Dutch pacification policy

A real multicultural society

Much the same as Germany the Netherlands are loosely divided in a protestant northern half and a catholic southern half. Four major social groups can be defined: catholics, protestants, socialists and liberals. Quite remarkably, in the first half of the twentieth century every group had its own niche in society. Each had its own political party, its own broadcasting corporation, its own newspaper, its own labour union, its own sports club, and so forth.

This makes us wonder why the Netherlands were such a stable, peaceful and tolerant country while in the same period most other European countries faced severe social unrest—sometimes even revolution. The Netherlands were at the same time among the most segregated and the most stable societies in Europe. The explanation lies in pacification policy: with the country divided into four (more or less) equal parts, it was impossible to rule without some form of co-operation. A combination of political elitism and the famous Dutch tolerance held the country together.

Pacification-politics

Dutch governments have always been coalition-based, but during the pillarisation coalitions even included the opposition. Never would a majority rule a minority—both sides would always work together to come to peaceful solutions that were acceptable to everyone. Whenever an issue arose the elite—party bosses, ministers, senior civil servants or commercial top directors—would meet in private (i.e. secret) and resolve it quickly and cooperatively. The Dutch society was so polarised that every segment’s views were clear and well-defined, and no internal discussion was needed. It was a amazingly efficient way of governing.

This might seem undemocratic, but the Dutch parliament was realistic enough to see that there was no way of getting any group to agree with another on ideals in a public debate. The conception of ‘let the government govern’ minimised parliament’s interference in government business, so the co-operation between the segments’ elites could go on unharmed. As long as no one forced its will on any other and no one asked awkward questions, no one was left out in the cold. There was no reason for any of the segments to be dissatisfied.

The end of pacification

Commonly regarded as the end of the pacification policy is 1966, when a newly-formed party started calling for democratic reform. The new generation of idealists would no longer conform to the segment’s boundaries or the political elite’s secrecy. The real end of pacification and political elitism came in 2001 with the murder of Pim Fortuyn by a left-wing activist. The charismatic Fortuyn, neither typically left- or right-wing, primarily took aim at ‘the establishment’ ruling over the backs of ‘the man in the street’. Fortuyn gained popularity remarkably fast and his legacy still lives today on in his party LPF—although that party will ironically forever be associated by corruption, secrecy and elitism. The murder of film-maker and Islam-critic Theo van Gogh only added to the confusion, leaving the Netherlands, once an icon of stability, looking for a new establishment, a new identity and a new justification for tolerance. The war on terror could not have come at a worse time.

Recommended reading

If you want to know more about this subject read The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands by Arend Lijphart, the standard work on this era. It’s a relatively easy and very interesting read.