Who killed Pim Fortuyn?

Pim Fortuyn received a bad press in newspapers and on television, not only in the Netherlands. Especially in France, Germany and Great Britain the politician (who was murdered on May 6th, 2002, during the six o'clock news on the premises of the Dutch public radio broadcasting studios) was depicted in the headlines and commentaries as being ultra right, having the same ideas as Jörg Haider in Austria, and the same political agenda of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.

Distorted Information

It seems as if many a foreign journalist had been consulting Dutch colleagues and just wrote down the negative and often distorted information they received from Dutch journalists. On top of that, the negativity of the information was reinforced by various politicians of the established parties when interviewed on television and in newspapers. These politicians also participated in so called debates which actually were chaotic gatherings, mainly because of the biased journalists who presided the meetings in a rather unprofessional manner. This all showed that a conspiracy against Pim Fortuyn was going on.

Chanceler Schröder's Lecture

Chancellor Schröder, when reading his "Den Uyl Lecture" on March 18, 2002 in the Hague, warned that The Netherlands were risking to loose their image of a tolerant society which generally is considered to be an example to many other nations. The question of course is: What does Schröder mean by this remark? He certainly did not mean the intolerance of the establishment towards Pim Fortuyn, the intolerance of established parties who did not want to share the power. He certainly did not mean the intolerance of the many journalists who had positioned themselves as aids of the government and of the political parties. Could he mean that the ideas of Pim Fortuyn were a severe threat to the reigning socialist party? Schroeder's remarks could hardly have been based on his own findings. His lines however were inspired by the worries of the "Partij van de Arbeid", the Dutch Labour Party, which practices a non assertive socialism which results in unfairness.
Apparently Schröder's goast writer had been instructed by the information department of the Dutch Socialist Party, and was inspired by articles in the German press too. Well, Herr Bundeskanzler, your opponent in Bavaria, President Edmund Stoiber, had welcomed Jörg Haider as if he were a great statesman. And what did you say about that?
Schröders appearance was premeditated. Schröder's line saying that The Netherlands were loosing their image of tolerance, was the headline in the 8 o'clock news on Dutch television (NOS Journaal). That also smelled of conspiracy, a biased opinion of the editors of the 8 o'clock news. (It must be said however, Herr Schröder, that the journalists of your country are generally far more professional than the Dutch journalists.)

Pim Fortuyn was no Dutch Haider,
nor was he the Dutch Le Pen

Fortuyn made his entry on the Dutch political platform in the fall of 2001. He published a book called "The Debris Of Eight Years Purple", purple being the color of the two governments which were a coalition of socialists, conservatives and liberal democrats. Fortuyn criticized the failure of important policies of the purple administration: the mismanagement of the health care system which resulted in long waiting lists, the rising crime record and related unsafety, and -last but not least- the nonrealistic immigration and integration policies which resulted in long procedures and a seemingly endless stream of illegal immigrants. Furthermore Fortuyn was against the acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the American project which could cost our country many billions without receiving sufficient orders for Dutch manufacturers to supply parts for the JSF. And that point of view was not accepted. The Dutch parliament represents the Dutch voters, but once they have voted the members of parliament do as they see fit. That is why many times a decision made is not in accordance with the opinion of the voters.

Pim Fortuyn's Criticism

Fortuyn's appearance made a great impact. His criticism was partly right. Many people thought it refreshing that for once a politician (who was a newcomer and was not a member of the established political power) openly talked about these policies, but especially about the question of the integration of immigrants. Since not all of Fortuyn's criticism was justified, most journalists and many a politician of the established political parties started to attack Fortuyn and depicted the man as a monster, compatible with Haider and Le Pen, and a threat to the Dutch nation, talking about the fate Anne Frank, and other non-related subjects.

Stop Fortuyn!

The result was that in the last months of campaigning for the elections (to be held on May 15th 2002) for a new parliament, the atmosphere was one of intimidation and name calling. Invariably the objective -so it seemed- was to stop Fortuyn at no cost and with all sorts of means. Rare were the occasions when he could finish his sentences when interviewed and answering a question or explaining his ideas in a debate. It must be said that Fortuyn himself did participate wholeheartedly in the chaotic debates. The only times when he was treated in an objective way was in the man to man debates or when interviewed by a more able journalist who knew that the man first had to explain an idea before attacking it. Then he was granted the space and time to explain his views.

Rising Popularity

The electorate however saw very clearly what was going on. The more the established parties and the established journalists picked on Fortuyn, the more the popularity of Fortuyn was rising and it showed very clearly in the polls. Fortuyn was winning and the established parties were loosing. Thus a nasty atmosphere was created which could have been a stimulus for anyone who was planning to kill Pim Fortuyn. If debates and interviews had been presided in a rightful manner, the killing of Pim Fortuyn would have been less probable.

Pro Immigrant Policy

Now that Pim Fortuyn has been murdered, the Dutch have a problem how to explain to other countries what really is the matter. How can the wrong and unjust painted image be rectified. Fortuyn was not against the immigration of political refugees at all. He even proposed a general pardon for those who were already in the country (legally or illegally). He proposed limited quota for immigrants. When he was attacked by representatives of the Islam in the Netherlands and depicted as being lower than a pig, Fortuyn said that Islam was a culture that was lacking behind.

Discrimination

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution is the so called "non discrimination" article. Holland is the only country in the world which has such an article. When Fortuyn said that, if the "non discrimination article" was impractical, because it stifles anyone who wants to make a remark, it should be replaced by a "hate" article. But this suggestion was misinterpreted.
Fortuyn was not a racist, but a threat to the established Dutch political system and maybe a threat to the Dutch constitutional monarchy, as some high situated people believed. But his arrival and short appearance was and remains a blessing for the Dutch democracy. Part of the rectification will take place through elections. It is probable that Fortuyn's party (LPF) will participate in a new government.

Pim Fortuyn's Party: LPF

Some opinion makers and journalists have said that, now Fortuyn has been killed, the Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF-party) should be dissolved. Those people do certainly not understand why he was so popular and more so they do not understand what democracy is all about. If the party will be able to work together with other parties in a coalition and will be able to establish some of the policies, that is really not the most important thing. The important aspect of the new movement is that it should have a chance in parliament. If the party succeeds (on the day Fortuyn was murdered the polls told that his party would have 35 or even more seats and would be the largest party in Holland), so much the better. Even if the LPF fails and after a few months or a year new elections will have to be held, the party will have proven its most important function: letting democracy work. And not only that. The movement has proven that the immigration and integration policies have to be reassessed. - Rudolf A. Bruil, May 13th 2002.