One of the most appealing traits of my dutch green party is her association with all the other green parties in other european countries. We even have a so-called European Green Party a federative institution pretty much useless as the European Parliament is, yet as symbolic and interesting as the European Parliament is. The European Parliament is an unworkable monster of 700plus parliamentarians, very far away from the real life of any European. Yet it deals with and debates matters as relevant to all of us as the pollution guidelines for the continent, or the millions of refugees stuck in the borders of Europe. Also our European Green Party (EGP) takes interests in very interesting issues, like we green dutchies having lost half of our voters in our past election.
One of the persons that have helped shaping our strategy recently published his analyze of our huge defeat in the EGP magazine. With his analysis Simon Otjes brings three conclusions. Two are fairly known to pretty much all of us: there is never a better time than now to enter government, and owning the issue of climate change is a boon when that issue matters to the electors, and is a curse when that issue does not matter to the electors. The third conclusion that Simon sketches is the surprising one: remember that our votes are always borrowed.
It is tempting to agree with Simon, actually. The political landscape of The Netherlands, and pretty much of any other country around us, is fragmenting. There are more parties than ever. So people, should be changing their votes more than ever. It sounds very logic. The question is if this is a cause, something like our societies are increasing in diversity and then also in political diversity, and then and because of that we have more parties… or is the other way around all together. What if our party, or parties, have explicitly avoid to create a solid base of voters? What if our own modus operandi has created a fragmented political landscape?
To put the question in sharper terms. Simon identifies that our electorate is not loyal to us. That is, after having lost half of the votes that we gain in the previous election, obviously true. But what about the reverse statement, or question. Are we loyal to our voters? Have we even tried to be loyal to our voters? Does that fits in the current ideology of GroenLinks… and of any modern party? This question takes even more relevance today, since many of us are actually writing election programs for the forthcoming local elections.
One of the traits that our (relatively recent) green parties have traditionally criticized from the most established ones, like the social democrats or the christian democrats, is their clientelism. We always talk about the social democrats dominating the trade unions and the education sector, and the christian democrats monopolizing the entrepreneurs and their revolving doors. The question is at which sectors of the population do we ourselves aim. And the answer is fairly straight: at none. At best, our green parties are loyal to our ideas. But politics is a matter of persons first, and of ideas after. It is no coincidence that the socialists ended up dominating the trade unions and the education people: those are the sectors of the society that resonate with the ideas of the socialists! So define and serve a well defined electorate is not a problem, and it does not have to be a betrayal of ideas. But perhaps we the greens haven’t figured out yet who do we want to be loyal to. And then, our votes remain, in the words of Simon, borrowed.
Perhaps we need to look at the places where the greens does have a stable electorate, in order to understand what we have done there. And curiously enough, that is in cities like mine.
Let there be the theme from some other forthcoming article.