2002 Dutch general election

Prime Minister Wim Kok had been in power since the 1994 general election in a coalition between his Labour Party (PvdA), the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and Democrats 66 (D66). The government, which won a second term in the 1998 general election, was often referred to as a 'purple' coalition due to the participation of the 'red' Labour Party and the 'blue' VVD. During its time in power, the government had often enjoyed high approval ratings and presided over a strong economy.[3] They had also introduced innovative social legislation, such as the introduction of same-sex marriage and euthanasia. Kok announced in December 2001 that he would retire from the premiership at the next election. Ad Melkert then replaced Kok as the party leader. The Christian Democratic Appeal, the largest opposition party, was led by newly elected leader Jan Peter Balkenende. Balkenende was at the time considered to be an interim leader who lacked charisma or experience, but his campaign would ultimately prove relatively successful.[4]

At the start of the year, Melkert and the VVD leader Hans Dijkstal appeared to be the frontrunners in the race to become Prime Minister. The situation changed with the arrival of the controversial politician Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn was a critic of Islam and had questioned whether its culture was compatible with Western society even before the September 11 attacks.[5] He was elected the leader of Liveable Netherlands in November 2001, but he was expelled from the party after making controversial comments in an interview with De Volkskrant on 9 February 2002. Fortuyn had described Islam as a "backward culture", criticizing its attitude to homosexuality (he himself was openly gay). Part of the reason for the uproar was that the Dutch word for "backward" (achterlijk) can also be used in an insulting sense (with a similar meaning to the word "retarded"); Fortuyn stated he used the word in the former sense. Two days later, he formed his own party, the Pim Fortuyn List (LPF) in order to contest to the upcoming general election, while maintaining the leadership over the local Livable Rotterdam party.

In the 2002 municipal elections, held on 6 March, Liveable Rotterdam took 35% of the vote in the city of Rotterdam, a city with a high immigrant population. They formed the city's first non-Labour government since the Second World War. In the same month, he released the book De puinhopen van acht jaar Paars (The Wreckage of eight purple years) criticising the record of the governing coalition. The Economist described the rise in support for Fortuyn as a shock for the Dutch political establishment and their traditional system of consensus.[6]

The government resigned on 16 April - only a month before polling day - after the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation published the Srebrenica: a 'safe' area report, criticizing the Dutch government's handling of the events that led to the Srebenica massacre in 1995.[7] However, the ministers remained in office as a caretaker government until after the elections and the formation of the next government, and the date of the election was not changed.

On 6 May, Fortuyn was assassinated in Hilversum by Volkert van der Graaf. Months later, Van der Graaf stated his motivation was his belief that Fortuyn was exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak members of society" in seeking political power.[8] The murder was a shock to the Netherlands; it was denounced by Kok and other Dutch politicians and other national leaders. It was the country's first political assassination in modern times.[9]

The great losers of the election were Labour Party, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy and Democrats 66, the coalition parties of the 'purple' cabinets. Especially the Labour Party under the technocratic leadership of Ad Melkert suffered a landslide defeat.

The Christian Democratic Appeal was the surprising winner of the election, gaining 14 seats (from 29 to 43) and becoming the largest party in the House of Representatives. This success is in part owed to its new leader Jan Peter Balkenende, who went on to become prime minister, and to its neutral attitude in the debate with Fortuyn, not having participated in the supposed ‘demonization’ by the political Left.

Fortuyn's former party Livable Netherlands also contested the election. While they had been overshadowed by Fortuyn, they also entered the House of Representatives, winning 2 seats.

The 15 May 2002 election was the beginning of a year of political chaos in the Netherlands following the LPF leader's assassination on 6 May the same year. The power vacuum resulted in violent internal conflicts in LPF, which eventually led to the fall of the first Balkenende cabinet (CDA-LPF-VVD), which governed from 22 July 2002 to 16 October 2002. The CDA once again became a coalition party after eight years in opposition (1994–2002) in a government which, however, became the shortest-ruling Dutch cabinet since the Second World War, lasting less than five months.

Party		Votes	%	Seats	+/–
	Christian Democratic Appeal	2,653,723	27.93	43	+14
	Pim Fortuyn List	1,614,801	17.00	26	New
	People's Party for Freedom and Democracy	1,466,722	15.44	24	–14
	Labour Party	1,436,023	15.11	23	–22
	GroenLinks	660,692	6.95	10	–1
	Socialist Party	560,447	5.90	9	+4
	Democrats 66	484,317	5.10	7	–7
	Christian Union	240,953	2.54	4	–1
	Reformed Political Party	163,562	1.72	2	–1
	Livable Netherlands	153,055	1.61	2	New
	Free Indian Party and Elderly Union	39,005	0.41	0	New
	United Seniors Party	10,033	0.11	0	New
	Durable Netherlands	9,058	0.10	0	New
	Party of the Future	6,393	0.07	0	New
	New Middle Party	2,305	0.02	0	New
	Republican People's Party	63	0.00	0	New
Total		9,501,152	100.00	150	0
Valid votes		9,501,152	99.84
Invalid/blank votes		15,074	0.16
Total votes		9,516,226	100.00
Registered voters/turnout		12,035,935	79.07
Source: Nohlen & Stöver, European Elections Database

• Van Holsteyn, Joop J. M.; Galen A. Irwin (April 2003). "Never a dull moment: Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch parliamentary election of 2002". West European Politics. 26 (2): 41–86. doi:10.1080/01402380512331341101.