Getting Populists to Govern Responsibly: What the Netherlands and Finland Can Teach Us

The Dutch government collapsed because the Freedom Party (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, withdrew from the coalition. The reason for this was that Prime Minister Dick Schoof's coalition government failed to implement the strict immigration policy outlined in the coalition agreement quickly enough.

In other words, Schoof and the other coalition parties did want the Freedom Party to support their policies, but they were not, in turn, willing to advance the issues that are of utmost importance to the PVV. As a result, new parliamentary elections will be held in the Netherlands on October 29.

This case is interesting from a Finnish perspective, as Finland also has a government that includes an immigration-critical party, the Finns Party. It has supported initiatives important to the other coalition parties, and as a consequence, has lost much of its support and its position in local politics in municipal and regional elections.

Nevertheless, the Finns Party remains strongly committed to the coalition because the government has, at the same time, pursued a much stricter immigration policy in line with the party’s demands—thus advancing issues crucial to itself and its core voter base. As a result, current, or remaining, supporters of the Finns Party are more satisfied with the government's actions than supporters of other parties.

This is something that should be noted in other Western countries as well. In most of them, immigration policy has been at odds with the will of the people, so a change is bound to happen sooner or later.

This means a stricter immigration policy, in exchange for which immigration-critical parties brought into government understand the necessity of supporting parts of the coalition program they may otherwise dislike. At the same time, forming coalition governments becomes easier and the will expressed by citizens in elections is more accurately implemented.

After all, isn't that ultimately the purpose of democracy? To carry out policies that reflect the will of the people as expressed in elections?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Should the Dutch Do Something About the Fact That Immigrants Don't Tolerate Visiting Jews?
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
Attitudes towards immigrants are not becoming more positive in Western countries

Shock in Berlin: AfD Surges, Merz Stumbles

It may come as no surprise that the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is taking the country's intelligence service to court over its classification of the party as a far-right group. What is a far bigger surprise, however, is that Friedrich Merz was not elected Chancellor in the first vote of the Bundestag, Germany's federal parliament, to lead a coalition government between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.

This is likely to be corrected in the second vote. More interestingly, the AfD has already called for new elections.

The reason for this is likely the party’s rising popularity, now surpassing that of all other parties. This is certainly not only due to the perception that the intelligence service’s classification is undemocratic. The protest mood has likely also been fueled by the fact that no attempt was made—even symbolically—to negotiate a coalition with the AfD, which came second in the election. That, too, can be seen as a sign of broken democracy.

That’s why it will be fascinating to see how support for German political parties evolves in the coming months and years. Will the AfD continue to grow in popularity, or will Merz’s government restore public trust in the traditional parties?

At least Merz has a good starting point: the debt brake has been loosened, and he has pledged to fix Germany’s infrastructure and armed forces with hundreds of billions in additional funding. On the other hand, if Germany's sluggish economy begins to noticeably affect people's standard of living, support could also rise for protest parties other than the AfD.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
AfD Under Fire – But Is Democracy the Price?
Good luck to Chancellor Friedrich Merz!
What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

A new Government for Israel, but why doesn´t it solve anything?

Benjamin Netanyahu became the Prime Minister of the 37th Government of Israel. However, looking back in history, there is no reason to believe that his cabinet would stand long. After all, the new Government is already the third in 2020´s. 

One of the reasons for short Governments in Israel might be its high number of parties. After the last elections the Parliament - Knesset - consists of ten parties. Therefore the only possible type of a majority Government is a coalition, where parties contradicting political views must be settled to a common program.

That is not, however, very different from Finland, where we have nine parties and a representative of autonomous island, Åland, in the Parliament. Therefore, also our Governments are coalitions, but last typically throughout the four years between elections. 

So what is the difference between Israel and Finland? Is it the big number of religion-based movements in Israel, whereas in Finland the only religion-based party has only five seats out of the 200?

As we all know, religions have separated people throughout the history, and formed at least part of the motivation in countless number of wars. Or is it the fact, that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations, that cause pressure on the Jewish state? 

It is, however, true that also Finland has a hostile neighbor, as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated. And therefore foreign policy unites Finnish political parties almost throughout the political spectrum. And that policy is also supported by a clear majority of ordinary people: for example a total of 79 percent of Finns support the NATO application currently in progress.

In contrast, there is an ongoing struggle in Israel policy towards Arabic nations and Palestinians. The previous Government supported a two-state solution whereas Netanyahu stands for an Israel including also the West Bank traditionally inhabited by Palestinians. 

Naturally I am not the right person to tell Israeli what to do - they must decide themselves. But according to my view the eternal conflict between Jews and Arabs in near east looks like a problem caused by two nations, neither of which has common sense for solutions. 

The solution could be somehow copied from post-world-war Finland. We then accepted that Karelia was lost forever, and - instead of looking for impossible revenge - started a fruitful collaboration with Soviet Union by taking advantage on trade with our big and potentially dangerous neighbor. But at the same time kept our military readiness high. 

Such a model would have two scenarios in the Holy Land. For Palestinians: stop dreaming about pushing Jews to the Mediterranean sea, stop the violence caused by your own trouble makers (calling themselves freedom fighters) and look for fair economic collaboration with Israel. That could be done equally well as a part of Israel or as an independent Palestine. Army would not be needed or - in the case of an independent Palestine in the West Bank -  its strength could be relatively low via a security agreement (guarantee) to be negotiated with Israel.  

For Jews the situation would be more complicated. They should naturally offer acceptable rights to Palestinians including equality against the law, and also promote economic collaboration with the neighboring Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. But also demand that the three last ones agree on peace agreement in a similar way as Egypt has done. 

And in all cases, Israel should definitely keep its unquestionable military superiority compared to the Islamic world. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Explanation of Finnish attitudes towards Israeli and Palestinians
Historical failure on an issue related to a Finnish beer
Kuun tavoittelu taivaalta on johtanut palestiinalaiset ahdinkoon