So before it falls, let’s quickly describe the Rutte government now that it’s been in power for about a year and a half. The most important take-away for foreigners is that Geert Wilders does not sit in government. Instead he promised ... gedoogsteun.
We’ve run into a serious translation problem. I have found no directly equivalent English term for gedoogsteun. Still, some help from my Twitter followers unearthed the fact that both Canada and New Zealand have had a similar construct, but no specific name for it. Denmark, too, has made extensive use of gedoogsteun, but I don’t speak Danish and I doubt they translated their name for it into English.
Confidence and supply comes close, but it’s not quite on the mark. The New Zealand example states this as first and most important point:
Good faith and no surprises
All parties to this agreement will operate on a good faith and no surprises basis for the term of this Parliament.
The crucial fact of Wilders’s gedoogsteun is that he does not always operate in good faith and surprises form the basis of his parliamentary actions. Thus confidence and supply is not the term we want.
I’m not going to translate gedoogsteun for the moment. So the two or so visitors from outside the Netherlands should get used to it. (Distinguished English-speaking visitors are discouraged from trying to pronounce it, by the way.)
Anyway. The facts. The Rutte government consists of VVD and CDA. That is, these two parties sent their best and brightest into government, and the parliamentary fractions have promised to abide by the coalition agreement. Together, VVD and CDA hold 52 of the 150 seats.
This is the first time since 1977 we’ve had a government that does not have an outright majority in parliament. Still, VVD and CDA negotiated gedoogsteun with Wilder’s PVV, which has 24 seats in parliament and brings government to a majority of 76 of 150 seats.
That’s rather a minimal majority. Any single defector would endanger government. So far that hasn’t happened yet (or other parties supported government), but there are dangers galore:
Plenty of dangers. Let’s see how well Rutte steers past them. So far he hasn’t done badly.
During the coalition negotiations it was clear Wilders would support most, but not all policies of VVD and CDA. The best example is the new Afghanistan mission.
The Balkenende IV government fell over an extension of Dutch military presence in that country, and politically it was a hot potato. Government wanted to take on a new “police training” mission, but Wilders refused to support it.
That left Rutte no choice but to shop around for other supporters. The PvdA was out of the question: it couldn’t flip-flop on the very issue that made it withdraw its support from Balkenende IV. Rutte had to create an alliance of convenience with several smaller parties.
In the end GL, D66, CU, and SGP helped the plan to a majority — and the process was rather visible and transparent for all. This has hurt GL: the party has historically had a strong pacifist tendency that is not easily squared with what’s essentially a colonial war. GL’s Kunduz vote is the cause of its slide in the polls. In fact, it’s the only party apart from CDA and PvdA that stands to lose seats right now, and the cause is clear and instructive.
Something similar happened to the pension age, earlier. Wilders refused to support its increase from 65 to 67, which forced Rutte to shop elsewhere for support, eventually ending up with the PvdA. That didn’t help the social-democrats’ standing with their traditional left-wing electorate.
Of course PvdA and GL knew they were courting trouble when they helped government to a majority. Still, their wish to retain their voters is balanced by the wish to seem coalition-worthy, especially when it comes to VVD and CDA. A left-wing coalition just isn’t in the books: it won’t get a majority, and even if it does the four left-wing parties won’t be able to form a government. That means they need either CDA or VVD. And that means supporting them every now and then.
Wilders understands this calculation very well, and it gives him another reason not to support government in these matters: apart from stressing his importance and giving his voters what they want, he damages a left-wing party in the process.
So far D66 seems immune to Wilders’s game, but that’s partly because the right topic to hurt the Democrats hasn’t come up yet. As to the SP, it supports most of Wilders’s populist ideas, so it’s less vulnerable to this particular trap.
Still, the Rutte government is experiencing stress. Tensions are mainly between PVV and CDA, and both PVV and VVD have played the game quite cleverly. The CDA has had ... issues, and is not in the best of health.
It took me a while to figure out how very clever Rutte has been to make a CDA man, former Maastricht mayor Leers, yet another Limburger, minister of Immigration and Integration. Minister of Wilders, in other words. If Wilders has any remarks to make on the insufficient measures government is taking to stop the tsunami of Islamic creepy migrants he addresses them to Leers.
Leers is in a tough spot. If he ignores Wilders he’s risking the coalition, but if he obeys he estranges the CDA’s left wing. Meanwhile the VVD stays out of the entire argument and looks mature and deliberate compared to its coalition partners.
Also, the vice-presidency of the Council of State will shortly become vacant. (Complicated; will explain later. But it’s a lifelong plum job in Dutch politics.) The only candidate for the seat so far is interior minister Donner (CDA), but his candidacy has drawn criticism, and the fact that it’s the interior minister who arranges the selection of a new vice-president made some fear for undue influence. Rutte moved the selection to justice minister Opstelten (VVD) to remove all shadows of doubt from the process. Still, one more affair that makes the CDA look bad.
More recently the VVD came under fire, too. Foreign minister Rosenthal was accused of being undiplomatic and only interested in sales of Dutch products as well as Israel. A recent poll showed VVD voters are getting a bit worried about the influence of Wilders and the SGP on policies. Still, for now Rutte performs splendidly according to his voters.
But Wilders, the dissidents, the SGP, and the serious trouble the CDA is in, they all form dangers to governmental stability.
Recently some political commentators declared the Rutte government dead. It would be good if government fell, but I’m not totally certain that it will — and even if it does it’ll take a few more months.
Will definitely be continued.
<— Government poll | New Politieke Barometer poll —>
This is the political blog of Peter-Paul Koch, mobile platform strategist, consultant, and trainer, in Amsterdam. It’s a hobby blog where he follows Dutch politics for the benefit of those twelve foreigners that are interested in such matters, as well as his Dutch readers.
Archives:
2 Posted by CD on 29 November 2011 | Permalink
@Alejandro: Wilders is indeed not supplying any ministers. Many came under media scrutiny the last years, and a fair share of them have ended up looking thuggish (such as urinating in the neighbour's letterbox, to put it blunt). Wilders also does not seem to like a democratic party structure, and one man in particular has been a thorn in his side in the matter. Having his yes-men receive government positions exposes them to direct criticism from parliament, and will encourage some of them to be more 'assertive' towards Wilders.
Also, if I could make an attempt to translate 'gedoogsteun', I'd call it 'toleration'. The PVV 'tolerates' the CDA+VVD cabinet. As long as certain conditions stated by Wilders are met. Rutte has to consult with Wilders in certain matters if he wants his support, and can't go against the agreement they made. It may seem Wilders has him by the balls.
Lately however I notice he's been increasingly hostile to the cabinet's moves on the Euro and foreign aid. CDA is adamant that 0,7% of the budget goes into foreign aid, which Wilders wants to scrap in its entirity. Being rather savvy, Rutte has warned the people that Wilders is making noise now so he might seem integer when he finally does retract his tolerance for the government.
Still, Wilders has no other parties who will tolerate HIM. So if he blows up cabinet-Rutte and bring about new elections, neither VVD nor CDA will want his support for quite some time after.
3 Posted by Richard Gadsden on 30 November 2011 | Permalink
"Confidence and supply" is a pretty good translation of gedoogsteun, I suspect.
"Confidence and supply" means that a small party commits to vote for two things: "confidence", ie they will support the government against a vote of no-confidence (a specific vote to bring the government down), and "supply" - the annual budget.
That's it - they don't have to support anything else.
On every other issue, they just get a fight.
4 Posted by Q. Pheevr on 30 November 2011 | Permalink
I'd be somewhat inclined to render "gedoogsteun" as "sufferance," in the sense that the OED defines as "sanction, consent, or acquiescence, implied by non-intervention; permission, leave; toleration, indulgence." Wilders has agreed that he and his party will suffer the VVD/CDA coalition to govern, at least for a time, but he hasn't promised to make it easy for them.
5 Posted by Frans on 1 December 2011 | Permalink
I'm on board with “tolerate.” Something like “compliance” is definitely wrong because there is no implied yielding or cooperation, while I think “sufferance” implies more of an unspoken tolerance. Besides, the OED also states that the intended meaning is now rare:
6.
a. Sanction, consent, or acquiescence, implied by non-intervention; permission, leave; toleration, indulgence. Now rare exc. as in 6d.
[…]
d. on or upon (formerly † by) sufferance : by virtue of a tacit assent but without express permission; under conditions of passive acquiescence or bare tolerance.
6 Posted by ppk on 1 December 2011 | Permalink
Thanks for all the translation suggestions. I'm still not totally happy with any of them. Sufferance comes closest to "gedogen", but for all practical purposes it's confidence and supply: Richard is pretty much on the mark with his thumbnail sketch of the agreements between Wilders and government.
Oh, and Wilders doesn't mind at all that he's not actually in government. It allows him to shout whatever he wants whenever he wants, and that's more important to him.
1 Posted by Alejandro Moreno on 29 November 2011 | Permalink
I never thought I'd be the type, but I really enjoy your political blog (and quirksmode in general, but that's beside the point).
I think the closest "gedoogsteun" comes to in Canada is a Minority Government. There are only four parties here, and one of them only has 1 seat (of 308). So, the "rule" so far has been:
"The party with the most seats after an election forms a government."
When that party has less than 154 seats, then it's a Minority Government. Any issue with a confidence vote attached to it could bring the government down. So the ruling party has to be very smart about the way it does business and cajole a bit of support from individual MPs.
I imagine the only disadvantage for Wilders is that nobody in his party is Minister of anything. Am I right?