This is the announcement of the members’ meeting that D66 is organizing this Sunday in Den Bosch:
“We will meet on Sunday 15 May. Then we’ll talk about everything that’s going on right now. What we as a board do and have done. And about what needs to be improved in the future. We can really use your presence and input there. Because together we work on a safe party for everyone. We are working on a suitable program with numerous members from various bodies. Where it is safe for everyone to participate in the conversation.”
An analysis of this announcement reveals a problem. We are working on ‘a safe party for everyone’. It should not threaten anyone to join the conversation. This is all code language that no harsh words are allowed, that we should understand each other and preferably give each other a pat on the head. The question is: who should such a meeting be ‘safe’ for?
D66-lid? TPO-lid!
D66 does not want any media during this safe conversation, because journalists are going to write down nasty things about what is being said and how labyrinthine the party board reacts to it. An enormous turn is taking place unnoticed: D66 is one of the few parties where almost everything is public by default. Now suddenly no longer because of ‘security’. Please note: from now on this excuse will come up with every sensitive party issue as a reason to keep the media out.
Everyone knew about it
There was talk of a fierce MeToo case at D66 to which the party board did not respond properly. It was a case that everyone at the political top knew because it took place under the eyes of that same top. So there is a lot to explain on Sunday. Not about confidential advisers or formal rules, but mainly about the views of the board. Why did the board not act in this matter in front of hundreds of people? What does that say about governance and culture?
Saturday there is by NRC one more thing added† There appears to be a to be a problem in the euro group, where MEP Samira Rafaela is accused of – here we go again – ‘causing insecurity’. The report on this case has been available for more than a week, but D66 members know nothing about it, because the party leadership only wanted to bring the matter out after the members’ meeting. That doesn’t sound like an attempt to act openly and transparently from now on. D66 has learned nothing.
It’s even worse. NRC today reports the disagreement in the euro faction, but for insiders this is old news. We have known for some time that the two MEPs do not talk to each other. Outsiders can see this by how on the website per MEP to another contact is referenced. In Brussels, D66 no longer has any commonality. Again no secret, for many an open door and apparently an accepted phenomenon internally.
Administrative functioning
At D66, no one hits the table with their fists about this madness. Members don’t get any information about it, and if they do know about it, they don’t seem to ask any questions. Numerous people could have sounded the alarm at Frans van Drimmelen. Whether many people have done that is not clear, but it certainly had no effect. It is all about the administrative functioning of the country’s second party, but D66 would like to keep the conversation ‘safe’ and so the media stay outside.
Now you should listen carefully!
The D66 members will not hear any new MeToo cases on Sunday. If there are more cases, the victims will not talk about it in a convention center. They will use other channels for that. That is not what the problem with ‘security’ is about. The main problem is that executives have proved completely incompetent to address problems and communicate them transparently to members. For drivers, discussing their ignorance is safer without cameras.
The press officer of D66 says that the media may drop by in the second half of the afternoon, because then we will receive statements from Sigrid Kaag and party chairman Victor Everhardt. Totally uninteresting of course, but their statements will certainly find their way to the media. The real question is another: why can’t we hear what the members think about all the misery? The answer is: that is ‘unsafe’ for the party leadership. Since when has that actually been an argument in politics?
Also read from Chris Aalberts:
Even in a Kaag-positive environment, criticism of the shadow prime minister is ‘easy’
This is how PvdA and GroenLinks are rummaging in the direction of a merger
Even 20 years after Pim’s death, the right does not practice self-reflection
–
