.jpg)
Little political diversity in student debate on elections with seven young men
The student debate in the Zuiderkerk (South Church) Monday night was conducted by seven men. How that was possible was the most frequently asked question from the audience. The fact that the VVD and PVV were missing seemed to bother the hundreds of students less.
.jpg)
Volt representative Bart Hemmes (spot 19 on the list) found it ‘extremely uncomfortable to talk about women's rights with seven men on stage,’he indicated. So did D66 representative Spencer Alberg (also spot 19). ‘Invite women next time,’ they both say flat out, after questions about this from the hundreds of students in the room.
Coincidence? PvdD representative Dave de Vos (spot 27) thinks so. ‘Six of the first eight candidates on our list are women. ChristenUnie representative Jerke Setz (12th place) goes a step further: ‘I would venture to say that the ChristenUnie is the most emancipated party in the Netherlands.’
The organization of the Amsterdam student debate - student union Asva, debate platform Room for Discussion, and the Amsterdam Chamber of Associations (AkvV, for student associations, ed.) - also had something to say about it. The parties were invited to send an MP candidate who was ‘young and connected to Amsterdam. In doing so, a man was by chance selected by each party.’Besides, there was an extenuating circumstance: Claire Martens (she/he, number 20 on the list) of the VVD canceled shortly beforehand.
‘The PVV was not present but had been invited repeatedly. They did not respond, nor did BBB. Actually, by default, the PVV does not participate in student debates unless Geert Wilders represents them. So they were not present even at the Leiden Student Debate or the National Student Debate, for example.’
The fact that the largest party in the polls was also absent from the Zuiderkerk was ignored. This was remarkable, especially since the PVV, which is also doing well in the most recent polls, was not present, either. This did not contribute to the political diversity and urgency of the debate.
However, other parties were present: Party for the Animals (PvdD), PvdA-GroenLinks, Volt, ChristenUnie (CU), D66, New Social Contract (NSC) and JA21. In keeping with their political positions, they were lined up on stage from left to right: PvdD on the far left, JA21 on the far right.
Climate
Their contrasting views were most clearly expressed in two animated speeches on climate. Apart from the housing crisis and student debt, this was the main theme of the evening.
In his own words, PvdD representative De Vos often hears that his climate plans ‘won't make things any cozier. No long-distance travel, no eating meat. But ask yourself, in light of the climate crisis,’De Vos continues, ‘Do I still want that?’His suggestion: create conditions that encourage the right behavior. ‘Flying, for example, is cheaper than traveling by train. Turn that around; change the system.’
In doing so, let's not lose sight of the consequences of harsh climate measures for the economy, warns JA21 representative Huub Rijpert (chair of Youth Party JA21). Indeed, if we want to tackle the climate problem, we need economic growth, says Rijpert. So it's not advisable to squeeze big companies like Schiphol, Tata Steel, and Shell out of the market: ‘If you're in the red, you can't do green.’
JA21 - as a last-minute replacement for the VVD - was supposed to be the driver of the debate anyway. The only sitting MP in the room, Habtamu de Hoop (PvdA-GroenLinks, spot 12), underscored that fact yet again by indicating halfway through the evening that he sees possible cooperation with all parties present, except JA21.
Text continues below image
Compensating the unlucky generation
‘I am sometimes shocked at how right-wing the Netherlands is,’adds De Hoop. ‘The only way to become the biggest is to join forces.’Otherwise, the PVV might become the biggest, he fears: ‘I don't want to wake up in Wildersland.’
Yet De Hoop also occasionally launched attacks on his intended partners. Bolstered by his parliamentary experience and the audience, which continuously cheered him on, he reproached the ChristenUnie for not being very emancipated. After all, they do not want to decriminalize abortion.
Volt was not spared from his criticism, either. The party was ‘new’and had ‘not yet taken responsibility,’and could therefore ‘easily’claim that every student from the unlucky generation should be compensated with €2,500 per academic year.
‘Introducing the loan system was a mistake,’De Hoop acknowledged. ‘But it would also be a mistake to say we'll waive everything. That's not going to happen, you know that, too.’Hemmes considers it to be possible, and not surprisingly, the students in the room do, too.
Text continues below image
Ecstasy
Volt was once again accused of being unrealistic when it came to ecstasy, this time by the ChristenUnie. According to Volt representative Hemmes, ‘What comes next might be even worse.’He advocates the legalization of ecstasy to eliminate the revenue model of drug criminals, guarantee the quality of the drug, and prevent environmental damage. ‘Then I am semi-prepared for us to be the exporter of ecstasy in the Netherlands,’Hemmes said.
‘A fantasy world,’responds Setz of the Christian Union. Because crime will not go away. After all, criminals do not have to comply with all kinds of bureaucratic rules, and can therefore always offer better quality. Besides, we should strive for a society in which drugs are not abundant, Setz said.
While De Hoop received the most applause from the audience, the venue - the Zuiderkerk - may well be in Setz's favor, joked Room for Discussion presenter Koen Blaauw.
"You probably feel most at home here."
That proved especially true at the end of the evening when Setz answered the question of how young people should look to the future - with sky-high student debt, no prospect of buying a house, and a climate crisis. His answer was ingratiating but clear: ‘There is always something to rebuild and there is always hope.’
