Geert Wilders, former member of the Dutch Liberal Party, to launch a new party based on principles of liberalism, direct democracy, and strict crime & immigration laws.
http://dutchreport.blogspot.com/2005/03/dutch-declaration-of-independence.html
What do you think of the program?
What are his chances? There is talk of a new Pim Fortuyn, is it realistic he could get such a following?
I’m very hesitant to comment on this, because I moved to the Netherlands just about six months ago and am still trying to get the hang of Dutch politics. But just to get the ball rolling here:
Wilders’ plan sounds like it would have been quite revolutionary and cutting-edge…five or eight years ago. At present, ISTM that the other Dutch parties are already involved with issues like discouraging radical Islamism, tightening restrictions on immigration and social benefits, adjusting for the aging population, etc.
So I would venture a guess that most of the substance of what Wilders is proposing is not particularly new, and the more radical features (e.g., banning Islamic headscarves at public functions, making Dutch the sole language of all government publications, firing half of all civil servants, eliminating foreign aid, committing the Netherlands to leave the EU if Turkey enters it, etc.) are basically just attention-getters, trying to play off nationalistic resentment.
Maybe some of our “echt hollandse” Dopers will have some more informed comments. 
I see. Another anti-democratic far-right party. Just what Europe needs. I have to say I was quite pleased when Pim Fortuyn was assassinated. We don’t need to breed any more little Hitlers. And I’ll leave it at that.
Did you read anything at all from the program or did you just choose go with your preconceived ideas? Geert Wilders called for more democracy and more direct democracy and a less restricted democracy. BTW, all of which I agree with wholeheartedly.
Further he can’t from the program, and neither could Pim Fortuyn, be called “right-wing” in any traditional European meaning of the word since that would entail a big controlling state. Wilders comes from a liberal (European meaning) position and call for a smaller state and less state control as well as a continuation of Dutch continuation of rights and acceptance of minority groups such as homosexuals. Since when was it a neo-Nazi, right wing agenda to fight for the rights of gays and call for a smaller state?
Quite right, because both Oluf Palme and Gro Brundtland was/were more “little Hitler” than either of these two Dutch. So I suppose you think Oluf Palme was offed twenty years too late. And just twitching to get to Gro. How about Bush? Do you approve of plots to kill him too?
Alien: I have to say I was quite pleased when Pim Fortuyn was assassinated.
:eek: Hey, cool it, you wild viking. IMO there’s quite enough political assassination and encouragement of same here in the Netherlands already, without anyone stumping for more of it. If you don’t like political leaders, vote against them and/or publicly criticize them, but don’t condone offing them.
Rune: Geert Wilders called for more democracy and more direct democracy and a less restricted democracy.
Hmm, I’m not sure that all his proposed measures could be described as increasing democracy. For example, the proposed reduction of the number of parliamentary members by one-third seems to imply less direct representation for the electorate. Democratic inclusion for immigrants would also be drastically restricted. (And personally, I tend to feel that Wilders’ blanket assertion “Islam and democracy are not compatible” is itself pretty undemocratic. The US, for example, seems able to maintain a secular democracy without explicitly disqualifying any particular religion from participating in it.)
Yes, I did read the manifest before I posted. In the “Security” section alone, he calls for deployment of the military in the streets to uphold civil order, the introduction of “reeducation camps”, and “preventive searches to the whole of The Netherlands”.
Wilders calls for less state control in the economic area (corporatism) and more state control in other areas (policing, education, etc). His idea of more democracy by direct representation actually means less diversity and less minority representation, possibly leading to a two party state to begin with.
Actually, this is my fault, for talking about “the little Hitlers”. People on this board has a tendancy to lump fascism and nazism together, but in reality they are two distinctively separate ideologies. Not that I expect you to know the difference. In this case, Wilders manifest of corporatism, policing, national identity and the remaking of the political system fits right into the fascism alley. It might surprise you, but you don’t need dictatorship to have fascism, that was just the way it turned out in the 1930s.
I have no problem with traditionally conservative governments, or issues like lower taxes or the freedom to choose services not run by the government. I just don’t vote that way because I think other issues are more important. But I know that whether I vote moderate left or moderate right, those fundamental civil rights that ensures my freedom will remain untouched. The far-right parties wants to build nations where certain religions, cultures, races and opinions are preferred over others. And that’s not freedom to me.
Seriously, comparing Palme, a moderate left, and Bruntland, a center-left, to Hitler just shows how detached you are from reality. And for Bush, I don’t really concern myself about him. He’s not Hitlerish, not by a longshot.
He he. Well, just because I vote center-left (European style) doesn’t mean that I’m all mushy and lovin’ ;). I’m tired of politicians who try to exploit our democratic systems in order to overthrow our current election system or our basic civil rights, in the name of “security” or “freedom”. But that’s a debate by itself: should we allow a person who wants to overthrow a democracy to run for election in said democracy?
As far as I know the USA is (ideally) secular and disqualifies all religions from participating in its democracy. But I see Wilders calling for more direct democracy in many areas outside the parliament.
e.g.
“Direct elections by the citizens for burgomasters, big city police commissioners and members of the courts; the introduction of trial by jury, to make sure that the voice of the people is also hearth in the courts.”
And making the political parties and politicians more directly answerable to the voters.
e.g.
“An electoral system in which there is a more direct relationship between voter and elected who should be accountable to the voter; Not an introduction of a district system but a system that enhances and makes more transparent the bond between the voter and the elected; Make the number of votes on a political candidate leading for his position on the party list.”
I see the reduction of the parliamentary seats as a means to reduce the attempt by politicians to micro-manage the people and as a way to do away with expensive fat backbenchers doing nobody but themselves any good. Perhaps that is less representation, but it is more freedom. I would fully support similar initiatives as all these in Denmark.
He sure has some harsh things to say about Islam. But I think his point re. immigrants is to integrated those already in The Netherlands more thoroughly before taking on any new ones. Helping immigrants take active part and involving themselves in society instead of secluding themselves in isolated communities is also a way to extend democracy.
I did stumble over the “reeducation camps” but wrote it off as poor translation from the original Dutch, I suppose he means resocialisation. Military in the streets, most countries already have such contiguities plans in case of severe civil unrest. I note that Geet Wilders himself, together with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has been forced to live on a naval base to be protected from the Islamists. I don’t really know what he means by “preventive searches”. Apparently it is a law they already have on the books in a smaller scale.
Actually it does nothing of the sort. Not that minority representation is in itself a self evident good thing. Minorities should be represented to the degree in which they are manifested in the population. More would be undemocratic. But in particular I strongly believe that it is a stunted form of democracy we have in Europe where it mostly seem restricted to representary parliamentary or presidential votes every few years. I very much like Wilders thoughts of extending democracy out into the everyday and into the corners of the state. Mayors, city police commissioners, judges, higher reliance of court jurors, etc. All excellent ideas. (corporatism?!. aw common, try to debate without resorting to these absurd comparisons)
No it is your fault for trying to lump political positions you personally disagree with, in with Hitler, Nazism, Fascism and what not as a means to sabotage debate or disqualify certain ideas as a prior loathsome without having to go to the trouble of thinking about them. The fact that both men have homosexual rights in mind and want to scale down the state ought to have given you a hint that Nazism was not the ideal comparison. As for fascism. It’s really not worth taking serious, but I would consider a liberal economy, direct democracy and lesser state controlled media, just to mention three of his points, to be in direct opposition to fascism.
Classy.
And seriously it was meant to be absurd, to show how foolish such comparisons are, for of course it’s absurd to compare Palme, Bruntland, Pim Fortuyn and Wilders with Hitler. It is a “digital brownshirt” (larding back where it came from) debating strategy meant to stop discussion and intellectual laziness meant to allow you to disregard other people without having to address what they say.
Yes, it could be a bad translation. But Wilders appears surprisingly open about what he wants to do. Usually, far-right party representatives have learned to conceal their true emotions, as in: “we should only accept refugees from Europe” instead of “we really don’t want blacks to come here”. Nothing new under the sun I guess.
Wilder, by the way, isn’t forced to live on a naval base. He has chosen to be protected by security personell, paid for by the state, because of threats he has received due to his controversial policies. A naval base is what is currently available. He’s free to leave if he wants to. If he doesn’t have the stomach for politics, he should just quit.
You’re wrong. Direct representation, as in a winner-takes-it-all system, does lead to under-representation of minorities, as is evident by the number of blacks in US Congress.
The math is simple: If the electorate has 40% women and 60% men, evenly distributed, and everyone voted according to their gender, then the winner-takes-it-all system would return a 100% male assembly. Whereas the pool-method, our current system (except for Britain) would return a result according to demographics, 40/60. Now, this shouldn’t be a problem because with 60% male or 100% male representation, it’s a majority anyway, right? However, if 40% of men and 75% of women also had the opinion that everyone born in May should drive a blue car, then we have a problem. According to the electorate, 54% want those born in May to drive a blue car, but with a winner-takes-it-all system, only 40% of the elected representatives wants this. A stupid example I’m sure, but it demonstrates one of the weaknesses of the winner-takes-it-all system. The other main weakness is that issues would be argued as either “for” or “against”, with no room for some of both.
The irony is that if Europe switched to a winner-takes-it-all system, all the far-right parties would disintegrate, since 60%-80% of the populace are so vehemently opposed to them.
As for police commissioners, judges, higher court jurors etc, I’m absolutely dead against them being elected. Their role is to act in accordance with the law. It would be ridiculous to elect legislators to pass laws, only to have a judge elected on a completely different platform. Judges are accountable to legislators, not to the people. And, different practice amongst commissioners and judges would violate the principle of equal treatment within a jurisdiction .
Almost everything we think of when we hear the words of fascism or nazism today is derived from our retrospective look at the past, our collective judgement if you may. But back then, as the events unfolded, few ever discussed or thought that the restriction on some civil rights would apply to anyone but a few “unwanted ones”. If you have the time, you should take a trip down to the national library and have a look at some mainstream Danish newspaper of that period. Not for your education, but for your amusement. I think you’ll be surprised.
Selectivity can never have a place within a democratic system. Ask yourself this: If a certain religion or opinion is said to be incompatible with a political system, as Wilders says is the case with Islam, then the only option is to make it a crime to advocate or live by those beliefs, isn’t it? There’s really no inbetween here.
Well you guess wrong because traditionally the European far right you talk about has been all about more state control also in the economic sphere, not less state control. In that way I don’t agree he can be called far right, especially as you insist to include such monikers as Nazism and Fascism.
That is splitting hairs. He was living in a military base, or in a jail I forget which, because he and Aryan Hirsh Ali were threatened by Islamists whom had just slaughtered Theo van Gogh in the most bestial way and the regular police apparently was deemed inadequate to the task of giving protection. Of course he was forced by circumstances or do you think he went there to enjoy the great view? As for your assertion that if can’t take risking his life that you deem to be naturally part and parcel of a political career, he should just quit. Well I’ll just have to invoke the “digital brownshirts” again, removing the “digital” part – it simple thuggery nothing else. Is that really how you would like to see European democracy evolve; that politicians must accept their life is on stake at every turn. And again, what you accept for your opponents horse you most accept for your own. Oluf Palme and Anna Lindh – what’s all the fuss about, they could just have quit afterall. Strange how you so easily throw about you with accusation of Nazism and fascism and yet are so indifferent to, even supportive of, practises that are clearly fascist in their nature: threatening and killing political opponents. If Wilders had called for the murder of political opponents, as you do, I would have agreed he could be called a fascist. What should we call you then?
I don’t know where you get the idea to equate his wish to simplify the election rules and extending democracy outside the parliament with a winner-takes-it-all system. I most certainly do not support a parliamentary winner-takes-it-all system. I absolutely support an election system wherein the voters can be sure their votes go where they actually intended it.
Not the irony is Wilders by his program is neither far-right, nor does he propose a winner-takes-it-all system.
There is much room for interpretation within the law, this interpretation should carried out after the will of the people and not according to some group of unelected officials. This can be done by electing judges and by trial jurors. As it is now, judges operate much as a form of unelected nepotistic state within the state, outside the reach of the people. This is very unsatisfactory.
Actually I’m a secularist. I don’t think any religion has a place within democracy. People can believe whatever they want in their private life, but would very much oppose any laws drawn from religious backgrounds. And want no part of either Christian law (if there is a such) or Moslem Sharia to be part of the state in any way whatsoever. And I certainly do not want a state religion.
But I note that you yourself is selective in that you don’t think Wilders opinion is compatible with democracy.
Is that manifesto on any other site, still in Dutch, maybe? That blog page itself irritates me. It’s like a Vlaams Bl. . . Belang site with more orange (or less orange than one would expect. I mean, a link to the Heritage Foundation on a Dutch site? Aiagh!)
I am going to ramble a bit, so please bear with me.
As a born and raised Dutchman, let me say that I sincerely hope his party implodes before the next election.
The Netherlands are getting split more and more into whites and the rest.
More and more white people are becoming scared of our imported Dutchmen and -women.
People like Geert Wilders are trying to take advantage of it to get himself into the government.
He has a very clear (although unspoken) anti-moslim program.
When he gets there he will not be able to make any changes, as he will never be able to get a majority-vote on any issue.
What he will be able to do is create more xenophobes and add more gunpowder to an already volatile situation.
We, as Dutch people, should stop getting ourselves influenced by fear-pandering newspapers and politicians.
Dutch companies should hire more imported Dutch people (especially of Maroccan descend) so these people will have a chance in our society.
Our schools should improve, so that people who are born in the rougher parts still get a decent education and a chance of a good-paying job.
We need a Geert Wilders as we need some more holes in our heads.
I’m not going into this again but: - Originally posted by Vinryk
Why are you talking about ‘whites and the rest’?. The ‘imported’ muslims in the Netherlands are white.
The only black muslim known to me is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, though she’s hardly a muslim anymore, is she?
Oh, I wouldn’t call the Dutch scared. Angry and hurt, yes. Afraid? No.
gum: *Why are you talking about ‘whites and the rest’?. The ‘imported’ muslims in the Netherlands are white. *
Even Muslim Dutch people of, say, Moroccan origin are considered white? I didn’t know that.
Maybe there’s a language issue involved here, since I think that many English speakers would consider the majority of Dutch people—those of Northern European descent—“white”, and those of Moroccan or Southeast Asian descent “non-white”. (Those of Turkish descent might go either way.)
Here, for example, is an article from an American newspaper apparently contrasting the immigrants with “white” Dutch people:
(But in that case, what is meant by the Dutch phrase “zwarte en witte scholen”—“black and white schools”? I thought this was a standard way of referring to the white “traditional” Dutch in contrast with the “black” mostly-Muslim immigrants.)
Would you call the Greek black? Italians? Spaniards?
No. Me neither.
I’m not Dutch, so I won’t presume to tell you what’s best for your country, but politicians can only make an issue of immigration if the public thinks there are too many immigrants.
Also, your term “imported Dutch people” is odd. If a Dutchman emigrated to America, Americans might call him an imported Dutchman. The people you’re talking about would seem to be more accurately described as “imported Moroccans.”
Mostly sounds great, but banning headscarves in public? Preemptive searches? Re-education camps? Maybe my impression would be different if I had the experience of having been born/lived in the Netherlands, but not only are several of these propositions completely awful - they’re not even ideologically consistent.
On top of everything, his opposition to
reeks of anti-Thanksgiving (and thus anti-US) sentiment 
No. Obviously, traditionally the European far right has been about less state control of the economic sphere, but that doesn’t equate fascism. On the contrary, that’s just traditional conservative politics. Fascism may be recognized by the dissolvement of unions and by illegalizing the right to strike, but once again, that doesn’t necessarily mean that states with such policies are fascist. So I hereby ask for a cite that the goal of fascism is less freedom for the corporate world. Note: I’m talking about fascism, not nazism, which basically wants to merge every aspect of society into one surreal national movement. Further, I would not accept any cites resting on a fascist state at war, since wars, by nature, have a significant impact on economic life…
To return to the OP, to me Wilders manifest reads like a step by step guide down the slippery slope. He clearly incorporates elements which has nothing to with fascism, but a much clearer picture emerges when we cease to occupy ourselves with his specific proposals and review the manifest based on the philosophy and ideology behind fascism.
I’m not going to get into a discussion on political ideologies, that’s beyond the scope of the thread, so I’ll just pinpoint some of the similarities: In this manifest I read the politics of nationalism and tradition over multilateralism and global impulses. Wilders is revolutionary, calling for a new declaration of independence, including changes to the election system and Constitution. He has nothing but disdain for party politics and regard himself as above other politicians, but he himself has no plan to have the program of his party drawn up by party members, or so it seems. He wants to strengthen the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislators, as well as reduce the independence of the judiciary. As fascists, he feeds off sosial unrest, umemployment, xenophobia and crime, and he wants to use every mean available to enact control, including deploying the military into the streets. As fascist leaders, he always talks about freedom, but rarely talks about civil rights.
I’m not going to get into a debate on this, as it’s fruitless. Needless to say, many politicians unfortunately have to live with threats. They need to deal with it, or get out. There will always be wackos out there.
It’s not entirely clear from the manifest what kind of election system Wilders prefers as it relates to the Parliament. But he is clearly against the current system and those changes he does propose are big.
As for electing judges, there isn’t much room for interpretation, because judges are bound by the law, as well as the preliminary work leading to laws, executive regulations complementing laws, and precedent set by earlier rulings in similar cases. Rarely do cases occur which cannot be accurately concluded based on all this material. The only reason why you are in favor of this is because you envision that by the use of hate-speech and focus on gruesome crimes by far-righters, people will rally to vote for judges who promise to throw away the key. And you’re probably right.
I wasn’t referring to the separation of state and church, but to situations where a certain opinion is said to be incompatible with a political system. Isn’t the only option then to make it a crime to advocate or live by those beliefs? As in throw people in jail, if necessary, to remove that particular opinion from the public sphere? Wilders said that Islam cannot exist in Dutch society. But what is he going to do with people who regard themselves as Muslims and want to exercise their faith?
This is interesting also because the German government is currently considering to ban KPD (or KPD??), a party which has made few efforts to hide its admiration for the country’s nazi-past. Should we allow a party who wants to overthrow the current democratic system to run for election? I say no. In my opinion such parties has to make their case to the public on the outside, not as elected representatives in a system they want to overthrow.
Well, you know what he or she means by “imported Dutchmen”-- people who live in the Netherlands/ may even be citizens but who were born elsewhere-- Surinam, Morocco, wherever-- nice and inclusive and values their Dutch citizenship more than it separates them from the “normal” population. Seems a lot friendlier than insisting that people who were born elsewhere will always be foreign: I find it more . . . accepting, than the American permanent use of something like “Mexican immigrant” for someone who has gained citizenship here.