Questions. From the case study below, explain the following separately

a) Do you believe Pim Fortuyn was a charismatic leader?

b)Justify your response using relevant theoretical principles

c. Compare and contrast LPF with other 'one-person' businesses (such as Body Shop, Virgin, and Microsoft).

d) If these organizations lost their leader, do you believe they would be able to continue operating? What is the rationale, or why not?

CASE STUDY

The paradox of Pim Fortuyn: a study in charismatic leadership

'In Amsterdam they party, in The Hague they talk and in Rotterdam we work' is a frequently heard expression that sums up the quintessential difference between Rotterdam and the rest of Holland. Rotterdamers are justifiably proud of their city which had to be completely rebuilt after the Second World War and is now home to the largest port in the world. It is, however, a city of contrasts: named European City of Culture in 2001, it also has a greater percentage of unsolved crime than anywherelse in the Netherlands; it is home to the biggest 'house scene', has more festivals and Michelin 3* restaurants than anywhere else in Holland but it is also home to the greatest number of unemployeand foreign illegal workers. Because of its maritime history Rotterdam has always been a multi-cultural

melting pot - indeed some estimates suggest that there are more non-Dutch than native Dutch living in the city. However, true to the Dutch concepts of tolerance and equality, it appeared, outwardly at least, that everything in the bulb fields was coming up tulips - until, that is, the emergence in 2002 of a little-known sociology professor turned politician:

Pim Fortuyn.

Fifty-three years old, 'Professor Pim', as he preferred to be known, brought a breath of fresh air to the previously bland Dutch political scene where every government for decades was a coalition and where every view, as long as it was broadly democratic, was taken into account. Elections had become slightly meaningless: whoever won, what-

ever slight rejuggling there might be of the coalition partners, Dutch politics bobbed along in its cosy centrist way with no one aware of a growing complacency and no one aware of the anxieties which were beginning to surface on the fringes of society, particularly in Rotterdam - no one, that is, until

Professor Pim promised to address them. Pim Fortuyn was a flamboyant, openly gay, blunt, outspoken and charismatic man with a penchant for lap dogs, luxury and Cuban cigars; well dressed in custom-made Italian suits he was often to be seen in his chauffeur-driven Daimler with blacked~out win-dows and champagne leather upholstery.

Charismatic, confrontational and telegenic, he possessed a frank, sarcastic sense of humour, providing outrageous soundbites that were a gift for the Dutch media and wiping the floor with establishment politicians in televised debates.

Fortuyn had only recently entered the Dutch political arena; previously he had held several jobs in education and research, living up to what became known as 'Fortuyn's Law': wherever he worked he left in controversy and acrinwny. The former Marxist became an opinionated right-wing magazine columnist and had started his own local

political party, Leefbaar Rotterdam (Liveable Rotterdam), in order to contest the forthcoming local elections when, in November 2001, he was invited to become leader of the small and supposedly radical national party, Leefbaar Netherland.

He guided the party towards the right, criticising bureaucracy in Dutch public services and challenging long-established Dutch political norms. However, 'Fortuyn's Law' was once again re-enacted when, three months later, he was thrown out for suggesting that Article One of the Dutch Constitution, which banned discrimination, should

be changed (this despite the fact that, on his appointment, he had promised not to raise this as an issue) and for publicly criticising Muslim leaders and their stance on homosexuals. Still head of the local Leefbaar Rotterdam, and two days after his public dismissal from Leefbaar Netherland, this indomitable character had bounced back to form his own party, Lijst Pim Fortuyn (Pim Fortuyn's List), comprising a disparate group of hand-picked, like- minded people who were in whole agreement with his policies and who were rich enough to be able to finance him but who did not necessarily have any political training or background. Fortuyn's particular brand of politics was as paradoxical as the man himself. Branded right-wing, he was frequently (and to his increasing anger) compared with France's Jean-Marie Le Pen or Austria's Jorg Haider. In fact he supported gay rights, legalised drugs and prostitution - the very hallmarks of Holland's pemissive society - and he succeeded in blending liberal and reactionary populist policies which included a drastic reduction in bureaucracy, a clampdown on crime and a return of much of the

Netherlands contribution to the EU (proportion- ately the largest of any member state). However, the fly in this apparent ointment of liberalism was his stance on immigration; his policies on race included zero Muslim immigration, a cut in the overall annual number of immigrants from 40 000 to 10 000 and better integration of the two million immigrants already on Dutch soil. He was famously quoted as saying, 'Enough is enough, The Netherlands is a small country ... we are already overcrowded, there's no more room and we must shut the borders'.

However, Fortuyn argued that his apparent far right-wing stance on immigration was, in fact, just the opposite because he believed that Islam undermined the ultra-liberal permissive society which he cherished. He argued that Islam was a backward culture, saying, 'In Holland, homosexuality is treated the same way as heterosexuality. In

what lslamic country does that happen?' and 'How can you respect a culture if the woman has to walk several steps behind her husband, has to stay in the kitchen and keep her mouth shut?' He sought to strengthen this liberal view by arguing that he was not against immigrants per se, but he questioned their ability to assimilate into a liberal and radically tolerant culture: 'My policies are multi-ethnic and certainly not racist ... I want to stop the influx of new immigrants ... [and] give those who are already here the opportunity to fully integrate into our society.' Added weight was given to his argument by the appointment of several ethnic candidates including Jo Varela from the Cape Verde Islands and Philomena Bylhout, a television presenter of Surinamese origin.

Although both the press and the opposition parties had a field day, arguing that his policies were long on rhetoric, short on substance and did not stand up to detailed costing, Fortuyn struck a chord with people in this the most densely populated country in Europe. 'He says what we've all been thinking ... he says what other politicians won't ...he understands the concerns of ordinary people' were frequently heard comments, especially when it came to the issue of increasing street crime: Fortuyn was quoted often: 'I'm not anti-Muslim. I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm saying we've got big problems in our cities ... It's not very smart to make the problems bigger by letting in millions more immigrants from rural Muslim cultures that don't assimilate.' He claimed that Islam was a 'backward culture' and that

Muslims allowed into the Netherlands looked down on the Dutch: 'Moroccan boys never steal from Moroccans. Have you noticed that?' Critics argued that Fortuyn's only appeal was to voters' inherent fear of outsiders and of crime and their feelings of increasing alienation from the old political elites; whether this was true or not, in April 2002 his Leefbaar Rotterdam party came from nowhere to win 17 out of 45 seats in the Rotterdam City Council elections, ending overnight the ruling Labour party's post-war dominance.

Following his success in Rotterdam, Professor Pim began his campaign for the national elections the following month, heading his own Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF) Party. At this stage he was involved with two main parties, the LPF and the original Leefbaar Rotterdam; however, it is doubtful if more than a small percentage of Dutch voters actually realised this: to them Pim was the party. Always outrageous, this man, whose soundbites and extravagant lifestyle had always made good media copy, now became even more so as the press outside the Netherlands began to take notice: headlines such as 'Dutch fall gay Mr Right' and 'The twisty politics of a far right showman' appeared in the British broadsheets. Appearing to bask in the light of this publicity, Fortuyn became even more dogmatic,

opinionated, provocative and illogical, refusing to elucidate on what were, at best, embryonic policies, and, when pressed about his party's apparent lack of a clear manifesto, exhorted people to read his many books where, it appeared, all was made clear. He began to hold 'audiences' with the foreign press in his elegant house in Rotterdam where, amidst modern art and antiques, his butler would serve tea in bone china cups and interviewers were treated to Pim's own particular brand of invective. When pressed to provide answers, or when compared to other European far right leaders he would resort to angry ranting, banging his fist on the table and threaten to leave the interview (which, of course, he never did because this man, of all men, knew the power of publicity). In one famous interview with a Dutch female journalist who continued to press him for a clear answer to her question, he shouted that

she would be better off leaving her job and 'going back to cooking' - an ironic twist given his previous

comments regarding the lot of Muslim women who were 'forced to stay in the kitchen' ....

Although the world's press seemed to be turning against him, the controversy, if anything, enhanced his reputation and, as Pim's own particular brand of populist politics continued to gain momentum, particularly amongst the young, his party appeared poised to take an unprecedented number of parliamentary seats - estimates gave the LPF at least 28 per cent despite the fact that voters had never heard of the candidates and when they did hear about them it was usually in the form of some sort of scandal; 90 they did not appear to care as long as Fortuyn's name headed the list. As a result, the election campaign was far more vivid and exciting than had been seen in Holland for decades, and, when death threats began to be made against him, an observer could be forgiven for thinking that this was happening in the United States rather than in the politically bland Netherlands. Speaking of the death threats, Pim was his usual arrogant self, saying 'there are always death threats against me', adding 'I asked the Prime Minister for protection but he won't pay. If I die, it is on his head.' Despite the fact that he said he could not afford the cost of round the-clock protection, this did not prevent him, however, from using private bodyguards from time

to time.

The country was on tenterhooks over the forthcoming result, when, on 6 May, just nine days before the election, Volkert van der Graaf, who saw Fortuyn as a 'power-hungry danger to society' shot him dead leaving a television studio in Hilversum. That the murderer was a self-styled environmentalist who had previously said that he objected to fishing with worms because it was both cruel to the worm and the fish, rather than someone from the

Islamic community whom Fortuyn had publicly vilified, was yet another ironic twist in this man's larger-than-life existence. The murderer was filmed by a television crew who happened to be outside and the following day pictures on TV and in the newspapers of a bloodied and dying Pim lying prostrate on the ground would, no doubt, have appealed to the politician whose death, mourning and subsequent funeral was as public and over the top as his

life. Indeed, if accounts are to be believed, it was as orchestrated as his life, since Pim had planned and made arrangements for both the public lying in state of his body and the funeral, whole with white hearse and his dogs. Even Pim, however, would probably have been amazed at the public out-pouring of grief where, in scenes reminiscent of the death of the late Princess of Wales, his Rotterdam house became a shrine for flowers and candles and Rotterdammers, whether they supported him or not, took part in all-night vigils to register their anger and disgust at Holland's sudden fall from a land of consensus and tranquillity into one they did not recognise.

The assassination left the Netherlands in a state of shock - such an event had never, in living history, happened in this tolerant country. LPF, although now leaderless, gained a massive sympathy vote in the election, taking 26 of the 150 seats in parliament and entered into yet another coalition with the Christian- Democrat CDA and the conservative VVD parties.

Although every candidate had been hand-picked by Fortuyn to ensure whole agreement with his policies, not one of them had anything like his stature (who could?) and the outcome of the election resulted in a hard-right party, led by novices who lacked experience and a common political vision, holding the balance of power - not exactly a recipe for success. Without their charismatic leader to keep them in check and provide direction, LPF resorted to very public squabbling over their struggles to maintain any leadership and, after just 87 days, the government was dissolved and new elections called for January 2003 - elections in which, without the charismatic Professor Pim, LPF lost two thirds of its seats, effectively relegating it permanently to the political wildemess.

In the days following Pim's death political pundits forecast that his charisma and style had bequeathed a legacy which would change the face of Dutch politics forever. But had it? Although the CDA and VVD once again took the majority of votes in January 2003, they still needed a third party to form yet another coalition; there then followed another five months of political discussion and argument with the various minor parties until a new government was finally sworn in in May 2003.