Column: "As soon as they start embracing art in the PVV, right-thinking people should start watching out."

The Hague is quite complicated for those who do not visit it on a daily basis. I was there last Monday, as a spectator at the discussion of the culture and media budget, and it has taken me until now to fully understand what is going on. For that understanding, being there live was essential. After all, to understand a social system like the Lower House, you not only have to listen to what is being said, and see who is speaking, much more important are the 'listening shots': the body language and actions of those who are not speaking.

Who, for instance, was remarkably absent from the floor, and thus hardly in the picture for those at home, was Martin Bosma, party ideologue and culture spokesman for the PVV. He often leaned back, grinned a lot and his only interjections were remarks about three municipal councils (always one in which the PvdA, D66 or Groenlinks respectively supplied the culture alderman) that had decided on heavier culture cuts than the cabinet. The purpose of these acts was again to frame the discussion and distract from the real point: the riddle of why the arts and media cuts were made.

After all, the longer State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra was speaking, it also became clearer that he did not start with a radical system change. At least, in essence, the substantive difference with the policies of previous culture ministers and state secretaries on that portfolio is minimal: this cabinet wants more emphasis on own merits and wants to see if a new patronage system can be rigged. This is no different from Rick van der ploeg's minority emphasis or the eduction plans of that inglorious harp girl from D66 who succeeded him a few years back. Substantive cultural policy has always been policy on substantive margins, and in this Halbe Zijlstra's policy is no different from the rest. The substantive policy desire to take a closer look at the peer review system also fits in with this: the art world understands it quite well, and it is useful to see if it can be more transparent.

So why the legislative change announced as a 'real rebuild' and rigorously different direction? Why this pass on a year in which long-term art institutions like the Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Netherlands Opera are not allowed to do anything? Content-wise, there is no reason for it, because Zijlstra does not want anything substantively different from what was agreed in 2008. That is because a basic infrastructure of heritage and society 'untouchable' values like the Rijksmuseum and the National Ballet was chosen then. And that is what Zijlstra must now nibble at. After all, you cannot cut 200 million euros without a thorough downsizing of the legally defined basic infrastructure: then the art sector outside that basic infrastructure will disappear altogether. The state secretary admitted this during the debate. That basic infrastructure of those few vital art institutions was enshrined in law to finally bring peace and transparency to art policy after years of uncertainty. Turning that upside down again means an (otherwise very expensive) procedure to amend the law, which also requires many extra civil servants. Like the final negative result of the VAT increase on theatre tickets, the culture cut will end up costing more than it brings in. Without anyone knowing why that is necessary.

At the budget debate on Monday in The Hague, it did not come to a substantive debate, because the substantive debate was actually summarised in one sentence by the culture spokesperson of the supporting party PVV: 'We think every cent spent on culture is one too many'. And that was the end of it. CDA and VVD have to stick to it. That 200 million cut is already a compromise. Even though that cut will ultimately cost more government money in legal procedures and extra civil servants than a much smaller intervention, or even an investment of several tens of millions. Of course, the PVV does not want to think about those consequences, and thanks to the outline agreement, the PVV does not even need to think about them. When the cultural cutbacks turn into the current cabinet's Betuwe Line because of its own ambition, the PVV can simply keep shouting from the sidelines that those people from The Hague are up to no good.

Remains that the PVV should also get rid of the term 'Leftist Hobby' coined by Wilders and Bosma. During the debate, Bosma started with that by challenging a number of 'Left Enemies of the PVV' to come and explain where the PVV had once called art subsidies leftist. That that was in on page 52 of its own election manifesto briefly made it an embarrassing moment, but nothing more. The rest of those present were already not taking it seriously, but they should.

The Provincial Council elections are approaching, and now that VVD and PVV are expected to win in all provinces, dismissing the culture-loving part of the population as leftist and 'canal belt' is not at all strategically useful. In the coming time, therefore, the spin-doctrination of Bosma et al will be aimed at that: making the term 'left-wing hobby' forgotten as soon as possible. I am curious to see what the party will put in its place.

It could well be heartfelt love of art. In all other countries where populist, nationalist movements are emerging, culture is the spearhead of their policies, not what the point is. After all, to protect the nation-state from foreign influences like Islam, a strong homegrown cultural world is vital? We will see how long the PVV continues to deviate from that norm. And as soon as they at the PVV start embracing art then, only then should right-thinking people really start watching out.