In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

JUDITH SCHUYF AND ANDRE KROUWEL 7 The Dutch Lesbian and Gay Movement The Politics ofAccommodation THE EVOLUTION of the Dutch homosexual emancipation movement is paradoxical. Since the early twentieth century, Christian Democrats have continuously controlled the executive branch of government, yet lesbians and gay men seem to enjoy substantial social freedom and legal protection. Moreover, Dutch society is often referred to as permissive and tolerant toward homosexual lifestyles. How can this paradox be explained ? The answer must be sought in the structural characteristics that underpin the political culture in the Netherlands. Usually referred to as the "politics of accommodation" or "consociational politics" (Lijphart 1968), this political culture and its institutions are geared toward achieving consensus between the various social groups, all of which are minorities. The initial deep divisions within Dutch society, at the political level as well as in other domains of social life, were institutionalized by the various political parties in a dense network of societal organizations, bound together by religion or ideology. These networks are usually characterized as "pillars" (zuilen). Although Dutch society was deeply divided at its roots, the Catholic, Protestant, liberal, and socialist political elites-despite their vast ideological differences-cooperated pragmatically at the political level. This political culture of consociational politics derives its name from the "historical compromise" of 1917. In that year the confessional parties (in favor of equal state funding for religious schools) and the secular parties (in favor of universal suffrage) reached an agreement on both issues; male universal suffrage was introduced, and religious schools received financial support from the state. Although broad cooperation existed at the elite level, the mass population was characterized by political passivity and apathy (Daalder 1995). Secrecy and summit diplomacy were used in conflict resolution, and only a few political or ideological conflicts were discussed in the open. Politically sensitive issues were kept out of the public debate or depoliticized. Because of the relative electoral strengths of the parties, no party could ever hope to gain a majority by itself. Hence, government was and is only possible in coalition with other parties. And as another indicator of the inclusive political culture of consensus democracy, Dutch coalition governments tend to ex158 Copyrighted Material Judith Schuyf, Andre Krouwel 159 pand beyond the necessary 50 percent threshold of parliamentary seats (De Swaan 1973; Andeweg, Tak, and Thomassen 1980; Daalder 1987). CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC DOMINANCE Despite their division into Catholic, Reformed, and Protestant segments, religious parties have dominated Dutch politics in the twentieth century. In the elections of 1909 the confessional parties jointly gained a majority in Dutch Parliament, which they maintained until 1967. Their electoral strength allowed the Roman Catholic State Party (RKSP), later renamed the Catholic People's Party (KVP), to participate in all coalition governments from 1918 until 1994. Moreover, the Catholic party preferred to coalesce with the right-wing, liberal Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). The dominant practice for the confessionals is to form a cabinet with the more progressive Social Democrats only in the case of utter necessity . The stable structure of the parties' electoral strength in the Netherlands allowed this Christian Democratic dominance to continue for over seventy years (Daudt 1982); however, this dominance is not only the result of confessional electoral strength (Kersbergen 1995, 1997). Also important is the LeftlRight or socioeconomic dimension in Dutch politics. Christian Democratic parties, with their deliberate strategy of reconciliation and appeasement of class conflict, often occupy the center position on this dimension. Additionally, the fact that, between 1952 and 1994, the right-wing WD and the left-wing Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA, or Party of Labor) seemed unwilling to cooperate in a coalition enabled the Catholic party to participate in every government since 1918 (see Krouwel 1993, 1998). The dominance of Christian Democratic parties in electoral terms as well as their pivotal positions in coalition terms and the relative weakness of left-wing parties compelled the lesbian and gay movement to take into account the Christian Democratic parties' stance on homosexuality. Catholic and other confessional parties have always favored repressive policies on homosexuality (Oosterhuis 1992; Koenders 1996). In 1950, for example, the Catholic Center for Education in Statecraft (the scientific foundation of the KVP) published a report that proposed a total ban on homosexuality. Although the KVP officially distanced itself from this report , the party adopted a conservative position on the issue. The conservative position of all religious parties-KVP, Christian Historical Union (CHU), Anti Revolutionary Party (ARP), and the three small confessional parties-on moral...

Share