The fourth Rutte cabinet has been underway for less than a year. Politicians needed to restore public confidence and there were big plans for climate and nitrogen. The war in Ukraine turned the world upside down. NU.nl spoke extensively about this in an interview with Prime Minister Mark Rutte. “Politicians must ensure that we build a society in which we eradicate discrimination and racism step by step.”
What do you think was your main promise in your government statement earlier this year?
“Two things: bring the country together. Town and country, high and low educated, rich and poor.”
“Furthermore, we want to prepare the country for the major transitions of 2030 in the fields of education, security, the labor market, the natural climate and energy”.
“The reason why I wanted to become prime minister again is because we are now in such a good position that we also have the opportunity to achieve those goals. It can’t be done in four years, it takes two terms for this. Then you can create a fundamentally different country”.
Were you able to bridge these contradictions?
“Obviously, we have a completely different playing field than when Russia invaded Ukraine in February. The direct effect for us is that energy prices are rising. Fortunately, we have been able to help people with the lower budget. With the maximum price we also reach the middle groups. You can also see this in the purchasing power data, which will be slightly more favorable next year.”
I don’t want to give the analysis in an interview as to why racism occurs in the Netherlands.
“Exactly. With such a crisis, an increase in purchasing power is not an option.”
“Nitrogen measures were added this year. We took a bold step, which caused a huge social setback this summer. The contrast between city and countryside was much bigger than I thought.”
According to the Social and Cultural Planning Office, there is structural inequality. The situation of people who are not doing well has barely improved since 2014, despite economic growth.
“I totally disagree with this. I want to fight it. Unemployment was very high in 2014. The fastest way to eliminate inequality is employment growth. Unemployment is now very low. There are more vacancies than unemployed. L The economy has grown spectacularly since 2014.”
The Planning Bureau says it’s hard to get out of one’s league. It’s also about your network, your position in society. It’s more than just a paycheck. If you want to bridge the contradictions, you have to see what goes wrong there, right?
“I agree with the analysis that in the Netherlands it is too important where your cradle is, what your skin colour, your gender. It all counts if you get equal opportunities. my party is also the VVD moved.”
“The idea was: With a good education you get a good starting position for a job. So social race determines how far you get.”
“But it’s also very decisive what you get from your social environment to actually get it with your good education.”
What issue do you think is the root cause of this inequality of opportunity?
“It’s not a Dutch problem. It’s still relatively small here.”
We are in Holland, right? It’s going badly here.
“We also have to look internationally.”
If someone here is discriminated against in the labor market, then you don’t look at how things are organized in Belgium, do you?
“You want society not to be discriminated against at all. Of course you have to solve this problem. The government cannot do it alone, this is a social issue.”
“A third or fourth generation kid with a Moroccan background who goes to school should have as many opportunities as someone growing up in Baarn. Obviously that’s not the case now. Those kids’ brains are just as developed and yet there’s a difference.”
“It is extremely important to compensate for this socially, because you want everyone to be able to cope. It may not be that half of the inhabitants in big cities have a non-Western background, but in universities the share is only 15 percent as in Rotterdam. “
There is discrimination and racism in the labor market, in the housing market, within the police and the tax authorities. How is it that occurs in so many important institutions?
“I’m not a sociologist, so I can’t do a full analysis on this.”
You must have thought about it.
“Yes, but I’m careful not to be some kind of know-it-all in such an interview. Politics must ensure that we build a society in which we eradicate discrimination and racism step by step.”
“But also beware of politicians who think they can make a brilliant analysis of this.”
I would like to explain to Omtzigt that ‘functioning elsewhere’ doesn’t come from me.
Isn’t it the essence of a politician to see where things go wrong? If you analyze the source of the problem, you can work much better for a solution, right?
“Of course. There’s a lot to say about that. But I’m careful not to give some sort of comprehensive view into the origin of racism with a Christmas interview. I have ambitions to remove that.”
I would like to see that analysis.
“I get it, but I’m not going to give it now.”
“Yes, but there are so many aspects. That’s a separate interview. You don’t do it like that.”
In fact, you’re elegantly avoiding the question.
“No, I don’t know. I’ll answer parts of the question. I see the problem in the school where I teach in The Hague and in my environment. The problem is wider than religion and skin colour. It also affects the city and the countryside. There are so many different aspects.”
“I don’t want to give the analysis in an interview as to why racism occurs in the Netherlands.”
Mathieu Segers, professor at Maastricht University, talks about ‘politics of consequences‘. In crises, only the consequences are considered, the causes are always elsewhere. Do you recognize him?
“I analyze where things go wrong. But it’s not easy to point out why there is racism or discrimination in a society. Again: there are so many facets.”
When you look at trust in politics, it doesn’t help that the judge sweeps cabinet politics off the table, as we’ve seen with building waivers and asylum seekers.
“The judge’s ruling in 2019 on nitrogen policy was a painful correction. But I disagree that there is now sort of a trend that judges push back on government policy.”
I recently spoke with benefits mother Kristie Rongen about the compensation scheme. She says it takes too long. According to her, parents fail in hooves and this causes only stress. You also said: ‘Rutte is the man who dominates. He can say: that’s enough now. But he doesn’t.’
“We are doing everything to speed up. But when we speed up, we slow down, because systems need to be changed. There is a limit to acceleration. That’s exactly what the Court of Auditors and all the experts say. At a certain point, you know: this is the beat.”
You shouldn’t cheat on each other. I am not cheating anyone. I tell the truth. But I play hard.
Mutual trust was at an all-time low after the “Omtzigt, function elsewhere” debate. Have you ever witnessed that debate?
“I never look back on the debates.”
You look at the PvdA conferences at the time of Joop den Uyl.
“Yes, but I don’t watch the debates I attend. I was there too, so what’s the point?”
“I started off with a mistake. I said I hadn’t mentioned Pieter Omtzigt to the scouts and that turned out to be the case. Not as in ‘functioning elsewhere’ but that he can become a minister. This was also said in the campaign.”
Have you talked to Pieter Omtzigt since then?
“I then tried to make an appointment and recently did it again. He’ll let me know when he’s ready. He knows I’m ready. I’d like to explain to him that ‘functions elsewhere’ doesn’t come from me and I think it’s all very silly.”
There seems to be more cynicism and verbal aggression in political debates. Do you notice it too?
“I recently had lunch with Hans Wiegel. What I like about that time is that he and Joop den Uyl ended with humor during speeches and went to dinner with their wives in between. They loved each other very much.”
“I wish we could preserve some of that culture. That if you meet someone from another party, you can sigh: how is your club doing? In the end, everyone has the biggest problems in their own party.”
“Show the voters that the other has strange ideas and I have good ones. But personal relationships are good.”
You find these personal relationships very important.
“You shouldn’t cheat on each other. I’m not cheating on anyone. I’m telling the truth. But I play rough. I look for seats together.”
Those personal relationships have indeed changed since the April 1 “function elsewhere” debate.
“Why? I honestly admitted my mistake.”
Some MPs still think you lied then. Did she hit you?
“No, I made a mistake, didn’t I? I can’t blame anyone.”
Doesn’t it affect the good relationships that you hold so important?
“No, I know I wasn’t lying. I made a mistake. Yes, dear boys, then I understand that I will be pushed into the gravel pit for the rest of the day. Rightly so. I shouldn’t complain about that. But ‘function elsewhere’ doesn’t bother me. came to mind.”
Curious as to how it ended up in those notes?
“No, it doesn’t make any sense.”
Still not interested in a possible next job in Brussels?
And in New York at the United Nations?
“Well, the Secretary-General won’t go, because he’s a European now. Then I’ll have to wait until I’m ninety before another one comes from Europe.”
“After that it’s done. This is my last political work. After that I’ll do other good things”.
So this isn’t your last locker?
“I’m halfway there, I say sometimes jokingly. I think it’s beautiful and honorable and I like what I do.”
“I have to see what I want in the next election. Maybe the VVD will think: man, fuck you. I’ll see him again. So far they don’t think so. We’ll wait and see.”
