The first conclusion is that the N-VA remains a separatist party. The party leadership is and remains separatist, even if it sometimes manages to hide this well. The second conclusion is linked to this. There is a strong belief that participation in government will build greater support for more Flemish autonomy. Good governance will convince voters to support the N-VA, thereby drawing them into the community narrative. The N-VA is thus a ruling, separatist party in power.
Thirdly, the N-VA does not want to be a system party. Wanting to participate in government, take responsibility, make compromises and not be a system party, not be a party like the others, is deeply ingrained in the N-VA's DNA. That balance is not easy to achieve and the party sometimes loses its balance.
The N-VA is a tightly controlled, top-down party. It is kept under tight control by a small group at the top. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the formation of the list. This brings us to my fourth conclusion: disloyalty leads to hell in the N-VA, but loyalty alone does not lead to heaven. A good network can get you to the top of a list, but it is not enough to stay there. Internally, there is also a meritocracy, although it is not always clear what the leadership considers to be merit.
The first conclusion is that the N-VA remains a separatist party. The party leadership is and remains separatist, even if it sometimes manages to hide this well. The second conclusion is linked to this. There is a strong belief that participation in government will help build greater support for more Flemish autonomy.
The N-VA has grown, but the question is whether those who are broadening the party's appeal are changing the N-VA or whether the N-VA is changing them. That is the fifth conclusion: the N-VA is broadening its appeal, but its hard core remains separatist. The conviction is that the party is changing those who are broadening its appeal, rather than the other way around. Newcomers agree with the reasoning that structural changes are needed to get things in order socio-economically.
The sixth conclusion: the N-VA is ideologically unstable. The socio-economic narrative is sound, the community strategy is clear, but the ideology is often ad hoc or not fully developed. What exactly does this whole enlightenment narrative stand for? It has not been elaborated anywhere.
That is the seventh and final conclusion of my research: Bart De Wever holds the N-VA together; he plays a central role. De Wever is and formulates the consensus in the N-VA. His authority is virtually unchallenged. There is great admiration and faith in De Wever within the N-VA.
Read here how Pieter Bauwens conducted his research (in Dutch)
Photo: © Pieter Bauwens
