|
Actually that is almost one of the arguments used by Pim Fortuyn. Because of the political consensus which has developed in Europe there is very little noticeable change in politics between any of the parties. Many structure their debate on a consensual mandate which is built on agreements on immigration, the European Union and economic issues. This has lead to a sizeable disfranchised minority who no longer vote, and in some cases are willing to resort to violence (an Italian politician was also recently assassinated), or vent their political energy in single issue politics. Fortuyn was attempting to break that cosy consensus by attracting the votes of those disenchanted because their views were not being heard or being represented. As Treb noted, he was an amalgam of differing views (he had been a marxist), leftwing on homosexuality, drugs and sexual permissiveness, while being right on others such as anti-immigration and increasing privatisation. And it may be that it was the threat poised to his very liberal views (homosexuality, drugs, women's rights) from Islam which motivated him. Afterall, Rotterdam, where his power base was, has an immigrant population amounting to almost 50%. He believed the cultural values of the indigenous population had to be defended against what he regarded as an alien 'backward' culture, mainly from poor rural areas of Muslim countries, which stubbornly refused to assimulate. Though anti-immigration (because he thought that the Netherlands was over-populated at 16 million), he was not anti-immigrant and had no policy on repatriation, (he just wanted immigration halted), unlike Haider (Austria) and Le Pen (France), both of whom he thought were abhorrent, especially Le Pen and his remarks about the Holocaust.
|
