Dozens of immigrant candidates pushed aside colleagues with greater seniority to get elected to Dutch local councils in last week's elections.
They did this by getting more personal votes than others higher on their party's list of candidates.
This is not so unusual in the Netherlands, particularly in local elections, says Meindert Fennema, Professor of Political Theory at the University of Amsterdam. He explains the workings of the immigrant lobby.
Voting in Holland
When the Dutch go to the voting booth, whether for elections to the national parliament or to municipal councils, they cast a vote for a political party. That is generally done by checking the name at the top of the party's list of candidates - the party leader.
But one can also check a name further down on the party’s list, thus choosing a person as well as a party. This is called a preference vote.
In other words, a candidate in a Dutch election has two ways to get elected. He or she can be high enough on the party’s list of candidates to take one of the seats won by that party under the proportional representation system.
Or a candidate can get enough personal votes to be elected, regardless of where he or she stands on the party’s list.
“It’s a well-known phenomenon that well-organised immigrants vote for their candidate, man or woman, and in that way, these candidates fairly easily get onto the city council. After all, it doesn’t take that many personal votes.”
Widespread
But it appears to have happened on a larger scale this year than ever before. (National results are not yet available.) In every major city, and many medium-sized cities in the provinces, candidates of immigrant background have jumped ahead of their colleagues.
In Amsterdam, Ahmed Marcouch, born in Morocco and raised here in the Netherlands, got nearly as many personal votes as the leader of his party (even though he was number 29 on the party list). In Utrecht, two immigrant candidates got elected this way, in Rotterdam one. (See below for a partial list of cities where immigrants got elected through personal votes.)
Unrepresentative
In perhaps the most extreme example, in the southern city of Helmond, the Labour Party saw four of its candidates pushed aside. The party got enough votes for six seats on the city council. But the numbers three to six on the list of candidates, all of whom are native Dutch, were passed by. Four candidates of immigrant background further down the list drew enough personal votes to get onto the council.
This has led to some consternation in the Labour Party in Helmond. This is a medium-sized city of some 88,000 inhabitants, about twenty percent of whom are of non-western immigrant background. But according to the election results, two-thirds of the Labour Party caucus on the city council would be immigrants. And all male. That is not very representative.
In the meantime, one of those candidates of immigrant background has decided not to take his seat, in favour of a female candidate higher on the list.
But the issue remains: is it good to have so many immigrants chosen by personal votes?
Renewal
Addressing this question in the wake of the previous municipal elections back in 2006, Labour Party leader Wouter Bos expressed his concern that too much expertise was being lost. The party compiles its list of candidates in part based on experience, and those further down the list were replacing more experienced candidates.
Professor Fennema says this is inevitable.
“This happens with every renewal. When the aristocrats had to give up their place in politics, they said the same thing. Every time a new group participates in the political process, some expertise is lost.”
Dutch politics is currently going through such a renewal. Politicians of immigrant background can be found at every level, from city council to mayor to the Dutch cabinet. ]
Ertan Isik, of the Labour Party in Eindhoven, was elected to the council with personal votes. Of Turkish parentage, Mr Isik has lived in the Netherlands for 33 years now. He is tired of the whole discussion.
“I don’t want to be regarded as an immigrant. No, I’m just a citizen with a certain background and certain capabilities. That’s how I want to be seen, and not just because of my background, with whatever prejeduces that brings. I find that inappropriate, and, as a matter of fact, insulting.”
But the discussion continues, not the least because party bosses appear to have underestimated the strength of the immigrant vote in these municipal elections. One way or another, immigrants are finding their way in Dutch political life.
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
It is very clear that the immigrants are voting in accordance with race ~ and possibly religion.
But then this would be excused ~ because they are immigrants.
There is one Dutch immigrant mayor or lawmaker ~ who has already called for an Islamic enclave or state in divided Amsterdam. Calls for Islam-leaning policies may become the norm.
Having scolded everyone else for their "racist" complaints about immigrants ~ the PvdA is in no position to complain. I mean ~ saying the 'more experienced' candidates were replaced ~ could in itself be deemed racist.
When 'more experienced' = Dutch native.
Maybe this will teach the PvdA a lesson. Maybe they will hear some of the dissenting opinions.
One day it may be Dutch laws ~ around equal rights and freedom that will be replaced. There is no equality under the Shari'a.
The more diverse an area, the more the voting turns into nothing but racial headcounts.
People no longer vote for issues, they vote for race.
Sad but true.
But hey, more benefits of diversity.
Other than the lack of women being appointed, this is exactly the sort of integration the gov't is pushing for. Immigrants taking an active role in the democratic process is indeed a cause for celebration and lets hope it continues.
Dear NG,
It was not my intention to suggest immigrant candidates had done something wrong. To the contrary, they have succeeded beyond expectations within the Dutch electoral system. Immigrants and their descendants are taking their rightful place at every level of Dutch politics. The only question is why the party bosses missed that in compiling their lists of candidates.
Dear John Tyler,
Thanks for your reply. Accusing RNW of racism is pretty silly, I know. I think my reaction was prompted by the choice of words in the article. I still don't think 'pushed aside' is the right choice but I understand now you didn't mean it the way I read it. And I WILL continue to read.
I agree with NG. This sounds like a case of sour grapes - well-organised candidates, whether party leaders or anywhere on the list, are getting voted in. In other words, candidates who go out and get known, are getting voted for. Candidates who are unknown, don't get out, aren't being voted for. So? Why should someone have priority because they have 'seniority' on the list? List seniority depends on how cosy they are with the leaders. Popular voting is, er, democratic. People on councils because they get votes is democracy in action.
The article seems to suggest - 'Dozens of immigrant candidates pushed aside colleagues with greater seniority to get elected'- that the immigrant candidates have done something wrong. The words 'pushed aside' suggest aggressive grabbing. Yet their names were on the voting lists and voters were entitled to choose them. Isn't that how democracy works? It's not as if the candidates in question hung around the voting stations and forced people to add their names to the list and THEN vote for them. They stood for election and were democratically elected. If only candidates with 'greater seniority' are to be chosen, then political parties should add only their names to the voting lists.
Whether or not its intentional, there's an unpleasant taint of racism to this article.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.