Abstract and Keywords
After the expulsion of the Janmaat group at the end of 1984, the troubles of the Centrumpartij were far from over. It was declared bankrupt on 13 May 1986. The successor was founded exactly one week later, conveniently named Centrumpartij'86. The CP'86 does not have a particularly well-developed ideology. Its election programmes hold scanty introductions, which precede long lists of unsubstantiated demands. The only party programme it ever presented was copied literally from another party. Its paper mainly contains articles on current affairs. Substantial articles dealing with questions of the present or future are absent. This notwithstanding, the literature of the CP'86 is loaded with terms that seem to be part of an elaborated ideology, such as ‘third way’ or ‘national revolution’. A new goal for the party is an ethnically homogeneous Great-Netherlands in which political power is put in the hands of the Dutch people.
Reservoir of the fringe
After the expulsion of the Janmaat group at the end of 1984 the troubles of the Centrumpartij were far from over. Party leader Konst was put under increasing pressure by his employer to resign as party chairman or lose his job as teacher at a state school; vice-chairman De Wijer had already been temporarily suspended as teacher at another state school (DNPP 1987; Schikhof 1998). Only a few months after the split Konst resigned and was succeeded by former party treasurer Albrecht Lier, (in)famous in the Netherlands for his claim to be an illegitimate son of prince Hendrik.1 In the 1985 by-election the CP gained one seat in the new province of Flevoland and one in the new municipality of Leerdam. Despite the decreasing trend, the party contested the local election of March 1986 with moderate success (winning six seats). The last surge of optimism for the parliamentary election of two months later was shattered by the defection of party leader Lier to the CD (Lucardie and Voerman 1990). The eventual blow in winning just 0.4 per cent of the votes was softened only slightly by the 0.1 per cent won by its main rival the CD.
Lier's successor, former party treasurer Danny Segers, was unable to turn the tables for the rapidly disintegrating party. Since the split the membership of the CP had fallen back to merely 100. Moreover, almost the whole top echelons of the party had either left politics altogether or moved to the CD. The situation became even more devastating as the CP had become involved in a series of court cases as a consequence of its preparation for the local election. A group of people who had signed the CP electoral list in Heerlen later claimed to have been misled by the party, as they had been told that they signed for something else. The court acknowledged their complaint and fined the CP 50,000 Dutch guilders. As the party could not pay the fine, it (p.143) was declared bankrupt on 13 May 1986 (DNPP 1988). The successor was founded exactly one week later, conveniently named Centrumpartij’86
Though its legal successor, the new CP’86 was no more than a weak copy of the old CP. From the approximately 3,500 members the CP had claimed in its heyday, only a mere fifty were willing to begin with the CP’86. Yet even within this small group the internal disputes continued. In 1987 chairman Segers withdrew from his position and was succeeded by Ema Bouman, a relatively unknown member until she was elected as a council member in Amsterdam in 1986. At the end of 1988 she also suddenly left the CP’86, in protest against the radicalisation of the party (Schikhof 1997), and was replaced by Wim Beaux, then council member in both the municipality of Almere and the province of Flevoland and a long-time leading member of the CP. He was superseded shortly afterwards by another major driving force of the new party, Wim Wijngaarden, also a long-time activist within the CP. This time the succession was not the result of an internal dispute, and Beaux remained part of the party executive.
Except for internal disputes, the CP’86 had several other problems to deal with. For instance, election material of the party was confiscated at its German printer (the same printer as was used by the North Rhine-West-phalian branch of the NPD). Moreover, it was involved in a legal battle with the CD over the legacy of the CP. The CP’86 won the case in the first instance and was appointed the sole legal heir to the CP. This meant it could profit from several publicity and electoral advantages, as the CP was relatively well-known and represented in several municipal and provincial councils. However, the CP’86 could not make much use of it at the time, as internal difficulties and a general decline prevented it from contesting the 1989 parliamentary election.
In the 1990 local election the CP’86 gained four seats, a disappointing result compared to the eleven seats of the CD. There was good news for the party as well, since it won its legal case over the heritage of the CP in the second instance too, despite the fact that the CD had claimed before the Council of State that it should also be considered and treated as a successor to the CP (DNPP 1992). More important was the remarkable growth in membership which the CP’86 experienced, with an influx of between 50 and 100 youths. They originated predominantly from the Jongerenfront Nederland (Youth Front Netherlands, JFN), at that time the largest right-wing extremist youth movement in the Netherlands with some 200 members. After a Breda court had labelled the JFN a criminal organisation (in a case against two of its members in May 1990), leader Stewart Mordaunt called upon his supporters to follow him into the CP’86, for which party he had been elected to the municipal council of The Hague earlier that year (FOK 1992).
This expansion brought the total membership of the CP’86 to approximately (p.144) 300 at the end of 1991. In addition, the youth and activism of the new members gave the party a new impulse. In particular, following an almost hidden existence for five years the young activists brought the CP’86 back into the spotlight by distributing pamphlets. Favourite targets for the young militants were young people and inhabitants of areas with a high concentration of foreigners and ethnic minorities or of areas where ethnic tensions had recently erupted. In addition to the people that were directly approached, the CP’86 also made its actions as provocative as possible in order to spread its message to other people through the consequent (large) media attention – a strategy that had already been the trade mark of the JFN.
The revitalisation of the CP’86 did not bring an end to the internal disputes, however. After party secretary Egbert Perée had been ousted from the party leadership in August 1990, his successor Wim Geurts experienced the same fate in the beginning of 1991. The same year the party contested the provincial election in four provinces, all without success. Shortly thereafter, Wim Kock, who had been heading the election list in the province of South Holland and had been the assistant of Mordaunt in the council of The Hague, was expelled from the party. In most cases the veterans were replaced by members of the former JFN. In early 1992 the party executive included five people of which (the first) three came from the old CP and (the last) two from the JFN: Wijngaarden (chairman), Theo Termijn (council member in Rotterdam), Beaux (vice-chairman), Mordaunt and Tibor Mudde (secretary).
The next three years were characterised by a remarkable unity and growth. Through its large number of local actions the CP’86 was able to steadily increase its membership to some 500 at the end of 1994. Among the new members were former members of the CP (such as Segers), as well as small groups of (former) neo-Nazis. This latter group was partly attracted by the large autonomy the local branches of the party enjoyed. Especially in the area of Rotterdam the (former) neo-Nazis were able to put their imprint on the local party.
The election year 1994 was approached with much optimism by the CP’86. Henk Ruitenberg, a relative newcomer to the extreme right and to the CP’86, had succeeded the ill Wijngaarden as party leader in early 1994. The party campaigned actively throughout the whole country, distributing thousands of pamphlets, mostly in so-called disadvantaged areas. Despite the fact that the CP’86 was overshadowed by the CD in the March local election it more than doubled its number of seats, from four in 1990 to nine in 1994 (see Mudde and Van Holsteyn 1994; Van Holsteyn 1995). Though the successes outside of the big cities were exclusively in municipalities in which the CD had not contested the election, the leadership saw the result as proof of the viability of their party (next to the CD) and anticipated its (re)entry into the Second Chamber. This optimistic view was supported by some opinion polls, which showed that the party was receiving sufficient support to win a parliamentary seat (Van Holsteyn 1995).
(p.145) The final result in the parliamentary election, when it won just 0.4 per cent, therefore signified a rude awakening. The party remained below the score needed for one seat (0.67 per cent) and well behind its main rival the CD, which increased its number of seats from one to three. After some soul searching the party concluded that one of the main reasons for its poor results was that it was too often mistaken for the CD by the voters. It had tried to avoid this problem by stamping its election material with the text ‘Centre Party’86 absolutely not to be confused with Janmaat's CD’. On 19 November 1994 the party decided on a more drastic measure, renaming itself as Nationale Volkspartij/CP’86 (National People's Party/CP’86, NVP).
There had also been another reason for this change of name, however: legal pressure. The CP’86 had always been the target of anti-racist organisations and on several occasions attempts had been made to get the state to start legal proceedings against the party to either convict or ban it for incitement to racial hatred. In 1994 vice-chairman Beaux was convicted on two occasions, once, together with five other members, for possessing and distributing racist pamphlets (IJA 1995). But most importantly, after years of discussions and under mounting pressure from anti-racists organisations and various political parties (most notably PvdA and D66), the state finally started legal actions against the party itself. In 1995 an Amsterdam court ruled that the CP’86 constituted a criminal organisation, as it consistently spread racial hatred; in addition, five of its leaders were convicted of heading a criminal organisation (e.g. JPR 1997).
The conviction hit the party hard, most notably the ‘moderate’ leader Ruitenberg, who had tried to bring the party into a more acceptable position. Feeling pressured by both the legal repression and the increasing internal opposition from the ‘radical’ wing, he sought a rapproachement with the CD, offering something close to a full merger of the two parties on Janmaat's terms. In addition, the two parties cooperated in some high profile demonstrations (e.g. Zwolle), where leaders of CP’86 and Janmaat marched and spoke side by side. In May the cooperation came to a sudden end, when the CP’86 membership by large majority rejected Ruitenberg's fusion proposal. In reaction, Ruitenberg resigned as party chairman, defecting to the CD shortly afterwards, and was succeeded by party veteran Beaux. However, the bitter struggle between the ‘moderate’ nationalist wing and the ‘radical’ neo-Nazi wing continued to divide the party.
Officially, it was the open neo-Nazi behaviour and contacts of the group around Rotterdam council member Martijn Freling2 which caused the ‘moderate’ (p.146) leadership headaches. However, several party leaders were at least as worried about Freling's party ambitions, as well as irritated by his defiance of the official party line, which proclaimed that open neo-Nazism was not allowed. At the same time the leadership was hesitant to split the tiny movement even further. After much lingering Freling was finally expelled from the party in October 1996; however, not by an unanimous party leadership decision. To some surprise a disgruntled Mordaunt choose Freling's side, which led to his expulsion a few weeks later. In November Freling countered by organising a meeting of loyal party members, in which they claimed the party, elected Mordaunt as chairman and Freling as secretary, and expelled the ‘moderate’ leadership (e.g. Kafka 1998; Lucardie 1998). After months of confusing bickering, the Freling-Mordaunt group obtained the legal right to the party, and changed the name back to CP’86. The ‘moderates’, on their part, dismantled the NVP in February 1997 and founded the Volksnationalisten Nederland (Ethnic Nationalists Netherlands, VNN).3
Both groups are just weak shadows of the old party; in 1998 their memberships were estimated at some forty members per party (Van den Brink 1998). Various influential and active members, among them Mudde and Marcel Rüter, had left party politics altogether, devoting all their energy to the Dutch branch of Voorpost (see Kafka 1998; Van den Brink 1998). The two successor parties were unable to make any impression in elections. In the local election of March 1998 they lost all their seats and neither of the parties has contested any elections since. However, the parties did make the headlines on various occasions, particularly the CP’86 of Freling and Mor-daunt. Freling has always held close contacts with journalists, who repaid this privilege by (over)reporting his every move (see Van Donselaar et al. 1998). In 1996 the group organised various meetings which were also attended by prominent neo-Nazis from outside of the party, most notably NVU-leader Glimmerveen. At some of these meetings speakers threatened prominent Dutch persons, including the Surinamese-born MP of Groen-Links (Green Left), Singh Varma, an outspoken anti-racist. Ironically, it was particularly the remarks of Glimmerveen, not a party member, which provided the final push in the legal battle against the party. In reaction mainly (p.147) to his remarks, the whole parliament (with the exception of the CD) urged the Goverment to start criminal investigations into the CP’86, with the (unspoken) aim of a party ban (see JPR 1997).
In October 1997 the High Court confirmed the ruling of the Amsterdam court of two years earlier, which had found both the CP’86 and five of its leaders guilty of inciting racial hatred (Van den Brink 1998). Though the actual sentences were marginal, one month suspended sentences and fines of a few thousand guilders, the ruling was generally considered as the first step to the banning of the party, which was now for the first time officially labelled a ‘criminal organisation’. At the same time, various people questioned the usefulness of a ban, given the deplorable state of the party as well as the bizarre situation that only one of the five convicted ‘leaders’ was still a member of the party. This notwithstanding, Minister of Justice Sorgdrager announced her intention to ban the party and started the preparations for the ‘ghost trial’ a few days after the ruling. It would take until 18 November 1998 before the party was officially banned and disbanded by the Amsterdam court. By that time, the CP’86 was not more than an empty vessel, probably containing only the inactive ‘party leader’ Freling, who had lost all his former comrades as well as the party's funds, allegedly as a consequence of his drug addiction.
Throughout its existence the CP’86 has constantly been involved in some form of negotiations about a possible fusion with the CD, and at times also with other parties at the extreme right fringe. In 1992 the Belgian VB tried to bring a wide variety of these parties together – among them the CP’86, CD, and NB – with the idea of creating one big Dutch nationalist party. The negotiations failed completely and even the agreement to constitute one electoral list in the 1994 European election lasted only for a few days. As in earlier years the main obstacle had been Janmaat, who had demanded that all other parties and persons would grant him and his party the leading role. At the CP’86 party conference of 1992 the membership almost unanimously rejected the possibility of a merger with the CD if it would include the elimination of their own party (which it would do again in 1996). Though contacts concerning possible cooperation were never terminated for long, it would take until 1996 before serious talks between CP’86 and CD were held again. It was these talks that led to the demise of the CP’86, putting the already tense relations between the ‘moderates’ (i.e. Ruitenberg, Mudde, De Boer and Hoogstra) and the ‘radicals’ (i.e. Freling and Mordaunt) under even more strain.
Although the CP’86 never maintained a large membership, many of those within the party (leadership) have been highly active in the extreme right scene, both inside and outside of the Netherlands. The party held official contacts with the Flemish VB (and VBJ) and Voorpost, the German NPD (and JN), the British National Party, and the South African Boerestaatparty (p.148) (Boer State Party). High-ranking party members had personal contacts with organisations like the American National Alliance and (sections of) the Ku Klux Klan, the French Nouvelle Resistance (New Resistance) and the Austrian Aktionsgemeinschaft für Politik (Action Community for Politics). The CP’86 was also for years officially represented at the annual Ijzerbedevaart in the Flemish town of Diksmuide, where it had a prominent stand in the hall of Voorpost.
Profiling the literature
Externally oriented: programmes
In the period 1986–99 the CP’86 published three election programmes and two party programme (or programmes of principle). The first election programme was the undated (probably 1987) ‘party programme’ Voor een veilig en leefbaar Nederland! (For a Safe and Livable Netherlands!, CP 1987), which was an almost exact copy of the programme Naar een veilig en leef-baar Nederland (Towards a Safe and Livable Netherlands) with which the CP had contested the 1986 parliamentary election. The main difference was that the CP had used the logo of a traffic sign in which an arrow to both the left and right was crossed (illustrating the slogan ‘not right, not left’), whereas the CP’86 used a (Dutch) lion with a sword. The programme contained thirty chapters (policy areas) on a total of twenty-seven unpaged A5 pages. It was never used in elections; neither was the revised 1990 programme with the same title, including a short new introduction, some new demands and the eradication of several old demands (CP 1990). In 1993 the party published a new version titled Partijprogramma (Party Programme), with which the party contested the 1994 local and parliamentary elections (CP 1993). Except for the fact that the CP’86 had changed the title of the programme and the supplement to the party name (from ‘The national democratic movement in the Netherlands’ in 1989 to ‘Own people first!’ in 1993), the revisions in the programme were almost unnoticeable.
In 1989 the CP’86 presented its first party programme, under the title Nationaaldemocratische gedachten voor een menswaardige toekomst (National Democratic Thoughts for a Human Future, CP 1989). The first version included fifteen unmarked A4 pages, some of which featured advertisements for the party. The second version was published as a ‘programme of principle’ in 1990, containing an identical title and content. It included thirteen unmarked A5 pages, had a more professional lay-out, and was distributed more broadly. The programme was an almost literal translation of the 1987 NPD programme, entitled Nationaldemokratische Gedanken für eine lebenswerte Zukunft, although passages that were placed in a typically German context in the original were – using similar phrasing – placed in a typically Dutch context in this new version (see Mudde 1995: 220). In May 1996 the then NVP adopted a new party programme with the title Wie wij (p.149) zijn & wat wij willen (Who we are & what we want, CP 1996), written by Rüter and Mudde. The so-called ‘Yellow Booklet’, referring both to the color of the programme and to the ‘Green Booklet’ by Libyan leader Moamar Quadaffi, counted thirty-two pages and included five sections: the history of the NVP/CP’86, the ideology, the aims, the statutes and the former national anthem Wien Neerlands Bloed (Whose Dutch Blood).
Internally oriented: party paper
In 1987 the CP’86 started publishing a quarterly national party paper with the title Centrumnieuws (Centre News, CN) and the sub-title Blad voor de Centrumpartij’86 (Paper for the CP’86). The final supervision of the paper rested with the ‘scientific bureau’, which only existed on paper at that time. In December 1987 the paper was restyled for the first time, introducing the logo of the Dutch lion and the Latin slogan ‘Vincit Amor Patriae’ (Patriotism Conquers) on the front page, as well as a slightly revised sub-title Partijor-gaan van de Centrumpartij’86 (Party Paper of the CP’86). Though the number of (unnumbered) pages was extended to fifteen, the paper maintained its poor quality in language and lay-out. Most of the articles were short and vague, printed in a broad variety of different letter types and containing many typing errors. The last 1988 issue introduced a new extension to the sub-title: ‘the national democratic movement in the Netherlands’. In the following years the style remained basically the same, but the size of the paper increased to some thirty pages.
After the influx of the young JFN members a new editorial board was created under the leadership of its former chancellor and then CP’86 secretary Tibor Mudde. As of the third issue of 1991 the party paper was drastically restyled. For the first time in its existence it was paginated, and the number of language and typing errors decreased rapidly. Moreover, the paper became more conveniently arranged. It was (re)structured into several columns, of which most contained exclusively articles on a single theme (mainly foreigners). The paper also featured more drawings, cartoons and quotations from like-minded journals abroad, portraying Viking and Celtic warriors as the true European heroes of the past. Under the new guidance the party paper expanded its size considerably, numbering between thirty-nine and sixty-four pages in the later years. In late 1993 it changed its cover and lay-out again. The extension ‘the national democratic movement in the Netherlands’ was deleted and the paper was named plainly Centrumnieuws – with, in the middle of the name, a Celtic cross and two hands that break free from handcuffs, one of which features a dollar sign, the other a hammer and sickle. The style was not changed until the beginning of 1995, when the now Nationale Volkspartij/CP’86 introduced the radically improved party paper De Revolutionair Nationalist (The Revolutionary Nationalist, RN). It had a lay-out quite similar to Revolte, the journal of the Great-Netherlands action group Voorpost. In addition to the drastic restyling, the new party (p.150) paper also used a new slogan: Voor Volk en Vaderland (For Ethnic Community and Fatherland). With the split of the party, the paper disappeared; the VNN tried for a while to publish a somewhat similar paper as the RN, while the CP’86 seeked inspiration in its predecessor CN.
In search of an identity
The CP’86 has always identified itself as a nationalist party, mostly using the term volksnationalist (ethnic nationalist). This is also the main theme in the party literature. What ethnic nationalism precisely means to the party, however, is often simply assumed to be clear to the reader. Sporadically one can find a clear-cut description such as the following: ‘Country and ethnic community should be one!’ (CN 1/89). The party holds this to be a universal truth. It acknowledges the right to self-determination of all ethnic communities and strives for a world of independent and genuine nation-states. Consequently, it sees its main enemy in imperialism, i.e. the expansion of a certain state beyond its ‘natural’ territorial borders.
Despite the frequent reference to its own ethnic community and the use of terms like ‘true Dutchmen’ and ‘paper Dutchmen’, the CP’86 has problems in defining the own ethnic community. In the pamphlet ‘national democratic guidelines regarding our national consciousness’, based on a similar pamphlet of the NPD, it states: ‘The race is the determining factor for the identity of every ethnic community’ (CN 1/89). In another instance the party depicts a somewhat organic view of the notion of an ethnic community, declaring that ‘(y)our soil, your own ethnic community, culture and traditions form the unmistakable recognition of the roots of your own existence’ (CN 1/89). Despite the confusing usage of the terms race and ethnic community, the broader idea of the party is relatively clear: only those people are members of the Dutch ethnic community ‘whose preceding generations originated from Dutch parents, and among whom the language, culture and way of life is acknowledged and practised as the only way’ (CN 3/90). Accordingly, children born in the Netherlands with foreign (grand)parents (so-called allochtonen) are not considered to be truly Dutch. Though never stated openly, it is clear from the party literature that truly Dutch people are part of the ‘white race’. Interestingly, though the party portrays the Dutch ethnic community always as a homogeneous group in contrast to ‘the’ foreigners, at the same time it believes that the Dutch ethnic community includes several sub groups (such as the Frisians), who live harmoniously together in one state (CN 1/89).
Part of its ethnic nationalist ideology is the feature of external exclusive-ness, the claim that the Dutch state should encompass all members of the Dutch ethnic community. The 1990 programme, for example, states: ‘The highest goal for us national democrats is a sovereign, non-aligned Dutch (p.151) speaking nation-state in which the whole Dutch speaking part of the nation in Europe is united.’ In line with this vision the separation of the Netherlands and Flanders, referred to as the Northern and Southern Netherlands, is labelled a volkstegenstrijdige scheiding (a partition which is hostile to the ethnic community).
We, national democrats, envisage a Dutch ethnic state, which is congruent geographically with the Northern and Southern Netherlands together, and is inherent to a territory in which the Dutch language, Dutch culture and truly Dutch traditions are commonplace. It is the character and will of the ethnic community that determines the ethnic state and its borders. (CP 1990: 29.8)
This Great-Netherlands state would stretch geographically ‘from Dollart through Southern Flanders’ (CN 3/89), i.e. the current Netherlands, plus Belgian Flanders and French Flanders (an area in the Northwest of France). Remarkably, the rather extreme demand of external exclusiveness features prominently in the externally oriented literature, both in the election programmes (after 1987) and in the programme of principle, yet hardly figures in the internally oriented party papers.
A topic that is prominent in the whole party literature is internal homogenisation, i.e. the demand that only Dutchmen can live in the Dutch state. The CP’86 wants to repatriate all foreigners, starting with those who are illegal and those who are or were criminal (and have lived in the Netherlands for less than five years). The few foreigners that will be needed for economic reasons can stay in the Netherlands, but only on a temporary basis. These people should not be allowed to bring their families nor should they (be forced to) integrate into Dutch society. Foreigners who have been naturalised in the last decades, condescendingly referred to as ‘paper Dutchmen’, are also to be repatriated to their countries of origin. Finally, the 1990 programme includes the new demand that all unemployed foreigners, who have not yet reached retirement, as well as all ‘social refugees’, will be obliged to repatriate (CP 1990: 7.9–10).
All election programmes stress the need to bring Dutch policy on immigration into accord with European policy. The European argument is used solely when other European countries have a policy more favourable to the CP’86.
At least what has to be avoided is that the Netherlands will take an exceptional position in Western Europe, by a too negligent adoption of generally accepted rules of conduct with regard to the policy on foreigners. The Netherlands can not become a haven for foreigners that are rejected everywhere else. (CP 1993: 7.3)
The CP’86 further demands that acquiring Dutch citizenship should be made far more difficult. According to the party, it is not meant to provide foreigners with social and financial security or the (established) political parties (p.152) with ‘improper electoral gains’ (CP 1990: 5.19). Should foreigners wish to acquire Dutch citizenship, they have to make it clear that they indeed want to become Dutch, will speak Dutch, and will freely and fully ‘harmonise into the Dutch cultural pattern’ (CP 1999: 5.20).
Until the volksstaat (ethnic state) is realised the party wishes to pursue a policy of ‘our own people first’ which, for the most part, means ‘our own money for our own people’. It would also mean the introduction of legal pluralism, as the CP’86 wishes to bring conditions regarding admission, employment, housing and expulsion of foreign nationals into accord with the respective policies of the countries of origin of these foreigners. Consequently, the few foreigners that are allowed to live in the country are accepted only under clear conditions (to work for a specific period of time) and under very strict rules.
Given the lack of an elaborated ideology more complex features like ethno-pluralism can be traced only by combining different statements within the party literature. In the early years the party limited itself mainly to fighting the payment of subsidies for forced integration of ethnic customs and cultures into existing cultural patterns. In the 1990s this opposition was not only radicalised, but was also (slightly) more substantiated.
The requisition of shelters for asylum seeking aliens, in particular in small communities, is polluting the environment and discriminating against our own ethnic community. Moreover, it is an unbearable burden for the whole Dutch society and is rejected by us as inhuman. (CP 1990: 22.12)
According to the party the flood of foreigners has led to the loss of identity in the Dutch ethnic community, as ghettos of foreigners have made them into a minority in their own land. But the foreigners have also lost their identity, since they have been the victims of a ‘foreigner-hostile integration policy (a forced Dutchifying)’ (CP 1989). As ‘the struggle for homogeneity and the living together with similar people is anchored in human nature’ (CN 3/92), the policy of multi-culturalism and integration is perceived as inhuman. Moreover, integration uproots the foreigners, which leads to confusion and consequent criminal and amoral behaviour, particularly among the youth. Therefore, the CP’86 equates a multi-cultural society with a ‘multi-criminal society’. This whole line of argument is applied exclusively to non-white foreigners, however. Within the ‘white race’, often simply equated with the European culture, integration seems to be possible, according to the party literature. Hence, it considers European foreigners as posing far less of a threat than non-Europeans.
Probably the most outspoken example of ethnopluralist reasoning is found in the party's support for a Europe of Ethnic Communities. The first programme had contained a very positive European chapter, proclaiming (p.153) the process of European integration as ‘vital for our political, economic and societal system’ (CP 1987: 28.1) and stating that the Netherlands has to be an ‘inspiring but particularly loyal ally’ (CP 1987: 28.2). Though it acknowledged some problems with(in) the European Community – such as the wasting of money, the alienation from the people and the lack of democratic control – the institution as such was viewed as extremely positive. The CP’86 even wanted to increase the autonomy of the European Commission, arguing that it should be able to decide by simple majority. This is therefore a world apart from the 1990 programme, which called the European Community imperialist and described it as a perilous threat to Dutch identity (CP 1987: 28.1). EU-phoria had given way to an ethnopluralist EU rejection:
National democrats support the European co-operation of independent ethnic communities, including the East European countries, but resist any form of European integration in which our national identity could be endangered. (CP 1987: 28.3).
The CP’86 maintains that the different ethnic communities in (East and West) Europe share enough common history and culture to work closely together, yet are at the same time too different to give up their separate identities and autonomy. Thus, each different ethnic community should have its own independent nation-state (including, among others, the Bretons and Basques), which should work together on specific matters, mainly economic and military.
The frequent usage of the term race, at times used interchangeably with the term ethnic community, could point to a racist argumentation, hidden behind the more open ethnopluralist argumentation. The party does consider race to be the determining factor for the identity of every ethnic community and argues that ‘(o)nly the recognition and the acceptance of the substantial differences between the races guarantees respect between ethnic communities’ (CN 3/88). Even in its typically ethnopluralist defense of the South African apartheid regime it uses racial categories: ‘There is no racism in South Africa, but a healthy racial consciousness, which is the positive thinking that grants every race or ethnic community the right to self-determination, self-development and its own identity’ (CN 1/90). However, the belief in the existence (and importance) of races is not (openly) combined with statements that any race is superior or inferior – even though members of non-white races are always portrayed negatively in the party literature.
The entire party literature of the CP’86 has always been drenched with xenophobia. The party paper in particular has a special interest in the negative sides of immigration. Favourite topics are crimes by foreigners of all kinds (guest workers, asylum seekers, illegal aliens), preferably rapes and murders. Originally the party paper would print copies of newspaper articles (p.154) about crimes (allegedly) by foreigners. Following its restructuring special columns like ‘adaptation problems’, based on a similar column in the German extreme right journal Nation [und] Europa, printed lists of excerpts from these newspaper articles. In addition to these more or less neutral presentations of facts, all issues of the paper include at least some xenophobic comments on the multi-cultural society, from either readers or the editors. The main argument that a multi-cultural society can only be a multi-criminal society is ‘proven’ by pointing to examples such as former Yugoslavia (the civil war) and Los Angeles (the race riots of 1994). According to the party the mass influx of foreigners and the consequent policy of multi-culturalism can lead only to civil war:
After all, the ongoing stream of aliens from ever different countries, next to the millions of non-Europeans who have already penetrated Europe, are a direct attack on our economy, on our sense of justice, on our social consciousness, on our national values and on our personal freedom! (CN 5/87)
Nor are the party programmes free from xenophobia, which is clearly visible, for instance, in the section of the 1989 party programme with the title ‘the inner peace and security is being seriously endangered by the massive influx of aliens into our country’. Since 1990, the introduction of the election programme declares ‘our resistance against the uncontrolled influx of hundreds of thousands of criminal and parasitic aliens in our overpopulated country’ (CP 1993) to be one of the main pillars of the political thinking and actions of the party.
The preservation of traditional ethical values has always been a regular feature in the party literature. The election programme originally included a moderately conservative view, stating that abortion for social reasons should remain illegal, but not demanding any new (stricter) measures (CP 1987: 5.11). In the 1990 version the position had toughened: abortion was referred to as ‘the mass murder of the unborn child’ (CP 1990: 12.9) and the creation of a living climate in which pregnant women would not have to consider abortion for social reasons was demanded. This toughening was also visible in the party position on the related issue of euthanasia. The 1987 programme had not yet formulated a standpoint on euthanasia, stating that a policy paper would be published (it never appeared). In 1990, the programme also contained the demand that euthanasia should remain illegal(CP 1990: 5.10).
The CP’86 considers the traditional family as the cornerstone of society, within which the most ideal and non-replaceable environment for the upbringing of children is provided. A special role in the revival of (ethnic) community spirit is ascribed to the family. The new election programmes even include a demand for a specific constitutional guarantee for the protection (p.155) of the family. Moreover, the party also demands that everything should be done to restore positive future expectations for the family and a general joy of life, as only then will the family be able to maintain its indispensable place in the (ethnic) community. The position on the family has consequences for other beliefs. For instance, the party does not look favourably upon homosexuality. In an Amsterdam council meeting Beaux described it as ‘an interpersonal practice that goes against nature’ (CN 1/93). In general, however, homosexuality is ignored rather than attacked in the party literature. This also goes for feminism, which is not regarded positively, though seldom addressed (if mentioned at all, feminists are portrayed as men-hating lesbians). The CP’86 sees man and woman as equal in rights, but with different tasks in life. It wants a society that is friendly towards children and that recognises and enables ‘the sublime role of housewife and mother’ (CP 1989).
The CP’86 wants the state to become more involved in upholding morals and values, though it concedes that only a change in mentality can bring back the desired values of ‘order, discipline, tolerance, refined speech, courtesy, honesty and being well-groomed’ (CN 3/87). These values seem a world apart from the current state of affairs, described as:
Self-enrichment, criminal materialism, devaluation of our basic values, secularisation, corruption and deceit are features of our modern society with the resulting excesses: unbridled abortion and euthanasia practices, pornography, incest, drug addiction, unlimited mental suffering of the many, destruction of marriage and family morals, uncontrollable crime as a consequence of the lack of a just and adequate penal system, a criminal foreigners policy and finally exploitation and humiliation of those that have landed at the bottom of the socialladder, such as the elderly, handicapped, disabled, unemployed and minimum wage earners. (CN 2/89)
The CP’86 believes that the two ‘materialist’ and ‘hedonist’ systems of capitalism and socialism (normally referred to as communism) are at the core of the current moral decay in the (Western) world; after the fall of the Berlin Wall ‘liberal capitalism’ was declared its main enemy. At the elite level these systems have led to a situation in which the economically powerful are no longer bound by a country (or ethnic community), which is in itself juxtaposed to the nationalist spirit. At the mass level the systems made people into ‘consumer slaves who are devoid of culture’, so that they are easier to control and thus stimulate the profit of big capital (CN 2/92). Only if these materialist and hedonist systems (and cultures) are overcome, is it possible to achieve a return to traditional ethical values.
Originally the CP’86 professed a rather liberal economic view which featured primarily in the election programme. It stressed the importance of (p.156) decentralisation and privatisation of state tasks, the reduction of collective spending and tax and premium reductions where and whenever possible (CP 1987: 9.7; also chapter XIII). It further pledged support for reducing the financial deficit, for a policy of wage restraint, for government support for the Dutch small business community, and for specially subsidised (researchon) technological innovation and education.
The later programmes were less liberal and more welfare chauvinist in outlook. They proclaim the full economic and financial dependency of the Netherlands on international (read US) capitalism (CP 1990: 9.1). According to the new party line, the economic actions of the Dutch government should make sure that ‘our own ethnic community and not the multinational companies profits optimally from the benefits of the market’ (CP 1993: 9.3). The party increased the number of demands to protect the Dutch economy and business community from negative effects of international capitalism. The programmes are also less friendly towards employers (e.g. CP 1990: 11.13). This transformation had already been visible in the party paper. Increasingly the party was acting in defense of people in a weak socio-economic position. In contrast to the popular picture of right-wing extremist parties in which there is normally very little sympathy for poor people that ‘live off the state’, the CP’86 hardly ever attacks the welfare system or those who are dependent upon it. On the contrary, there are regular features in which outrage is expressed over the poor conditions under which elderly people in particular have to live. The party rejects any further cuts in several social benefits, often even calling for increases. The support for the socially weak falls within a broader pro-worker discourse, also particularly visible in the paper, in which the party identifies with the common working man who is threatened by various forces (among others, foreigners, big business and the government).
The CP’86 claims to aspire to an ‘economic third way’, i.e. a system that is neither capitalist nor socialist, both of which are perceived as purely materialist economic systems, operated by the two imperialist powers (the US and the USSR) to alienate Eastern and Western Europe. They should be replaced by a common pan-European new economic order. According to the ‘national democratic guidelines regarding economic and social policy’, the crunch of this new order is that ‘(a)ll citizens that are dependent upon wages should, by participating in the productive capacity of the economy, become jointly responsible and jointly influential as well as sharing in the profit’ (CN 1/89). This new order, the so-called volkseconomie (ethnic economy), is further built on the basis of private initiative (which is considered an essential feature of human nature) and the strengthening of small business.
According to the 1989 programme ‘(t)he future lies in a socioeconomic order that serves our own ethnic community, bears responsibility for country and culture, and engenders community spirit’. The ‘national revolution’, which will create the ethnic economy, will have to bring an end to the ‘scandalous (p.157) exploitation, humiliation and uprooting of our ethnic community by these so-called necessary cuts, reductions and abolitions that have as their sole target the abolishment of our social system’ (CN 1/88). As far as concrete measures are concerned, they remain limited to the repatriation of foreigners. In sharp contrast to ‘our own people’, foreigners that profit from the Dutch welfare state are depicted as ‘parasites’ who do not want to work and who do their utmost to get as much as possible on the backs of the hardworking Dutch population. At the same time those that work thereby steal scarce jobs from ‘our own people’. If the foreigners are repatriated, the party believes that the Dutch welfare state can be brought back to its old (higher) levels of the 1970s and 1980s.
The strong state
A theme that has always featured prominently in the party literature, both externally and internally oriented, is law and order. The 1987 programme mentioned ‘safe’ as one of two pivotal terms in the title, and the introduction contained the statement: ‘As a guarantee for the individual freedom of all citizens, we deem an effective police force as well as a merciless combating of all forms of crime to be absolutely vital.’ The programme also included demands for ‘the absolute necessity that sentences are served fully and under simple and sober conditions’ as well as for the (re-)introduction of the death penalty (CP 1987: 6.7). The 1993 programme holds the same tough law and order policies plus the demand for obligatory detoxification for drugs addicts (CP 1993: 6.9).
In the party paper the omnipresent issue of crime is usually linked to either foreigners or to the left (both defined in the broadest sense). According to the CP’86 a so-called ‘gang of 50’ terrorises the Netherlands under such names as anti-fascists, anti-racists, anti-materialists, squatters, etc. Though officially the enemy of the Dutch state, the gang is tolerated by large parts of the state apparatus because it has proven valuable in the fight against the CP’86. Crime by foreigners is another dominant topic in the party paper (not only in the special columns). The party normally confines itself to simply presenting the facts and a simple solution: deport all criminal foreigners to their countries of origin! In the brochure ‘national democratic guidelines regarding crime’ it demands the following additional law and order policies: introduction of working camps and of the death penalty, stern discipline in prisons, higher sentences, putting the victim at the centre, less administrative disturbance for the police, and more local policemen (CN 1/89).
A topic that is linked to a variety of themes, mainly traditional values and crime, is drugs. The CP’86 regards both soft and hard drugs as ‘enemy number one of the ethnic community’. The poisonous ideas of the (extreme) left and the general moral decay they have caused especially among Dutch youth are perceived as the primary causes of the broad circulation of drugs (p.158) in the Netherlands. Although the party proposes a more general change in moral values, it mainly wants to fight the drugs menace with law and order solutions: ‘death penalty for drug dealers; impounding of all possessions of drug dealers; mandatory detoxication for junkies; and immediate expulsion of foreign junkies’ (CN 3/92).
Defense receives little attention in the party literature of the CP’86. The party paper addressed the matter only once or twice, whereas the election programmes always included a separate chapter on defense policy. It originally numbered no less than sixteen demands, of which the main message was full support to NATO and all the obligations that stem from the membership. There was no sign of a militarist outlook, however, and it explicitly stressed the exclusively defensive tasks of the Dutch army, with no mention of any calls for the enlargement of personnel or competencies. The later programmes saw a substantive reduction in the number of points (to six), mainly as a consequence of the changed position towards NATO. The 1993 programme, for example, declared the deployment in peacetime of (parts of) the Dutch army under foreign leadership to be ‘in violation of the tasks of our army’ (CP 1993: 30.6). The emphasis on the exclusively defensive tasks of the Dutch army has also been sharpened. Whereas the 1990 programme had spoken of this as the ‘first and most important task’, the 1993 programme stated that the protection of the freedom and independence of the country and its citizens was ‘the only task of our army’ (CP 1993: 30.2). Moreover, in line with the public debate in the Netherlands, though contrary to the generally militaristic ideal, the party supported the abolition of compulsory military service and the introduction of a professional army (CP 1993: 30.1).
The environment and its protection are major concerns of the party programmes as well as making for frequent topics in the party papers. The second pivotal term of the 1987 programme, ‘livable’, referred to a combination of social (protection of certain weaker groups such as disabled and elderly people), nationalist (rejection of the multi-racial society) and ecological views (protection of the environment), of which only the latter one was really prominent in the programme. The chapter on the environment calls for a radical change of mentality towards ‘an environmentally conscious acting and thinking’ (CP 1987: 21.3). It also includes demands for more policy at all governmental levels to protect the environment as well as for more knowledge and research on environmental problems and environmentally friendly production techniques.
The CP’86 holds an ecological view on the relation between economy and environment. Man should return to his harmonious relation with nature, the ethnic community and the family. Only when man is consciously part of these larger entities can he experience his identity to the full. As man is part (p.159) of nature, he should take good care of it. According to the pamphlet ‘national democratic guidelines regarding protection of our life and our environment’, ‘(e)conomic growth is acceptable only when neither the natural landscape, our environment or the health of the people are destroyed because of it, nor when the natural resources are plundered in an unbridled manner’ (CN 1/89). To accomplish this the party presents some concrete measures, such as an increase in the taxation on cars and free public transport. In accordance with its law and order approach the party calls for a tougher policy on pollution, in which the polluter pays. However, real progress can be made only by ‘a revolution in human thinking’, which would replace materialism and consumerism by ‘experiencing nature, the care for irreplaceable cultural values as well as for the social security in the family, in our own area, and in our own country’ as constituting the meaning of life and the condition of human happiness (CN 1/89).
The topic of the (protection of the) environment has also increasingly featured in articles about foreigners, especially in the party paper. In the beginning the link between foreigners and the environment was made indirectly, through the issue of overpopulation. The first election programme, for instance, stated that overpopulation forced the Netherlands to a restrictive policy on foreigners as well as stringent rules in the areas of environmental protection and planning (CP 1987: 20.1). The later programmes added a direct linkage to this, declaring that ‘(o)ur dear fatherland is made unlivable as a consequence of the absolute failures of the government and in part because of the policy on foreigners, which is destructive of the environment’(CP 1993: 21.20).
Populist anti-party sentiment
One of the dominant features in the party papers is anti-party sentiment which is linked to virtually all other themes, most notably the multi-cultural society. In line with its ethnopluralist vision the party argues that the foreigners are victims too, victims of the multi-cultural society and the integration policies of (national and international) politicians. It is the foreigner policy and the people behind it that are seen as the prime enemies of the ethnic community. Consequently, the party states: ‘Our actual goal is not “the removal of the foreigners” but of the clique that has brought them here, keeps them here and that will immediately bring them here again in the case that they will be again “needed”’ (CN 2/91). Though the CP’86 mainly targets the established political parties, the ‘clique’ it speaks of is far bigger.
At a safe distance from the day-to-day problems and worries of the ordinary man, party bosses, trade unionists, priests, journalists, church officials, radio and tv dictators and more of that riffraff shack up in their remote and, above all, safe villas, wondering about the hostility against foreigners and blathering on about integration, or even worse, deciding that our country is an immigration country. (CN 2/88)
(p.160) The party considers the fact that the established parties present themselves as different alternatives, by using labels like liberal or socialist, as mere window-dressing. In the eyes of the CP’86 all (major) political parties are responsible for the current misery, which is primarily caused by their ‘away-with-our-own-people’ politics (a term copied from the VB). There is only one way out of the emerging catastrophe: ‘Change the politicians, before they change the ethnic community’ (CN 2/93). This change cannot be realised by supporting Janmaat and his CD, however, since that party presents no real alternative to the anti-Dutch clique. Various articles in the party paper accuse them of misusing the issue of nationalism out of political opportunism. The only goal of these ‘pseudo-nationalists’ is acceptance by the Establishment, not the realisation of genuine nationalist ideals.
There is only one force that can, will and does fight against this evil clique: the ethnic nationalists of the CP’86. This is also acknowledged by the established parties themselves as ‘they’ consider it (‘us’) their main enemy. Moreover, this is proven by the fact that the party is attacked so vigorously. Many articles in the paper describe the violations of the democratic rights of the party and its members, ranging from ‘state terror’ (e.g. arrests, court cases and house searches), attacks by the state's ‘subsidised thugs’ (e.g. anti-fascists and other left-wing organisations), to elections (‘the biggest deception of the public’). The CP’86 is convinced that it is not given an honest chance to compete for the voters’ support and consequently considers the Netherlands to be an undemocratic state. That is, for a large part, why the party strives to change ‘the political system of the parliamentary dictatorship into that of an ethnic democracy’ (CN 3/94).
Until 1990 the election programme of the CP’86 had been free from any reference to international conspiracies. The 1987 programme had shown a moderately sceptical world view, being very positive with regard to relations with international organisations like the EC and NATO, but wary of the United Nations. In general the programme was reserved concerning relations with former colonies (except Indonesia) and interference with the internal affairs of sovereign states. The party argued that the Netherlands is a small country and should thus be moderate in its foreign political dealings. By the time of the 1990 programme, however, this moderate scepticism had become more or less open paranoia. The now national democrats took their lead from the International Third Position (ITP) philosophy, which aspires to a nationalist third way between the two imperialist roads of international capitalism/liberalism and international communism/socialism (CP 1990: 29.1). The ITP philosophy introduced a host of dark forces into the programme:
We consider multinational and international organisations as accomplices of either international capitalism or international communism. With these we have (p.161) in mind, for instance, the UN, the EC, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Council of Churches, etc. These organisations are manipulated also by the American CFR (Council for Foreign Relations) which wants to bring about a one-world government. The CFR is hard at work to realise what Brezhnev already predicted in 1975, i.e. the superpower that controls both the Gulf and South Africa controls the whole world, since that superpower controls 75% of the oil supplies and ca. 70% of all strategic minerals on earth. (CP 1990: 29.2)
What had already figured in the party paper now also made its entrance in the election programmes. The CP’86 firmly believes that evil forces are at work behind the scenes. They control all major governments (American, Russian, West European), important international organisations (IMF, World Bank, UN and World Council of Churches) as well as the media (especially the American). The main goal of these sinister forces is to form a one-world government. To achieve this they have to break the spirit of the different ethnic communities, which they do by ‘mixing’ them and undermining them both mentally and morally (by materialism and consumerism).
In the 1980s the conspiracies had been mainly linked to world communism. Large parts of the party paper were filled with virulent anti-communist articles, dealing for the most part with the atrocities of the USSR and with accusations against the West European (extreme) left for supporting them. The fervent anti-communist stand did not lead to a pro-NATO standpoint, however. The party treated the US as an enemy, which worked secretly together with the USSR. Some articles spoke of the ‘Finlandisation of Western Europe’, claiming that the US and USSR together kept Europe, Germany in particular, divided so that they could rule the world (a typical NPD argument). Other articles, mainly published before the fall of the Berlin Wall, claimed that the US (especially president Roosevelt) was in reality pro-communist and had given parts of Europe to Stalin. On a higher level these conspiracies were always part of the overriding conspiracy of a one-world government.
Although the party is careful not to state who precisely lies behind the one-world conspiracy it does at times give indications. At the top of the conspiracy are the ‘trilateral commissions’ and the Bilderberg Group. These organisations are primarily (if not exclusively) formed by Jews, as is ‘hinted’ by names such as Rothschild, Kissinger and Oppenheimer. At one time the party paper explicitly referred to the Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned-Elders of Zion (an anti-Semitic forgery of the Czarist secret service) as proof of Jewish involvement (CN 1/90). This issue was never distributed for fear of legal punishment, however. In the next issue the matter was phrased with a more veiled wording: ‘We know who controls the global media including the international press agencies’ (CN 2/90).
The occasional anti-Israel articles also fit well into the anti-Semitic conspiracy. (p.162) Israel, often referred to as ‘the Jewish state’, is believed to control all Western governments and media, enabling it to build a ‘Great Israeli Reich’ (CN 1/93) without being called to order by the international community. Several European and virtually all American politicians are ‘outed’ as helpers of Israel in the party paper. Even Janmaat is depicted as a helper of Israel, as he supported the deployment of Dutch Patriot missiles to defend Israel during the Gulf war (in which the CP’86 supported Iraq against the ‘imperialist Zionist aggression’). In other articles the party pays disproportionate attention to violence by the Israeli state or citizens against the Palestinians. The CP’86 fully supports the Intifada, the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories, which it describes as ‘a reaction to the genocide policy of the Jewish government’ (CN 1/92). It demands a boycott of all products from and relationships with Israel and, moreover, advocates immediate military action in the occupied territories as well as the destruction of all nuclear weapons by means of a short-term occupation of Israel (CN 2/93).
Another example of anti-Semitic conspiracy thinking was apparent in the many articles on the trial of Ivan Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-American who was accused of committing war crimes as a Treblinka camp guard during the Second World War. The Israeli court case against Demjanjuk received a lot of attention in the world media as well as in the party paper of the CP’86. From the outset Demjanjuk was depicted in the paper as an innocent man, who was ‘extradited by the US to a Jewish blood council’ (CN 1/89). According to the party the whole purpose of the show trial was to ‘keep the memory to the ‘continuous story of the six million’ alive’ (CN 1/92). Though this statement hints at a denial of the Holocaust or at least at the accusation that Israel (or ‘international Jewry’) uses it to further its own goals, revisionism was never openly expressed in the party literature.
All party programmes include positive standpoints on the constitutional state and on parliamentary democracy. The party stresses the need for the different state organs to control and be controlled by each other and by independent outsiders. And from the beginning the CP’86 has pushed for an increase in the influence of the people and for a considerable improvement of the involvement of the citizen with the local and regional councils (CP 1990: 4.4). Remarkably, given its vast critique of politicians, it has also called for an increase in the number of members of both the Senate (from 75 to 100) and the Second Chamber (from 150 to 200). Moreover, the party uses the (unpatriotic) argument that this would bring the Netherlands more in accord with the ratios in other EC countries (CP 1990: 3.7). Notwithstanding its support for the system itself, the CP’86 repeatedly points to the flaws of the current political practice, which according to the party are falsely referred to as the pluralist community. The main thorns concern the lack of freedom of speech (especially for ‘nationalists’), the corruption of the Establishment, (p.163) , and the political control of the judiciary. It wants to (re)create a real democracy, in which the will of the people can freely develop.
One condition to accomplish that goal is the full sovereignty of the entire Dutch speaking community as a democratic state, which joins all sub-interests as guardian of the whole, protects the rights of the own minorities, respects the constitution, and is supported as the sovereign by the people. (CP 1989)
In this volksdemocratie (ethnic democracy) there will be no place for the ‘personal and group egoism [which] have led to an excessive deterioration of responsible thinking and acting’ (CP 1989). What it actually will contain remains rather vague. ‘Power to the people at all governmental levels’ (CN 3/94), is the only elaboration given to the term. And the only concrete demand the party has voiced in this regard is the introduction of the so-called volksreferendum (ethnic referendum), an optional plebiscite which is open exclusively to members of the Dutch ethnic community. Throughout its existence the CP’86 has supported the introduction of a referendum to break the power of the corrupt elite and return it to the Dutch people. The party has also used a more opportunist reasoning: ‘Every ethnic referendum will support us, so we demand the introduction of an ethnic referendum’ (CN 1/88). Except for the introduction of a referendum the CP’86 does not give any details about the creation of the proposed ‘three V’s’, which stand for Verandering, Vernieuwing en Verbetering (change, renewal and improvement).
The CP’86 does not have a particularly well-developed ideology. Its election programmes hold scanty introductions, which precede long lists of unsubstantiated demands. The only party programme it ever presented was copied literally from another party. Its paper mainly contains articles on current affairs. Substantial articles dealing with questions of the present or future are absent. This notwithstanding, the literature of the CP’86 is larded with terms that seem to be part of an elaborated ideology, such as ‘third way’ or ‘national revolution’. The elaboration of these terms (and the ideology behind them) remains vague if not totally absent and, in addition, terms come in and out of vogue quickly. Originally, the CP’86 remained loyal to its predecessor by calling itself a ‘right-wing political people's party’ (CP 1987). At the end of 1988 this was replaced by the label ‘the national democratic movement in the Netherlands’, and since 1994 the party refers to itself as a ‘national revolutionary party’.
The CP’86 began as a relatively moderate nationalist party in the tradition of its predecessor the CP. Within a few years it had radicalised into an ethnic nationalist party, striving for both external exclusiveness and internal homogenisation. The new goal is an ethnically homogeneous Great-Netherlands (p.164) in which political power is put in the hands of the Dutch people (mainly through the introduction of an ethnic referendum). The main change has to come through policies, most notably ensuring stricter law and order, a return to traditional ethical values and ecological consciousness. The socio-economic policy will support a strong national welfare state. The Great-Netherlands will take its place in a ‘Europe of Nations’, based on the cooperation of independent and genuine nation-states. This Europe will have to defend itself against the many national and international helpers of the conspiracy to establish a (Jewish) one-world government.
(1) German-born Hendrik Wladimir Albrecht Ernst (1876–1934) became prince of the Netherlands after marrying Queen Wilhelmina in 1909. Hendrik's only official child, Juliana, succeeded Wilhelmina as queen in 1948.
(2) Freling had returned to the Netherlands in the beginning of the 1990s after having lived in Germany for several years. He originated, like Mordaunt, in the youth-wing of the NVU, the Nationaal Jeugdfront (National Youth Front), but left after a dispute with Glimmerveen. In 1983 he co-founded the Onafhankelijk Verbond van Nationaal Socialisten (Independent Alliance of National Socialists), which became the Rotterdam branch of the JFN, infamous for its neo-Nazism. Though he also joined the JFN, Freling devoted most of his time to the Aktiefront Nationale Socialisten (Action Front of National Socialists), which he co-founded in 1984 as the Dutch branch of the German organisation with the same name led by Michael Kühnen (see Ten Haaf 1992; Kafka 1998).
(3) On 3 July 1998 the party became the Nieuwe Partij Nederland (New Party Netherlands), allegedly a new party uniting the Dutch extreme right, but in reality not more than the former VNN and some veterans of the ‘centre movement’. Already in October it was disbanded and the ‘new’ Nieuwe Nationale Partij (New National Party) was founded, which today constitutes a mere sect of some forty people, virtually all veterans(of the ‘moderate’ wing) of the old CP’86