Fortuynism

Fortuynism has generally been characterized as based on "populism" by political commentators. Dutch political author Cas Mudde defined Fortuynism as containing elements of liberalism, populism and nationalism. Others have defined it as opposition and a reaction to the perceived bureaucratic and elitist governing style of the purple coalitions, particularly under Dutch Labour Party Prime Minister Wim Kok.^[7][8] Gerrit Boerman, the head of the Document Center for Dutch Political Parties at the University of Groningen described Fortuyn's ideology as a "cocktail of elements stemming from different directions" which included conservative and communitarian values to restore "norms and values" from the 1950s, less government interference in the economy, while also holding a liberal and libertarian attitude on sexual freedom and soft drugs and a nationalistic stance towards immigration and protecting core Dutch principles against multiculturalism.^[9]

Fortuyn had been a Marxist during his studies and early academic career before joining the Labour Party in the 1970s. However, his views shifted to the right in response to what he saw as failed policies on crime, immigration and integration. In his 1995 book De verweesde samenleving ("The orphaned society"), Fortuyn claimed that the progressive movement of the 1960s had eroded traditional norms and values. He wrote the roles of the "symbolic father" and the "caring mother" had been lost, leaving an orphaned population without guidance, to live out a meaningless decadent existence.^[10]

Fortuyn also documented much of his own beliefs and proposals in his book De puinhopen van acht jaar Paars which criticized many of the policies of the purple coalitions and instead argued for a reduction in state bureaucracy, improvements to the health system, restrictions on immigration and stricter law and order policies. Fortuyn also favoured greater direct democracy, including elected mayors, police chiefs and an elected head of state.^[11][12] In foreign policy, Fortuyn and his party supported Dutch participation in NATO and were not opposed to the principle of European integration in theory, but opposed what they saw as the excessive bureaucracy and threat to national sovereignty posed by the European Union. Fortuyn also proposed ending Dutch participation in the Eurozone and the Schengen Agreement.^[13]

Other commentators have noted opposition to Islam, multiculturalism and immigration as forming a significant part of Fortuynism. In August 2001, Fortuyn was quoted in the Rotterdams Dagblad newspaper saying, "I am also in favour of a Cold War with Islam. I see Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile religion."^[14] He also argued that if legally possible, he would not allow any more Muslim immigrants into the Netherlands. However, Fortuyn also maintained that he did not oppose immigrants on the basis of their ethnic background and supported a pluralistic society in theory, but opposed what he saw as an unwillingness to integrate and a rejection of Dutch secular liberal values within existing Muslim communities.^[15][16] Jens Rydgren noted that while Fortuyn used anti-immigration rhetoric, he did not position himself as a far-right nationalist or a supporter of racial ethno-nationalism, and as such Fortuyn differed from other European national-populist leaders at the time. Instead, Fortuyn sought to defend Dutch values such as tolerating gay rights (Fortuyn was openly homosexual and an outspoken supporter of gay rights himself) which he saw as threatened by immigration. Fortuyn's ideas also differed from the more socially conservative and traditional values stances espoused by other nationalist politicians through holding liberal opinions regarding same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia. Fortuyn's party also won support from some ethnic minority voters and included candidates from immigrant backgrounds on its list for the 2002 election.^[2]

Political scientist Rudy Andeweg noted that Fortuynism can also be defined by the following positions:^[17]

• Civil liberties
• Classical liberalism
• Criticism of Islam
• Deregulation
• Direct democracy
• Euroscepticism
• Freedom of speech
• Laissez-faire
• LGBT rights
• Republicanism
• Secularism
• Separation of church and state
• Small government
• Women's rights

Prior to Fortuyn's assassination, other Dutch politicians and journalists, particularly on the left, criticized Fortuyn and his ideas as extremist or racist, with some comparing Fortuyn's stances to that of European far-right politicians such as Jörg Haider and Jean-Marie Le Pen. An explicit comparison with Le Pen was made by Ad Melkert, the former leader of the Labour Party who stated 2002: "If you flirt with Fortuyn, then in the Netherlands the same thing will happen as happened in France. There they woke up with Le Pen, soon we will wake up with Fortuyn."^[18] GroenLinks leader Paul Rosenmöller claimed Fortuyn's policies were "not just right but extreme right". Some commentators such as columnist Jan Blokker attempted to draw parallels between Fortuyn and Dutch hard-right politicians such as Hans Janmaat. Following Fortuyn's death, some opponents of Fortuyn including Rosenmöller, Thom de Graaf, and Melkert have objected to what they think is a harsher political and social climate, especially towards immigrants and Muslims, as a result of Fortuyn's legacy.^[19]

Fortuyn himself strongly disputed comparisons drawn between him and Dutch or foreign far-right leaders, contending that he was mislabeled and accused the Dutch political establishment of endangering his life by demonizing him and his beliefs.^[8] Following Fortuyn's death, Dutch political leaders such as former Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende retrospectively expressed agreement with some of Fortuyn's criticisms of the purple coalitions and multiculturalism.^[20] Other commentators, such as former Muslim feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali and journalist Douglas Murray have defended some of Fortuyn's beliefs.^[21][22]

Fortuyn's book Puinhopen also inspired Flemish politician Geert Bourgeois to write De puinhoop van paars-groen (The wreckage of purple-green) in 2002 which featured similar critiques of Belgian politics, particularly accusations of misgovernment against the Verhofstadt I Government.^[23]