots organisations form: to influence a specific issue. According to Olson (1965), the purpose of an organisation is to further their member’s interest, and in the case of grassroots organisations issues can be categorised into four areas of interest;

1) Consumer activism: where victims want compensation from another private actor; 2) Citizen action / participatory governance: where citizens want to address a problem in

(7)

7 3) NIMBY (not in my back yard) activism: where local inhabitants want to prevent or

reverse a political decision that they feel harms their direct environment; and 4) Social/cultural activism: where citizens want to raise societal support for a general

idea (Timmermans, Van Venetië, & Van Den Berg, 2015).

The issue of interest for this research falls into the category social/cultural activism as grassroots organisations’ aims were to raise societal support for their claims and objectives surrounding the figure of Black Pete.

1.3 Defining Incumbents

When defining incumbents, the definition which is most readily found refers to incumbents as a person who holds a position or office, usually relating to politicians. In business the term incumbent is usually given to the largest company in an industry who possess considerable power. Looking at scholarly work, incumbents are often discussed and seen as a significant element in social movement theory. It is using this theory that the concept of incumbents shall be further explored and explained.

The concept of incumbents has been a significant element in social movement theory for decades. Gamson (1975) was the first to introduce the distinction between what he then called members (now currently mostly referred to as incumbents) and challengers (Gamson, 1975). To fully understand the role of incumbents and challengers, literature on strategic action fields should first be discussed.

Strategic action fields (hereafter SAF’s) can be seen as fields in which collective action takes place in society. Fligstein and McAdam conceptualised SAF’s and describe it as a meso-level social order where actors (both individual and collective) interact with one another (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). All collective actors, whether extended family, social movements, governmental systems or organisations, are SAF’s themselves. When these groups interact with one another in a larger political, social or economic field, that field also becomes a SAF. The term ‘strategic action’ is defined as the attempt of actors to control a given context by attaining the control of other actors in order to create stable worlds (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). These fields are seen as socially constructed and are not static and new fields can also be constructed when actors define new problems or issues as salient.

(8)

8 There are four aspects that make up SAF’s which include:

1) Actors within the field understand what is going on in the field, and what is at stake; 2) Actors are not equal but are seen as possessing more or less power. Incumbents are

those who possess more power and challengers less. Actors in the field know what position they hold and the position of others in the field;

3) There is shared understanding between actors of what the rules of the field are. By rules it is meant what tactics are possible, legitimate and interpretable for each actors’ role in the field; and

4) When other actors make ‘moves’ or actions, it will be interpreted from an actor’s own perspective. Incumbent actors have a certain viewpoint of the field, while challenger actors will have an oppositional perspective (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011).

As the literature points out, incumbents have more power than challengers in SAF’s. They wield more influence in the field and their interests and views are more heavily reflected in the organisation of the field. Therefore, the purpose of the field is shaped on the interest and perspective of the incumbents. The rules of the field also favour them, and the shared

meaning of the field gives them legitimacy and supports their position (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). Challengers on the other hand usually wield little influence in the operations of the field. They recognise the nature of the field and understand the perspective of the incumbent actors, but can usually voice an alternative view of the field and their position within it (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011).

For this research, incumbents can be seen as actors who hold the power to change certain norms, rules, and practices in society, due to their institutional arrangements. SAF’s are helpful to understand that there exist fields in which actors interact with some having more power than others. The issue of Black Pete can be seen as such a field, where multiple actors are involved and contribute to the debate surrounding the issue. Challengers in this field can be seen as grassroots movements who wish to change the view of the field – i.e. from Black Pete as a non-discriminatory cultural tradition to Black Pete as offensive and discriminatory. Up until recently, the field of Black Pete during Sinterklaas had a dominate view of being nothing more than a harmless traditional children’s festival. It wasn’t until these grassroots movements - these challengers - changed the definition of Black Pete in this field, thus shifting the field to encompass new meaning and new actors. As this shift occurred, countermovement grassroots movements such as Pietitie also formed within the field who

(9)

9 challenged not only grassroots movements against Black Pete, but also made a clear

statement to incumbents that they wish for the dominate view to remain in place.

2 Distinguishing Responses by Incumbents

This chapter focuses on the responses incumbents take towards grassroots organisations and social movements. In times of increasing citizen involvement and activism, one expects to find substantial research on how incumbents respond to these pressures. However, a review of the literature highlights a surprising lack of previous investigation regarding these responses.

Literature shows that scholarly research regarding grassroots movements and the responses of incumbents tend to focus on three main areas, namely; 1) how these movements place their issue on the agenda of public and private organisations, so that incumbents will respond to the issue; 2) what attributes tend to make grassroots more successful in reaching their objectives, that is, how to get the incumbent responding in a desirable way; and 3) institutional attributes that influence the likelihood of response from incumbents.

One key point in how interest groups could put their issues on political agendas comes from Amenta et al. (2010) where it is explained that social movements can capture bureaucracies and run them in favour of their own constituency group. These bureaucrats can then influence policies throughout the policy process, and strive to put issues on the policy agenda (Amenta et al. 2010). Mahoney (2008) also reiterates this point and notes that interest groups often target elected officials to formulate how their ideas and issues fit with the constituencies of the elected official in order to obtain their support (Mahoney, 2008).

Success for interest groups and social movements has been discovered to be the result of many attributes. McCarthy & Zald (1997) discuss how anything that aids group mobilisation will lead that group to making gains. Obtaining various resources in order to engage in collective action is also expected to bring benefits (McCarthy & Zald, 1977). Gamson (1975) also identifies that specific strategies and goals are also more likely to result in influence. Furthermore, Mahoney argues that the more resources (both financial and non-financial) an

(10)

10 interest group has, the higher the likelihood of success for that group. She also argues that scope and salience of an issue have an impact on success (Mahoney, 2008. Ch. 1).

The institutional setting where an interest group is active also has an influence on the impact it can have on incumbents. Kitschelt’s (1986) work focuses on the general characteristics of domestic political opportunity structures. His findings show that where political input structures are open and responsive to the mobilisation of protest groups, then new and different policies are likely to be sought. Additionally, when state capacity to implement policy is weak, then there is more chance for a social movement to disrupt unwanted polices (Kitschelt, 1986). Mahoney (2008) also discusses institutional characteristics, and states that the democratic accountability of policy makers, the rules of the policy process, and how the media conveys policy-relevant messages are highly relevant for interest groups. These

characteristics shape how interest groups interact with incumbents, as well as their tactics and strategies in order to obtain maximum success (Mahoney, 2008. Ch. 1).

Whilst the above three points are very relevant for grassroots organisation theory, the different types of responses incumbents take towards these movements is a fairly under explored area of research. From the review of literature, the conclusion is simply drawn that an incumbent responds and changes due to grassroots movements’ pressures, or simply that they do not. Exactly the strategies taken by incumbents is not a topic which has gained much attention.

The work from Gamson (1975), presented more than forty years ago, is perhaps one of the few theories that elaborate on responses incumbents take towards social movements. Since 1975 we have seen little else in the way of theory surrounding incumbent responses. Gamson describes four different responses, namely full response, co-optation, pre-emption, and

collapse (Gamson, 1975; Ch. 3). In order to understand these responses, it is first important to identify what makes a social movement successful. Gamson argues that for this to occur, it must satisfy two goals; the first is for the spokesperson of the social movement to be accepted by the incumbents as valid and seen as a true representative of the constituency it is trying to mobilise, and second is for this movement to gain the objectives it seeks. Full response occurs when both of these goals has been reached, and collapse is when neither has been. Co-optation describes the situation where the group spokesman has been accepted, however no objectives (or advantages as Gamson refers to it) has been reached. Lastly, pre-emption is the

(11)

11 opposite of co-optation, where objectives have been reached, but the spokesman is not

accepted by the incumbent.

Acceptance is defined by Gamson as involving a “change from hostility or indifference to a more positive relationship” (Gamson, 1975, p. 31). He discusses four indicators of a positive relationship which include:

1) Consultation – incumbents/antagonists inviting the challenging group to testify on the issue. The initiative to invite the challenger must come from the incumbents

themselves rather than the challengers asking to join and then be permitted for it to be a form of acceptance.

2) Negotiations – When the incumbent/antagonist is willing to enter into negotiations with the challengers on a regular basis, not just at the height of the crisis.

3) Formal recognition – when the incumbent/antagonist explicitly, usually in writing, recognises the challenging group as a legitimate spokesman for a constituency. 4) Inclusion – when the leaders or members of a challenging group are given official

positions within the incumbents’/antagonists organisational structure. It is essential that these members maintain their position and that the position within the

incumbents’ organisation does not require the repudiating membership in the challenging group as a condition of office in order for it to be a form of acceptance through inclusion (Gamson, 1975: Ch. 3).

Although Gamson’s theory discusses responses incumbents can take towards social

movements, it is still helpful to understand different responses which could potentially also be applied to grassroots organisations as both movements involve challengers and

incumbents and both try to change or protect the status quo.

Another researcher that investigated the responses incumbents take towards grassroots is Erik van Venetië. By interviewing various incumbents and analysing their responses towards grassroots movements, Van Venetië (2015) has discovered nine differing responses

organisations have taken in the past regarding various movements and issues. The differing strategies and their definitions are listed below in Table 1.

(12)

12

Table 1: Van Venetië’s strategies of incumbents responding to grassroots organisations1

Strategy Tactics

Wait  Not responding to the issue. This may arise from denial or deliberatly ignoring the problem of the grassroots group. Talk  Charm offensive in order to remove distrust. For example

having “kitchen table conversations”.

 Convince the grassroots of your point of view. For example by bridging the gap between the emotional framing of the

grassroots and the incumbents own rational framing.

 Encapsulate by talking: Narrow down the issue or give it a broader context in order to make the issue less problematic or make it more complicated.

 Decentralise yourself: delegating the reaction to local branches or indivudal members.

Create new playing field

 Citizenship engagement/civil engagement: create a platform for grassroots for them to share their ideas and find alternative solutions.

 Formal consultation: create consultation processes to channel resistance.

Collaborate  Come together to find a common solution. Buying Off  Financial compensation.

Ignore  Change nothing and do nothing. Fight by starting

a counter-offensive

 No conversation with grassroots.

 Your truth (facts) said to the media. Or frame the issue differently.

 Mobilize your supporters, for example hiring celebreties as spokespersons.

 Start a lawsuit to prevent or stop the grassroots activities. Imitate and

adopt grassroots technique

 Make your message personal with “grassroots sauce” over it

 Create a grassroots, in openness: let them come up with solutions.

 Help or sponsor an existing grassroots group.

 Help a grassroots group in disguise i.e. astroturfing.

Anticipate  Very early talk with grassroots before grassroots become active.

By analysing Van Venetië’s different responses of incumbents, an ‘open approach’ and a ‘closed approach’ to grassroots organisations has been conceptualised. Figure 1 below gives an overview of this conceptualisation. By ‘open approach’ it is meant that incumbent

1

See Erik van Venetië (2015). Zo ga je om met actiegroepen. Negen reactiestrategieën retrieved on 24/11/2015 from http://hetgrotelobbyen.com/?p=442

(13)

13 organisations are open to grassroots organisations, in the sense that they are willing to engage with them directly. By ‘closed approach’ it is meant that incumbent organisations are not willing to engage directly with the organisation and find solutions to the issue independently from them. Furthermore, the different types of responses have been categorised into four areas, namely negotiate, persuade, defend and observe. Negotiate categorises strategies that show incumbents and grassroots organisations engaging directly with each other for the purpose of finding adequate solutions to the issue. Persuade categorises strategies that show them directly engaging with each other for the purpose of convincing the grassroots

organisations to stop or downsize their issue with the incumbent, overcomplicate the issue or find alternative solutions. Defend categorises strategies that show incumbents are closed and defensive responses to grassroots organisations are initiated in order to downplay their responsibility or frame the issue differently. Finally, observe categorises strategies that show incumbents are closed to grassroots organisations and where no action is taken at all.

(14)

14

Incumbents

Response

Open

approach

Closed

approach

Negotiate

Persuade

Defend

Observe

Collaborate Anticipate Talk Buying-off Imitate Fight Ignore Wait

Grassroots Organisation

Action

Figure 1: Conceptualisation of incumbent responses listed by Van Venetië Create new playing field

(15)

15 The above conceptualisation is not to imply that these strategies are static and cannot change once a path has been chosen. It could very well be that an incumbent has responded with a closed approach and as time progressed changed paths to a more open approach or vice-versa. Indeed, understanding what causes incumbents to change responses (if they change) will be explored in this study.

By conceptualising the research of Van Venetië, it is helpful to understand the differing types of responses and strategies incumbents take, and also to understand there are open and closed approaches used to respond to grassroots organisations. This can be seen as this author’s starting point where this research will further explore the responses of additional incumbents to compare if they also follow these same strategies. Furthermore, discovering why closed or open responses are chosen can also be potentially explained through further investigation and research.

When looking at the research of Van Venetië together with the theory of Gamson, it is evident that they are complimentary to each other could be combined to create a stronger theoretical base for the study of incumbent responses. One might be able to make predictive outcomes, in that a closed approach would lead to a collapse response or a pre-emption response and an open approach would lead to a full response or co-optation response. This is derived because an incumbent reacting with a closed response is not willing to engage with the grassroots organisation and form a positive relationship with them. Therefore, this means that the four indicators of acceptance by Gamson as mentioned above will not be seen. Alternatively, an open approach includes all strategies which either acknowledge the legitimacy of the group and engage with them and/or concede to their objectives. In other words, an open approach can be seen as incumbents engaging with the grassroots movement and a closed approach as not engaging with them. It is important to reiterate however that in both approaches objectives of grassroots organisations can still be met. One important

difference between the responses Gamson identified and the responses Van Venetië collected is that there are no response strategies listed from Van Venetië where incumbents have not engaged directly with grassroots organisations but have still met grassroots objectives.

According to Gamson this is known as pre-emption and would have its own category I would name “accept” with a response known as “change” under the umbrella of closed approach. The developed conceptual model in Figure 2 below shows how the theory of Gamson and the findings of Van Venetië can fit together to form a conceptual framework.

(16)

16 Incumbents Response Open approach Negotiate Collaborate

Grassroots Organisation Action

Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Response Strategies by Incumbent Organisations Closed approach Full Response Co-optation Collapse Pre-emption Anticipate

Persuade Defend Observe Accept

Talk Buying-off Create new playing field Imitate Fight Ignore Wait Change

(17)

17 This conceptual framework will be used in this research to analyse the responses of the incumbent organisations chosen for this study. The following chapter will detail who these incumbents are, along with the research methods and design of the study.

3 Research Methods and Design

3.1 Design and Case Selection

The design of this qualitative research is in the form of a comparative case study on three incumbent response strategies to the Black Pete discussion in the Netherlands. The unit of analysis for this comparative case study includes Ahold with regards to the responses of Albert Heijn, Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (in English the Association of Netherlands’ Municipalities and hereafter referred to as VNG), with a focus on the Municipality of Amsterdam, and the Platform Primair Onderwijs (in English the Platform Primary Education and hereafter referred as Platform PO or Platform).

These three incumbents were chosen as each represent a different type of organisation that is involved in the celebrations of Sinterklaas and Black Pete. Albert Heijn is a private

organisation which sells products and advertises Sinterklaas using Black Pete. It’s size and scope, being the largest retail industry with over 940 stores spread throughout the

Netherlands, was the reason for selecting it over other Dutch retail industries. The Association of Netherlands’ Municipalities is an umbrella organisation and advisory committee for all municipalities in The Netherlands. Municipalities are public entities and most often are the main actors involved in organising and funding the Sinterklaas parades which involve Black Pete. A decision was made to focus on the municipality of Amsterdam after preliminary research concluded that the Association of Netherlands’ Municipalities was not involved in the decisions of Sinterklaas and left it for the municipalities to decide for themselves on what to do. Amsterdam was subsequently chosen as it is the largest city in the Netherlands. Lastly, the Platform Primary Education is comprised of five school boards covering approximately 85 percent of all primary schools in The Hague. These school boards include De Haagse Scholen, Lucas Onderwijs, Nieuwe Baarnsche School, de Stichting Christelijk Onderwijs Haaglanden, and de Zwerm. The schools represented by these five boards are both public and private and therefore the Platform can be seen as a semi-public entity. It is common for primary schools in The Netherlands to organise Sinterklaas festivities

(18)

18 during school hours and take part in the tradition, which is why a school board was chosen as the third case to analyse. The reason for selecting this particular school board over others in the Netherlands was due to preliminary research finding no other cities in the Netherlands had made a decision which encompassed the majority of schools in a particular city, and the purpose of this research is to look at incumbent organisations and responses rather than smaller individual organisations.

Reasons for selecting three different types of organisations is two-fold. Firstly, to enhance the variance of the study and to compare the different responses from each. It could be that the type of organisation (being public, semi-public and private) makes a difference to the strategies taken up by the incumbents, and the research therefore will explore this further. Secondly, a reason lies in the nature of the grassroots organisations that have emerged as a result of the issue of Black Pete. Preliminary research has found that the most prominent grassroots movements in favour of retaining the traditional Black Pete include Pietitie, Pietengilde, and Zwarte Piet is GEEN Racisme. On the other hand, the prominent groups against the figure of Black Pete include Nederland Wordt Beter, Zwarte Piet is Racisme, Malle Piet and Zwarte Piet Niet. All of these movements can be considered ‘virtual

grassroots’ as they are highly based on online platforms, with most relying on Facebook to spread social awareness and seek support for their campaigns. An interesting element with regards to these movements is that they are highly diffused in the sense that they do not target one specific person or organisation. They instead seek societal support for a general cultural tradition to remain the same, or to change. This diffusion is compounded when taking into consideration that the Dutch government does not consider themselves part of the discussion, and has clearly framed the issue for something in which Dutch society needs to decide upon itself. Given that these grassroots organisations have not targeted one particular person or organisation, it was considered most appropriate to select a wide range of organisations such as a public, private and semi-public entity to avoid any bias when analysing incumbent responses.

The unit of observation for this study includes these three organisations, by year from November 2011 – December 2015. The reason for this time selection is because it was not until 2011 that the issue of Black Pete became a prominent Dutch phenomenon, and this research is limited in that it can only observe the reactions of these organisations to date.

(19)

19

3.2 Type, Purpose and Relevance of Research

In order to carry out this research I used qualitative research methods. Given the limited amount of literature covering this particular research question, an inductive approach was used where drawing inferences out of observations and contributing to theory is the goal of the research. Therefore, this research is descriptive and explanatory. The purpose of this research is to contribute to the understanding of how incumbents respond to grassroots movements regarding Black Pete in the Netherlands. The research also aims to understand why particular responses were taken by the incumbents, and to seek similarities and

differences between the cases selected and gain greater awareness and deeper understanding of incumbent responses in different institutional contexts. The relevance of this study lies in its contributing factor to social academic literature, where a large gap has been identified in the responses incumbents take towards grassroots organisations.

3.3 Data Collection

Both primary and secondary data sources were used in order to answer the main research question. Secondary sources included media reports, official statements by the selected incumbents regarding the Black Pete issue, and official documents written by the incumbents relating to the issue. Before interviews were carried out, extensive research was done using these secondary sources in order to answer my sub-questions as much as possible.

Primary sources included interviews with representatives from Detailhandel Nederland, Grada Huis and Platform Primair Onderwijs, and correspondence via e-mail with representatives from Ahold, the municipality of Amsterdam, and the Association of Netherlands’ Municipalities. With the exception of Grada Huis and Platform Primair

Onderwijs, all representatives were sent an initial e-mail explaining the nature of my research and the request for an interview. For Grada Huis, an initial phone conversation was made to explain my research and an appointment was scheduled to have a follow-up interview the following day. For Platform Primair Onderwijs, the same phone call was made to explain my research, however it was first requested that I send my questions via e-mail for him to view in advance so he could prepare his answers. The interview was conducted two weeks later. All interviews were done over the phone, as this was the most convenient and preferred way for

(20)

20 all interviewees. The interview’s varied between approximately 8 - 20 minutes and were conducted from my own home in The Hague. The interviews were semi-structured with questions relating to their company’s responses regarding Black Pete and were based around my twelve sub-questions. Follow-up questions to their answers were also sometimes asked. All interviews were done in English. The interview questions covered my sub-questions, however there was a focus made on answering the questions I was not able to do with my secondary sources. During the interviews, I made use of confirming the information I found in news reports, as to ensure the validity of my findings. Correspondence via e-mail with representatives from Ahold, the municipality of Amsterdam and the Association of Netherlands Municipalities resulted in some information being exchanged however no official interviews were conducted.

3.4 Reliability and Validity

In order for this study to satisfy external reliability, the following information details how the research was conducted. The collection and subsequent analysis of texts and documents was found using the Google search engine by searching for articles relating to key words of my research, such as “Black Pete” and “Sinterklaas”. Both English and Dutch phrases and common words were used to enhance the search. First preliminary research was conducted to create an initial timeline of the issue of Black Pete with all apparent stakeholders involved. Later the selection of three case studies was made. When the cases were selected, key word searches included the organisation’s names along with key phrases related to the subject such as “Black Pete” and “Sinterklaas” once more. A comprehensive search was completed until no new information could be found regarding the subject. Both English and Dutch articles were selected and analysed. Google translate was used to gain a general description of what was written in the Dutch articles, and of these articles and reports a selection of the important and relevant content were translated by a fellow Dutch student.

In order to enhance interview validity, all interviews remained as neutral as possible, without commenting on the answers given, unless to ask follow-up questions or gain clarity. There was also no discussion regarding what might be the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ decision for an incumbent. I also never interrupted the interviewee, as to allow them to say what they wanted, rather than try to guide them to an answer. Most questions were direct, with a few clarification questions and follow-up questions.

(21)

21

4 Overview of the Black Pete Debate in The Netherlands

The following chapter will give an overview of the debate surrounding Black Pete in the Netherlands so as to provide a clear context in which the incumbents were responding. In the Netherlands, Sinterklaas is a celebrated tradition which dates back to the early 19th Century. It centres on Sinterklaas, or Saint Nicholas, who arrives by boat to the Netherlands in the middle of November. Upon his arrival parades are organised all throughout the

Netherlands. Gifts are given to children as part of this festival, with the majority given on the 5th December. The 6th of December is officially known as Saint Nicholas Day and is a public holiday. He is depicted as an elderly serious man, with white hair and a full white beard. He wears a long red cape and a traditional bishop’s mitre and rides on a white horse. Zwarte Piet, or Black Pete in English, is a companion of Saint Nicholas who is depicted as a man with a blackface, black curly hair, red lips, wears gold earrings and is dressed as a 17th Century page. Throughout the Netherlands, parades are organised which feature Saint Nicholas on his white horse, and black helpers (known as the Black Pete’s) handing out candy to children. The reason why Pete is black has developed throughout history, where traditionally it was said because he is a Moor from Spain, while today many say he is black because he has to climb through chimneys to deliver gifts from Saint Nicholas and is therefore covered with soot.

In 2013 Dutch media reported there had been 21 submitted complaints made to the

municipality of Amsterdam regarding the city’s Sinterklaas parade. This was the first time the municipality of Amsterdam had received any complaints regarding the celebration (“De Grote Zwarte Piet”, 2013, November 15). The complainants argued that the continued use of Black Pete is a racist connotation and the feelings of black people had not been taken into consideration during these festivals. Quinsy Gario, an activist who has been against Black Pete for years, was the leader behind the complaints. Shortly after this announcement, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated it would investigate the annual Dutch tradition, and tasked The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (here after referred to the Working Group) to look into the matter. It was a few days after the announcement when a member of the group, Verene Shephard, gave her personal opinion stating the celebration was a return to slavery and “in the twenty-first century this tradition must stop” (“De Grote Zwarte Piet”, 2013, November 15).

(22)

22 Immediately Dutch citizens started responding to this statement, including the carrying out a survey asking Dutch citizens if they relate Black Pete to slavery. 1,700 people were

questioned, with 92 percent stating they did not see an affiliation and a further 91 percent were against the changing of his appearance (“VN wil Einde Sinterklaasfeest”, 2013, October 22). Furthermore, the following day a Facebook page was created known as “Pietitie” which was designed as a petition to support and preserve Sinterklaas and Black Pete. Within the first day the page had received one million “likes”, and reached two million within a couple of days. It became the most popular Facebook page in the history of the country (De Bode, 2013, December 5). On that same day the Committee responsible for organising the Sinterklaas parade in Groningen invited Shephard to the event so that she “can see it is a children’s festival and has nothing to do with racism” (“De Grote Zwarte Piet”, 2013, November 15). Eventually Shepard declined the invitation. There was also a mass demonstration held at Malieveld in The Hague on the 26th October to support the

preservation of Black Pete, where hundreds of people gathered to show their support. This demonstration was initiated by 16-year-old teenager Mandy Roos, who felt strongly against changes or the removal of Black Pete (“Honderen bij Demonstratie”, 2013, October 26). Shortly after the parades in November, the UN Working Group came with their official statement regarding the festival, advising a national dialogue on the subject of Black Pete, to “promote understanding, mutual respect and intercultural dialogue”, where both sides for and against Black Pete would be heard. They stated that the parade does not need to be abolished, rather it is up to the Dutch society to discuss and make a decision regarding Black Pete (“Wat er Vooraf ging aan het Debat”, 2015, September 30). Vice premier Lodewijk Asscher

responded to the statement saying the cabinet does not have to initiate this as the discussion is already there. Asscher stressed that the parade should be left for the people to decide,

however that he would like to see some evolution of Black Pete. Prime Minister Mark Rutte responded by stating Black Pete is not a matter of government but of society, and that Black Pete is black and the government can change little about that (“Wat er Vooraf ging aan het Debat”, 2015, September 30).

The Amsterdam Mayor Eberhard van der Laan reacted to the discussion by sending a letter to the City Council sympathising with those who felt offended by the tradition. He stated there was a need to make Black Pete “less black and less servant” (van der Laan, Brief Eberhard van der Laan, 2013). On the 6th November, it was decided to alter Black Pete’s’ appearance

(23)

23 during the parade, in that he would no longer wear gold earrings, Pete’s would have a greater choice of lipstick colour and a variation of black hair would be used (“De Grote Zwarte Piet”, 2013, November 15).

The following year (2014) there continued to be discussions concerning Black Pete, with both of those opposed and in favour actively participating and pursuing their concerns. In July a case was filled at the Amsterdam court by Perez Loy Young claiming that Zwarte Piet was a negative stereotype and that the Amsterdam mayor had not considered the feelings of those opposed to Black Pete (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17). Loy Young wanted Black Pete removed from the parade completely. The court ruled in favour of Loy Young in that Black Pete is a negative stereotype of black people and said the city of Amsterdam should rethink its yearly tradition. The judge gave the black plaintiffs' equal in their argument that negative stereotyping of Black Pete "leads to an intrusion into their private lives” and the use of Black Pete’s in these parades is an example of this violation, thereby going against Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17). The Judge also ordered the mayor to "answer the question whether the private life of the black plaintiffs outweighs the interest of society in continuing with Black Pete" (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17). Amsterdam’s mayor had six weeks to review the permit of the parade, and reach an agreement with activists about what Black Pete’s contemporary version would look like. Mayor Van der Laan was against this decision and made an appeal to the State Council. On the 12th November the State Council ruled in favour of the mayor in that in order to obtain a license for the parade one most consider social order and security, not consider stigmatisation or discrimination. The ruling was therefore overturned. They also found the mayor not to be competent in answering whether or not Black Pete is racist. The council also did not make an assessment of whether Black Pete was racist or not (“Wat er Vooraf ging aan het Debat”, 2015, September 30).

In August it was reported that the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Asscher, was wanting to start a national dialogue on the figure of Black Pete with the aim of finding a suitable adaption of Black Pete (Ringeling, 2014, August 15). On the 25th

September, these discussions took place in the form of a round table dialogue involving stakeholder groups both opposed and supportive of Black Pete (Blokker, 2014, December 5). In September the following year, 2015, these discussions were again being held with the

(24)

24 same group of stakeholders, however the retail association Detailhandel Nederland were also invited and attended the meeting (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral).

In October 2014, the Dutch Centre for Popular Culture and Intangible Heritage (Centrum voor Volkscultuur en Immaterieel Erfgoed here after referred to as VIE) was found to be exchanging emails with the pro-Black Pete group Pietengilde, regarding the recognition of Sinterklaas and all that goes along with the tradition (including Black Pete) with the intention of assigning it as part of the Netherlands’ cultural heritage. This recognition would put Sinterklaas on a National Inventory list, which was a consequence of the ratification of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage by the Dutch government. Only a community that is willing to take care of the heritage itself can place a tradition on this list. This recognition is also not legally binding, but rather an official recognition of the tradition. The director of VIE, Ineke Strouken, pointed out that this

recognition does not mean Sinterklaas traditions cannot evolve, and that indeed is has already done so (“Immaterieel Erfgoed”, 2014, October 8). In order to be placed on this inventory, the VIE needed to research the matter, and came with the advice of modernising Black Pete to fit with today’s times (“Wat er Vooraf ging aan het Debat”, 2015, September 30). The request was made successful, and as of January 2015, the Pietengilde group was made the guardian of Sinterklaas tradition and is going about a care plan for protecting this tradition as part of cultural heritage. This care plan includes an educational curriculum for primary schools, interviews following the Pete discussion, a real Sinterklaas Database and Training for Sint’s and helpers which will be certified by Pietengilde with an official seal of approval (Sint & Pietengilde, 2015).

In response to the discussion and unrest surrounding Black Pete in 2014, other towns in the Netherlands also started making changes to their parades. The mayor of Gouda, Milo Schoenmaker, consulted with residents regarding the celebration and decided to include different types of helpers to accompany Black Pete. These were known as “cheese and syrup helpers”. They were made-up in golden make-up or had a diamond pattern on their face. Furthermore, it was decided that the Black Pete’s would no longer have red lips and earrings, as these elements could be seen as a racist stereotype (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17). During the parade in November however, mass demonstrators from both groups for and against Black Pete attended the celebration and were given designated areas to protest. These boundaries were not respected, and conflict erupted leading to the arrest of ninety people (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17). After the arrests, there was a

(25)

25 call made for both sides to stop the demonstrations for three weeks (the length of Sinterklaas) as no consideration was made for the children watching the parade. Thereafter, it was said it was important for both parties to listen carefully to each other in order to arrive at a solution (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17).

Moreover, the cities of Meppel, Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Maastricht announced that as of 2015, they will focus more on “sooty Pete’s” and have less traditional Black Pete’s from 2015 onwards. The Sinterklaas Committees in these towns came to this decision after consulting with the action group “Nederland Wordt Beter” and the consulting organisation “Caribisch Nederland” (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17).

Dutch companies also started to respond to the ongoing unrest by adjusting Sinterklaas promotions in their stores. In August an email exchange between HEMA’s sales director Rob Heesen (HEMA is a popular Dutch department store) and an anti-Black Pete group known as Malle Piet revealed HEMA’s plan to phase out Black Pete on their packaging from 2015 onwards. The group Malle Piet is in favour of making Black Pete’s all different colours as a way to stop any racist connotations. HEMA issued an online statement saying there were still Traditional Pete’s in their collection for 2014, but are following the discussion surrounding Black Pete and will respect the guidelines that flow from that (“Hema phasing out Zwarte Piet”, 2014, August 26). In October 2014 Albert Heijn (a large supermarket chain) announced it will no longer advertise Sinterklaas by using Black Pete’s, however will still continue to sell products with Black Pete on them in order to take everyone’s feelings into consideration. Jumbo (another large supermarket chain) also announced it had decided to depict both black and white Pete’s in their stores (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17).

Public and private schools throughout the Netherlands have also adjusted their Sinterklaas celebrations in result of the national discussion. Schools in Rotterdam have decided the form of Black Pete must change, and they advise Black Pete to no longer have black frizzy hair, black skin and bright red lips and earrings. One hundred and fifty private and public primary schools in The Hague have decided to create a neutral Pete as they find it important that all children feel comfortable with Sinterklaas. Furthermore, thirty-three public elementary schools in Utrecht have decided to celebrate Sinterklaas without Black Pete entirely, whereas Amsterdam schools agreed Black Pete will stay as his is during their celebrations (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17).

(26)

26 In August 2015, the UN Working Group again called on the Netherlands to revamp its Black Pete Christmas tradition, because many see it as a “vestige of slavery” (“Dutch must end racial stereotypes”, 2015, August 28). The Netherlands’ Prime Minister Mark Rutte dismissed the recommendations again saying it was not the government’s job to shape folklore, and stated “this isn’t what politics is about” (“Dutch must end racial stereotypes”, 2015, August 28). The Dutch delegation leader Afke van Rijn also responded to the

statements made by the UN stating that they are working on finding an acceptable Black Pete for society, which was being done through the efforts of Minister Asscher with the round table dialogue. However, banning the figure of Black Pete completely, was not seen as a solution (Netherlands promises acceptable Zwarte Piet”, 2015, August 19). To give a clearer picture of the main stakeholders involved in the issue of Black Pete during Sinterklaas, a stakeholder map has been made which can be seen in Figure 3 below.

(27)

27

Figure 3: Stakeholder Map

Pietitie Zwarte Piet is GEEN Racisme Nederland Wordt Beter Zwarte Piet is Racisme Zwarte Piet Niet Citizens Schools Public Private Semi-public Platform Primary Education (Platform PO) United Nations UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Private organisations Retail industry Ahold Albert Heijn Government Judiciary Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) The Dutch Centre for Popular Culture & Intangible Heritage Municipalities Mayors Municipality of Amsterdam Media Online News-papers Talk shows shows Documentaries Malle Piet Demonstrations

both for and against Grassroots Movemen ts Pietengilde The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent

(28)

28 It is evident from this overview that the figure of Black Pete is a highly contested topic with the community very much divided. It is also evident that although concessions have been made in some areas, i.e. Black Pete no longer having red lips, golden earrings and fizzy black hair, many groups against Black Pete do not find this sufficient and wish for Black Pete to be gone completely. This outcome however is challenged as those in favour of keeping Black Pete (as was demonstrated with the Pietitie Facebook page with 2 million “likes”) has a very large support group. The strong reaction from the public also indicates that this tradition is very important to the Dutch community. There is also no doubt that this issue has gained enormous attention, especially nationally but also reached international attention too. This attention seems to be perpetuated by particular dramatic events over the course of the last four years. The investigation of Sinterklaas by the United Nations Committee and the

personal comments made by Shepherd was very much a catalyst in the reaction of many local groups and was covered extensively by national media as well as reaching international attention. The following year the court case in Amsterdam brought the issue to light again, and was further dramatized by the fact the ruling was overturned. Discovering that

Sinterklaas (and all the traditions that go along with it, including Black Pete) was to be put on the Dutch Cultural Heritage List also made headlines and added to the attention the issue was receiving. Furthermore, the protests at Gouda leading to the arrest of ninety people was also a dramatic event which attributed to the issue remaining a central key topic in Dutch media. Additionally, this year the United Nations Committee again commented on the tradition, stating it needed to be revamped, along with the Dutch Prime Minister’s response of ‘not a government issue’, added to the debate remaining in the limelight.

The following section will analyse the three selected incumbents, namely Ahold with regards to the responses of Albert Heijn, the Municipality of Amsterdam, and the Platform PO in The Hague in order to understand how these organisations responded to the issue of Black Pete, given the surrounding controversy.

5 Overview and Analysis of Incumbent Responses to Black Pete

5.1 Ahold – Albert Heijn

5.2. Overview

The decision-makers of Albert Heijn had become aware of the debate surrounding the figure of Black Pete because of the wide media attention this topic was receiving (Interviewee C,

(29)

29 2015. Oral). As the supermarket is involved in the Sinterklaas traditions with advertisements and references to Black Pete in their consumer products, Albert Heijn’s opinion on the issue, as well as the opinion of additional retailers, was sought by the media. Media outreach to these retailers was the main driving force which put the issue on the retailers, and Albert Heijn’s agenda, as they were asked by journalists what their positions were (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral). Moreover, the involvement and attention given to retailers was something that increased as time went on. This can be shown by the fact that retailers, represented by

Detailhandel Nederland, were not invited to the first round table discussions organised by the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment on the issue of Black Pete. Instead, they were only invited to the second discussion in 2015 (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral).

The 9th October 2014 marked the first sign of Albert Heijn responding officially to the issue, where a statement was released that said the figure of Black Pete would no longer be used in its advertising campaigns, and would sell some Sinterklaas products without Black Pete on them. However, they also highlighted that products still containing Black Pete would be available. In this way, Albert Heijn wanted to be a neutral party by claiming they have something for everyone, where the consumer could make their own choice (“Voor en Tegenstanders”, 2014, September 17). It was also during 2014 that Ahold contacted Detailhandel Nederland to request that they participate in the public debate on their behalf. Detailhandel Nederland also represents other retailers such as supermarkets, department stores and toy sellers in this way. This request was made because during 2014 new figures started to emerge as a replacement or an addition to Black Pete including coloured, white, cheese, syrup, and soot Petes. This further complicated the issue and contributed to the reasons to involve Detailhandel Nederland (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral). Ahold also discussed the issue internally and found that this was not just an issue for Albert Heijn, but one for many other retailers and stakeholders, adding to the decision to involve this association (Interviewee D, 2015. Oral). The objective of Detailhandel Nederland was to participate in the debate on behalf of Albert Heijn and its other members to find a common and satisfactory solution for its members (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral). It was during this time (2014) that Detailhandel Nederland slowly started to mediate the debate.

In October 2015 statements again were made by Albert Heijn regarding Black Pete. They stated that Black Pete was simply a part of Sinterklaas culture, so removing him completely was not a decision they would make (“AH houdt vast aan Zwarte Piet”, 2015, October 1).

(30)

30 Instead, offering a diverse range of Pete’s including traditional, brown, and soot as well as Sinterklaas products without the figure of Black Pete would be made available (“Zwarte Piet hoort erbij”, 2015, October 1). Local managers were also given discretion on how to decorate their stores, as it was decided managers know their area the best and can take into account local preferences (Oomen, 2015, October 8). Additionally, Albert Heijn was concerned for the security of their staff after refusing to ban Zwarte Piet in their stores (Pieters, 2015, October 20). Subsequently employees were given a manual on how to handle the issue. They were advised not to discuss the issue with the media or costumers, and if asked simply say that Albert Heijn genuinely finds it “vervelend” (which can be best translated to mean “a shame”) that cultural practices around Sinterklaas can be hurtful (Wit, 2015, October 20). Moreover, whilst a spokesman from Albert Heijn admitted there had been opponents of Black Pete making statements against Albert Heijn and other retailers for the continued use of Black Pete on their products, this ultimately had no effect. Instead, Albert Heijn is waiting quietly to see how the issue unfolds within society (Oomen, 2015, October 8).

This idea of waiting is also reflected in the sentiments of Detailhandel Nederland, in that retailers cannot make a decision as it will always be the wrong one according to at least one group. Instead, the market follows society, and with a divided society retailers try to please everyone by providing different types of products (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral). This divide is clearly seen in the debates and discussions surrounding Black Pete. As mentioned,

Detailhandel Nederland participated in the round table discussions in September 2015, organised by Mr. Asscher, the minister of Social Affairs and Employment. Multiple

stakeholders were invited to participate in the discussion, including opponents and supporters of the figure of Black Pete, RTL media group and other stakeholders. The members and discussions during these meetings are not made available to the public, so it is only when the organisations themselves acknowledge their participation will it be known that they attended. The purpose of the meeting is to facilitate discussion and understanding of the issue, and to ultimately try to come to a mutual consensus on the figure of Black Pete. There was however no consensus reached last year, with the grassroots organisation Nederland Wordt Beter wanting the figure of Black Pete gone completely, and the grassroots organisation Pietengilde not willing to make many changes (Interviewee C, 2015. Oral).

(31)

31

5.3 Analysis

Following from this overview, there are five main responses that can be derived from Albert Heijn. The first response was Albert Heijn framing the issue as not something that the organisation can decide on but rather something that society needs to tell them what to do. However, their decision to stop advertisements with the figure of Black Pete shows that there was considerable consideration given to those groups who found Black Pete offensive. The second response was to decentralise the issue by asking local store managers to decide for themselves how to decorate their stores. This shifted the responsibility away from Albert Heijn to act as a central authority and created an opportunity for differences to emerge geographically in order to satisfy the largest amount of consumers. These first two responses fall within the “Talk” strategy as shown in the conceptual model, as the first broadened the context of the issue making it more complicated by requiring a national consensus, and the second decentralised the organisation delegating responsibilities and reactions to local

branches. The third response from Albert Heijn was to limit its involvement in the debate and remain a neutral party. This can be highlighted by the fact employees were given instructions on how to handle customer inquiries and what to say, and not to engage with the media. This response falls into the “Ignore” strategy, as after initial responses were made, further

involvement and media attention was not sought or desired. The fourth response was to collaborate with different stakeholders which can be seen by Detailhandel Nederland

participating in the national dialogue on behalf of Ahold, and other retailers, in order to come to a satisfactory mutual decision in what to do. Although at first glance is might be

appropriate for this response to fall into the “Collaborate” strategy as multiple stakeholders and grassroots organisations came together to find a common solution, I argue this response is more representative of the “Create New Playing Field” strategy. This is because a formal consultation processes was created in the form of the round table discussions, which

successfully channelled the resistance to the issue. It was not intended to hear only one grassroots organisation, but rather multiple views and ultimately find alternative solutions in which everyone can agree upon, rather than just the objective of one grassroots organisation. The final response now is to wait and see how the issue continues to unfold and whether a consensus can be ultimately reached through negotiations before making any further changes around the figure of Black Pete. Appropriately, this response falls into the “Wait” strategy as no more action is being taken until a consensus has been reached.

(32)

32 These four strategies, namely Talk, Ignore, Create New Playing Field, and Wait represent both open and closed approaches to the issue. It is evident from the overview that responses, and therefore strategies, are highly changeable and active as time goes on. However, when taking the issue as a whole, and looking at the overall response of Albert Heijn, I argue that an open approach to the issue has been the main response, by responding with Create New Playing Field. This response therefore is a co-optation strategy. The section below will further explain this conclusion.

As it was discussed, grassroots organisations both for and against the continued use of the figure of Black Pete, were invited to participate in the round table discussion in September 2015. Because of this, and the willingness of Ahold to join the discussions, it could be that these grassroots groups have been accepted as legitimate representatives of the Black Pete issue, as consultation is taking place in the form of a round table. However, as Gamson points out in his theory, acceptance is only reached if the incumbent themselves give the invitation, and as it was not Ahold that organised this meeting, but Minister Asscher, this makes the analysis more difficult. I would argue however, that because Ahold chose to accept the invitation and actively engage in discussions where these groups were present, this

represents the acknowledgement of Ahold that these groups are legitimate and should be engaged with, and therefore can be seen as being accepted by them.

With regards to the objectives of these participating grassroots groups, such as Nederland Wordt Beter and Pietengilde, it is clear that these parties have not been completely successful in meeting their objectives. The Sinterklaas tradition is still very much upheld by Albert Heijn, and decorations and products depicting Black Pete are used to help with this

celebration. In this way, the objective to keep Black Pete has been achieved. However, the involvement of the figure has changed, in that Albert Heijn no longer advertises using Black Pete, and some products no longer display the character either. Moreover, the figure of Black Pete has also been changed on some products, with more brown and sooty Pete’s being used, although products with the traditional Black Pete are also still available. So whilst the figure of Black Pete has remained, his importance in Albert Heijn’s celebrations has become less prominent, and his appearance has been altered on some products. Therefore, I would argue that because Black Pete has not been completely abolished by Albert Heijn, nor has Black Pete remained as prominent and unchanged as in the past, neither grassroots in favour or against Black Pete have been completely successful in their objectives.

(33)

33

Given that the debate is still ongoing, and taking into consideration the above analysis, as mentioned at this stage Albert Heijn has given a co-optation response to the issue of Black Pete. This is seen by Ahold engaging with grassroots organisations thereby considering them legitimate and accepting them, and by the fact that no consensus has so far been reached during the round table discussions.

5.4 Platform Primair Onderwijs – Primary school boards in The Hague

5.5 Overview

As like Ahold, primary schools in The Hague were also aware of the debate surrounding Black Pete from the vast media attention the topic was receiving. What triggered the schools to react was not a direct response from grassroots movements themselves, but instead came as a request in 2015 from a chairman of a school board in The Hague. The chairman

requested that the Platform PO put the issue on the agenda for discussion, as he was asking how the schools should respond to the feeling surrounding Black Pete in Dutch society as a consequence of the debates (Interviewee B, 2016. Oral). The Platform subsequently decided to create a team of policy officers from different schools, including one or two directors, and asked them to write a policy document for the Platform on what to do regarding Black Pete (Interview B, 2016. Oral). During the investigation of the policy team, it was discovered that a ruling had been made by the College for Human Rights regarding Sinterklaas celebrations in schools in Utrecht. This ruling ultimately had a large impact on the final decision of Platform PO (The Hague School Board, 2015). In 2014 the College for Human Rights was involved in a case involving a parent and the Foundation for Public Primary Education Utrecht (hereinafter the Foundation). The College for Human Rights were asked to

investigate whether the Foundation discriminated against the parent’s children based on race by letting Black Pete be a part of Sinterklaas celebrations at school (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, 2014). On the 4th November 2014 the College for Human Rights ruled that the Foundation did not discriminate when it celebrated Sinterklaas that year, as sufficient effort had been made to start a discussion on the issue, however in the future this ruling may change as Black Pete was found to have discriminatory aspects. The judgement emphasised that it does not mean Black Pete needs to be abolished, but rather to give the figure a different form that does not lead to negative stereotypes of people with dark skin (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, 2014). This judgement stressed the need for a school to have a

(34)

discriminatory-34 free environment, and the Platform felt that this decision could not be ignored (Interviewee E, 2016. Oral).

By September 2015, the Platform PO had released an official decision that all primary schools in The Hague would make changes within the next three years (i.e. by 2017) to the character of Black Pete by eliminating five aspects which they found to be discriminatory. The board of the Platform also stated that schools needed to make at least one of these five changes starting from 2015. These five discriminatory features include the black skin, the frizzy hair, the gold earrings, the thick red lips and the relationship of authority between Sinterklaas and (stupid) Black Pete. Exactly how and when these changes would be made was left for schools to decide for themselves, with the understanding that all five aspects would be addressed within the three-year time frame (Platform Primair Onderwijs, 2015). The decision to address the five points came from the ruling of the College for Human Rights, where it listed these elements as discriminatory (Interviewee B, 2016. Oral).

As mentioned in section three, the Platform PO consists of school board representatives from five different school organisations in The Hague. Although these board members represent the majority of primary schools within The Hague, they do not represent all of them. Grada Huis, a communication and marketing organisation hired by a school in The Hague to answer questions about the changes towards Black Pete, noted that principles of the schools were also consulted in the matter (Interviewee E, 2016. Oral). However, according to one

principle in The Hague, not all primary schools were involved in the discussion (Interviewee A, 2016. Oral). Parents and grassroots organisations were also not consulted in the decision, as the Platform PO felt that the statements made by the College for Human Rights could not be ignored or denied (Interviewee E, 2016. Oral). The school board also emphasised in a letter to parents and guardians the importance of inclusion for all children, and to celebrate Sinterklaas is a way where everyone can agree (The Hague School Board, 2015). This decision marked the first time where all primary schools in a large city have agreed to make changes.

5.6 Analysis

The overview above shows that Platform PO effectively framed the issue of Black Pete as discriminatory, with an emphasis on the concern for children’s wellbeing and based this decision on the authority of the College for Human Rights. Furthermore, the strategy of the primary school boards of The Hague was to have no contact with grassroots movements.

Responses to Black Pete - Incumbents reacting to grassroots organisations on a controversial Dutch issue