Historian Piet de Rooy disputes in his book Our dot on the world map the generally accepted statement that our country has developed in a calm, peaceful and tolerant manner. He argues that the Dutch political culture has been shaped by conflicts and coincidences, and that the only reason our country still exists is because the European powers have granted us that. “The Netherlands often thought it was moving, but it was moved,” says de Rooy. His book has been nominated for the Libris History Prize 2014.
First of all, why did you write a book about the political culture of the Netherlands, a lot of literature has already been published about this?
“It is sometimes said that history is an old man's profession. When you get older, you have already seen and read so much that you have obtained a certain overview. This also applies to me as a historian. I wanted to summarize what I had read and thought over the years, thus leaving my mark on certain discussions.”
What is the main conclusion from the research project?
“The term “political culture” is applied in many different ways in many different disciplines. But it is important to have a fixed definition of this concept, at least within the historiography. This simplifies the debate. The most important innovation that emerges in the book is that I have described the concept of 'political culture' as clearly as possible. I regard political culture as a whole, in which, however, three domains can be distinguished analytically."
“The first domain is formed by the political system with the constitution at its core, the second domain is formed at the interface of private life, the state and the market and the third domain can be referred to as the general attitude of the population.' '
“Secondly, I think I have made it clear that the uniqueness of Dutch history is not contained in concepts such as niceness, intelligence and emotional stability, but that it lies much more in the circumstances in which the Netherlands has had to operate in the course of history. These circumstances are largely determined by the small size of our country and the location where it is located. As a result, we have been much more dependent on international movements than many people think.”
You place the political developments in the Netherlands in an international context and state that the Netherlands did not move, but was moved. What foreign interference have you described in your book?
“That already starts with the independence of the Netherlands in 1813. At the time, we pretended to have liberated ourselves from Napoleon's domination, but we were completely dependent on the British and Russian armed forces. You can actually say that the independence of the Netherlands has been preserved because none of the neighboring countries granted each other the Netherlands."
For example, England did not want France to have access to the conveniently located ports of the Netherlands on the North Sea, or for Prussia to annex the Netherlands in its quest for unification. Conversely, France and Prussia did not want England to gain a foothold on the mainland. So we are actually tolerated. This toleration was presented as the result of neutrality and therefore of one's own efforts. The First World War seemed to confirm that, the Second World War put an end to that illusion.”
How do you think our relationship with the European superpowers is now?
“In my book, I point out the tragedy of the Netherlands' dealings with Europe. The peace and prosperity we have known after 1945 is hard to imagine without Europe, and it is tragic that the spring European elections showed that appreciation for it has fallen sharply. Many people, including a large number of politicians, did not dare to make a plea for European integration. At this very moment, and this has become clear again with the recent crises in Gaza and Ukraine, our security is no longer protected by individual countries, but by European cooperation. The tragic thing about this is that the moment it became clear that we depend on it, we became, as it were, estranged from Europe.”
The theme of inequality comes up several times in your book. For example, between men and women, elite and workers and rulers and slaves. Has this sense of inequality played a major role in shaping the political culture that now prevails in the Netherlands?
“The interesting thing about it is that there is a difference between words and deeds. When the French revolution and the Batavian revolution continue at the end of the 18th century, you see that equality is elevated to one of the most important ideals in society. It can even be found in the proverb of the French Revolution:Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
“They talked about equality and with the other hand they created inequality by, for example, limiting political equality to the people who 'deserved' it. This concept was expanded again and again, as you see in the course of the 19th century that women are also regarded as people who, for example, deserve the right to vote, but on the other hand, even in today's society there is no inequality between men and women. completely negligible.''
Another important point is social inequality. If this increases rapidly, you will see that a number of social problems increase. An example of this is the banking crisis that arose because the bankers' rewards were spiraling out of control. Tensions rose and with it the aggression increased, with all its consequences. In that respect, the “exhibitionist self-enrichment” in the banking sector (and not just there) is an unfortunate social phenomenon. It is good for a society to realize this.”
You state in your book that small countries like the Netherlands were in fact a testing ground for civilization, and that they could therefore hope that they would be preserved from international power politics. What exactly do you mean by this living lab of civilization?
“How does an independent country preserve its sovereignty? In principle, this is only possible if a country has military strength. Because the Netherlands is and was such a small country, we were never able to raise a large army independently. This was masked for a time because the Netherlands was relatively rich, and could therefore rely on mercenary armies. In the course of the eighteenth century, however, the financially strong position of the Netherlands was lost. From that moment on, the Netherlands can only maintain its independence through alliances. That requires an awareness of what is going on politically in the surrounding countries, and creates a sense of dependence."
“This sense of dependence only really dawned on us at the beginning of the 19th century. In response to the fact that we as a country do not want and cannot engage in international power politics, we wanted to show in our own society that you can also become very happy without engaging in power politics. In fact, the Netherlands was seen as a testing ground for civilization. In 1864 the historian W.J. Hofdijk about this:'It is more beautiful to be the most moral than to be the most powerful people on earth'. This is where the roots of the idea that the Netherlands is a 'guide country' lie. It's a classic way of turning weakness into strength."