Once upon a time, there was a city called Rotterdam. The city had long attracted foreigners. It is a port, after all, often in need of cheap labour. Now, the ratio of so-called autochtonen to allochtonen (“white natives"/"non-whites”) is gradually nearing 1:1. More than 30% are of non-western descent, many of them first, second and third generation immigrants from Muslim countries. It is the city where, almost a decade ago, the right-leaning Pim Fortuyn made his historic political debut, bringing back some long-lost passion to Dutch politics. He did so by expressing his concerns about the rise of Islam in the Netherlands.
Fortuyn was murdered, Rotterdam went into mourning, but life carried on. Last year, Rotterdam even elected a Moroccan mayor, the son of an imam. Dialogue and “building bridges” was thought to be the way forward in overcoming the cultural divide that so clearly split the city. With this goal in mind, the Rotterdam establishment was delighted to hear about the appointment of a leading Muslim philosopher, Tariq Ramadan, toErasmus University as holder of a chair in “identity and citizenship”. Ramadan was at Oxford, a man of stature, a man with an international reputation. Yet he chose the city of Rotterdam. The city council thought: here he is, our bridge builder.
Yesterday, while enjoying his holiday in North Africa, Ramadan was sacked from his roles of “integration adviser” and professor. Why? Despite the drama surrounding the Iranian elections, he had not given up his role as moderator of discussion show, Islam & Life, at the Iranian state-funded TV channel, Press TV. The fifth column, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, has finally been exposed, thought many. It was unfortunate for them that the same day, Ramadan published an op-ed piece in a national newspaper explaining his – very reasonable – motives and deliberations.
But the politicians of Rotterdam have no time for these subtleties. They need to make a point, they need to show simplicity and decisiveness. Action counts, pensive words are nothing, especially where issues of integration are concerned.
Certainly, in the aftermath of the disputed elections in Iran, it’s only natural for questions to be asked about his involvement with Press TV. But the tale of Ramadan’s dismissal actually says more about the current state of Dutch politics. Rather than acting out of fear of the scary Muslim, politicians act out of fear of the scary PVV, Geert Wilders’ Freedom party. During the European elections it came from nowhere to take second place. This was interpreted as a sign that the electorate was not simply threatening the establishment with defecting to the extreme right. They actually meant it.
Of course, it’s easy to cast a protest vote away from home – ie Brussels. The PVV would have faced an internal test next March, with local elections in almost all municipalities. However, two days ago the party announced it would not take part in these elections. It hopes to keep its strength and its unity for the provincial and national elections, in 2011. This is a strategy aimed at gaining a substantial number of seats in both houses of parliament, which the party needs in order to break what they have dubbed the cordon sanitaire erected the old establishment, a secret pledge not to govern with the PVV.
Rotterdam city council was surprised by Wilders’ decision, as its electorate is one of the most susceptible to anti-immigrant rhetoric. Now, freed from pressure exerted by the PVV for another couple of months, parties will scramble to fill the vacuum. But how? Well, in a Wilders-esque way, of course. By showing simplicity, decisiveness, and if possible some no-nonsense action on the integration front. Firing Ramadan while he was on holiday was the starting gun in the race for the old parties to re-establish themselves in preparation for the upcoming elections. Resurrected, they will look just a bit more like cavemen in politicians’ clothing. That is what the electorate seems to long for.
