Editing 2002 Dutch general election (section)

== Background ==
=== Incumbent coalition wins re-election (1998) ===
{{Main|1998 Dutch general election}}
[[File:Tweede Kamerverkiezingen 1998.png|left|thumb|upright|Results of the [[1998 Dutch general election]] by municipality.]]
By 1998, twice as many voters as in 1994 believed that the government's performance had positively impacted their personal financial situations. Moreover, clear majorities — 58% regarding economic policy and 62% concerning employment — expressed favourable views of the government's handling of these key issues. This widespread confidence rendered the 1998 election almost a formality; public satisfaction was so pronounced that a continuation of the existing government appeared inevitable.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Van Holsteyn |first=Joop J.M. |last2=and Irwin |first2=Galen A. |date=2003-04-01 |title=Never a dull moment: Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch parliamentary election of 2002 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402380512331341101 |journal=West European Politics |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=41–66 |doi=10.1080/01402380512331341101 |issn=0140-2382|url-access=subscription }}</ref> As a result, all of the [[First Kok cabinet|purple coalition]] parties, with the exception of D66, saw notable electoral gains during the general election of 6 May 1998.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Kiesraad - Verkiezingsuitslagen |url=https://www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl/verkiezingen/detail/TK19980506 |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl}}</ref> Prime minister [[Wim Kok]]'s party, the [[Labour Party (Netherlands)|Labour Party]], won 29% of the vote, up from 24% in 1994, whereas his coalition went from 92 to 97 seats.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Kiesraad - Verkiezingsuitslagen |url=https://www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl/verkiezingen/detail/TK19940503 |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl}}</ref>

The formation resulted in the continuation of the Kok cabinet with the [[second Kok cabinet]], consisting of the PvdA, VVD and D66, even though the latter was not necessary for a majority of 76 seats. Approaching the 2002 election, the coalition partners, particularly VVD and the Labour Party, anticipated replicating their earlier success by building their campaigns around the strong economic record that had served them so well in 1998.<ref name=":0" />

=== Wim Kok's resignation (2000–2001) ===
{{multiple image
| total_width       = 280
| image1            = Wim Kok 1994.jpg
| image2            = PvdA - Ad Melkert2002.jpg
| footer            = During the Labour Party congress on 15 December 2001, Prime Minister [[Wim Kok]] (left) named [[Ad Melkert]] as his successor
| align             = left
}}
In 2000, speculation abounded regarding the political future of party leader and Prime Minister [[Wim Kok]], who had by then passed the age of 61. In May, he announced he would decide the following year whether to continue as Prime Minister for a third term. In December, speaker of the House J. van Nieuwenhoven publicly suggested that Kok's time as Prime Minister had run its course and named [[Ad Melkert]] as a suitable successor. However, this view was not widely shared among the party's base; a poll by Intomart showed that roughly three quarters of Labour voters still preferred Kok to lead the party in the next election. Opinions within the party remained divided. Former minister [[Ed van Thijn]] publicly argued that Kok should step aside, even at the cost of electoral losses. In contrast, Minister Jan Pronk and chair candidate Olij supported Kok's continuation. Kok, for his part, remained noncommittal, stating he was not automatically a candidate for the 2002 election.<ref name=":3">Voerman, G. (editor) (2001). Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 2000. (Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen). Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen</ref>

At the 2001 spring party congress, Melkert delivered a political speech that positioned him, in the eyes of many party members, as Kok's natural successor. He championed a vision of a more democratic society, contrasting liberal individualism with a renewed sense of community, asking whether society should be "every person for themselves, or do we do it together?". Party chairman Koole, recently elected, urged that leadership not be decided by acclamation but through a meaningful choice. In a May interview, Melkert openly criticised Kok's ideological leadership, suggesting that after shedding the legacy of [[Joop den Uyl]], Kok failed to offer a compelling new vision. He also questioned Kok's handling of the [[1991 WAO crisis]],{{refn|group=note|In 1991, Kok faced serious criticism, including from within his own party, over the government's plan to drastically reform the Disability Insurance Act (''{{Illm|Wet op de arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering|nl}}''; WAO). The goal of the reform was to curb the growing number of people making use of the scheme.<ref>https://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/id/vjw5hnt2e9z2/wao_crisis_pvda_1991</ref>}} though he praised the Prime Minister’s pragmatism.<ref name=":2">Lucardie, A., Noomen, I., & Voerman, G. (2003). Kroniek 2001: overzicht van de partijpolitieke gebeurtenissen van het jaar 2001. In G. Voerman (editor), Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 2001 (blz. 15-96). (Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen). Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen.</ref> Despite affirming his good relationship with Kok, Melkert stood by his critique.<ref name=":2" /> Nonetheless, public support for him remained limited.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" /> A poll in July 2001 showed only 16% of voters viewed him as a suitable successor, while most still preferred Kok.<ref name=":0" />

On 24 August, {{Illm|Jacobus van Doorn|nl|J.A.A. van Doorn}}, a columnist for ''[[Trouw]]'', criticized the assumption that Melkert, simply by leading the largest party in parliament, was the logical next Prime Minister, calling the situation absurd and precarious. He noted the artificiality of Melkert’s rise, crafted by advisors and reliant on scripted speeches, and argued that Melkert lacked both popular appeal and the political stature Kok accumulated over years. Despite a well-received speech at the spring congress, which swayed party opinion, Van Doorn remained skeptical, pointing out the scripted nature of the speech and the vulnerability of Melkert’s image. He highlighted controversies from Melkert’s past ministerial work, including issues with EU funds and the underwhelming results of the ''Melkertbanen'' (Melkert jobs). The article concluded by questioning whether a well-rehearsed speech alone qualifies one to lead a country.<ref>{{Cite news |last=van Doorn |first=J. A. A. |date=24 August 2002 |title=De opbouw en afbraak van kroonprins Melkert |url=https://www.trouw.nl/voorpagina/de-opbouw-en-afbraak-van-kroonprins-melkert~b276c358/ |work=[[Trouw]]}}</ref>

On 29 August 2001, two days after the King's Commission released its report on the [[European Social Fund Plus|European Social Fund]], clearing Melkert of wrongdoing,{{refn|group=note|In 1999, it emerged that over 400 million guilders in European Social Fund subsidies, intended for employment projects, had been used since 1994 to cover budget deficits at the [[Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment]], leading to poor project administration and repayment demands from the European Union}} Kok announced his resignation, stating he had no further career plans, despite speculation about a potential European role, such as [[President of the European Commission]]. In his letter to the party leadership, Kok emphasised his desire to step aside in time for a younger generation to lead. His departure was met with broad respect from political leaders across the spectrum, though parties like the [[Christian Union (Netherlands)|Christian Union]] and the [[Reformed Political Party]] expressed criticism over policies such as euthanasia legislation and same-sex marriage.{{refn|group=note|For more information on same-sex marriage legalisation during Kok's tenure, see [[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands#Legislative action]]}} D66 leader [[Thom de Graaf]] hailed Kok as a "statue of integrity and solidity," while former US President [[Bill Clinton]] praised him as a pioneer of the [[Third Way]]. On 30 August, at a party gathering in [[Doorn]], Melkert officially put himself forward as Kok's successor. On 15 December 2001, at the Labour Party congress, Kok passed the political leadership to Melkert, endorsing him as his rightful heir, while expressing melancholy at the end of his tenure.<ref name=":2" />

=== Developments in junior coalition parties (1998–2001) ===
{{multiple image
| total_width       = 280
| image1            = Hans Dijkstal.JPG
| image2            = Thom de Graaf 2009.jpg
| caption1          = [[Hans Dijkstal]] (VVD)
| caption2          = [[Thom de Graaf]] (D66)
| footer            = Lead candidates in 2002 from junior coalition parties
}}

* [[People's Party for Freedom and Democracy]] (VVD): In early July 1998, after eight years at the helm of the VVD parliamentary group{{snd}}longer than any leader except the party's founder, [[Pieter Oud]]{{snd}}[[Frits Bolkestein]] decided to step aside. He believed the party would benefit from "new dynamism and a fresh spirit." On 30 July 1998, he formally stepped down as chair of the parliamentary group. At his recommendation, the group elected [[Hans Dijkstal]] as his successor, with [[Clemens Cornielje]] appointed vice-chair. Although he resigned from the leadership position, Bolkestein did not immediately leave the political stage, choosing to remain active in the House of Representatives until the end of 1999.<ref name=":5" />
* [[Democrats 66]] (D66): On 1 August 1998, D66 held a meeting in Utrecht to discuss the cabinet formation, with general satisfaction about the coalition agreement. [[Els Borst]], the party's lead candidate in 1998, stated that [[Thom de Graaf]] would succeed her.<ref name=":5">de Boer, B., Lucardie, A., Noomen, I., & Voerman, G. (1999). Kroniek 1998: overzicht van de partijpolitieke gebeurtenissen van het jaar 1998. In G. Voerman (editor), Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 1998 (blz. 14-94). Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen.</ref> Despite holding 14 seats, D66 polled at just 8 by 2001. In November 2000, a Candidate Advisory Committee was formed to vet candidates for the 2002 election. Three people ran for the lead candidate role: De Graaf, Westerouen van Meeteren, and Van Nieuwenhuyzen. On 17 November 2001, De Graaf won decisively. In his speech, he praised D66's role in the purple coalition but acknowledged errors, including forced municipal mergers. He called for a slimmer, more accountable government and criticised Fortuyn for his harsh rhetoric on refugees.<ref name=":2" />

=== Developments in opposition parties (1999–2002) ===
* [[Christian Democratic Appeal]] (CDA): On 27 September 2001, party chairman [[Marnix van Rij]] resigned due to a fundamental disagreement with parliamentary leader [[Jaap de Hoop Scheffer]] over the election campaign strategy. Van Rij viewed De Hoop Scheffer as too passive and ideologically vague. Tensions rose over candidate list rankings and leadership ambitions, with Van Rij eventually declining further candidacy. De Hoop Scheffer accused him of pursuing the party leadership through resignation. Though the party board tried to reconcile them, De Hoop Scheffer withdrew as leader, citing a loss of confidence. He stepped down as parliamentary leader on 1 October. The board rejected Van Rij's leadership proposal and unanimously nominated [[Jan Peter Balkenende]] as the new lead candidate, citing his experience and vision. Balkenende was confirmed in November.<ref name=":2" /> One of Balkenende's first moves was to announce his party would seek a harsher stance against immigration; post-election analysis has considered this decisive given the hindsight that immigration would become a key issue.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=45|pages=}}
* [[GroenLinks]] (GL): On 17 January 2002, GroenLinks announced its candidate list, led by [[Paul Rosenmöller]], who reprised his role as lead candidate. Unexpectedly, the second spot went to [[Femke Halsema]] instead of vice-chair Vos. Former co-leaders Rabbae and Tom Pitstra were removed; the committee criticised Pitstra's solo conduct, particularly on Afghanistan.{{refn|group=note|On 18 October 2001, Pitstra dissented from his party's support for the [[United States invasion of Afghanistan|invasion of Afghanistan]] after the bombardment of Kabul led to civilian casualties.<ref name=":2" />}} Rabbae reacted with outrage and threatened to resign. Party members, including Van Duijn (formerly a member of [[The Greens (Netherlands)|The Greens]]), supported preference campaigns to reinstate them, though Van Duijn was also deemed unsuitable for a seat. MP Van der Steenhoven was placed 13th, likely unelectable; Hermann did not seek re-election. Most MPs received viable positions, though Harrewijn's 11th spot was uncertain. Environmentalist Duyvendak was among four newcomers likely to win seats. The list was approved on 9 February with very few changes.<ref name=":4">Hippe, J., Voerman, G., & Lucardie, A. (2004). Kroniek 2002: overzicht van partijpolitieke gebeurtenissen van het jaar 2002. In G. Voerman (editor), Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 2002 (blz. 18-180). (Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen). Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen</ref>
* [[Christian Union (Netherlands)|Christian Union]] (CU): In 1999, young members of the [[Reformed Political League]] (GPV) and [[Reformatory Political Federation]] (RPF) founded a platform named ''Trans-Formatie'', criticising their parties' merger talks as too businesslike and lacking inspiration. They called for a Christian, green, progressive, and social direction. Their proposal to omit traditional confessions from the new party's foundation caused controversy. Meanwhile, surveys showed strong support among both parties' members for a joint candidate list and election programme, despite concerns about evangelical inclusion. On 21 October, the parties announced plans to politically unite under a shared program and list, forming a new union while keeping separate financial and membership policies.<ref>de Boer, B., Lucardie, A., Noomen, I., & Voerman, G. (2000). Kroniek 1999: overzicht van de partijpolitieke gebeurtenissen van het jaar 1999. In G. Voerman (editor), Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 1999 (blz. 13-92). (Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen). Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen.</ref> On 22 January 2000, both parties approved the union, which would be called ''ChristenUnie'', aiming for eventual full integration while allowing gradual organisational cooperation.<ref name=":3" /> Former GPV senator [[Kars Veling]] would be the lijsttrekker in 2002.<ref name=":4" />
* [[Socialist Party (Netherlands)|Socialist Party]] (SP): In December 1999, the party council focused on implementing decisions from that year’s congresses: one on party organisation, the other on the new manifesto. In June 2000, it called for an evaluation, resulting in the report ''Van wens naar werkelijkheid'' ("From Wish to Reality"), discussed in local branches and regional conferences. Members criticised a proposal to offer discounts on books and videos to boost engagement, prompting the party board to withdraw it. On 16 December 2000, the council approved improvement measures, including abolishing underperforming districts and replacing them with six regions.<ref name=":3" /> On 23 June 2001, the party council unanimously nominated [[Jan Marijnissen]] to reprise his role as lead candidate in 2002. No candidates ran against him.<ref name=":2" />
* [[Reformed Political Party]] (SGP): In 2001, the SGP continued its fierce opposition to the second Kok cabinet, particularly over the euthanasia law. Internally, the party debated whether to adopt a tougher stance; some warned against being too confrontational. The longstanding issue of women's membership resurfaced when R. Grabijn filed a complaint with the [[Dutch Equal Treatment Commission|Equal Treatment Commission]], which ruled it lacked authority. Internationally, the UN urged the Dutch government to end the SGP's exclusion of women. A majority of Dutch citizens opposed the party's stance. Locally, SGP councillors refused to support female candidates. Senator Holdijk later stated he had no objection to women serving as aldermen, calling the issue overblown.<ref name=":2" /> [[Bas van der Vlies]] would reprise his role as lead candidate.