Dutch voters go centrist, shun euroskepticism

The center-right Liberals and the center-left Social Democrats won the most seats in yesterday's parliamentary election, setting the two parties as likely coalition partners.

Ermindo Armino/AP
Dutch prime minister and Liberal Party leader Mark Rutte talks to supporters after exit poll results for the parliamentary elections were announced in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday Sept. 12, 2012.

The euroskeptical movement in The Netherlands was given a sharp blow yesterday in parliamentary elections that ended up with the two rival frontrunners gaining so much support, that they are now likely to be forced to work together.

The center-right Liberals of Prime Minister Mark Rutte came out of the elections as the largest party, with 41 out of 150 seats, up from 31. The center-left Social Democrats won 38 seats, a spectacular comeback for leader Diederik Samsom, whose party had 30 seats in parliament but had been polling around 15 seats only one month ago. The race between the two parties was too close to call until several hours after midnight.  [Editor's note: The number of seats won by the Social Democrats has been updated to reflect revised totals.]

The populist far-right party of Geert Wilders seems to have paid the price for internal struggles and walking away from the budget talks which led to the collapse of Rutte's government in April. His party, which wants The Netherlands to leave the European Union, shrunk from 24 to 15 seats. The other euroskeptic party, the Socialists, didn't gain any seats and remained at 15, despite a good showing in the polls until three weeks ago.

The largest party in parliament has the right to start coalition talks and is usually the one to put forth the prime minister, so Mr. Rutte will most likely have a second term as prime minister.  Tinke de Ree, a voter from Utrecht, praised his “positive image,” while Anne Raden Karmo said in Amsterdam she feels that Rutte is the best politician to serve her interests as an entrepreneur.

According to a survey, one in four voters cast a strategic vote yesterday instead of a vote on the party they think is closest to their ideals. Rene Verburg is one of those strategic voters. “The previous time I voted for GreenLeft, but this time I voted for the Social Democrats”, Mr. Verburg said in Utrecht, the fourth largest city here. “The last time the Liberals gained just one seat more than the Social Democrats and I want to prevent that this time.”

In an interview with the state broadcaster NOS, Mr. Wilders partially blamed his “defeat” on the horse race between Rutte and Mr. Samsom and said that “many people have voted strategically.”

Ironically, the number of seats held by Social Democrats and the Liberals are now so large that any coalition that doesn't include both is unlikely: A phenomenon that Rutte himself has complained about in the past. The 2006 elections were also portrayed as a horse race between the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats. In an interview with this reporter in 2006, Rutte called strategic voting “annoying,” because it leads to two parties being condemned to each other. This time however, the phenomenon turned to Rutte's advantage.

Liberal politician Henk Kamp will begin exploratory coalition talks with party leaders tomorrow. He is scheduled to report on his findings next week, when the newly elected parliament convenes for the first time on September 20.

The Social Democrats and the Liberals have worked together in a coalition before, from 1994 to 2002. However, since then both parties have ideologically moved somewhat to the left and the right, respectively. And since the two do not have a majority in the Senate, which has the power to turn down legislation, they may want to add another party to their coalition.

Verburg is not confident the formation process will move quickly. “During the campaign, the parties have dug their heels in the sand on issues, and did a lot of mudslinging. I don't think we'll have a government before Christmas,” he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Dutch voters go centrist, shun euroskepticism
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0913/Dutch-voters-go-centrist-shun-euroskepticism
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe