Can Diederik Samsom save Dutch Labour?

(This article, which was published in the March edition of Policy Network’s State of the Left review, is an adapation of an earlier blog post published here.)

Last Saturday over 1,000 members of the Dutch Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid, or PvdA) gathered in Rotterdam for a special party conference with just one item on the agenda: the confirmation of Diederik Samsom as the party’s new leader. In the preceding 10 days a record 68% of party members had taken part in the ballot to elect a successor to Job Cohen, who resigned in February. The election was held under the alternative vote system, but Samsom scored 54% of first preferences, knocking out his four opponents in the first round.

In the space of just one month (from the day Cohen resigned to the day Samsom was confirmed) the PvdA increased its opinion poll share from 14 to 21 parliamentary seats – a 50% surge in support (although still well short of the 30 seats it won at the last election). But as former leader Cohen reminded the party faithful in Rotterdam as he bid them farewell: the PvdA has been here before.

“Yes we Cohen!” That was how the party greeted the election of Cohen, the universally popular mayor of Amsterdam, as its new leader in the spring of 2010. Then, the party stormed to an opinion poll lead and Cohen seemed a shoe-in as the Netherlands’ next prime minister. Less than two years later, with the party more than halved in the opinion polls and a revolt brewing in his parliamentary party, Cohen resigned, blaming the “political and media reality of the Hague” for scuppering his mission to contribute to a more decent society.

The Dutch political scene certainly isn’t what it used to be. Parliamentary language has got rougher, policy fights have become more personal, sections of the media are out of control. For Cohen, who is better at building bridges than at throwing bricks, the required transition from thoughtful, non-partisan and widely respected Mayor of the country’s capital to tough-talking, mud-slinging, dirt-ducking leader of the opposition proved a bridge too far.

But it would be unfair, not least to other politicians, to blame Cohen’s demise solely or even largely on the lack of political table manners in the Hague.

First, the PvdA lacked a coherent parliamentary strategy. Forced into opposition following the 2010 elections, which the party lost unexpectedly, Cohen alternated between attacking the minority rightwing government for relying on the support of the far-right Freedom Party, and backing that same government on key votes when the Freedom Party failed to do so – thus allowing it to stay in office. The result was a frustrated parliamentary party and a confused electorate.

Second, Cohen failed to formulate a response to the populist insurgency of the far left and right. Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party and Emile Roemer’s Socialist Party are eating into the PvdA’s traditional supporter base. At the same time, party elites are voting with their feet and defecting to the left-liberal D66 and the GreenLeft, seen by many as modern and more effective alternatives to Labour. Faced with a stand-off between traditionalists and modernisers, Cohen responded by trying to keep everyone happy – resulting in a further loss of support and credibility.

It would of course be wrong to blame Cohen for all the PvdA’s recent woes. Like other European social democratic parties, the Dutch Labour Party has struggled to adapt to the reality of a new political and electoral landscape. In May 2011 Cohen shared a stage in Oslo with two other newly elected social democratic leaders: the UK’s Ed Miliband, and Sweden’s Håkan Juholt. Juholt resigned in January; Miliband is fighting for his political life. In France, François Hollande’s meteoric rise in the polls earlier this year was reminiscent of Cohen’s rapid ascent in the spring of 2010; but as the most recent polls demonstrate, Hollande, too, will have his work cut out to make sure his initial burst of personal popularity translates into lasting success for his party.

So where does the PvdA go from here? Party members gave Samsom a resounding mandate. Unlike Cohen, who ran unopposed, Samsom has the advantage of having been tried and tested in a tough leadership battle during which he was forced to defend his views and display his skills in front of 53, 000 party members and a huge national audience (over 1 million people watched the final debate between the five candidates on one of the country’s public tv channnels). With the election out of the way, the new leader has two main items on his to-do list.

The first is to develop an effective and credible strategy for dealing with the Wilders-backed minority government. Labour members and voters no longer want their party to prop up a government which relies on the support of a xenophobic, far-right party. At the same time, the new leader must be careful to extract the party from its current predicament without jeopardising its reputation as a reliable and responsible potential party of government. In his Rotterdam acceptance speech Samsom declared war on Prime Minister Rutte’s government, saying that the PvdA’s support on issues such as Europe would henceforth depend on the government adopting social democratic policies. With the government about to announce new spending cuts to comply with eurozone budget rules, this tough new line will be put to the test very soon.

Second in the new leader’s inbox is the question of how to reconnect with the hundreds of thousands of voters who have deserted the party, and more importantly, how to connect with a new generation of voters for whom party loyalty is a meaningless concept. For too long now, the PvdA has relied on its past achievements to win the backing of new supporters. If it wants to remain a force to be reckoned with, it will have to think of something new and convincing to say, and to learn to say it well. If the leadership campaign is anything to go by, Dutch voters are still able to warm to the PvdA. Samsom must now ensure that the recent upsurge in interest and support translates into a lasting electoral relationship. In his acceptance speech he indicated he would do so by putting “the public cause” – investing in high quality public services – at the core of his political strategy.

By taking the leadership election out of the back rooms and turning it into a national event, the PvdA has managed to shed its image of party of the technocratic and managerial elites. In accordance with party rules, Samsom faces a new leadership ballot when the next general election is called. If new party chair Hans Spekman has his way, that next ballot will involve not just PvdA members but all voters with an affinity to the party. At that point, candidates from outside the parliamentary party can also put themselves forward. Lodewijk Asscher, the highly successful deputy Mayor of Amsterdam and a rising star in the party, has often been tipped as the party’s next leader.

The challenge for Samsom will be to show that the parliamentary party no longer needs an outside saviour to revive its fortunes. The mere prospect of such a challenge should be enough to keep the new PvdA leader on his toes.