|
|
The rise of the Dutch left
LAST NOVEMBER’S Netherlands elections saw major
gains for the Dutch Socialist Party, which won large working-class
support for its anti-neo-liberal and anti-war message. The results
rocked the establishment in the Netherlands but were warmly welcomed by
the left and many workers across Europe.
The Socialist Party (SP) doubled its seats in local
councils, and almost tripled its seats in the Dutch parliament’s main
legislative chamber to 25 (16.3% of the total vote). It is now the third
largest party in the Netherlands, both in seats and membership
(currently just over 50,000). Over the next few years, it is possible
the party can overtake the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) to become the
second biggest party in the country after the Christian Democrats (CDA).
How has this success come about and what are the prospects for the SP?
The Dutch Socialist Party was founded in 1972 as a
split from the Communist Party. The SP embraced Maoism but by the early
1990s, ‘Marxism-Leninism’ was ‘cast off’ (in reality, it had been years
before) and the SP projected a ‘broader’ appeal. From the 1970s, the SP
built local activist networks. Space on the left opened up as the PvdA,
the traditional party of the working class, moved to the right and in
the 1990s became part of the neo-liberal ‘Purple Government’ coalition.
The SP’s active opposition to cuts and the growing social divide led to
poll gains at local and parliamentary levels.
The SP’s biggest gains came during the last few
years of social, political and industrial turmoil in the Netherlands.
With the background of severe austerity measures, rising joblessness,
slow economic growth and a mounting budget deficit, the 2002 general
election saw the SP win nearly 600,000 votes. But the newly formed,
right-wing populist, Pim Fortuyn List made the most spectacular gains.
By supporting enormous union demonstrations and
protests against the government’s policies in 2004, and by campaigning
for a ‘No’ vote during the 2005 EU constitution referendum (which Dutch
voters defeated by two thirds), the SP was widely regarded as being to
the forefront of the anti-neo-liberal struggle. This was shown by the
party doubling its local council seats, in 2006, and tripling its
representation in parliament.
After the polls closed, SP leaders spent weeks
afterwards trying to reach agreement with some of the main parties to
form a ‘left coalition’ government. Many SP voters and supporters,
desperate to end years of social cuts, hoped the SP could, at least,
stop or slow down cuts when in power with the main parties.
Offensief, the Dutch section of the CWI, which
participates in the SP, is not, in principle, against participating in
coalitions, but argues that the SP should only negotiate sharing power
with clearly anti-cuts and anti-neo-liberal parties. The two main
parties the SP discussed with – the PvdA and CDA – had a record of
making deep cuts and indicated that they intend to carry out more.
The CDA rejected the SP leaders’ overtures, and a
new right-wing coalition is being formed, which will most likely include
the PvdA. Offensief calls for the SP to fight the next elections with
socialist policies, and to aim for a majority socialist government.
The new right-wing government will probably be
unstable and weak. The prospect of the SP making big gains at the
expense of the PvdA means that PvdA leaders will have to continually
look over their shoulders while in government.
In opposition, the SP is successfully attacking the
caretaker government’s domestic and foreign agenda. Yet a closer look at
the SP’s policies and programme shows big deficiencies. During the
election campaign, the SP called for welcome reforms for working people,
like improved healthcare, index-linked pensions, affordable housing, and
an end to child poverty. But these minimum demands were not developed
and the question of the overall ownership and control of the economy was
not clearly addressed. The party stated, "Train, bus, gas and light
should again belong to us all". It is not clear whether this means
public ownership or a ‘mixed’ public-private model. Moreover, does the
PS consider it acceptable for the private sector/market to play a
dominant role in other areas of the economy?
Offensief supports many of the social and economic
demands of the SP but argues that they must be developed into a full
socialist programme to meet working people’s needs. This includes
nationalising the main utilities, like transport and electricity, and
other key pillars of the economy, under democratic workers’ control and
management. Socialists should, of course, fight for every possible
reform for working people. But recent years of social cuts show the
crisis of Dutch capitalism means the ruling class will try to take back
the hard won social gains of the working class.
On international policy, the SP opposed NATO’s
bombing of Serbia, and the Dutch governments’ support for the occupation
in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the parliamentary party voted to send
UN ‘missions’ across the world, even though the UN’s function is,
fundamentally, to enhance the position of imperialism at the expense of
the people of the neo-colonial world. The SP also has illusions in
bodies like the World Trade Organisation which, like the World Bank and
IMF, is an exploitative institution of big business and imperialism.
The SP is correct to point out that ‘liberalisation’
of the EU labour market is used by the bosses in the West to drive down
wages and working conditions. But it is completely wrong for the SP to
have decided that it is "opposed to allowing Eastern European workers
access to the Dutch labour market". Not only is this demand impractical
– the Netherlands already has high levels of immigrant labour – it can
also play into the hands of right-wing, demagogic politicians and
racists. Instead, the SP should support the union organisation of all
workers, including immigrant labour, to resist bosses’ attacks on wages
and conditions. This has to be combined with united workers’ campaigns
for housing, health and education.
Following the Christian Democrats spurning SP
attempts to form a new government, the party will most likely continue
to grow, as working people will regard it as a left opposition to the
government. The SP could become the second largest party by the next
elections, giving the main bosses’ parties even bigger headaches when
trying to form a new coalition. The SP would be viewed by the Dutch
bosses as too susceptible to the moods and demands of the working class.
The SP wins wide poll support but its programme is
not even as developed as previous left reformist parties. The SP does
not call for a clear break with capitalism and a socialist society. The
logic of its limited reformist policies is to enter a coalition
government, to ‘manage’ capitalism better for working people. Already,
the SP is in local council coalitions that carry out privatisations,
such as in Nijmegen, where the local bus service was sold off.
Participating in a national coalition dominated by right-wing parties
would be a huge mistake that would jeopardise the future of the SP. It
would mean collaborating in making cuts. Many workers would be
disillusioned with the SP in office and the party’s vote could fall
drastically. This would be a big blow for workers looking for a viable
alternative and a complicating factor in the struggle to create a new
mass workers’ party in the Netherlands.
However, the SP is likely to continue to play a role
in Dutch politics, even if it makes serious political mistakes. The
party is over 30 years old, with an established leadership and
newspaper. It has traditions and influence among at least a section of
workers and a relatively large and predominantly working-class
membership, although a mainly passive one. The Dutch working class will
give the SP a chance to prove itself, although not indefinitely if the
SP acts against workers’ interests when in power. Furthermore, as last
November’s polls revealed, the electorate is polarised broadly on left
and right lines, and disillusionment with the SP could give more space
to the populist, anti-immigrant right.
To be successful, the SP needs to adopt bold
socialist policies. A full discussion and debate among the party
membership on the way forward is urgently needed. This also involves
creating more democratic and open party structures, instead of the
present heavy-handed centralisation. It requires developing a much more
campaigning party, involving wide sections of the working class and
youth, to lead the fight-back against new government attacks.
In this way, a mass, campaigning party, with a clear
socialist programme, can be built. This would enable the SP to contest
the next elections from a powerful position; to campaign for a majority
socialist government.
Niall Mulholland
|