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

The Netherlands 161
outcome of the elections, in combination with the very successful campaign
work of Fortuyn himself (Ibid.: 122).
Electoral success
Turnout at the 2002 elections was relatively high with close to 80 per cent
of the electorate voting, five per cent more than in 1998. Of these, almost
1.7 million voted for the LPF, giving it 17 per cent of the popular vote and
26 seats in parliament. As a result, it became overnight the second-largest
party in the country, surpassing the PvdA and the VVD (See Table 10.1).
Was it mainly a condolence vote? After all, Fortuyn had been shot nine
days before by an animal rights activist. However, exit polls and the Dutch
Parliamentary Election Study suggest that most LPF-voters had not changed
their mind after 6 May when Fortuyn was shot, but intended to vote for him
anyway (Obbema and Van Praag, 2002; Kleinnijenhuis et al., 2003: 123; Van
Holsteyn and Den Ridder, 2005: 169).
Socio-structural variables seem to explain a rather small amount (seven
per cent) of the vote. Young men, the less educated and secular Dutchmen
were somewhat over-represented among LPF voters, who were concentrated
in the urbanized western part of the country. They were more cynical and
felt less politically competent or efficacious than other voters (Van Praag,
2003: 109−12). Yet even these variables explain only a modest part of the
vote. When added to socio-structural variables, political efficacy and cynicism
explain 13 per cent of the variance (Van der Brug, 2003: 96). In fact,
ideological agreement with Fortuyn about immigration and related issues
seem to have been the main reason for voting LPF and explains 33 per cent
of the variance (Van der Brug, 2003: 96−8). Studies have since shown that
voters were conscious of this agreement. Fortuyn had proved able ‘to change
the political agenda and move issues related to asylum-seekers, immigrants
and criminality to the forefront’ (Van Holsteyn, Irwin and Den Ridder,
2003: 84). Analysing the Dutch Parliamentary Election data, Wouter van der
Brug concludes that people voted for the LPF not because they were cynical
about the system to begin with, but rather that they became cynical because
they agreed with Fortuyn’s ideas and noticed how the established parties
reacted to him (2003: 98−101). However, Eric Bélanger and Kees Aarts show
that LPF voters were already more cynical and discontented than others and
held more negative opinions about refugees in 1998 (2006: 14−5).
The aftermath: consociationalism conquers populism?
In the Netherlands, elections condition, but do not determine, government
formation. Even the dramatic 2002 election results allowed for several
options, such as a Scandinavian-style minority government led by the largest
party or a ‘Flemish option’ of a grand coalition of the CDA, PvdA and
VVD imposing a cordon sanitaire on the LPF (see Table 10.1). However, all