Journalist Folkert Jensma fears coalition agreement
Journalist and as of Thursday UvA honorary doctor Folkert Jensma reflects on the benefits affair and Wilders' gains in a conversation with Folia. What role does journalism play in this? “I cannot see how journalism would have made Wilders great.”
From the costly recovery operation of the benefits affair “which is looking more and more like the affair itself” and the fine contesting service (see box) to the party program of election winner PVV. For years journalist Folkert Jensma has been writing columns and conducting analyses on all kinds of developments which, according to him, have a serious influence on the Dutch constitutional state. He does this at the newspaper where he was editor-in-chief from 1996 to the end of 2006: NRC.
“The influence and significance of Jensma's work lies in the social impact he manages to make,” said UvA's rector magnificus Peter-Paul Verbeek. His work, according to a press release from the University of Amsterdam, is an “important addition to the scholarly work at the UvA and other universities on the rule of law, justice, and access to justice.”
This is when citizens engage commercial agencies to object to or appeal a fine or assessment, only hoping that administrative bodies, courts, or municipalities will make formal errors. This legal action has nothing to do with the content of the fine or assessment. “It is exploiting the law, using it in a way it was not meant to be used,” said Folkert Jensma. “It is truly a wanton state of affairs.”
Meanwhile, criticism is also being heard from the judiciary. Jensma says: “It's only starting now, with harsh rulings from the attorney general, who is making short work of it and urging the Supreme Court to put a stop to this. I suspect this will come to a natural end, but it has been going on for at least five or 10 years, and maybe even longer...”
This has earned him an honorary doctorate. Next Thursday, at the Dies Natalis of the UvA, he will be officially awarded this prestigious title. Folia spoke to him leading up to this special moment.
Were you pleasantly surprised by this honorary doctorate award?
“It came out of the clear blue sky. I was hiking on vacation in Austria and got an e-mail from Iris van Domselaar (Professor of Philosophy of Law and Professional Ethics for Lawyers, and honorary supervisor of Jensma, ed.) of the UvA law faculty. She said she wanted to ask me something on behalf of the UvA. All kinds of things immediately came to mind.
You were already thinking of a special professorship...
“Ha, my thoughts were much more mundane. She needs a phone number, or she wants to find a legal piece, something along those lines. So I was totally unprepared for what she actually had to say.”
Van Domselaar calls you “in a sense, the constitutional conscience of the Netherlands.” A nice compliment. But do you also feel that legal topics are underreported in journalism?
“I think they are given one-sided coverage. Perhaps as many as 80% of the legal topics covered in journalism are about criminal law, whereas criminal law constitutes perhaps one-third of the entire practice of law. You wouldn't guess that looking at what we cover in the media. The rest—such as labor, family, or administrative law disputes—get the short end of the stick.”
“Only a few journalists in the country follow those areas of law closely. There is much more to be gained there. They may be less accessible because of privacy concerns, and many of those proceedings don't reach a verdict within two weeks as in criminal law, but that certainly doesn't make them any less relevant. So if a few of the court reporters look into administrative law, I think we would already be providing a much better service to the reader.”
You write a lot about administrative law. How did you become interested in that?
“It was the result of the benefits affair. Before that, I wasn't that interested in administrative law, either. I think the benefits affair has taught journalism that, for example, in social security law, a lot is going on between government and citizens. We—insofar as you can talk about ‘we’—have not paid enough attention to that.”
Could you explain what you mean by that?
“We noticed the benefits affair but did not see it in court. We didn't attend the hearings and didn't see what went on there, but that’s where the issues were being dealt with. I blame myself for that.”
So you are saying that the media should have paid more attention to the benefits affair at an earlier stage?
“Yes, we could have seen this coming if we had attended those hearings. If we had followed the case, we might have noticed that the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State (the highest administrative judge, ed.) did not have sufficient insight into cases that went completely wrong in people's daily lives.”
Speaking with de Volkskrant, you said that writing legal columns has also sharpened your sense of justice.
“In itself, that is true, yes. In writing such a column you develop a conversation. Not only with your reader but also with yourself. Then you look back at what you've written and discover a recurring thread, often one you didn't identify beforehand. And sometimes you don't even realize it yourself, but hear it from other people: ‘Yeah, you always write about that.’ Hey, you're right, you think.”
You have now been working in journalism for more than 40 years. Do you still enjoy the profession?
“It is an enormous privilege. In particular, I enjoy covering court hearings. It's actually a relatively simple job; I've been doing it for a long time for a column we have been writing at the NRC for over 10 years. In it we show the reader what happens in court: what issue is involved, what the lawyer or judge says, what the outcome is, etc.”
“When we started it, I figured I’d be bored with it after a couple of years. But no way, no way. I think it's wonderful work and I still come out of a hearing intrigued and happy. It's always crazier and stranger than you think beforehand. So I'm always glad when I get to go to the next one.”
To an outsider, it often looks like a one-dimensional, static process. There is a requisition and plea, reply and rejoinder, and finally, a verdict.
“Yes, that's how it is. But the truth is many times more interesting and multifaceted than you’d immediately think. Of course, you never know in advance what the judge's verdict will be.”
“In at least three out of four cases, by the way, I'm also glad I don't have to reach the verdict myself, which is not easy. And when a good verdict is reached, I always find it to be an interesting conclusion. In short, to my surprise, I continue to find the judicial process endlessly fascinating.”
Less pleased with the judicial process in the Netherlands is PVV leader Geert Wilders, who is currently trying to form a cabinet as an election winner. In one of your columns, you expressed extreme concern about this in connection with the “negative consequences for the rule of law.” For example, you pointed to his statements about judges—“liberal wimps”—and journalists—the “scum of the Earth.” What are you most concerned about?
“The diplomatic answer is: the coalition agreement. I know the PVV as a radical right-wing, undemocratic party, of which I have hesitations about whether they can properly cooperate in a coalition.”
1980-1983: Editor of university magazine Mare
1985-1996: Freelance editor-in-chief, editor at home and The Hague, EU correspondent, chief Saturday Supplement, daily NRC newspaper
1996-2006: Chief editor of NRC
2007-present: Legal columnist and editor at NRC. Click here.
2011-present: Member of the Advisory Board of Dutch Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (NJCM).
2023-present: Member Advisory Board Pro Demos
2023-present: Chairman of the main board of the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ)
“We have a coalition system, which has a dampening effect. So it remains to be seen what will be left of the PVV in a coalition agreement, but the PVV's party program is a dragon in terms of the rule of law. It is full of authoritarian fantasies and proposals that are incredibly radical.”
In your opinion, are there any lessons journalism should draw for itself after Wilders and the PVV's gains?
“That is a difficult question. I cannot see how journalism would have made Wilders great, but rather that journalism could not have foreseen a certain election result. But that also depends on what responsibility you assign to journalism. After all, the media cannot predict the future.”
“Besides, the media are extremely diverse and cannot be lumped together. That makes it impossible to generalize about journalism. If I did, it would be about my own journalism, but even then I find it complicated to formulate a clear answer to that, frankly.”
Finally, you once wrote for the Leiden University magazine Mare. What was it like for you to work at a university newspaper?
“It was my salvation as a student. I didn't feel very much at home in Leiden and journalism gave me a stage, occupation, and attitude that made it easier for me to relate to the selective and introverted atmosphere there. Mare made me feel more at home in my studies as well as in the Leiden world.”
“I also learned the profession of journalism there, which I could later continue in. And to complete the circle, there is of course nothing nicer than starting at a university magazine and then—in the autumn of your career—ending up with an honorary doctorate...”
...to then also be interviewed by another university magazine. That completes the circle, don't you think?
“Haha yes, you're right. How could I forget that!”
Honorary doctorates are awarded at the Dies Natalis of the University of Amsterdam. This year it will take place on Thursday, January 11th. In addition to Jensma, the UvA is also awarding an honorary doctorate to Turkish sociologist and writer Zeynep Tüfekçi.
