The Dutch Gamble: Suppressing liberty to preserve it?
A little over eight years ago, I received an invitation to meet then Senator Barack Obama. Obama would be joining actor George Clooney for a fundraiser in Geneva. Looking back at news of the event, the head of Obama's finance committee remarked that guests were flying in from all over the world, "Los Angeles, Prague, London, Zurich and so on." Had I attended I would be paying $1,000 for an invitation to a cocktail party or $10,000 to be one of 75 "guests" at the "intimate seated dinner."
Having donated very small amounts of money to candidates of my choice from both parties, I must have been on some fundraising mail list. As a U.S. citizen living abroad, the policies and actions of my elected officials were as important to me as any other citizen and taxpayer. Voicing my opinions to my elected officials and hearing their thoughts was as much my right as any other American's. I don't recall the Swiss government hindering the rights of American citizens to have an audience with their elected representatives or blocking Senator Obama from addressing the crowd at the museum where the event would be held. Therefore, the events of these last few days are quite puzzling to me.
Why would a government prohibit its residents or citizens to help shape the future of a foreign country? Wouldn't the Dutch want its citizens to be more important to the Turkish electoral process? If Dutch values are truly superior to those of other countries', let Dutch residents and citizens make the argument to adopt such values abroad. Why would the Dutch government not allow the foreign minister of Turkey to address Turkish citizens living abroad in the Netherlands? Why would the Dutch government further prevent a government minister to visit the Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam?
On Wednesday, the Dutch people head to the polls to elect a new government. The current Prime Minister Mark Rutte, leads a coalition government and his People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, the VVD. Rutte faces the strongest challenge from far-right ultra-nationalist Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom, the PVV. While both men will garner only around 15 percent of the vote, that's generally enough to be prime minister in the Netherlands.
Wilders may win the most seats in parliament, as high as 25 seats out of the 150 total, but this won't be nearly enough to bring together a 75-seat majority in the parliament necessary to form a government. Wilders's policies are also so extreme and neo-fascist that no other party in the Dutch parliament would likely form a coalition with him. The current two-party coalition of the VVD and PvdA is basically a liberal government and would be very much in opposition to the far-right policies of the PVV and therefore it is possible that the most popular party in the parliament will be in opposition. This is bad news for the Dutch people and more importantly to the European Union. Will ultra-nationalist "populists" be able to take over governments with as little as 15 to 20 percent of the vote? Will their xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant policies be implemented simply because the opposition parties can't unite? The answer may be a very worrying "maybe."
So returning to the question of why the Turkish ministers were prevented from speaking to their citizens or holding rallies that address the upcoming referendum in Turkey. Why? The referendum is aimed at moving Turkey out of a Dutch-like parliamentary system into an American-like presidential-system. It's a simple question to the electorate. What makes it so controversial that the Dutch government would go out of its way to beat and arrest protestors while using attack dogs to subdue them? Perhaps the answer should not be so surprising and may actually be in Turkey's best interest. Prime Minister Rutte is simply pandering to the racist voices in the Dutch electorate, "you don't need Wilders, I can be tough on immigrants too," he argues. Turkey's insistence of visiting with its citizens may actually be great for Rutte as it set the stage for the protests and demonstrations and allowed him to violently put them down.
In the aforementioned scenario, suppressing freedom of speech may ultimately help preserve it in the future. Politics is certainly a dirty business and let's just hope these political games end up being worth it.
Having donated very small amounts of money to candidates of my choice from both parties, I must have been on some fundraising mail list. As a U.S. citizen living abroad, the policies and actions of my elected officials were as important to me as any other citizen and taxpayer. Voicing my opinions to my elected officials and hearing their thoughts was as much my right as any other American's. I don't recall the Swiss government hindering the rights of American citizens to have an audience with their elected representatives or blocking Senator Obama from addressing the crowd at the museum where the event would be held. Therefore, the events of these last few days are quite puzzling to me.
Why would a government prohibit its residents or citizens to help shape the future of a foreign country? Wouldn't the Dutch want its citizens to be more important to the Turkish electoral process? If Dutch values are truly superior to those of other countries', let Dutch residents and citizens make the argument to adopt such values abroad. Why would the Dutch government not allow the foreign minister of Turkey to address Turkish citizens living abroad in the Netherlands? Why would the Dutch government further prevent a government minister to visit the Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam?
On Wednesday, the Dutch people head to the polls to elect a new government. The current Prime Minister Mark Rutte, leads a coalition government and his People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, the VVD. Rutte faces the strongest challenge from far-right ultra-nationalist Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom, the PVV. While both men will garner only around 15 percent of the vote, that's generally enough to be prime minister in the Netherlands.
Wilders may win the most seats in parliament, as high as 25 seats out of the 150 total, but this won't be nearly enough to bring together a 75-seat majority in the parliament necessary to form a government. Wilders's policies are also so extreme and neo-fascist that no other party in the Dutch parliament would likely form a coalition with him. The current two-party coalition of the VVD and PvdA is basically a liberal government and would be very much in opposition to the far-right policies of the PVV and therefore it is possible that the most popular party in the parliament will be in opposition. This is bad news for the Dutch people and more importantly to the European Union. Will ultra-nationalist "populists" be able to take over governments with as little as 15 to 20 percent of the vote? Will their xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant policies be implemented simply because the opposition parties can't unite? The answer may be a very worrying "maybe."
So returning to the question of why the Turkish ministers were prevented from speaking to their citizens or holding rallies that address the upcoming referendum in Turkey. Why? The referendum is aimed at moving Turkey out of a Dutch-like parliamentary system into an American-like presidential-system. It's a simple question to the electorate. What makes it so controversial that the Dutch government would go out of its way to beat and arrest protestors while using attack dogs to subdue them? Perhaps the answer should not be so surprising and may actually be in Turkey's best interest. Prime Minister Rutte is simply pandering to the racist voices in the Dutch electorate, "you don't need Wilders, I can be tough on immigrants too," he argues. Turkey's insistence of visiting with its citizens may actually be great for Rutte as it set the stage for the protests and demonstrations and allowed him to violently put them down.
In the aforementioned scenario, suppressing freedom of speech may ultimately help preserve it in the future. Politics is certainly a dirty business and let's just hope these political games end up being worth it.