Pillarisation

Life in the Netherlands
Culture History People Language Architecture Cuisine Culture Customs Holidays Music Religion Sport
Economy Economy Recycling Taxation Transport
Society Demographics Education Customs Languages Media Health care
Government Foreign Policy Human Rights Law Law enforcement Military Politics
Policies Gedogen Abortion Drug policy Euthanasia Pillarisation Prostitution Same-sex marriage

The Netherlands had at least three pillars, namely Protestant, Catholic and social-democratic. Pillarisation was originally initiated by Abraham Kuyper and his Christian Democratic and neo-Calvinist (gereformeerd) Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) in the late 19th century; it was part of its philosophy of sphere sovereignty.[1]

The Catholic pillar had the highest degree of organisation, because Catholic clergy promoted the organisation of Catholics in confessional institutions. Yet, the conservative Protestant pillar and the Socialist pillar, which mainly consisted of industrial workers, were nearly as tightly knit.[2] The Protestant (hervormd) Christian Historical Union (CHU) (formed in 1908) did not organise a pillar of its own but linked to the Protestant pillar shaped by the ARP.

People who were not associated with one of these pillars, mainly middle- and upper-class latitudinarian Protestants and atheists, arguably set up their own pillar: the liberal or "general" pillar. Ties between general organisations were much weaker than within the other three pillars. Liberals rejected the voluntary segregation of the society, and denied the existence of a "liberal pillar".[2] The political parties usually associated with this group were the Free-minded Democratic League (VDB) and Liberal State Party (LSP). Communists, Humanists, and ultra-orthodox Protestants also set up similar organisations; however, such groups were much smaller.

The development of pillarisation in the Netherlands was favoured by the emancipation of working and lower-middle classes on the one hand, and the execution of elite control on the other hand. The emancipation of the working class led to the establishment of socialist parties, trade unions, media, cooperative shops and collectively organised leisure activities. This "full care" of the socialist movement for its members existed similarly in other European countries. The emancipation of the conservative and often strongly religious lower-middle class fostered the emergence of the Protestant pillar. While the Dutch bourgeoisie was rather liberal and adhered to "enlightened" Protestantism, a large part of the lower-middle class embraced a more orthodox Calvinist theology, as taught by preacher and politician Abraham Kuyper.[2]

In 1866 Kuyper founded the gereformeerd ("reformed") current of Protestantism; it was both more conservative and more popular with ordinary people than the established Protestant churches in the Netherlands. Kuyper's worldview asserted the principle of "sphere sovereignty", rejecting both ecclesiasticism (rule of the Church over all parts of the society) and statist secularism (rule of the state over all parts of the society). He argued that both had their own spheres in which the other was not to interfere. In 1879 he founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party as the political wing of his religious movement and core of the Protestant pillar.

At the same time, new and old elites tried to maintain their control over the newly emancipated social groups. For instance, the Catholic clergy set up confessional unions to prevent Catholic workers from joining socialist unions. One reason behind the formation of Christian parties was to counter the feared rise of left-wing mass parties.[2]

Apart from having no Protestant pillar, Pillarisation in Belgium was very similar to that in Netherlands. There was also no "general" pillar, but a politically well-organised liberal pillar. In 1911, the British sociologist Seebohm Rowntree noted that in Belgium:

There is extraordinarily little social intercourse between Catholics and Liberals, and practically none between Catholics and Socialists. Politics enter into almost every phase of social activity and philanthropic effort, and it is the exception rather than the rule for persons holding different political opinions to co-operate in any other matter. Thus in one town there will be a Catholic, a Liberal and a Socialist trade union, a Catholic, a Liberal and a Socialist thrift society, each catering for similar people, but each confining its attentions to members of its own political party. The separation extends to cafes, gymnasia, choral, temperance, and literary societies; indeed it cuts through life![3]

In both Flanders and Wallonia, societies were pillarised between Catholic and Liberal political denominations which were subsequently joined by a Socialist pillar. Even though the liberals were stronger in Belgium (particularly in Brussels) than in the Netherlands, they were still relatively weak, owing to their rather small, bourgeois support: liberal trade unions were very small. De Tijd, a financial daily, is the newspaper aligned with the liberals, as its readership consists mainly of liberal supporters. However, a Flemish newspaper with historical liberal roots, Het Laatste Nieuws, also exists.

Denominational (many Catholic and a few Jewish) schools receive some public money, although not parity of funding as in the Netherlands, so that tuition is almost completely free. Belgian universities charge more or less the same, relatively low, tuition fees.

As a consequence of the language struggle in the latter half of the twentieth century, the pillars split over the language issue, which turnout became the most significant divisive factor in the nation. Now every language group has three pillars of its own. The pillar system remained to be the primordial societal dividing force much longer than it was in the Netherlands. Only near the end of the Cold War did it begin to lose importance, at least at the individual level, and to this day it continues to influence Belgian society. For example, even the 1999–2003 "Rainbow Coalition" of Guy Verhofstadt was often rendered with the terms of pillarisation. The political movements that appeared in the late 20th century (such as Vlaams Blok, now Vlaams Belang; Groen!; and N-VA) did not attempt to build pillars.

Pillarisation was visible even in everyday social organisations such as musical ensembles, sport clubs, recreational facilities, etc. Weakened in the current situation, many major social organisations (trade unions, cooperatives, etc.) still strictly follow the lines of pillars though.

The Austrian version of Verzuiling is the long-standing Proporz doctrine (a hypocorism for Proportionalität, German for 'proportionality'). This was first only within the politics of the second Austrian republic, but later degenerated into a neo-corporatist system of patronage and nepotism pervading many aspects of Austrian life. The Proporz was created, developed and promoted by the two mainstream parties, the Catholic Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) and the Social-Democratic Socialist Party of Austria (since 1991 Social Democratic Party of Austria, both names with the acronym of SPÖ).

This de facto two-party system collapsed with the elections of 1999, which resulted in the joining of the national-conservative Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), whose political marginalisation and that of its predecessor, the Federation of Independents (VdU), was the main reason for the establishment of the Proporz policy, because of their pro-German and individualist views.

The Proporz system arose out of the need for balanced, consensual governance in the early years of Austria's second republic. At that time, the country was consumed in an effort to rebuild the country after the devastation of World War II. Thus, the doctrine of Proporz is intimately linked to the idea of the grand coalition, in which the major political parties, in the case of post-war Austria the SPÖ and the ÖVP, share in the government.

• Balkanization
• Consociationalism
• Identity politics
• Millet (Ottoman Empire)
• Sectarianism
• Social environment
• Sui iuris
• Test Act

• Deschouwer, Kris (2001), "Freezing pillars and frozen cleavages: Party systems and voting alignments in consociational democracies", Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited, Routledge, pp. 205–221
• Post, Harry (1989), Pillarization: An Analysis of Dutch and Belgian Society, Avebury
• van Schendelen, M. P. C. M. (1984), Consociationalism, pillarization and conflict-management in the Low Countries, Boom
• Christophe de Voogd: "Histoire des Pays-Bas des origines à nos jours", Fayard, Paris, 2004