Thank you for, thank you for having me,
we're get it do this really inventive stuff where I
carry Microfone that's ment to be on my head.
So please signal if for someries and the sounds not perfect.
A you can't understand me. I'm really happy to be here,
it do some time it to get cuttly 700 have hours,
because that was a lot of fuck both in the netherlands and here in Germany.
But never the last, it's really nice to be here
for a German addience to talk about read correcting populism,
because in the upcoming German elections,
this I think might be a team of interest
And so what is in a country, where I'm from which is the nettlerns.
You might be for milliar with that three faces here.
These were the leaders of the government that are should
affice in the nettlerns in 20010. In the middle,
you see the very smiling, Gentlemen are a current prime-minister marketator,
who was also the prime-minister of the covinet that was formed
in 20010 to his left usey the than leader of the cussion
Democrats and to his right usey a politician that
has we come very notarious in Europe,
nämlich the leader of the party for freedom hereds Wilders
This government, what's formed after? This government was formed after very,
very long negotiations, between all kinds of different parties,
brokedown in 2010. And without any normal procedures, normally in
the Netherlands governments are formed by the Queen or the King,
who then are points a
formator and informator to organized a process,
but here this formal process,
took place and a did it lied to an outcome
The Leaders of the Greens, the go shaded,
the Leader of the Social Democrats,
nee, go shaded of the Social Liberals.
But to know a fail, that was not compromise possible.
And other for sudden, and it the break down
of dinagociations, this coverant emerged.
Consisting of the liberals and christian democrats as the cabinet itself,
but supported for a majority imparliament by heard willers party for for freedom.
Now, into respects,
this is quite a unique coalition of parties
Because it includes a ratical right-wing populist party,
which is something, we didn't see until the 1990s.
And have only seen in a number of country sense. And two,
because it was aim on my arty government coalition,
with two partys governing,
with the support of a raticorect wing populist parties,
that didn't assume, responsibility, that didn't enter the government coalition.
But they didn't state outsides and supported the government
on certain policy issues. And that was something,
we had never seen in the nellance since the second world
What I would like to do it my presentation today?
It's investigates one, what this government, participation,
means to these parties like the party for freedom.
What does it mean for right correct when populist parties to govern,
is that a challenge, something that's very difficult for them,
or is it and opportunity for them to realize their objectives,
their particults.
And why like to that to that,
it will hopefully also become claire,
why does parties are interested in,
being support parties
Of supporting minority informance rather than taking up actual responsibility,
more than the Europe haves interested in being
actional cabinett ministers. Now, to do that,
20 that question. I actually first needs to onser another question.
And it is the more general question of what the impacts
of these ratical rat wing purpose parties in Europe has been
on european partics. Now, as you probably know,
gives you of discuss these parties, stroud discurs.
These partics have become quite successful investor in Europe
In fact, they are the most successful party
family to emerge since a second world war.
More successful than the Greens that have a merged,
more successful and the social liberals.
And as you can see here, there is a number
of these parties that pole more than 15 or
20 % of the votes. So if you look at
switch to one for example, it is all most one
in three voters that support the SVP
this wise retter correcting populist party. Now,
as you can a magin, having new parties that are
so large
Hass very big impakts on the way that partics is combucted eneccountry.
On all kinds of facers, it has an impakt
on the public debates, it has an impacts on the
way in which parties interacts and parliaments.
But it also has an impacts on what the party system
, it's self looks like. And my claim,
for out my research in the past years, has been,
that as a result of the emergence of reddit correct when
public parties,
we see party
systems in Europe change
And more stucifically, what we are surf, is a
convergence of party systems. So historically, all party systems
investor in Europe were very diverse. The netherlands,
always had a very fragment at party system, with social democrats,
Christian Demmacrats, liberals, or the dox question parties.
But the UK for example, had traditionally 82-Party-System, with only laboring conservatives.
Now what we see in Western Europe is that And I
think, this is partly as a result for example
of globalization and the impected has on fotos and on politics.
We see that party systems are becoming more a like.
And I think, there becoming more a like in four respects.
First of all, the clearfore just in society.
And the corresponding, they mentioned that structure political competition are
becoming more less identical. So for example,
partics in the netherlands was based on a class liveage.
But also on they are religious clear
Raised why we had Christian Democratic Partys. But in the UK,
the class clear, it is proveiled of all other clear agues.
What we know see is that there's two clear to you's in society,
that translate into two, dimensions of competition empathics.
One is determititional social economic dimension,
which we've had for very,
very long time and which pitch parties that are in favor of state intervention,
against the partys that are in favor of a marketing economy.
But the second emension is new.
And revolves or out all cons of questions related to creature
and identity
And what it does is that it pitts parties that are
customer politan and libertarian in nature to parties that are more nationalists and traditionalists in orientation.
So on the one hand, we have parties that are
in favor, for every very open society.
And for diversity in lifestyles, what are that is on
questions of emigration and culture? So so for example,
what is the place of islam in or societies?
But also on other lifestyle issues, but kind of places,
there are for homosexuality in society
And we have parties that have a very close ideas society.
Of very off specific norms and values that should be inforced.
And that can allly be inforced within the context of the nation states. So essentially,
it's an apposition, not between traditional parties,
but between the new parties that have a merged,
but we in Breen and social liberal parties on the one hand,
and radical wing populists parties on the other.
Now, in this sudimensional,
bluegal space and as show you have what it looks
like later
The Direction of Competition be to in Partys, has become more central fugle.
That is to say that the Direction of Competition is
more toward the extremes of these to political dimensions.
So in many countries, historically, government,
coalitions for formed in the center. In the netherlands,
the country of pillarization, the Christian Democrats,
governed on interruptedly, from the inception of the pillarical system,
around 1900, to 1994, with either
Bei call forming coalitions, I there with labor or I there with the liberals.
But it was always the question in Democrats that were came maker,
because they were position in the center of the climble gross face.
They were the perfect party to rule the system,
as a result of their center of position.
Now what we see in most west European countries,
is that government coalitions are more formed toards the extremes.
So social democrats and greens for examples has happen
here in Germany or as in the Netherlands,
question Democrats,
laborals with bread a correcting populist parties
We also CNO West European countries, there is increased levels
of fragmentation. So, there is more parties represented.
But not only that, the existing parties have we come smaller.
And the new our parties larger,
as a result of which most parties are medium sized parties,
and not large parties. Historically, in the Netherlands,
there used to be parties who would gain,
40% of the founds and the elections.
That what trually large in electroal terms. Now, if
we look at a post for the upcoming elections in march 2017,
there is not a single party that post A
baff, 21% of the fods. So we have
8 to 10 medium sized parties competing for the support of the fods
or said the moment. And the last thing,
we see it on mys all west European countries, is
increased polarisation. So increased ideological differences between the various parties
. As specially on that new dimension of competition.
So especially on the cultural dimension. So the conflict there about
the directioning, which we should take policy is quite large.
Green party, social liberal parties on the one hand
And rather correctlying poop this parties on the other hand,
when they fundamentally different society, have completely a posing views,
as to how we should go about these issues of culture.
And I identity. Now, boy has this happens.
Of course, partly as a result of this very
get role processes, like individualization, globalization, etc.
But my ideas that ratical ratning purpose parties have played
a very important role in this process.
Why is traditional parties, do not like to loose their fotos.
I mean, any party needs there's supports to a chief
their goals. They need fotos to support them. So
they have seeds imparliament and that they can make change.
So if you don't like losing your voters, to read
a great when populist party, you want the back.
And what is the easy is wait to get the back,
to be a little bit, like,
bright a great wing populist parties.
Something that implitical science,
we call
the contagion effects
Now, this contaction effects has, I think, trick emponents.
So if traditional parties that are luising support,
look at read a correcting populist parties. And as themselves,
what is it that they are doing that is is so successful,
they come to the conclusion that it has to do with free things?
Agenders setting. So the agenda setting, so the termining,
the issues, that are on the political agenda. Framing,
the termining, the terms in which these issues are this cust,
how the problems and the solutions to this problems are the
find and lastly there
Positions on these particular issues. So what we see in
a lot of empirical research is that first of all,
as a result of the emergence of freddy correcting, pocticed farties,
as stablished parties devote more attention to these culture and identity issues,
especially emigration and integration, but also increasingly to European integration for example.
They frame, these issues in terms of culture and identity,
because of course,
you can also talk about emigration and integration and terms of
the social economic challenges that migrants face in terms of problem
von Education und Terms of problems of the labor markets in Terms of social housing questions.
But now these is use are discussed as a problem of
norms and values that should me shared in our societies.
And thirdly, they have taken up more restrictive positions on these issues.
So established parties, call for a strictor,
requirements for integration for example,
in the netherlands are good example of that is the integration
exam that all immigrants have to take,
before they can come part of
touch society
Now, out wemo straight, these sclaims,
but some results for my own research in the netherlands.
So what we did is we analyzed the party programs that
touch parties present at the national elections.
And we did that offer period of time. So you see here,
is the results for the elections in 1994, 1998,
2002, 2010, 2016, 2010.
And this graphs, show show, how much attention,
the astablished parties the vote to emigration and integration issues in
these party programs
And what you can see is, that there's a very
clear rise in the amount of attention, that they
devote to this issues. It's very allow an 1994, below to percents.
It rises, between 1994, 1998. So this in the cate,
that's not only the effect of red a correctment,
populus parties goes, that that point in time,
there's no radical right may in populus party in the Netherlands yet.
But then in 2002, when pim for time of the lift,
list pim for time emerges on the touch polical scene,
the amounts increases
Significantly more. So all the parties become aware,
that emigration and integration our important issues to address.
It the clients again in 2010. And my hunt should be
that that is as a result of the financial crisis.
So as a result of the crisis, attention for migration dropped.
But I don't have new data, but I suspects that
with the on said of the refugee crisis it increased again.
What's perhaps even more intersting,
then the attention to emigration a integration issue,
is the way um which these issues are
Das Gast. So, what you see in the graph here,
is the topline, which is the attention,
that's give and simply to entrens of migrants.
So what arty conditions, underwitch migrants can answer the country.
Now, that is relatively stable over time.
But the way that bluegal party start about the integration of
the migrants that are already in the country
has changed fundamentaly. So, the topline that goes down,
between 1994, 2010,
is the social economic frame
So, 994, a lot of the established parties,
when they talk to out emigration,
it was about a social in economic integration of migrants.
What can we do to help migrants on the labor market?
So, that they become more integrated. What can we do in
terms of education? So that emergrounds become more integrated.
That has the client significantly. The attention for culture on
the other hand, which is the line be low that.
Has increased significantly. So a lot of to the bate
is now in terms of cultural morms and values,
and especially the place of is lahm in the netherlands.
And how this my our might not impete integration of migrants?
So there we see a very clear shift in indebate,
that we believe is cast by the Rise of Red Correcting populist parties.
And that has had an effects on the way and which
stablish parties discussed these issues.
Lastly the positions of these parties on these issues. Now,
I already discussed the facts, that these days,
West European partics,
a structured by two dementions
And if I were to ask you to place,
traditional parties on the social economic skill,
it would not be a very different good for you.
If I ask too interems of social economic positions,
which party in Germanys, the most left leaning, you would say.
Die Lenker. Yes. The Queveland of the Social List
Party in the Netherlands. And after that you would position,
probably the greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, liberals.
And that's sort of the traditional ranking that we find in our west-european countries.
Not the ranking on the this new day mention that Pitts
the Libertarian, Cosmer Partons, against the author terrian nationalists.
It's like they different. Initially,
one this the mention emerged in say, the late 1990s,
there was still quite some congrollens between the positioning on the two that mention.
So we had on the one hand,
parties that we're left twing and a libertarian,
for my cominist parties, social populist parties, green party,
social democratic parties.
And on the other hand,
we had Christian Democratic conservative liberal parties and rather
correct when poctice parties
No, overtime, parties have charted to change their positions in
this political space. And especially on this new die mention.
So on the one hand, green parties and social liberal
parties has become more outspoken, customer parties and libertarian.
Really forming the pole of one side of the mention.
Ratical recting, popies parties, traditionally where right wing and
offer tarian in nationalist.
But over say the past
15 years
Dave actually changed, there are social economic positioning,
to become more centerest. And in some cases even leftwing
social economically. So in the Netherlands, for example,
here it will as party for freedom,
is a post-to-raising the pension age.
It's in favor of social benefits for the touch population.
It's in favor of statefunded healthcare and elderly care.
Oh, aspects that one would normally classify as leftwing.
Where at least, a emix social economic program
Now whall we have these partys done that,
because roughly 35% of Fest European Voders have left twing and authoritary nationalists attitudes.
So the largest group of Fest European Voders,
find stem stealth in the quodrants, left above,
where no parties or there to represent that.
So the more that radical right wing popt this parties move
towards that quodrants, the more day become,
the representatives of these people of
lower educated Voders
One hand, need a strong well first states,
to support them, best they are the most founderable.
And social economic questions, but on the other hand,
that perceive migration as a problem for them.
Also also she connomically, but also culturally. So radical, rat
me more optisch parties have moves to wards those voters.
And that has has made the to bluegal space in Western Europe,
more complex, that it was,
because we have now more polarization between the different party families
in that
polical space
So, if we take for example, the Netherlands,
then this is what that political space look like in 2002,
when the list pim for time, a merge,
the first rated correcting populist party, to attract support.
And then you see, indeed the socialist party,
the green party in the bottom, the labor party, BWDA.
There is well, we see the social liberals,
the 606, as well, as the question Democrats,
the sedia, the liberals, the favorite day,
and the lPF, which is then,
a radical right wing for this party,
what's a clearly,
new a
liberal social out economic program
I don't have to same, data for the successor to
this party, shared Wilders Partei for the Freiheit.
But my guess on the basis of other information is that party
is much closer to this fotos in that upren left quadrants, then the LPF force.
Now, you might ask yourself, by now,
why is all this change in a party system,
important for understanding, why this parties govern and whether are not governing is a challenge to this parties.
Because it's exactly that configuration of the polical space that makes
from and practicipation, possible for these parties.
It's an that to the mentional political space,
that they become attractive allies to particular kinds of parties.
We see that, when we look at Western Europe,
because since the turn of the centery,
to has been an increasing number of freddy or wing practice parties that have government,
in Austria and zu Occasions, in Dänmark, a ratical
rat wing practice party,
the Dänis People's party has supported a minority government for 10 years and a row,
in Finnland at the moments in It's a mattle occations,
twice in the Netherlands, currently in Noahway,
and of course, also in Switzerland, even down it,
a has a completely different policult system.
This has been possible as a result of dischanged a polical space,
and we can clearly see that,
if we look at the parties with which these parties govern.
Because, these are always christian democratic parties, conservative parties or liberal parties.
So parties that find themselves in the same quadrant of the
plögal space, as these right a correctlying popses parties.
There all parties that are about Bright Wing and so max respects
and also a terrian ordnationalist in ordnationalist in other respects.
And also show you, how that works in the netherlands
in the seconds. Just as a pre-loot,
to what I'm going to show in the buildle science literature.
It is always assumed, that bluegal parties are very rational agents.
They do the things, they do,
because they want to a chief their objectives.
I think that cuttering has spalken of cust benefits andalysis,
this is a bit a say my idea
Parties think about government, partizipation as a situation to win,
or to lose in. And what can they win?
And what can they lose? It's generally assume that that is
office. So cabit it positions, there is policy,
so info overpolicy making. And that it's folds, support
from sitizens. And why these three are important this,
goes as show, that for rather correctling populists parties,
there are some trade offs between these goals when they enter government.
And that is how you can think of it as boss
the challenge and an opportunity for them.
So if you go back to the Netherlands to the thing
you are I just show you.
And 2002, the listening for time emerged.
It was founded by PIM for time, very
flomboy and politician that you might romember, who was a
sessionate at shirtly before the elections. But never the last,
his party, broke through any elections and uptain 10,
17 percent of the founds.
So out of nowhere, there is this new party with
support from 17 percent of
the population
And the other parties that that well in these selections,
the christian democrats and the liberal said,
we have no other choice than to govern with this party.
Not only because we need to respect the signal that fotos or sending,
but also is it's the party with which,
we have addue allotically speaking, most in carmen.
So, the Christian Demacrats, say yeah, deliberals,
fave it then, yell pear firms, egovernment coalition.
And the policies that coalition an acted, where compromised be
20-3-Partys. So if you think about it,
visually, the policies that this governments enected,
where in the center of the Tryangle. It's a very flat
Tryangle here, but it's a trying, got never seless.
Of the Tryangle, between the 3s, parties.
So it was a compromise. It were,
they were policies that were economically right-wing.
It were policies that were author atterian and nationlist.
But they were relatively mother at. Because
it was
a compromise
So, it was not, the policy agenda of the listen
film for time that was executed. It was a very
traditional way of governing. So, the LPF actually didn't
up change that much in terms of policy, influence in that caminous.
It was not as successful as it put of liked.
The policy is didn't look as much as much as the
LPF and manifesto as the party with aflicts.
In 2012, 2010, when Cloud Wildersh party the party
for Freedom, was infinited talk about forming egovernment coalition.
The outcome was quite different. And when you look at
this figure, you my think, how is that possible?
If you look at the coalition, Christian Democrats,
liberals, cate wheel lish party for freedom.
It's also a try engle. It's a more left leaning try engle,
but a try engle never the less,
where it's possible, to create a compromise,
that is somewhere in the middle of that try engle and that
represents policies that are right wing and author are terrier in the nationalist,
but that are moderates
But that is not what happened. Why? Because this
today mentional political space and neighbors political parties to borgan
about policy in a different way than they normally do.
So if we think, but we think about government coalitions,
take for example, the current government coalition here in Germany,
Social Democrats kirchs in the Amacrats, there is a compromise.
Coalition agreement, that reached. And that is
a meeting in the middle, between it to parties that
practicipate and that coalition
That's how it has been done for decades.
I most twist European countries. But in this configuration,
it actually becomes possible to low grow over policy.
So not to compromise and meet into in the middle,
but to make it trade off,
between the interests of the participants.
So what happened in the Netherlands in 20010. And what
we see increasingly also in other west European countries is that
the parties,
make each other and said nice
I'm from the liberal party. I'm mark ritte. I
really care about social economic refugee. I want more liberal
social economic policies. I want to reform the text system.
I want to reform the rules for businesses. Cause I think,
these are, I mean, to economic growth.
And that is the most important thing, I want to achieve.
I want to a chieve economic growth for my votors.
That's what I as a party, I dieu
allogically find important. And that is also what my supporters
find importants.
Cut wilders PFV
Wow, sons good, if that's what important to you,
my voters, and oi, really care about imgration.
And what we've really want is to change emigration policies.
Because we believe that that is the bigger strat to our society.
Now, in that situation, where political parties attached different
levels of importance to the dimensions that structuredic political space,
it becomes possible to lockeral for policy.
And say, I let you do, you want,
if you let me do,
what I want?
On the issues that
I find importants
And in that situation, you get, I much more
radical outcommentarms of policies, then if you worked compromise.
So in that situation, the liberal party, the 5VD,
got it's policies on the social economic the mension,
the vertical line. Where is Current Wilders, BVB,
we could his way on immigration policy.
The Horizontal line. So the outcome, the agreement,
but we needs parties, was at the intersection of these too lines.
And this former radical in terms of policy change.
Thank you would get
If they had matts in the middle, if they had compromised.
So in this circumstance, government participation,
even as a support party, was very attractive for the PVV,
because it could change policies on the usues,
that were most important to the party, quite extensively.
So, we have one case in which by compromising,
meeting in a middle, a ratter correctly populist parties,
not particularly successful in a teaving,
it's return parties
Another case, which a different way of reaching and agreements,
those make this parties very successful. Now,
the interesting thing about this way of forming government coalition,
is that it only works,
when the parties that our evolved and nickociations,
find different things important.
So find, I there, culture and identity important,
our find social economic issues important. So for example,
a green party and the social democratic party,
could do this kind of lockrolling
They could say well, we want protection of the empirement,
we want in the new energy energy agreement,
as green parties, where as a social democratic particular say,
we want reform of the labor impact, for example.
That is something that you can trade. What you cannot
trade is issues that be long to the same dye mention.
So 2012, after this government coalition clubs,
a new government was formed of social democrates on the one
hand and liberals on the other hands.
Who find themselves at opposite sides
of the blögal specter
And they tried to lock roll over policy as well.
So the Social Democrat-Set, well, can we do some reforms on education?
And on healthcare. And the liberal party say,
can we reform the housing markets? But that left,
the voters of those partys, very decidest fights,
because they found all those issues importants,
because they were part of the same larger question of do
we one and equal society or markt driven society to them.
So it only works in second stamms, circen certain circumstances.
You cannot work in all circumstances
Now, what we see in Western your Europe more globaly,
is that some ready go right,
when populists parties are as a result of the process I just the scribed,
able to really reform emigration, integration policies,
where is other parties are not.
In a different research projects,
we code it on the changes and emigration, integration,
legislation, in Austria, Demmark, Italy to Nellands and Switzerland.
And you see for example, that bothan Austria and then Mark, radical
right wing populist parties have had an impact on policy making
They have made emigration and integration policies more restrictive.
In facts under to then it people's party,
then mark has become the country in Western Europe with demost
restrictive emigration and integration requirements.
But in other countries, it's ally for example,
the netherlands, in the case of DLPF,
suite serlands, there has been heartly any change.
So these parties have not succeeded enchanging policy in
their proferd direction
And to complicates matter seep and firther. Yes, some retting
or retting purpose parties have changed policy. But so have
many government coalitions, that did not include these parties.
That were comprised of conservative parties, cristian parties,
liberal parties, all kinds of parties,
low cated in that rucked wing are third terrian quarter.
That didn't govern with these particular parties.
So what you see here is that on average,
center left and left wing coalitions,
make ins emigration and integration,
policies more open
Where is center right covelitions,
both with and with out radical ratman populist parties, make emigration
integration parties, more restrictive. So there are not needed,
radical ratman publist parties, for change.
Some of them bring about change, but sometimes,
rightwing parties do it by themselves. So this is,
when it comes to realizing policy objectives, the question is of course whether,
there is a trade of wo es tots.
Now, there's many reasons to expects, why radical rackling populist parties,
might software, fold classes, when they part dispate in government collisions,
one being government, makes it more difficult,
so maintained this discourse of we are populist,
we are against the elites, because if you governing,
you are in many ways part of the elites,
to right a correctlying populist parties,
find it offern very difficults to a present
skillt partitions
Half the caposities to become a minister or Juniorminister in a
bovernment collision. If you look for example,
is Austria, the first collision on the list,
and if be a first participated engovernment in 2002,
it head to replace for ministers, within the first year.
Now, that doesn't look particularly good for your reliability.
And for your
general political qualities
So, there's also kinds of reasons why electrally government participation
might be a challenge. And that's also we see here
. There's somewhere the correct when populist parties,
who really collapse, oner that pressure, afgovernment participation.
My neeve be a government for the first time,
it lass 16,9% point of it sports.
The same goes for the LPF in 2003,
11% point, 3% point.
So, these are parties that literally clubs,
under the pressure
of participation in government
But there is also radical right in populist parties that manage
just fine. Tennis people's party has actually gained
allitable it every couple of rounds of government participation.
Lay are norton, it's ally did so SVP and Switzerland did on
new myerest secications. So again,
there is not a uniform pattern,
some radical right we enpopulist parties,
find governing a challenge in a sense
that they lose
Their electrics, well others, do not.
I think that from this, we can conclude,
that government can boss be a challenge and opportunity.
But it depends on the party that governs, first of all.
How well perpared it is for government?
They init people's party for example. Palsy influence and ability
to maintain supports
Because it's a very well organized and very well structured,
party with highly qualified, political personal.
Other cases, the exact opposite. LPF in 2002,
no policy influence, what's soever? Massive losses at the
next elections. Because it was not perpared for the challenge
ahead. So that is one thing, I think,
there's signic for can variation, amongst the parties,
as to weather its a challenge or a portunity,
and it depends on the qualities of the party itself
By I think, it also depends on a second thing
and that was, what I started with.
Namily whether a party is actually in the cabinets or murderly
a support-party. Why was the danish people's party,
so success of successful or was the policy and false?
Because it was with one food in the governments,
but with another food outs, because it was supporting that government coalition.
Not actually in the common at itself.
So it didn't have to provide members of Cabinets.
It didn't have to a point any Ministers or Junior Ministers.
It's good with draw itself from certain compromises, that it didn't fine at tractive.
So didn't have to support all policy perposals, just one that liked. And thirdly,
it could poot more pressure on government policy,
then the actual cabinet members, because what happens,
when a party supports are minartical election,
it can negotiates for each perposal,
to see,
what it can get in return
In Dänemark. But auch so in den Netherlands,
wenn die Wilders Party eine supporte Party ist, in 2010.
Die Sporte von diesen Partys, die für example sind,
zu passen, die an ihre Budgets.
Und das ist, wenn Ruffly like this ist.
Government, this is the budget.
Are you willing to support this budget in that tomorrow?
Well, we could conceivably support this for posso.
But it would require that you may concessions.
That you give are something in return.
That you
Strengt dann, Emigration in Integration, Legislation zu bekommen.
Aber das ist, was wir wirklich after haben.
Und das war so etwas, das possible zu den Goshiaten.
Yeah, after year, after year. So,
I'm like, when you're a propert covernate member,
when you negot shit, at the starts of the covernate pariot,
regical election agreement, and say, this is it,
this is what we're going to do.
You can black mail your partners every year,
to get a little bit more of what you want.
So for redictor right wing populus parties,
eine Support-Party ist in many ways more of a opportunity,
dann ist es eine Challenge, wo es ein covernet member ist,
ist more of a challenge that in opportunity.
So in den Netherlands, wir haben Elections in 2007,
in March. Und es ist auch sehr, sehr clear,
dass cleare Withers is not interested in becoming and actually member of the cominents.
Es ist simply not interested in taking of government responsibility.
He once is influence. And whereder that is indirectly through
epoulate in die Mainstream-Partys, die Establish-Partys, oder?
So mother way, he doesn't care, as long,
I see doesn't have to take too many risks to get
it. So for him, it's are ready,
very clear that smore attractive to support again,
a minority government, then to actually as shoem affice.
Then is roughly the story, I would want to share
with you. I'm very interested in your thoughts,
a your questions, especially in the German context,
because I think that this very rational choice approach to
how bullgo parties operates to
the kind of calculations they make
My beat perceive, differently here, there's no normative element to is.
I mean, in this story, there is
no factoring in of normative elements of should we give these parties
power or is that responsible, fies are videomacracy etc. etc.
So that is heard and some certainly something that we
can the baits.
Thank you