“The good, the bad and the
Anti-immigration parties exist in many established democracies. Their electoral strength varies over time and across countries. For example, the National Front (FN) in France foundered in the 1970s but flourished in the 1990s. In neighbouring Belgium, a party with exactly the same name exists, which has always been considerably less successful than the French FN. What explains such variation in anti-immigration parties’ electoral performance has remained largely unknown
Tables and Figures:
Figure 1. The PVV's electoral performancein opnion polls (in projected National Parliamentary seats), 2006-2011.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analyses.
Table 2. Awareness decision to prosecute Wilders and proportion vote intention for the PVV.
Table 3. Awareness decision to prosecute Wilders and mean probability of voting for the PVV.
Table 4. Explaining vote intention for the PVV, Dutch electorate, December 2008 to Febuary 2009.
Table 5. Explaining probability of voting for the PVV, Dutch electorate, December 2008 to Febuary 2009.
Table 6. Estimated effects of awareness on vote intention for the PVV by subgroup.
Table 7. Estimated effects of awareness on probability of voting for the PVV subgroup
On a final note, the impact that the court decision had on the PVV’s electoral fortunes may have been consequential. The 2010 general election resulted in just enough seats for the PVV to support a right-wing minority government. If no such decision had been taken, the party might have won fewer seats in 2010. In that case, Wilders would neither have been kingmaker nor main government supporter after that election. Thus, ironically, those who appealed to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal against the decision not to prosecute Wilders seem to have set in motion a chain of events that has paved his way to power.