Draft Analysis FNP Survey - University of Strathclyde



| |September 2009 |

| |Frisian National Party |

| | |

| |Arno van der Zwet |

| | |

| |University of Strathclyde |

| |Department of Government |

| |Arno.van-der-Zwet@strath.ac.uk |

|Analysis FNP Survey |

|This document contains an empirical analysis of an FNP membership survey conducted in 2009. |

|Please contact the author before quoting. |

|Arno van der Zwet |

|Department of Government |

|16 Richmond Street |

|Glasgow |

|G1 1QX |

|0044 (0) 7546066602 |

|Arno.van-der-Zwet@strath.ac.uk |

FNP Membership 2009 survey analysis

The results presented in this paper are a product of a full Frisian National Party (FNP) membership survey conducted in 2009. The survey was a send by mail as opposed to an internet based questionnaire for two reasons. First, not all members have access to the internet and, especially older members may be incapable or uncomfortable completing an internet based survey. Second, previous FNP surveys have been conducted by mail and the 2007 Scottish National Party (SNP) questionnaire to which the results will be compared was also a conducted by mail. It was therefore preferred to have the same method of data collection. The questions were drawn from several sources. The principle source was the SNP 2007 membership survey conducted by the University of Strathclyde and the University of Aberdeen. Some questions were modified to make them relevant to the Frisian context. A second source of questions were two historic FNP surveys[1]. The questionnaire also included questions which were specifically developed to apply to the current Frisian situation and the interest of this study (European Union, environment and immigration attitudes). Several of these questions were developed by the author; other questions were drawn from a specialised academic literature. The range of sources for questions allows to both compare the SNP and the FNP and to analyse the development of FNP in a historical context. Additionally, it allows exploring specific interests. Drafting the survey involved many discussions with both party officials and academic colleagues. The survey was translated from Dutch into Frisian by a certified translator[2]. The translation from English to Dutch was completed by the author.

The survey was distributed in the week of the 16th to 23rd March 2009. The total number of surveys send out was 1208 which was the full FNP membership at that time. The accompanying letter was both drafted and signed by the researcher and the FNP chairperson, Nynke Beetstra. All surveys were distributed anonymously and return envelopes were provided. On 2nd April 2009 the response was 450. In that month, the Frijbutser, the FNP member’s magazine, published a reminder for members to complete the survey. On June 9th 2009 the final count of surveys returned was 579, a response rate of 47.93%. Such a response rate is comparable with other survey. The SNP membership survey in 2007 had a response rate of 53.9%. This survey did have the benefit of sending out reminder cards in a second stage and sending out a second batch of fresh questionnaire to all non-respondents in a third stage (Mitchell, 2008:5). The FNP membership survey in 2000 had a response rate of 55.25% (FNP 2000: 1). This survey was shorter which may have facilitated the slightly higher response rate. Holsteyn and Koole conducted membership surveys of 7 national parties. The response rates for those surveys were between 31.6% and 61.9%. 5 parties had a response rate below 40% (Holsteyn and Koole, 2009: 7). It can therefore be concluded that the response rate is satisfactory but it also has to be noted that more than 50% of the respondents did not reply which could lead to a distorted demographic picture.

This paper is an empirical overview of the results. First, the socio-demographic makeup of the party will be discussed. The second part will give an outline of the political preferences and electoral strategy. This will be followed by charting questions that relate to identity. The Fourth part will give an analysis of policy priority. The next part includes an overview of the FNP member’s constitutional preferences. The final three sections deal with topical interests, respectively, European integration, Multiculturalism and immigration, and environmentalism.

Socio-demographics

This first section gives an overview of the socio-demographic results. As the pie chart below (graph 1) shows over 70% of FNP members are male[3]. This finding is consistent with survey results from 2000 when the split between male and female members was 73% to 27%. Male participation in political parties is generally higher. However, the FNP seems to find it more difficult to attract female members than some other political parties[4]. Further evidence of the FNP being a party which is more male dominated, can be found when analysing the gender distribution amongst the party’s officials (graph 2). This distribution is roughly equal to that of the general membership. Concluding that the distribution of officials is representative of the overall FNP’s members’ gender distribution but both are heavily skewed towards males.

Graph 1 (N=579) Graph 2 (N=148)

[pic][pic]

The average age of FNP members was just under 60[5] (Graph 3). In the 2000 FNP survey members were asked to identify their age group from three categorises rather than giving a more precise year of birth. In 2000 58% was over 50 years. This number has increased to around 80%[6]. A mere 3.4% is younger than 35 and this group is outnumbered by over members over 75 (13.5%). The FNP own membership administration registers 8.1% of members under 35 and 11% over 75. Therefore we have to be aware that the older age group is somewhat overestimated in this analysis.

Graph 3 (N=563)

[pic]

82.1% of respondents find themselves in category 2, 3 and 4 of the income distibution (see Graph 4). This is indicative of a middle class membership. The average household income in the Netherlands for 2008 was €30500. The 2000 survey does not hold any data on income distribution.

Graph 4 (N = 549)

[pic]

Two groups can be identified in the education distribution (see graph 5). First, members that have been educated to secondary school levels (35.1%). Second, a group which has been educated to higher education levels (50.2%). Both groups are roughly equally represented amongst party officials (38.5% to 54.7%).

Graph 5 (N=576)

[pic]

Unsuprisingly, the majority of FNP members were born in Friesland (see graph 6). 10.5% of respondents were born somwhere else in the Netherlands. A few individuals were born outside the Netherlands.

Graph 6 (N=578)

[pic]

Just over 25% of members fullfill or have fullfilled an official function in the FNP (graph 7) which can be interpretted as an active participation rate in. However, it should be noted that active members are more likely to complete the survey than members who are not active. Nevertheless, if one looks at the total membership and assumes that all officials in the party have completed a survey, a total of 12.5% of members fullfills an official role.

Graph 7 (N=576)

[pic]

The length of party membership can be indicative of two trends. First, the loyalty of the party members can be assessed; whereby a long membership is a sign of loyalty to that party. Second, recent membership can be indicative of the party’s success to attract new members. As the level of membership has remained stable since 2000[7], an assessment of party loyalty and the party’s ability to attract new members can be made. Overall, the FNP is able to retain ‘old’ members. However attracting new members has become more difficult since 2000 (see table 1).

Table 1 (N=571)

| | |2000 |2009 |

| | |In % |In % |

|Valid |0 – 5 |27 |18.7 |

| |6 – 10 |21 |23.1 |

| |11 – 20 |25 |23.6 |

| |longer than 20 |27 |33.3 |

| |Don't Know | |1.2 |

| |Total |100 |100.0 |

Members were asked to give three hierarchical reasons (1st preference, 2nd preference, 3rd preference) as to why they decided to become a member. When accumaliting first, second and third preferences anxieties about the Frisian language is the dominant reason (see Table 2) to become a member. However, less than a quarter( 22.6%) of the respondents indicated this as their 1st preference to become a member. Concerns about Frisian identity and a desire for more political autonomy also receive around 50% of the accumulated preferences to become a member. First preferences were mainly reserved for the first, second, third and fourth category[8].

Table 2

|Reason for membership |Percentages |

|Worry about Frisian language |64.4 |

|Worry about Frisian identity |52.8 |

|More Political Autonomy |46.6 |

|Worry about influence from non Frisians |35.1 |

|Worry about Frisian landscape |29 |

|Good representatives |25.9 |

|Dissappointment other parties |10.4 |

|Encouragement family |9 |

|Other |5.4 |

Political Preferences and Electoral Strategy

In this section we will take a closer look at where on the political spectrum we can place FNP members and what their political preferences are. The FNP currently puts forward candidates in municipal and provincial elections. 88.4% of members vote for FNP candidates in both elections, whereas 6.6% vote FNP in only one of the elections (graph 8). 2.6% do not vote FNP, a possible explanation for this is residency outside Friesland which restricts these members from voting for FNP candidates.

Graph 8 (N=565)

[pic]

As the FNP currently does not contest national elections for the second chambermost members will vote for other national parties in those elections. The last national elections held in the Netherlands were in 2006. The FNP preferences are compared to those elections in table 4. Using Andre Krouwel’s (2006) model of the Dutch political space at the 2006 elections (figure 1) we can get an indication of how the FNP members vote. We can make some general conclusions from analysing Krouwel’s model. First 44.5% of FNP members vote in the left / progressive category. 33.9% of members can be placed in the right / conservative side of the model. It is also worth mentioning that 26.6% vote for confessional parties.

A 3 year gap between the elections and the survey constitutes a considerable length of time and it will potentially be more valuable to compare the results of the FNP preferences with the 2011 national elections. However, some tentative conclusions can be made. First, the two parties that received most votes in the national elections in 2006 are also the two parties that received most votes from FNP members. Second, FNP members were overall more likely to support the smaller parties in the 2006 national election. At the time of the survey in 2009, the Party for the Freedom (PVV), a far right extremist party, was gaining a lot of support and receiving considerable media attention in the Netherlands. In the 2009 EU elections the PVV received 17% of the Dutch votes. Although no figures are available as to what extend FNP members supported PVV (group Wilders) in 2006 national elections, we can conclude that the PVV is considerably less popular amongst FNP members than the Dutch national average.

Figure 1

[pic]

Table 3 (N=566)

|Party |National |FNP |

| |elections 2006 | |

| |CDA (Christian democratic appeal) |26.5 |20.3 |

| |PvdA (Party of the Labour) |21.2 |18.7 |

| |VVD (People’s party for freedom and democracy) |14.7 |7.3 |

| |D66 (Democrats 1966) |2 |11.2 |

| |Groenlinks (Green Left) |4.6 |14.0 |

| |SP (Socialist Party) |16.6 |11.8 |

| |Christen Unie (Christian Union) |4 |6.1 |

| |Partij voor de Dieren (Party for Animals) |1.8 |2.2 |

| |PVV (Party for the Freedom) – formerly group Wilders |5.9 |6.1 |

| |SGP (Reformed Political Party) |1.6 |.2 |

| |Other |1.1 |2.1 |

| |Total |100 |100 |

Members were asked three questions in relation to the FNP’s participation in the national elections. First, members were asked whether the FNP should unconditionally take part in the Dutch national elections. Just under a quarter of respondents thought the FNP should fight the national elections unreservedly. More than 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed (graph 9).

When members were asked the question as to whether the FNP should participate in national elections if there was a realistic chance of winning a seat, just under half agreed that in that they should contest the national elections. A quarter of members thinks the FNP should not participate in national elections even when the FNP can be relatively sure of winning a seat (graph 10).

Graph 9 (N=536) Graph 10 (N=518)

[pic][pic]

Another way of participating in national elections is by cooperating with other parties which would make the possibility of winning seats more likely. 63.3% of all respondents agree that cooperation with other parties is acceptable (graph 11). Just over 20% refuse cooperation with other parties.

Graph 11 (N=536)

[pic]

If the FNP did decide to participate in the national elections just over 75% of all members intend to vote for the FNP (graph 12). This support is almost equal to the results in 2000 when 73% indicated support for the FNP in national elections.

Graph 12 (N=557)

[pic]

When asked if the FNP should change its name and remove or replace the word ‘national’ in its name, 59.3% indicated that the word ‘national’ should absolutely stay or stay (graph 13). 21.8% of the members indicated that it would be better to remove the word ‘national’ from the party’s name. In 2000, 49% of all members indicated they wanted to keep the word ‘national’ in the name and 28% gave some preference of removing the name (FNP, 2000). Overall there seems to be a greater ease with the word national in the party’s name amongst the members.

Graph 13 (N=568)

[pic]

Members were asked to place themselves on a 7 point left - right spectrum. 47.1% of FNP members positioned themselves somewhere on the left side of the spectrum and 24.9% have a centre right wing to extreme right wing tendency. More significantly, 60.7% identify themselves as either centrist, centre left or centre right. 7.6% of FNP members identify themselves on the extreme left or extreme right side of the political spectrum (graph 14). The largest group places itself on the centre left of the political spectrum. Additionally just over 10% do not identify themselves as either left or right wing or do not know whether they are left or right wing.

Graph 14 (N =554)

[pic]

Several ‘threats’ to Friesland can be identified ranging from external threats to internal threats. FNP members are most concerned about the Frisian language and culture. Followed by a the migration of young Frisians and a lack of confidence amongst Frisians. Large Scale projects and the national government in the Hague are also seen as important threats by a significant section of the members.[9] (Table 4)

Table 4

|Greatest threat to Friesland |percentage |

|Frisian language to dissappear |70.3 |

|Destruction of the Frisian culture |46.6 |

|Lack of confidence amongst Frisians |33 |

|Migration of young Frisians |32.8 |

|Large scale projects |28.3 |

|Government in the Hague |25 |

|Immigrants from the Netherlands |16.8 |

|Globalisation |9.2 |

|Foreign ownership of Frisian compagnies |9 |

|Immigration from outside the Netherlands |4.7 |

|Climate change |4.1 |

|EU policies |3.8 |

|Other |4.5 |

Identity

Nearly 60% of the members are very proud of their Frisian identity and just over 30% is fairly proud of their identity. 6% of the members are not very proud or not at all proud of their Frisian identity (graph 15). Taking pride in one’s Frisian identity does not mean that this identity is exclusive. FNP members were asked how Frisian they feel in comparison to a possible Dutch identity (graph 16). 26.6% of FNP members feel exclusively Frisian. 59.4% feel more Frisian than Dutch. 12.2% feel just as Frisian as Dutch. 0.6% feel less Frisian than Dutch or exclusively Dutch. Most FNP members feel both a Frisian and a Dutch identity but most members give primacy to their Frisian idenity.

Graph 15 (N=569) Graph 16 (N=572)

[pic] [pic]

When asked how important certain charecteristics are to being Frisian, language and feeling Frisian received the highest scores in the very important category (table 5). However, all aspects of being Frisian were judged to be very to fairly important by more than 50% of the respondents. ‘To have been born in Friesland’ and ‘to have lived in Friesland for most of one’s life were considered not very important and not at all important by around 40% of the respondents. These two charecteristics received the lowest scores.

Table 5

| How important are, according to you, the following things for being Frisian? | |

| |Very Important |Important |Not very |Not at all |Missing |

| | | |Important |important | |

|To speak and understand Frisian (N=569) |78.8 |19.3 |0.2 | |1.7 |

|To have been born in Friesland (N=554) |23 |30.6 |30.9 |11.2 |4.3 |

|To have lived in Friesland for most of one’s life (N=554) |23.7 |33.3 |32.6 |6.0 |4.3 |

|To feel Frisian (N=556) |

|Frisian language |81% |Frisian concept of freedom (Frysk and Fry) |22.5% |

|Frisian education |31.6% |Frisian art, literature and music |19.3% |

|Frisian people |30.7% |Frisian political institutions |7.4% |

|Frisian traditions |25.7% |The fact that Frisians are a minority |5.9% |

|Frisian countryside and scenery |25.2% |Frisian agriculture |4.7% |

|Frisian history |24.7% |Frisian sport achievements |3.6% |

|Other (please state) 1 |

The following question allows us to measure the members’ connection to a geographical place and how important this place is for them in their everyday life. Overall, FNP members feel most connected to the province of Friesland (table 7). This is also the prefered first choice by 38%. This means that nearly two thirds of 1st preferences are related to other geographical entities. Unsuprisingly, as the FNP proclaims to be a party of small communities, the remaining bulk of the first preference can be found in the city or village and region category.

Table 7

|Who we are and where we live may be expressed in terms of our Home Street, Area, Town, County, Nation, State, Europe, The World. Thinking in |

|this way about where you live now, which of the options below are the most important to you generally in your every day life? (Pick 3 answers,|

|1 meaning the most important, 2 meaning the second most important and three meaning the third most important) |

|The province Friesland |81% |The street in which you live |19.9% |

|City or village |60.3% |The municipality |18.5% |

|A region (Walden, Klei) |47.2% |The world |16.9% |

|The Netherlands |22.3% |Europe |14.7% |

|Other (please state) 1.4% |

Another way of thinking about identity is by placing yourself in certain social groups. When asked which group would best describe themselves, national identity received the highest score across the three preferences but they remained below 50% (table 8). The job that you do category received almost as many preferences (47.7%). Although more members indicated ‘national identity’ as their 1st preference (22.6%) against 13.1% in ‘the job that you do or did’ category. A close third was the place where you live, 42.5%, which can be explained by the FNP’s principles on small scale and local communities.

Table 8

|People differ in how they think of or describe themselves. Which of the following list are most important to you in describing who you |

|are? (Pick 3 answers, 1 meaning the most important, 2 meaning the second most important and three meaning the third most important. |

|Your social class |30.7% |Your national identity |49.1% |

|Your age group / generation |32% |Your gender |15.5% |

|Your religion |21.4% |The place (village or town) where you live) |42.5% |

|Your ethnic group |10.2% |The job that you do or did |47.7% |

|Your political allegiances |19.5% |Other (please specify)4.5% |

Minority nationalism can in certain occassions be typified by the minority ‘accusing’ a majority group of looking down upon or mistreating the minority group. When asked if FNP members think Dutch people look down on Frisians, the majority of responses were in the middle categories indicating that most FNP members do not recognise such an attitude or are not overly concerned by it (graph 17). Just under a quarter of FNP members agreed with the statement and nearly 45% disagreed with the statement.

Graph 17 (N=559)

[pic]

Although, as seen in graph 15 a majority of FNP members take pride in their Frisian identity and a majority feel more Frisian than Dutch (graph 16), most members respond positively to the question whether one can be equally proud of one’s Dutch and Frisian identity. Over 60% of FNP members either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (graph 18).

Graph 18 (N=560)

[pic]

The next question again measures if FNP members recognise a possibility of having, simultaneously, a Frisian and Dutch identity and whether these identities are interchangeable. When asked if in certain occasions it is more appropriate to say you are Dutch rather than Frisian 24.3% of respondents either strongly agree or agree with the statement. A majority of nearly 60% either disagree or strongly disagree and do not think it is appropriate to say they are Dutch in certain situations (graph 19). The results of this question and the previous question may seem contradictory but the difference may be explained by the fact that the latter relates to the individual respondent (e.g. it is better for me to say that I am Dutch) whereas the first questions can be interpreted, rightfully, as a hypothetical situation for somebody else to be as proud of the Dutch and Frisian identity, and not the individual respondent.

Graph 19 (N=556)

[pic]

Over 60% of the FNP members take criticism against Friesland personally. 17% do not take criticism against Friesland personally. Criticism does not just come from the Dutch as suggested in graph 17, a majority FNP members does not feel that the Dutch look down or criticise Frisians excessively. However, graph 21 suggests that FNP members do feel that Frisians criticise themselves too much. Just over 50% support this notion and just more than 20% reject the statement.

Graph 20 (N=558) Graph 21 (N=553)

[pic][pic]

The above 5 graphs show that a majority FNP members do not think the Dutch look down on Frisians; it is the Frisians themselves who criticise Friesland too much and when there is criticism against Friesland (either from the Dutch or Frisians) they are likely to take this personally. A large proportion of members think Frisians can have a dual identity but they also think that Frisians should not reject or hide their Frisian identity.

FNP policy

Graph 22 shows the FNP member’s policy preferences. The three areas which, according to the members, the FNP should focus on most are protection of language, landscape and identity. These are associated with ‘Frisianess’ and are therefore important to members. Creation of jobs and environmental issues also receive high scores. Cooperation with others concerning global issues is also considered important. Support for industrialisation and infrastructure investment is lower reflecting the FNP’s views on small scale development. Furthermore, support for policies on EU integration and a multicultural Friesland is lower. However, we should not exaggerate the significance of these ‘lower’ scores. They are all above 5 indicating that generally speaking FNP members want the party to have and to develop policies for these issues.

Graph 22 (averages out of 10)

[pic]

Constitutional Change

Around a fifth of members would like Friesland to become independent from The Netherlands. Although less than half of independence supporters strongly agree with the statement that Friesland should be an independent state (graph 23), suggesting a majority of independence supporters does not feel very strong about the issue. More than 60% of members do not desire independence for Friesland. However, most FNP members, nearly 60%, believe that the Dutch government is unable to protect the Frisian identity (graph 24). Therefore, it is likely that some constitutional change is desired by a majority of members.

Graph 23 (N=568) Graph 24 (N=567)

[pic][pic]

Cultural autonomy is supported by an overwhelming majority of members, just over 80%, and fewer than 5% reject the need for cultural autonomy (graph 25). One of the founding principles of the FNP is that it desires a federal system for the Netherlands. Maybe somewhat surprisingly, just over 50% supports the notion that a federal system would be better for Friesland (graph 26). That said, just 14% rejects this statement.

Graph 25 (N=567) Graph 26 (N=559)

[pic][pic]

When asked which option is, according to FNP members, the best constitutional option only 18% expressed a desire for a federal structure (graph 27). Less than 10% wants complete independence inside or outside the EU. 47% prefers more powers for the province within the current constitutional settlement. 17% is happy with the current status quo.

Graph 27 (N=560)

[pic]

Immigration

Members were asked if it was more desirable for immigrants to keep their own traditions or whether it would be preferable for immigrants to adjust to the majority. Most FNP members identified both options as important. However, a sizable minority (26%) state that immigrants to adjust to the majority is more important. A smaller minority (14%) thinks it is important for immigrants to keep their traditions (graph 28).

Graph 28 (N=557)

[pic]

Most FNP members believe that Frisians should be in control in Friesland (graph 29) and that there currently are too many non-Frisian influences in Friesland (graph 30). However, a majority of members do not see these issues as extremely important, choosing the ‘agree’ option and the ‘neither agree nor disagree’ option as opposed to the ‘strongly agree’ option which is preferred by just over 25% of the members.

Graph 29 (N=560) Graph 30 (N=565

[pic] [pic]

Two examples of possible political non-Frisian influences are the highest public servant position on provincial level, the Royal Commissioner, and on municipal level, the Mayor (Graph 31). Most FNP members feel that these positions should be filled by Frisians (59%). It can be assumed that these scores would have been higher if asked whether the Royal Commissioner and Mayors should be able to speak Frisian.

Graph 31 (N=570)

[pic]

Most FNP members agree that Non Frisians living in Friesland should be able to at least understand and speak Frisian (85%) (graph 32). A large majority also recognises the importance of immigrants to speak their own language (68%) (graph 33). There are two opposing views with regards to minority languages spoken at home. First, and this is the view the FNP holds, speaking a minority language is an asset but in combination with the majority language. Multilingualism has great benefits for children developments and helps people to learn other languages at a later age. The FNP is committed to multilingual education. Second, speaking a minority language at home gives people a disadvantage as they do not fully integrate in society. Especially for children it is considered problematic as they will have to catch up with majority language pupils as soon as they start school. Unsurprisingly, the FNP does not agree with this view.

Graph 32 (N=569) Graph 33 (N=571)

[pic] [pic]

When asked if the government should financially help immigrants and children of immigrants to maintain their culture, half of the members are against such a policy. 17% does support cultural financial support for immigrants (graph 34). However, when asked if it is desirable for everybody in a country has the same customs and traditions 58 % disagrees 17% agrees (graph 35). Therefore, we can conclude that most members do value cultural diversity but are more wary of spending public money to support immigrants with regards to helping them to maintain their culture.

Graph 34 (N=569) Graph 35 (N=569)

[pic][pic]

Next members were asked if they think the number of immigrants that are coming to Friesland should increase or decrease. This question is somewhat ambiguous as there can be many reasons as to why a person thinks that immigrant numbers should increase or decrease. This may help to explain the high response in the middle category. Participants may have felt uneasy answering this question either positively or negatively without the ability to qualify their answer. It can also be the case that most members genuinely feel the number of immigrants is about right in Friesland. Nevertheless, 35% of the respondents felt the number of immigrants should either decrease a little or a lot. 16% is the opinion that Friesland needs more immigrants (graph 36).

Graph 36 (N=550)

[pic]

European Union

A clear majority (73%) of members would like Friesland to have more influence in the EU (graph37). Unsurprisingly, 92% of members think that the FNP should cooperate with other minority regions (graph 38). It can therefore be assumed that the party’s membership to the European Free Alliance (EFA) is supported by a majority. EFA is a European political party which unites progressive, nationalist, regionalist and autonomist parties across Europe. A majority (54%) of FNP members think that the current EU is too centralised (graph 39).

Graph 37 (N=564) Graph 38 (N=567)

[pic] [pic]

Graph 39 (N=541)

[pic]

Members were asked if they would prefer the EU to become a federal state or whether it should be based on cooperation between the nation-states members. 50% of the respondents think the EU should have a cooperative structure and 30% think that it should adopt a more federal structure (graph 40). 20% feels that neither solution is desirable. Concluding, the FNP members think they should have more influence in Europe, cooperation with other regions in Europe is considered very important and the relation with other regions should remain cooperative, centralisation has gone too far.

Graph 40 (N=523)

[pic]

Environmentalism

Nearly 80% of FNP members would like for Friesland to invest in the environment so that it can have a more leading role in the world when it comes to environmental issues (Graph 41). 33% of FNP members think that other countries can learn something from Friesland when considering environmentally friendly initiatives. A high number of respondents (55%) do ‘neither agree nor disagree’ with the statement (graph 42).

Graph 41 (N=559) Graph 42 (N=555)

[pic][pic]

Just under half of the respondents do not think we worry too much about the environment and that we should concentrate on other issues like high prices and employment. A quarter of respondents do think we worry too much (graph 43). When respondents were asked if they support a controversial policy like raising taxes on car users almost half of the respondents disagreed and just over a quarter agreed with such a policy (graph 44). A support for this policy does show a commitment to environmental issues not just ideologically but also financially. However, members that disagreed with the statement may not be unwilling to contribute financially but feel that this particular policy does not help the environment.

Graph 43 (N= 560) Graph 44 (N=563)

[pic][pic]

Half of all FNP members are against the use of nuclear energy as an energy source. 28% consider nuclear energy to be essential for future economic development (graph 45). Overall a majority of members do not consider nuclear energy to be essential.

Graph 45 (N=560)

[pic]

In instances environmental interests can come into conflict with other interests like tourism, employment and agriculture. Members were asked if such a situation would occur what interest is more important that of the environment or that of tourism, employment and agriculture. 60% of members thought the other interests were more important than the environmental interests (40%) (graph 46).

Graph 46 (N=551)

[pic]

Conclusions

The results of this survey certainly merit further research. The next stage will involve a socio-economic comparative study with the SNP. Some of the results merit a comparison with other membership studies in The Netherlands; particularly the results on gender and age distribution are of interest in this context. Further exploration of the identity results is also interesting and particularly a comparison with the SNP will provide valuable insights in some of the wider identity related issues in the academic literature. Finally, further research will focus on the relation between the results in the sections on immigration, European Union, the environment and the socio-economic and identity data that has been provided.

Bibliography

Den Ridder, J., van Holsteyn, J. And Koole, R. (2009a) ‘Partijen in Spagaat: Eensgezindheid en meningsverschillen onder de partijleden van Nederlandse Politieke Partijen’, Paper voor het Politicologenetmaal 2009.

Den Ridder, J., van Holsteyn, J. And Koole, R. (2009b) Electoraat en Selectoraat in de representatieve Democratie, contribution to workgroup democratic audit, Nijmegen.

FNP (2000) Utslach enkête ûnder de FNP-leden oer it meidwaan oan de lanlike ferkiezingen, Leeuwarden: FNP

van Holesteyn, J. and Koole R.A (1999) Partijleden in perspectief, Kiezers en Leden vergeleken, DNPP Jaarboek 1999,

Van Holsteyn, J. And Koole, R. (2009) ‘Is it True What They Say? Dutch Party Members and Their Opinion on Internal Party Democracy, Paper presented ECPR Joint Session, Lisbon, April 2009.

Krouwel, A. en K. van Kersbergen (2008) "A Double Edge Sword! The Dutch Centre-Right and the 'Foreigners Issue', Journal European Public Policy 15:3 p.409

Mitchell, J., Bennie, L and Johns, R. (2008), Who are the SNP members, papers/documents/JamesMitchell.doc

-----------------------

[1] A short survey was conducted in 2000. A more comprehensive survey has been conducted in 1988 by the Canadian scholar Jane Penrose.

[2] My sincere thanks goes to Nynke Beetstra, FNP chairperson

[3] According to the FNP’s own membership data, recorded on 31/12/2008, 73.3% of its members were male.

[4] The average gender distribution amongst Dutch political parties in 1999 was 64% to 36%. However some parties have a considerably higher percentage of female members, all parties have more male members than female members. (For more information see Koole R.A and Holesteyn 1999 and den Ridder et. al. 2009b)

[5] The average age in 2009 for 7 political parties was 56.4 with a range from 51 to 67 (den Ridder et. al. 2009b)

[6] According to the FNP’s own membership data, recorded in June 2009, 72.5% members are over 50.

[7] The 2000 FNP survey was also distributed to all 1200 members.

[8] See result score sheet for full details.

[9] More details can be found in the result score sheet.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download