During the election campaign of 2002, Pim Fortuyn (1948-2002) was accused on multiple occasions of being undemocratic. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate what democracy fundamentally...Show moreDuring the election campaign of 2002, Pim Fortuyn (1948-2002) was accused on multiple occasions of being undemocratic. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate what democracy fundamentally meant to Fortuyn, by looking at his conception of democracy in the period 1980- 2002. Democracy was a key concept in his thinking and his concern for democracy was a red line throughout his intellectual development. How this democracy was to be achieved varied greatly, however, across Fortuyn’s political career. We can roughly distinguish three different periods in his views on democracy: social-democratic (1980-1988), neoliberal (1988-1995), and fundamentalist (1995-2002). The many changes in his views on democracy can be explained by contextual factors: he followed dominant political ideologies, was influenced by persons in his direct environment, and his views were often a rationalization of his own changing private experiences. That is not to say that Fortuyn was merely a passive product of that environment. He was an opinion maker, and talented at placing issues on the agenda. He also liked to create unrest, as he formulated conceptions of democracy that were on many aspects significantly different from mainstream Dutch political culture. It is difficult to see in Fortuyn someone seeking to bring about a crisis of liberal democracy; instead, the alternatives he envisaged was a representative democracy all the same, and he had far too much respect for ‘the democratic senses’ of the Dutch people, democratic values, and the rule of law. Though on two (brief) periods in his life he may have transgressed the boundaries of liberal democracy, the various periods of his political career may be regarded as having been characterized by a restless concern to achieve democracy rather than to overturn it.Show less
