Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European ...

The Netherlands 159
In his more political works, Fortuyn argued that bureaucrats, technocratic
managers and ‘partycrats’ governed the Netherlands without heeding the
interests of ‘us’ ordinary citizens and that it would be difficult to wrest control
from the political managers and bureaucrats who controlled the parties
and all political positions. Nonetheless, it was Fortuyn’s ambition to restore
democracy and return power to ‘the people in the country’ (1993; 2002b:
151, 184−6). How? First of all, public officials like mayors and the prime
minister should be elected directly by the people. In addition, parliament
and cabinet should become more independent of each other, and of political
parties (Fortuyn, 2002b: 141−3). In this worldview, small is beautiful:
small schools, hospitals and municipalities are able to govern themselves
without bureaucrats and managers taking control (Fortuyn, 2002a: 207−16;
Fortuyn, 2002b: 39, 63, 147−8). Most populists would add to this the use of
referendums and/or people’s initiatives, but Fortuyn showed no enthusiasm
for direct democracy. In his view, politicians should listen to their constituents,
but not shy away from their own responsibilities. They should inspire
public debate and exercise leadership (Fortuyn, 1993: 131, 211).
Fortuyn sometimes defined his ideology as ‘modernized liberalism’ (1991:
11). Other than managing the public sector, he argued that the state should
not intervene in a modern, open economy. In Fortuyn’s modern ‘contract
society’, every citizen would be an entrepreneur and wage-earners would be
entrepreneurs of their own labour, negotiating pension plans and disability
payments directly with their employers, rather than depending on trade
unions to do it for them (Fortuyn, 1995). Fortuyn was a liberal with respect
to both socio-economic and moral issues and hence was a strong advocate
of equality, irrespective of gender and/or sexual orientation (an area in
which the state should not interfere). Similarly, he believed that drugs should
be legalized, although, in general, Fortuyn advocated a conservative rather
than liberal approach in the fight against crime, emphasizing repression
rather than prevention and social reforms. His proposal of a universal social
service for all Dutch citizens at the age of 18 also seems more inspired by
conservative or communitarian concerns than by liberalism as this social
service would help young immigrants (or their children) integrate in Dutch
society (Fortuyn, 2002b: 176).
Integration of immigrants had been Fortuyn’s main concern since the
1990s. It was the main factor behind both his break with Leefbaar Nederland
and his growing popularity in urban areas where immigration was perceived
as a problem. Fortuyn favoured a very restrictive immigration policy and
assimilation of immigrants into ‘Dutch culture’, while rejecting charges of
nationalism (2001: 105). However, Tjitske Akkerman shows convincingly
that Fortuyn was a militant (albeit liberal) nationalist, although not an
ethnocratic or ethnic nationalist (2005: 345−8). This nationalism chimes
with his − almost romantic − opposition to a federal Europe which would
‘lack a soul’ (Fortuyn, 1997). In view of the aversion of most Dutch voters to