In many ways, next week’s Dutch parliamentary elections are a repeat exercise. The populism of Geert Wilders, frontman of the Party for Freedom (PVV), will once again draw many votes. Some polls predict that the PVV will become the largest party, although Wilders’s chances of participating in government remain negligible.
Many parties, from the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) to the Socialist Party (SP), have already announced their intention not to work with the PVV in forming a coalition. VVD leader Mark Rutte has been prime minister since 2010 and has led two cabinets since then. The Dutch will consider the achievements of the past few years when casting their vote.
As ever, issues such as healthcare, education and immigration, as well as the role of the Netherlands in Europe, will be decisive. It’s worth noting that the Dutch voted against the ratification of an association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine in a 2016 referendum, an expression of Dutch hesitation over further EU enlargement.
This year’s elections take place in an international context of increasing populism, especially since the election of Donald Trump. Right-wing politicians in countries around the Netherlands have become more vocal. Twenty-eight Dutch political parties are contesting the elections on March 15, including a number of populist splinter parties. Non-native Dutch communities – mostly second- and third-generation citizens of Turkish and Moroccan descent – are represented, as are groups that came into being following social debates about, for example, the Dutch tradition of Zwarte Piet (a character portrayed in blackface) or the Ukraine referendum. The field is varied, and the traditional major parties can no longer assume an outcome in line with past results.
Last month the Dutch bishops published a letter about the elections called “Together Responsible for the Common Good”. The bishops said that voting was both a right and a duty, and while they refrained from providing advice on specific parties, they offered several thoughts which they considered important for voting responsibly.
The bishops mostly focused on the importance of social cohesion, human dignity and solidarity. They explicitly criticised euthanasia, gender theory and the exclusion of people who have become dependent or in other ways cannot contribute to the economy.
They wrote: “In the voting booth we are faced with the question of how, in the light of the Gospel, we can contribute with our vote to a society based on human dignity, solidarity, basic rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of education, social justice, subsidiarity, tolerance and peace between religions and cultures. Freedom of religion and conviction is a core value of our culture.”
They continued: “When casting our vote for a specific party, the fundamental question is: how far does this party contribute to the common good in accordance with the principles of the Roman Catholic faith? Do they stand for the protection of life from conception to natural conclusion, do they support the family, family care, voluntary work and the sheltering of migrants?
“Receiving refugees does not fulfil the duty of compassion with the poor of this world. What other initiatives do parties support to manifest solidarity with the suffering in this world? Do they stand for freedom of religion, fighting poverty, access to good education, quality healthcare, proper treatment of animals, security, sustainability and development?”
Not all these positions are a given for many voters, including Catholics – not even the protection of life. There is much hesitation in Dutch society about accepting more refugees. Solidarity remains difficult when the refugees speak another language or have another faith (or even simply a faith).
In light of the bishops’ letter, and given that some 23 per cent of the population is Catholic, one might expect a significant Catholic influence on the outcome of the elections. Sadly, this is not so. Dutch society, and thus the voting population, remains solidly secular. In 2010, no more than one per cent of Catholics – some 170,000 faithful – attended a church service at least once a month. Considering that the total population of the Netherlands is 17 million, the proportion of Catholics who regularly come into contact with the Church is tiny.
It is therefore impossible to find a clear Catholic element in Dutch politics. Voters who are religiously motivated will turn to one of three broadly Christian parties: the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), the Christian Union and the Reformed Political Party. The latter is staunchly Protestant but, like the more generally Protestant Christian Union, has become increasingly appealing to Catholic voters, especially as they are the sole parties opposed to abortion and euthanasia. Together, they hold eight seats in the lower house of parliament and five in the upper house.
The CDA, which allows more individual freedom for its members on certain topics that are decisive for the smaller parties, currently holds 13 seats in the lower house, but has been in a steady freefall since the mid-1990s.
In recent decades there has been just one attempt at creating a Catholic political party. The Catholic Political Party received some 8,000 votes in the elections of 1998 – not enough to win a seat – and has since disbanded.
Mark de Vries is a Catholic blogger based in the Netherlands
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.