The rise of Geert Wilders

A populist in the Dutch government says much about European politics

By Christopher J. Bickerton

Geert Wilders, the Netherlands' notorious right-wing extremist, is the subject of a bestselling new book by the Dutch academic Meindert Fennema, The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Wilders - currently standing trial in an Amsterdam court, accused of inciting racial hatred - is the main power broker in an unsteady coalition that has finally been put together, after months of negotiations, between the Christian Democratic (CDA) and Liberal-Conservative (VVD) parties.

The arrangement as it stands is that Wilders' party, the Freedom Party (PVV), will provide parliamentary support for a CDA-VVD coalition.

As Fennema wryly puts it, the Netherlands will soon have two foreign ministers: an official one, sitting in the Cabinet and following the establishment Euro-Atlantic moderation line, and an unofficial one - Geert Wilders, whose extreme anti-Islamic position is based on the premise that there can be no moderate Islam and any belief to the contrary will imperil Western civilization.

Wilders' reputation now extends well beyond the confines of Dutch politics. He most recently stirred controversy by giving a speech at Ground Zero in New York on the anniversary of 9/11. Wilders was denied entry into the UK in 2009 when he was invited to give a talk at a showing of his anti-Islam film, Fitna, at the House of Lords.

Wilders' words chime with a wider set of concerns that pervade contemporary European politics: the problem of integrating Europe's large minority of Muslim citizens, the fears of workers who see their wages undercut by inflows of cheap labor and concern that Western values are giving way to self-loathing and ethical relativism. Wilders articulates a sense of panic and estrangement that exists in many European countries. It is the backdrop to Sarkozy's move against the Roma in France and the message of the controversial book published by the German central banker Thilo Sarrazin, Germany Is Destroying Itself.

Fennema has laid out his analysis of the situation in the Netherlands. The great mistake of the Dutch political class, he says, has been to declare Wilders an Islamophobic racist and to dismiss his views as abhorrent and outside the confines of acceptable political discourse. In attempting to silence Wilders, first politically and now through the courts, the Dutch liberal elite have evaded the thorny question of how to respond to these concerns.

In writing a book that describes in intimate detail the figure of Wilders and his worldview, Fennema tried to understand where Wilders is coming from; he wants to provide some insight into what the left dismisses as pure demagoguery. Accused of being an apologist for the PVV, Fennema answers back, arguing that Wilders exposes the fragility and intellectual weakness of the postmodernist and multicultural worldview of the Dutch elite. Fennema portrays Wilders as really no more than a republican with a bee in his bonnet about Islam. He thinks liberal leftists are terrified of him because, in the name of multiculturalism, they have repudiated their own sense of identity. As Fennema puts it, they have no answer to Rousseau's famous criticism of those "supposed cosmopolitans" who "boast of loving everyone so that they might have the right to love no one."

Fennema says his book should be read more as a political thriller than an academic text. Though he writes as the omniscient narrator and recounts Wilders' thought processes, conversations and speeches, he was not granted access to him when writing his book. Even so, Fennema insists the book is a history of the often-ignored Dutch Liberal Party, of which Wilders was a member until he left to found his own PVV political party in 2004. The sorcerer of the book title is Fritz Bolkenstein, a prominent Dutch politician and former leader of the VVD for whom Wilders - the apprentice - was a speechwriter.

As an antidote to the hysterical reaction of many liberal-minded Europeans, Fennema's insights into the origins of the Wilders phenomenon are valuable. In the interview for this article, Fennema argued what we are seeing today is no less than the collapse of postwar social democracy, as it was established in the Netherlands after World War II. In the corporatist bargain between business and labor, the old business elite maintained control of the economy but, in exchange, gave up control of the cultural establishment (schools, universities, etc.). This deal was in keeping with the social democratic hope that society could be changed through culture and through education in particular.

In the aftermath of 1968, the New Left overtook the Dutch labor movement. Beginning with the social revolution of the 1960s, and given a political voice through the events of 1968 and movement against the Vietnam War, the New Left espoused a relativistic, cosmopolitan worldview of which multiculturalism is perhaps the most concrete manifestation.

Fennema himself left the Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) in the 1970s, in reaction to what he saw as the ethereal elitism of the New Left, and joined the Communist Party, a more "down to earth" option. He left the party in the 1980s, publicly recanting his left-wing past in a manner that endeared him to much of the Dutch political right, including Wilders' mentor, Bolkenstein.

In Fennema's analysis, the answer to the Wilders riddle lies in the collapse of the corporatist bargain. The old business establishment no longer holds the reins of a de-industrialized neo-liberal economy. Power now lies in services and in finance rather than manufacturing. Those now in control of the economy, a younger generation of nouveau riche entrepreneurs and financiers, no longer respect the social pact of past decades and chafe at the values so cherished by the 1968 New Left. As in other countries, from France to the United States, the political legacy of the soixante-huitards is under attack.

What is most curious is that these culture wars should dominate political debate at a time when jobs, wages and state welfare are all under threat in the "age of austerity." As budget cuts are pushed through European parliaments, people on the whole accept with fatalism the need for painful belt-tightening. Even in France and Spain, where acceptance is not won and street protests are largest, the move toward fiscal austerity proceeds apace. As political parties coalesce over the need to cut public spending, debate still rages over whether or not to ban the headscarf or the burqa. Just when you would expect the battle to be fought in economics, culture wars are raging across Europe.

Is the popular outburst of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment the complement to the new fatalism over the economy? If so, the current Dutch coalition maps perfectly onto this new kind of populist technocracy. Mark Rutte, VVD leader and prime minister in the current coalition, is the embodiment of the technocratic leader. Wilders, his coalition partner, is the populist.

Far from being the exception, this curious Dutch coalition deal perhaps reveals a deeper truth about the contemporary state of European politics.

- The author is a professor of political science at the University of Amsterdam.

The hate speech trial equates to prosecuting the very concept of free speech

By Ivar Scheers

Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the Netherlands was widely recognized as a beacon for liberalism, tolerance and freedom of speech. Though many still uphold this vision, the past decade has proved the country may not be as tolerant as thought.

In May 2002, one week before the national elections, the right-wing candidate for Prime Minister Pim Fortuyn was shot and killed. Two years later, director, producer and critic of Islam Theo van Gogh was brutally slaughtered in the streets of Amsterdam by a Muslim extremist. More recently, police raided the home of an anonymous cartoonist who was then held in custody for two days after being charged with publishing cartoons in which he allegedly insulted Islam. Eventually, the public prosecutor dropped the case.

Both van Gogh and Fortuyn sparked controversy, the latter being, at the dawn of the new century, the first politician to address questions and problems concerning immigration, integration, minorities and the increasing influence of Islam. These were questions wandering in the minds of many but earned him the scorn of the political parties and elites who had ignored them for decades.

In the years since, Dutch leaders have still seemed incapable of confronting these issues, which has led to the rise of a new anti-Islamic politician, Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party.

Wilders and his party entered Parliament after the 2006 elections, winning nine out of a total of 150 seats, and he has increased his constituency in the subsequent four years, winning a total of 24 seats during the 2010 elections. They now dictate the stability of the government.

Without a doubt, Wilders is controversial. He is blunt, undiplomatic and espouses an anti-Islamic vision that makes him unpopular on the center and left of the political spectrum. Still, his popularity continues to rise. According to Wilders, Islam constitutes a threat to Western Christian-Judaic culture and is incompatible with our systems of democracy.

In 2008, Wilders made a short movie on Islam, called Fitna, which was posted on the Internet. The movie contained bold statements regarding the influence of Islam on European politics, in particular drawing comparisons between the Quran and Hitler's Mein Kampf. As a result of the movie and several public statements, a public prosecutor charged the politician with hate speech and discrimination against Muslims. The trial began Oct. 4.

It goes without saying that Wilders lacks diplomacy and undoubtedly offends millions of Muslims. But does he make statements that fall outside the limits of freedom of speech?

In his work On Liberty, the 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill used the example of corn-dealers who had a great deal of influence on the distribution and price of a staple food. According to Mill, the opinion that corn-dealers are starving the poor is perfectly valid when proposed in a newspaper. However, the same opinion may very well incur punishment when expressed in front of a raging, uncontrollable mob assembled before a corn-dealer's house.

Wilders makes his statements on his own website or during media interviews, not in front of mobs gathered in front of mosques. He has never called for violence, directly or indirectly.

The very fact that hate speech charges were brought against him creates a dangerous precedent for narrowing the spectrum of acceptable free speech. The case has the potential to lead to a cloudburst of charges against individuals, each legal charge further crumbling the wounded body of freedom of speech. The end result of a continuous trend like this is totalitarianism.

No one would benefit from this extreme end, just as no one benefits from the trend's beginning, even those now advocating Wilders' trial.

One can disagree with what Wilders has to say, but it is irrelevant in the big picture. What matters is that he has the right to say it.

As Voltaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."

- The author is a Dutch citizen with a law degree from Leiden University. He lives and works in Prague.