Ethnic votes crucial in Amsterdam election
8 March 2006 – Turnout among Turks and
Moroccans was higher than usual in yesterday’s municipal and
district elections. Likely, they were motivated by the harsher social
climate in the Netherlands. Their votes helped the social-democrat
PvdA party win 20 out of 45 seats in the city council, which is
five more than four years ago.
The Socialist SP party also won. Losers were the right-wing parties
as well as a number of local parties. The PvdA’s victory can
be explained largely as a protest against the policies of the right-wing
national government. However, some of it is also due to higher turnout
among ethnic minorities, eighty percent of whom voted PvdA.
At city-level, it is expected that the PvdA will form a left-wing
local government with green party GroenLinks. Slotervaart will have
the first Muslim district chairman, Ahmed Marcouch.
The ethnic vote has been even more important in Rotterdam, where
minorities helped the PvdA win a victory over Leefbaar Rotterdam,
the party that has been founded by Pim Fortuyn. The Rotterdam government
was seen by many as an example of tougher policies.
The social climate in the Netherlands has changed since the murders
of right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn in May 2002, and film-maker
Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The government has assumed a harsh
and sometimes hostile attitude towards minorities, especially Muslims.
The Forum Multicultural Institute investigated the voting behaviour
of ethnic minorities. “Perhaps they will not vote, in order
to give off a signal. Or perhaps they will vote, to show that they
reject the current integration policies”, the Institute’s
Chris Huinder said prior to the elections.
He expected organisations of ethnic minorities to become quite
active during the election campaign. “At the time of the 2003
national elections especially, minorities felt cornered as a result
of the murder of Fortuyn. At present, they are a bit more assertive
again”.
According to a survey carried out by the University of Amsterdam,
turnout among Turks rose from 30 to 44%, and among Moroccans from
22 to 35% in Amsterdam. In contrast, turnout among people from Surinam
and the Antilles decreased slightly from 26 to 24%.
Turnout among minorities in local elections
in Amsterdam and Rotterdam (source: Imes)
|
A'dam |
|
|
|
R'dam |
|
|
|
|
1994 |
1998 |
2002 |
2006 |
1994 |
1998 |
2002 |
2006 |
Turks |
67 |
39 |
30 |
44 |
28 |
42 |
53 |
47 |
Moroccans |
49 |
23 |
22 |
35 |
23 |
33 |
39 |
55 |
Sur / Ant |
30 |
21 |
26 |
24 |
24 |
25 |
31 |
51 |
entire city |
57 |
46 |
48 |
51 |
57 |
49 |
55 |
58 |
In previous elections, turnout among minorities had been decreasing
in Amsterdam. In Rotterdam, on the contrary, it has been on the
rise since 1994, when immigrants obtained the right to vote in local
elections. According to some researchers, the explanation is that
Rotterdam continued to subsidise ethnic organisations until recently,
which would have had a positive impact on turnout.
Others point to a number of successful voter mobilisation campaigns
that have been carried out in Rotterdam in the past. This year,
activities have been carried out throughout the country. For example,
a national coalition of ethnic organisations planned to organise
120 local activities to boost turnout.
The Amsterdam districts also carried out activities to get people
to vote. Their joint budget for such activities was 300,000 euros.
Osdorp had the highest budget of 62,000 euros. De Baarsjes stood
out for the intensive way in which local community organisations
were involved in voter mobilisation.
Turnout in districts (source: O+S)
|
2002 |
2006 |
change |
Bos en Lommer |
37,0 |
48,0 |
11,0 |
Westerpark |
43,0 |
51,4 |
8,4 |
De Baarsjes |
43,1 |
51,1 |
8,0 |
Zeeburg |
48,7 |
55,9 |
7,2 |
Oud-West |
49,2 |
55,7 |
6,5 |
Oost |
49,3 |
55,5 |
6,2 |
Zuidoost |
40,5 |
46,4 |
5,9 |
Noord |
43,3 |
48,9 |
5,6 |
Centrum |
51,8 |
56,5 |
4,7 |
Osdorp |
46,6 |
50,3 |
3,7 |
Oud Zuid |
52,2 |
55,6 |
3,4 |
Slotervaart |
49,8 |
53,0 |
3,2 |
ZuiderAmstel |
54,6 |
57,6 |
3,0 |
Geuzenveld |
42,9 |
45,7 |
2,8 |
Meanwhile, the minister responsible for democratic reform, Mr.
Alexander Pechtold, is critical of efforts to improve turnout in
disadvantaged neighbourhoods. He argues that such initiatives could
be interpreted as ‘manipulating the elections’. In fact,
he is planning a number of reforms that may have a negative impact
on turnout in future elections.
For example, the government wants to spread local elections over
multiple dates. This will likely depress turnout, perhaps even by
tens of percentage points. When municipalities have to hold elections
on divergent dates due to municipal mergers, as was recently the
case in a number of municipalities, turnout can be as much as twenty
percentage points below normal.
More: voter mobilisation in districts,
background information
on voter mobilisation
The above article has been updated since the publication of the
final results from most districts
|