2006 Dutch general election

In the month before the fall of the cabinet two parties held internal elections on who would lead their parties in the next elections, which were scheduled for 2007. In the internal election of the conservative liberal VVD the more liberal secretary of state for science and higher education Mark Rutte beat the more conservative minister without portfolio for immigration and integration Rita Verdonk. In the internal election of the progressive liberal D66 the more radical democratic minister without portfolio for government reform Alexander Pechtold beat the more social-liberal chair of the parliamentary party Lousewies van der Laan.

The next Dutch general election was originally scheduled for 15 May 2007 as the parliament was to be dissolved on 2 April 2007. However, it was announced that elections would be held on 22 November 2006,[2] as Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, offered the resignation of the cabinet on 30 June 2006 after one of the coalition partners, D66, withdrew their support from the cabinet the day before over Rita Verdonk's treatment of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali case.[3][4] A new cabinet continued for five months as a care taker cabinet until the elections. The opposition had pressed for speedy elections because they were on a winning streak. The late date for the elections probably worked to the advantage of the CDA because in those five months the economy improved and in the past the biggest coalition partner had always come out as the biggest party if the economy blooms. A major issue in the campaigns was whether this improving economy was because of or in spite of the right-wing government.

After the fall of the cabinet several new small right-wing parties announced that they would run. Most of these parties either came out of the remains of Pim Fortuyn's Pim Fortuyn List (LPF) or the liberal VVD. In the period before the elections the small right was characterized by a chaos of secessions, new formations and party switches. Former Rotterdam alderman Marco Pastors and member of parliament for the LPF Joost Eerdmans formed Eén NL. Party for the Netherlands was led by former LPF minister Hilbrand Nawijn, while Wilders recruited people for his new Party for Freedom, which would take part in the 2006 elections. Nawijn and Wilders became independent in parliament at that time, while Eerdmans has formed the "Group Eerdmans-Van Schijndel" along with former VVD MP Anton van Schijndel. Two other LPF politicians have formed one man fractions but they have not formed their own party: Gerard van As, former leader of the LPF, and Gonny van Oudenallen, also former LPF. Margot Kraneveldt left the LPF, returned her seat to the party and joined the social-democratic PvdA. Meanwhile, the LPF announced that it would also run the next elections, under the name "Fortuyn". The party is led by Olaf Stuger, who served as member of parliament in the period 2002–2003 and returned to parliament in 2006, to replace Gerard van As.

Several prominent politicians announced they would step down before the elections. Some commentators spoke of a large exodus.[5] Within the liberal VVD former chair of the parliamentary party Jozias van Aartsen announced he would retire, as did his vice-chair Bibi de Vries, Frans Weisglas the current speaker of parliament, and ministers Hans Hoogervorst, Sybilla Dekker, state secretary Melanie Schultz van Haegen and Henk van Hoof. Within the CDA, ministers Cees Veerman and Karla Peijs announced they would not return, as did state secretary Clemence Ross. Both D66's current chairperson Lousewies van der Laan and her predecessor Boris Dittrich also announced they would not return.

On 26 September 2006, a candidate for the Labour Party, Erdinç Saçan, was removed by his party, because he would not hold to the party stance that the Armenian Genocide was caused by the Young Turks.[6] That same evening, the CDA announced that two of their candidates, Ayhan Tonca and Osman Elmaci, have been removed as well, because of the same issue.[7] Both parties agreed that all their members should openly conform to the party's point of view on this sensitive human rights issue. The sensitivity over these issues was underlined when the speaker of the Turkish parliament, Bülent Arınç, in response threatened the Netherlands with diplomatic action over this incident.[8] Namik Tan, spokesperson for the Turkish Department of Foreign Affairs said that "we are deeply worried about the one-sided approach of our ally Netherlands’ political parties on the so-called Armenian genocide as this puts a limit on the freedom of expression."[9] Labour Party leader Wouter Bos later said that the term genocide is used too easily, and that he rather speak of the "Armenian Question."[10]

De Volkskrant newspaper published a story just a week before the election saying that Dutch soldiers "tortured" Iraqi prisoners in Iraq, back in 2003.[11][12] Defense minister Henk Kamp ordered an immediate (re-)investigation into the matter, but said that earlier information about this case did not result in the military police and Dutch public prosecutors to start a criminal investigation.[13][14] Left-wing parties, such as the Labour Party (PvdA), which demanded an immediate parliamentary investigation were later rebuked by military commander Dick Berlijn, who stated that the left-wing opposition tarnished the reputation of the Dutch Department of Defense by their incriminating language, while nothing happened in Iraq.[15] Mark Rutte, leader of the VVD, even went as far as to say that this Iraq story was a manipulation in order to influence the elections.[16] In an open letter to De Volkskrant on the day of the Dutch elections, defense minister Kamp said the news about possible mistreatment was deceptive, and that the editor of De Volkskrant should feel being misused by the sources for this story.[17] The Department of Defense in the meantime is demanding a rectification of the story published by De Volkskrant.[18]

A Dutch magazine, Elsevier, later (January 2007) reported that the no.5 candidate of the Labour Party (PvdA), Ton Heerts, "advised" the Volkskrant on how to report on the story.[19]

Several organisations launched a voting tool which helped voters to decide between the multitude of parties. The Institute for Public and Politics (IPP), a government agency, had the "Stemwijzer" (the "Voting-pointer"). The Stemwijzer consisted out of thirty propositions like "Citizens should elect the Prime Minister." and voters could show their support for these propositions by clicking either "agree", "don't agree" or "don't know". The Stemwijzer than showed to which extent the voters agreed with each party, showing them from most to least similarity in answers, advising the voter to vote for the party which agreed with them most.[20] The Stemwijzer had also been made for General, European, Provincial and Municipal elections since 1989.

Kieskompas (Electoral Compass) was launched by the newspaper Trouw in cooperation with the VU University Amsterdam in order to compete with the Stemwijzer. This system was supposed to give considerably more information. Here voters could show their support for thirty six propositions on a five-point scale. Next they show whether they thought the current cabinet had performed well. Finally Kieskompas showed users their attitude towards party leaders as competent and trustworthy. The voters were shown a two-axis system (similar to a Nolan Chart) and their own position as well as the position of each party in this chart. It stated which party was the closest to them and which party the farthest. It also gave them the possibility to see which coalition best matched their political preferences.[21]

Other voting tools where the "Wie Kies Jij?" (the "Who do You Vote for") of the IPP which helped find the perfect candidate by his/her age, sex, dietary habits and political experience[22] and the Stomwijzer (the "Stupid Pointer") which mocked the StemWijzer, but still gave reasonable voting advice[23]

Comedian Freek de Jonge performed an 'election show' ('verkiezingsconference') on public television on the night before the elections. It was called "De Stemming 2006" (an ambiguous name which means both "The Vote 2006" and "The Mood 2006") In his ironic comedy show, which was totally focused on the elections, he ridiculed the candidates, making such a show a uniquely Dutch phenomenon. When asked whether this show would influence the upcoming elections de Jonge stated he would make a fool out of everyone, not favoring a single person. This was the second time he did such a show. The first one was in 2003, when it was the thirty-third best watched TV-programme in the Netherlands that year.[24] This year, the show was watched by 2,016,000 viewers.[25]

The most important question of the elections was which party would become the largest, the governing Christian-democratic CDA or the main opposition party, the social-democratic PvdA. This was similar to the situation of the elections of 2003. The largest party will have the initiative in the cabinet formation talks. Furthermore, if it becomes part of the cabinet, the largest party supplies the prime minister. The media have framed the elections as a 'Clash of the Titans' between prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA) and candidate prime minister Wouter Bos (PvdA).

Both parties had consciously kept their options open and expressed a preference for the composition of a new cabinet. The other parties did express clear preferences: the VVD wanted to continue to govern with the CDA, while the Socialist Party and the GreenLeft (GL) wanted to form a leftist coalition, the so-called Left-wing Spring. Broadly speaking, it appeared that there were three options: a continuation of the third Balkendende cabinet with CDA and VVD, a left-wing coalition of PvdA, SP and GL or a centre-left coalition of PvdA and CDA.

In 2004 and 2005, the polls indeed indicated that the united left could gain a majority in the House of Representatives. The polls predicted two head-to-head races. One between the PvdA and ruling CDA and another between the left-wing bloc (PvdA, SP, GreenLeft) and the right-wing bloc (CDA, VVD) with neither gaining a majority. Early November polls however showed that the CDA was gaining on and surpassing the PvdA. Mid-November polls indicated that the PvdA was bleeding votes to the SP while the CDA remained more or less stable. The left- and right-wing blocks remained in an equilibrium with neither side gaining enough votes for an overall majority. Small centrist parties such as the ChristianUnion could play a decisive role.

The debates were dominated by social-economic questions and especially the performance of the Balkenende cabinets.

In the last four years the three Balkenende cabinets had implemented an ambitious program of social-economic reforms, including tax cuts, reforms to the social welfare system and investments in education. Their aim was to jump start the Dutch economy. Initially there was great public dissatisfaction with this policy, with large demonstrations in 2003, 2004 and 2005 by the main labour union FNV and the three main opposition parties. They criticised the government for taking these measures at the wrong point in time, during a recession, and they claimed that the government made the poor and socially weaker pay for the economic recovery. A major focus of this debate was on the fact that more than 10% of the people were said to live in poverty, as exemplified by the rising number of 'voedselbanken' (give-away shops for food). As the economy began to perform better in 2006 the public dissatisfaction decreased.

There were roughly three positions on the future of the Dutch economy. The CDA claimed that the reforms were finished and that the following cabinet would not have to take any serious measures. The VVD wanted to continue reforming to increase the performance of the Dutch economy. They wanted to continue to cut taxes and reduce bureaucracy. The opposition parties PvdA, SP, GL, joined by the ChristianUnion wanted to revert some of the measures and pay more attention to the public sector, especially to the health care-sector and the poor. The PvdA and the GreenLeft however also announced that they wanted to reform part of the economy and welfare system. For instance several months before the elections, Wouter Bos, the leader of Labour Party, announced that he wanted to tax the elderly pension in such a way that rich elderly would pay more taxes on their pensions than poor elderly. The Dutch pension system consists of government supplied (AOW) and mandatory self-saved pensions. It is the latter portion Bos wanted to tax progressively. The proposal led to considerable controversy, both outside and within Bos' own party. Former minister and de Volkskrant columnist Marcel van Dam wrote a critical column on 22 June concerning Bos' proposal.[26] The second man of the Christian Democratic Appeal Maxime Verhagen used soundbites from the proposal continually to emphasise that the PvdA was an unreliable partner for the elderly.[27] Bos later moderated his plans: only new cases would pay taxes over their pension.[28]

Kingdom of the Netherlands
This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Netherlands
Constitution Charter Wet Algemene Bepalingen Human rights
Monarchy King Willem-Alexander Council of Ministers Ministers Plenipotentiary Aruba Curaçao St. Maarten
Cabinet Prime Minister (list) Mark Rutte Deputy Prime Ministers Hugo de Jonge Kajsa Ollongren Carola Schouten Ministries
States General Senate President: Jan Anthonie Bruijn Current membership Historic composition House of Representatives Speaker: Khadija Arib Current membership Historic composition Parliamentary committees
Judiciary Supreme Court High Councils of State Council of State Court of Audit National Ombudsman
Elections Recent elections General: 2010 2012 2017 Provincial: 2011 2015 2019 Municipal: 2010 2014 2018 European: 2009 2014 2019 Referendums Referendums: 2005 2016 2018 Political parties Politicians
Local government Provincial politics Water boards Municipal politics BES islands
Foreign relations Ministry of Foreign Affairs Minister: Stef Blok Diplomatic missions of / in the Netherlands Nationality law Passport Visa requirements Visa policy of the Schengen Area Visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean
Related topics Corruption in the Netherlands De Nederlandsche Bank Law of the Netherlands Modern history Republicanism in the Netherlands Social Economic Council
Netherlands portal Other countries

Immigration and integration, which had dominated the 2002 and 2003 elections, were clearly less important during these elections.

The focus was on the policy of Rita Verdonk, minister of immigration and integration, who had reduced the influx of immigrants and implemented mandatory integration courses for migrants. Verdonk's attitudes toward immigrants were again in the spotlight after her treatment of the crisis around the naturalisation of Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali caused the cabinet to fall.

In the debates one issue was especially important: the treatment of 26,000 asylum seekers which had been in legal procedures for over five years. The left-wing opposition parties PvdA, SP, GL and CU, joined by former coalition-partner D66 wanted a general pardon for this group, granting them all a residence permit. The CDA, VVD and the smaller right-wing parties of Geert Wilders and Marco Pastors opposed such a permit because it would attract illegal immigrants. Minister Verdonk claimed that she had actually already taken care of these 26,000 asylum seekers, sending many back to their own country and granting many a residence permit.

A minor issue was the ban on burqas and other face-covering clothing in public which minister Verdonk announced on 17 November 2006.[29] The opposition Labour Party, called the law an "election ploy", and a Muslim leader described it as "a big law for a small problem."[29]

Several right-wing parties, such as One NL and Party for Freedom, had campaigned extensively on the issue of immigration and integration. Wilders of the Party for Freedom wanted a halt of immigration from non-Western countries, abolish double citizenship, and stop the building of new mosques. Wilders said that the "Islamisation of the Netherlands" is a "tsunami" that needed to be stopped, "because it threatens our culture."[30]

The environment finally also became a secondary issue during the elections.

The first attention to environmental issues was attracted by Greenpeace who interfered in the CDA party congress on 30 September 2006. During a speech of parliamentary chairman Maxime Verhagen, activists of Greenpeace rolled down a large sign saying "CDA chooses for 240,000 years of nuclear waste," referring to the news a day earlier that the CDA junior minister of the environment Pieter van Geel is open to new possibilities for nuclear energy in the Netherlands.[31] Four activists were apprehended by the police afterwards.[31][32][33]

Other important events increasing the attention on environmental issues were the Stern report of the United Kingdom government and the visit of Al Gore to Amsterdam promoting his movie An Inconvenient Truth.

The GreenLeft focused on this issue during its campaigns and sponsored ads which read: "Who votes strategically when the polar caps are melting?"[34] The Party for the Animals had campaigned on one issue closely related to environmental problems: the position of animals in Dutch society and especially in agriculture.

In some municipalities voting was done using the old red pencil / paper method.

A report by action group Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet (We don't trust voting computers) detailed serious security flaws in the Nedap voting machines used by 90% of the voters in the election. The report alleged it was easy to open the voting machine casing. The inner casing around the electronics was only protected by a very simple lock. Thus replacements of software and even hardware were relatively easily possible (by a simple memory chip swap, meaning that the memory that holds the voting data is not encrypted). Another machine is made by SDU and called "NewVote". It is based on a PC and uses a touchscreen instead of buttons. Only ten small districts still use paper and pencil.

Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet has threatened to bring minister Atzo Nicolaï to court since they are not convinced by his assurances that there will be no fraud in the upcoming election.[35] In response to the allegations, Nicolaï introduced new security measures for the voting machines.[36] Currently Nedap is checking all its machines for tampering, is installing new chips and software that is less easily hacked, and seals the machines with a unique metal seal.[37] Based on inspections, on 30 October the government decided that there was a problem with SDU voting machines because within a radius of 10 metres the machines could be wirelessly monitored, so that these machines could not guarantee anonymity of voting to a sufficient degree.[38] These machines, which are in use in 35 municipalities, including Amsterdam, have to be improved or replaced with an alternative before the elections.[39] Many municipalities, including Amsterdam, decided to switch to the traditional paper and red pencil method of voting instead of the SDU machines.[38] Machines made by Nedap are still in use.

Two experiments were conducted during these elections:

"Stemmen in een Willekeurig Stemlokaal" (SWS) ('voting in a random polling-booth') Because a lot of people could not vote because of problems caused by this experiment a group of citizens started procedures to nullify the results in all 311 area's where the experiment was conducted.

Another experiment is "Kiezen Op Afstand" (KOA) ('remote voting'), also called the experiment with internetstemmen (internet voting).[40]

In an experiment in Breukelen, a voting machine was placed in a petrol station. However, non-Breukelen citizens had to convert their 'voting pass' ('stempas') to an 'elector's pass' ('kiezerspas').

The first public election debate between the leaders of the seven largest parties was held on 29 October 2006, on public radio. Mark Rutte, whose VVD is junior partner in the third Balkenende cabinet of CDA prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende, was worried that the CDA will choose for a coalition with the PvdA after the elections, as this, at the time of the debate, was the only two-party coalition possible according to polls. Balkenende, however, kept his options open, and did not rule out a coalition with the PvdA. The PvdA's Wouter Bos stated that he will not become a deputy prime-minister in case Balkenende leads a CDA-PvdA coalition. He will then remain as chairman of the parliamentary party.[41]

This debate took place on 3 November 2006 and was televised by RTL4. Participants were Jan Peter Balkenende and Wouter Bos. Balkenende focused on his achievements the last four years, stating "We are much better off than four years ago. We were behind in Europe and now we’re ahead but our work is not yet done."[42] Bos felt that under Balkenende the gap between rich and poor had grown, stating "What have you asked of the wealthiest? Everybody has been asked to dig into their pockets to contribute to the economy."[42] In an opinion poll conducted by TNS-Nipo following the televised debate, 50 percent of respondents thought Wouter Bos won the debate, against 46 percent for Jan Peter Balkenende.[43]

This debate was broadcast on 11 November 2006 and was televised by the Jeugdjournaal (YouthNews) of the NOS. The debate was aimed at children from 8 to 14 years of age. Participants were top-candidates from the four parties leading the polls: Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA), Wouter Bos (PvdA), Mark Rutte (VVD) and Jan Marijnissen (SP).[44] A poll among the young watchers after the debate showed that the Dutch children preferred Wouter Bos as the next prime minister (46%), before Marijnissen (26%), Balkenende (22%) and Mark Rutte (6%).[45]

This debate took place on 15 November 2006 and was organised by EenVandaag. Participants were Jan-Peter Balkenende, Wouter Bos, Mark Rutte, Jan Marijnissen, Femke Halsema and André Rouvoet.[46] According to an opinion poll following the debate, Jan Marijnissen won the debate.[47]

• 21 November (NOS): two consecutive debates; the first between the leaders of the smaller parties in the polls, the second between leaders of the projected six largests parties:[48]
  • Alexander Pechtold (D66), Bas van der Vlies (SGP), Olaf Stuger (Pim Fortuyn List), Marco Pastors (One NL), Geert Wilders (PVV) and Marianne Thieme (Partij voor de Dieren), at 19:05
  • Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA), Wouter Bos (PvdA), Mark Rutte (VVD), Jan Marijnissen (SP), Femke Halsema (GreenLeft) and André Rouvoet (ChristenUnie) at 20:30.