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 surveys1. 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
translator2. 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
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
2
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.
3
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 male3. 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 parties4. 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)
3
Graph 2 (N=148)
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)
4
The average age of FNP members was just under 605 (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)
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)
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
5
6
The average age in 2009 for 7 political parties was 56.4 with a range from 51 to 67 (den Ridder et. al. 2009b)
According to the FNP’s own membership data, recorded in June 2009, 72.5% members are over 50.
5
higher education levels (50.2%). Both groups are roughly equally represented amongst party
officials (38.5% to 54.7%).
Graph 5 (N=576)
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)
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.
6
Graph 7 (N=576)
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 20007, 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)
Valid
2000
2009
In %
In %
0–5
27
18.7
6 – 10
21
23.1
11 – 20
25
23.6
longer than 20
27
33.3
Don't Know
Total
7
1.2
100
100.0
The 2000 FNP survey was also distributed to all 1200 members.
7
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 category8.
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
8
See result score sheet for full details.
8
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)
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.
9
Figure 1
Table 3 (N=566)
Party
National
elections
2006
FNP
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
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
Christen Unie (Christian Union)
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).
10
Graph 9 (N=536)
Graph 10 (N=518)
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)
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.
11
Graph 12 (N=557)
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)
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.
12
Graph 14 (N =554)
13
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
9
More details can be found in the result score sheet.
14
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)
15
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
Important
Not at all
important
To have Frisian ancestors (N=554)
30.6
34.9
26.6
3.6
To speak and understand Frisian (N=569)
78.8
19.3
0.2
To read and write Frisian (N=556)
48
42.5
6.4
0.2
4.0
To have been born in Friesland (N=554)
23
30.6
30.9
11.2
4.3
To live in Friesland now (N=553)
32.8
29.9
26.1
6.7
4.5
To have lived in Friesland for most of one’s life
(N=554)
23.7
33.3
32.6
6.0
4.3
To respect Frisian
institutions (N=548)
31.8
44.9
14.9
3.1
5.4
72.5
20.7
2.4
0.3
4.0
To feel Frisian (N=556)
rules
and
political
16
Missing
4.3
1.7
A similar question allowed members to rate certain aspects of Frisianess and give preference as to
what element they deemed most, second most and third most important (accumalated scores in
table 6). Language received the highest scores, 81% of members indicated this aspect as one of their
preferences. It also received by far the highest score as a first preference, 51.6%. Other categories
that received substantial 1st preference scores were Frisian concept of Freedom at 10% and the
Frisian people at 9.5%. Overall we can devide these aspects of Frisianess into 3 categories. First, as
said, language being by far the most important. Second, there are 7 categories that receive between
the 19 and 31 % of the scores. Third, there are four minority categories which are only considered
important to a small part of the membership.
Table 6
Being Frisian has lots of different aspects, some of which are listed below. Which, if any, of these is important to
you personally when you think about being Frisian (Pick 3 answers, 1 meaning the most important, 2 meaning the
second most important and three meaning the third most important)
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
17
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%
18
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)
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)
19
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)
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)
20
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.
21
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)
22
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)
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)
23
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)
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)
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
24
‘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
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)
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
25
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)
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)
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
26
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)
27
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)
Graph 39 (N=541)
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.
28
Graph 40 (N=523)
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)
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
29
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)
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)
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).
30
Graph 46 (N=551)
Conclusions
The results of this survey certainly merit further research. The next stage will involve a socioeconomic 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 socioeconomic and identity data that has been provided.
31
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, http://dnpp.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/jb-dnpp/jb1999/koole.pdf
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,
www.epop08.com/papers/documents/JamesMitchell.doc
32