Hirsi Ali: How to beat Wilders

Hirsi Ali: How to beat Wilders

Hirsi Ali does give the established political parties advice on how to beat Wilders, but that advice amounts to forcing all immigrants to assimilate. I'm not sure Wilders would mind.

In a related story, Wilders became ill in a hotel in Monschau, Germany on Saturday. An ambulance was called in and was at the hotel for more than two hours. According to Volkskrant he was run down. In an SMS Wilders said that nothing was happening and that everything was fine with him. (NL)


-------------

"Geert Wilders is a populist, his policy is impractical, but he will win the elections," former VVD politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali said in an interview in VARA-gids.

"There's iron discipline in his fraction, in contrast to earlier by the LPF (Pim Fortuyn's party). He dominates the important issues such as Islam, integration and the entry of Turkey into the EU. The other parties reacted much too late and now demonize Wilders. They learned nothing from the Fortuyn period."

In the interview Hirsi Ali says Wilders is 'driven, sharp, and tenacious." "His followers see him as a hero, precisely because he's in the underdog positions."

According to Hirsi Ali, Wilders' elections campaign is 'faultless'. "When he left the VVD, people told me: 'Absolutely nothing will come out of it, Wilders is self-opinionated and egotistical. Meanwhile he has nine seats in parliament, the PVV is in the European parliament, he wins in Almere and the Hague and the PVV is the biggest party in the polls. Everything indicates he'll win."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali worked in the VVD together with the PVV head. She supported him at the time with his film Fitna. In the interview the Somali-born distances herself from Wilders' ideas. "I see nothing in his policy proposals, such as the ban on headscarves and the Koran or closing mosques," says the former politician.

"Mass deportation of Muslims is not an answer to the problems. Who will he deport from the country exactly and who will be allowed to stay? His policy is impractical. Wilders is a populist, who skillfully uses the symbols of Islam, such as the mosque, the Koran and the headscarves."

Hirsi Ali says that the VVD, PvdA (Labor) and CDA (Christian-Democrats) could stop Wilders' advance only if they form a front against him. "If the three biggest parties declare Islam taboo as an election topic, Wilders wins. At this moment he's one of the most experienced politicians in the Netherlands."

Source: Telegraaf (Dutch)

-------------

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in an opinion piece in Dutch newspaper NRC (not available online):

There was a time that the Netherlands was considered one of the world's most tolerant and ordered societies. Meanwhile, the Dutch-watches in the US speak rebukingly of all types of intolerance, such as the discrimination of immigration and the growing antisemitism.

The rise of Geert Wilders should be seen against this background. I continuously get the same questions about Wilders: Who is he? Is he a racist? Can he govern?

Wilders is not a racist and also not a fascist, I than explained to my best ability. He is good for the Netherlands, because people who are upset about the systematically wrong approach of the established parties to issues such as immigration and Islam, can channel their anger by voting for him, instead of rebelling or, even worse, entering a violent confrontation with radical Islamic groups.

His popularity among the voters is attributed to a combination of two mistakes which had been made by the established parties and other elites. The first is neglecting to adequately deal with the issue of Islam in the Netherlands. Not so much Islam as a religion, but Islam as a value system that offers its followers a political, cultural and social-moral context, that not only radically differs from the Dutch value system, but that is often a hostile contradiction.

The second mistake is the continuous and venomous campaign of the elites to demonize anyone who doubts Islam as an alarming source of rejection of Dutch values by many Islamic minorities.

The upcoming parliamentary elections offer the elite as a whole and the traditional political parties (VDA, VVD, and PvdA) the chance to correct that second mistake and to minimize the gap between voters and politicians.

It's easier to do something about the second mistake than the first. After the death of Fortuyn and the elections results of the LPF (but also by the threats against sitting politicians), the general opinion reigning in the Hague was that the tactic of demonizing political opponents had a contrary effect. The impression existed then that there would be an end to personal attacks on opponents of policy that originated from multiculturalism. This respite was sadly temporary. The only way to yet win back the disillusioned voters who would vote to Wilders is to again try to shift attention from Wilders the person to the problems that he puts on the agenda.

The first step to get back the trust of the voters would be to suspend the court case against him.

The second step would be to enter a debate with Wilders in the campaign about the problems and about workable policy proposals. The proposals of Wilders are in a practical sense unfeasible. His deportation plans for Muslims are not legally realistic in the EU. The Dutch border is open to other European countries. Moreover, Wilders can't get a majority because other parties don't want to govern together with him.

Is it conceivable that the leadership of the VVD, PvdA and CDA could jointly reach a broad agreement to filch the topic of Islam and integration from Wilders? A broad multiple-party agreement would lead to a policy with a starting point that taking in Muslims into Dutch society is a lengthy socialization process, in which Muslims will be taught to make Dutch values their own, and additionally to give up those values which are based on the Islamic or tribal code from their land of origin. The starting point of this policy would also be that immigration is a choice. That is important, because those immigrants who choose Dutch citizenship, would accept that certain principles are linked to it. Whoever doesn't make this choice, should be allowed to move back to his land of origin. If this leads to a workable solution, the parties must agree about the values that the immigrants should make their own, and the values which they should give up.

There should be an agreement about the values which apply in the three most important fields: sexuality, money and violence in private life. Obviously there are differences of opinion between Dutch political parties regarding what the new members of Dutch society should learn (whether it be children or foreigners), but the differences are not so great for an outsider as they seem from the inside. In my new book "Nomad" I use my family story to illustrate how radically our socialization process differs from what I came across in the Netherlands and other Western countries.

On issues of sexuality, money and violence, tribal Muslim societies go for a collective approach, in which the behavior of the individual is regulated by a centuries old code of honor and shame. Violence is often used to correct mistakes which are made. Aggression is taught as a form of self-defence, so that it becomes second nature. The mystification of sexual matters and the veiling of women is the predominant way in which issues are regulated between men and women. Violence is not the monopoly of the state, but a weapon that serves the strongest; most states are anyway despotic. The concept of a welfare state is just as strange to a Muslim family as the myth of Santa Claus.

In issues of sexuality, money and violence Dutch society emphasizes a sense of responsibility, information and trust. The code of honor and shame that I found in the Netherlands, is the conscience of the individual. Aggression is seen as a crime, or attributed to mental illness. Concerning sexuality (and drugs) the philosophy says that you can't expect people to act responsibly if they're not informed. Violence is not only condemned, but is also assigned to the benevolent, secular state.

When I came to the Netherlands in 1992, there was a lot of trust in the constitutional state. Individuals learned to be financially responsible. When they were in need, due to circumstances of no fault of theirs, they could turn to the state. The state offers this aid, does that in the assumption that those who ask for help are bona fide.

These values are carefully cherished in the Netherlands: in school, in social organizations, in the media and in universities. These values are barely understood, certainly not brought into Muslim households. Nearly all the attempts to end this discrepancy in the Netherlands, were hindered by the confused nature of government officials, who are charged with integration, as well as researchers in this field, because they sought a compromise between preserving the 'identity and culture' of the immigrant and teaching Dutch values.

That is the reason that we should abandon the starting points of the old paradigm, which says that the Dutch culture should link up with Islam, to develop something new, dynamic and stimulating, which would be called 'Dutch' or 'European' Islam. This approach is just as realistic as my wish that it woud be 30 degrees Celsius in the Hague or Washington DC in February .

In the short term, the established parties, who want to win back ethnic Dutch who would vote for Wilders, should take their concerns seriously. The crime and mess for which immigrants are responsible in an increasingly greater number of neighborhoods is outrageous. Show that you are prepared and ready to clean up and carry out the law by effectively punishing violators in place of demonizing people like Wilders. Stop the programs which pamper (young) criminal immigrants, and use the money in an effective manner.

But the angry voters of Wilders must also do something to help. In order to get rid of those backwards neighborhoods, Islamic and black schools must be closed. A distribution policy would do wonders. If that policy works, the ethnic Dutch should be ready to open the doors of their schools for the next generation, so that they can be taught to accept Dutch values. Moreover, it would help if they would be ready to accept the Muslims who would be transferred from the backwards neighborhoods as their neighbors, so that they could help them assimilate much faster.

I see three obstacles for such broad cooperation between the traditional parties in the Netherlands. First, the Islamic and ethnic organization, led by self-appointed men and women who pretend to represent Muslims, will protest. Second, the companies that are invested in Muslim countries and are afraid of a boycott of their products and a hostile environment if the Dutch government and people would take serious steps to assimilate their own citizens, would make objections. And finally, all three big parties in the four major cities of the Netherlands are dependent on Muslim votes.

the first group - though it is very noisy - is not so powerful as they make themselves seem. They could simply be defied by revoking the subsides for these organizations.

The second group - companies which are invested in the oil-rich Gulf states and other Muslim countries - should bear the risks of their presence in these countries or seek other, better markets. In a globalizing world opportunities are endless. Moreover, they must not underestimate the interest that the Muslim countries have in keeping their activity. Take the example of Denmark after the cartoon crisis, or that of Switzerland after the minaret referendum. Danish and Swiss companies are doing better than ever. Naturally there are attempts to kill the cartoonist and the Libyan president Qaddafi kidnapped two Swiss businessmen, but the predicted disasters failed to occur.

Finally - and this is the hardest point: the Dutch political parties, which have become dependent on the Muslim vote, must choose. Whether they'll see Geert Wilders (and yet more candidates like him) come to power, or whether they'll keep to the Great Agreement not to fight for a vote, in which they promise to protect the followers of Sharia and at the same time shed crocodile tears at the rise of violent extremism.