2002 Dutch general election

General elections were held in the Netherlands on 15 May 2002. The elections were amongst the most dramatic in Dutch history, not just in terms of the electoral results, as they were completely overshadowed by the assassination of leader Pim Fortuyn only nine days before election day.

In 1998, twice as many voters as in 1994 credited the government with improving their finances, and clear majorities approved its record, rendering the 1998 election virtually a formality. The Labour Party climbed from 24 to 29 percent of the vote and the incumbent purple coalition from 92 to 97 seats, enabling a second Kok cabinet with Labour, VVD and D66. The strong economy was expected to suffice again in 2002. In 2000, speculation surrounded whether prime minister Wim Kok, who had passed the age of 61, would seek a third term. Although three-quarters of Labour supporters still preferred him, senior figures urged renewal. Ad Melkert's 2001 spring congress speech cast him as Kok's heir despite limited public enthusiasm; only 16 percent of voters endorsed him. Kok resigned as Labour Party leader on 15 December 2001, citing a need for generational change, and formally passed leadership to Melkert.

On 20 August 2001, Pim Fortuyn, an outspoken critic of Islam, announced his candidacy, initially as lead candidate for Livable Netherlands. After a Volkskrant interview on 9 February 2002 in which he called Islam ' and criticized the constitution of the Netherlands, LN expelled him. Fortuyn promptly founded the Pim Fortuyn List (LPF) and, while simultaneously heading Livable Rotterdam, secured a victory in the 6 March municipal elections, ending Labour's post-WWII supremacy in the city. National polls thereafter placed LPF close to the CDA and Labour, as established parties faltered in televised debates. Although threats escalated, Fortuyn rejected protection and, on 6 May 2002, was assassinated in Hilversum by Volkert van der Graaf. After the assassination, campaigning paused and the CDA secured a frontrunner position, thanks to the refusal of its leader, Jan Peter Balkenende, to criticize Fortuyn and emphasis on "norms and values." Late media focus on CDA momentum influenced late-deciding voters and helped the CDA outperform polls by a 12-seat margin.

The purple coalition parties Labour, VVD, and D66 all lost heavily, Labour enduring a record 22-seat loss under Melkert, who resigned that night. The CDA improved in every province, securing pluralities in all except Groningen. CDA gains in urban cities were more muted; the LPF secured pluralities in The Hague and Rotterdam while Labour retained Amsterdam. Labour inquiries blamed an excessively economistic message; party leadership was democratized and in November, members elected Wouter Bos parliamentary leader. Negotiations produced a CDA-LPF-VVD accord prioritising security, healthcare, and tighter immigration; the first Balkenende cabinet assumed office on 22 July.

Background

Incumbent coalition wins re-election (1998)

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. As a result, all of the purple coalition parties, with the exception of D66, saw notable electoral gains during the general election of 6 May 1998. Prime minister Wim Kok's party, the Labour Party, won 29% of the vote, up from 24% in 1994, whereas his coalition went from 92 to 97 seats.

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.

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, though he praised the Prime Minister's pragmatism. Despite affirming his good relationship with Kok, Melkert stood by his critique.

On 29 August 2001, two days after the King's Commission released its report on the European Social Fund, clearing Melkert of wrongdoing, 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 and the Reformed Political Party expressed criticism over policies such as euthanasia legislation and same-sex marriage. 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. 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.

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. On 22 January 2000, both parties approved the union, which would be called ChristenUnie, aiming for eventual full integration while allowing gradual organisational cooperation.

Meanwhile, the VVD showed strength at the start of 2002, polling as high as 36 seats, bringing the Catshuis within reach. However, this momentum quickly faded as the party lost ground first to LN and then to the LPF. He claimed that if he became part of the next government, he would pursue a restrictive immigration policy while also granting citizenship to a large group of illegal immigrants.

He said that he did not intend to "unload our Moroccan hooligans" onto the Moroccan King Hassan. Hassan had died three years earlier. He considered Article 7 of the constitution, which asserts freedom of speech, of greater importance than Article 1, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, life principles, political inclination, race, or sexual preference. Fortuyn distanced himself from Hans Janmaat of the Centre Democrats, who in the 1980s wanted to remove all foreigners from the country and was repeatedly convicted for discrimination and hate speech.

Fortuyn proposed that all people who already resided in the Netherlands would be allowed to stay, provided the immigrants adopted Dutch society's consensus on human rights as their own. He said "If it were legally possible, I'd say no more Muslims will get in here", claiming that the influx of Muslims would threaten freedoms in the Netherlands' liberal society. He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights.

When asked by the Volkskrant whether he hated Islam, he replied:

Fortuyn used the word ', literally meaning "backward", but commonly used as an insult in the sense of "retarded". After his use of "achterlijk" caused an uproar, Fortuyn said he had used the word with its literal meaning of "backward".

Against the advice of his campaign team, Fortuyn said in the interview that he favoured closing borders to Muslim immigrants and if possible he would abolish the "peculiar article" of the Dutch constitution forbidding discrimination (at the time it was generally assumed that he referred to Article 1, the equality before the law; it has been argued, however, that Fortuyn and the interviewer had confused this with Article 137 of the Penal Code, incitement to hatred).

Foundation of the Pim Fortuyn List (9–15 February 2002)

thumb|Following controversial comments, Livable Netherlands sacked Fortuyn and named [[Fred Teeven (pictured) as his replacement.]]

Fortuyn's controversial interview with de Volkskrant caused an immediate political storm. Leaders from across the political spectrum condemned his remarks, particularly his perceived challenge to Article 1 of the constitution, which prohibits discrimination. Dijkstal called it the "heart of our civilisation," while Melkert accused Fortuyn of crossing an unforgivable line. In the evening of 9 February, Livable Netherlands' leadership held an emergency meeting and, after Fortuyn insisted on the accuracy of the published interview, voted six to two to sever ties with him. The board believed he had gone too far in his views on asylum policy. Chairman Nagel reaffirmed the party's commitment to Article 1, stressing the Netherlands was not full. The next day, Fortuyn expressed hope of reconciling but also said he would run independently if needed. Nagel quickly dismissed this possibility, citing irreconcilable differences. In contrast, Livable Rotterdam re-affirmed its support for Fortuyn on 11 February, prompting two of its candidates (including Livable Netherlands co-founder ) to resign. they founded the Pim Fortuyn List, officially registering it the following day. Fortuyn became the party's chairman, supported by a small leadership team, and coordinators were appointed across all electoral districts to gather the necessary signatures for participation. To the surprise of many political observers, polling showed that Fortuyn carried most of the support from Livable Netherlands with him. This contradicted the prevailing belief that Dutch voters prioritised parties over individual candidates.

| colspan="12" align="center" |File:Netherlands Rotterdam Municipal Council (v2) 2002.svg

! colspan="2" |Party

!Votes

! %

!Seats

!+/–

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Livable Rotterdam

|86,027

|34.66%

|17

|New

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Labour Party

|55,648

|22.42%

|11

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Christian Democratic Appeal

|28,047

|11.30%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |People's Party for Freedom and Democracy

|24,417

|9.84%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |GroenLinks

|16,081

|6.48%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Democrats 66

|12,698

|5.12%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Socialist Party

|9,815

|3.95%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |CU–SGP

|6,834

|2.75%

| style="background:#4878a8;" |

| align="left" |Stadspartij Rotterdam

|6,098

|2.46%

| style="background:#7EB439;" |

| align="left" |Islamic Party Netherlands

|825

|0.33%

| align="left" |Joop2000

|864

|0.35%

| style="background:#FF9A00;" |

| align="left" |New National Party

|598

|0.24%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Dutch People's Union

|265

|0.11%

| style="background:;" |

| align="left" |Union 55+ (did not participate)

| n/a

|- style="font-weight:bold"

| colspan="2" align="left" |Total valid votes

|248,217

|45

|–

| colspan="2" align="left" |Invalid/blank votes

|1,106

| colspan="2" align="left" |Eligible votes/turnout

|453,140

|55.0%

On 16 February, Melkert officially launched the party's municipal election campaign with an address at the anniversary congress of the Centre for Local Government in Arnhem, emphasising public safety and crime prevention as central themes. Near the end of February, Fortuyn announced he would no longer campaign for Livable Rotterdam after a hostile incident during the filming of a television advertisement at a metro station, where he was subjected to verbal abuse and threats from a group of immigrant youths who accused him of racism and fascism.

After the NOS debate, Melkert pledged to take the criticism seriously. Speaking to his PvdA candidates on 19 March in Scheveningen, he promised a shift in tone. The LPF, he said, would be treated as a legitimate political force rather than dismissed, and the PvdA would work to present itself with more clarity and authority. As an immediate gesture, Melkert withdrew party support for a controversial proposal to privatise Schiphol Airport. Still, Melkert remained vague on future coalition preferences, even after Dijkstal publicly cast doubt on any potential VVD–PvdA cooperation during his own party's congress in April.

Fortuyn's bruising experience made him reluctant to join further multi-party debates; he skipped the television programme Buitenhof on 7 April, allowing Marijnissen to criticise eight years of purple coalition rule as "a flagrant shambles."

After the report's release, internal cabinet pressure mounted. Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Minister Jan Pronk, a Labour stalwart who had highlighted genocide during a 1995 visit to Bosnia, declared on 15 April that he would resign alone if necessary, threatening the coalition's stability. Defence Minister Frank de Grave of the VVD similarly contemplated departure when he learned the army hierarchy had misled him; though in office only since 1998, he had ordered an inquiry led by Jos van Kemenade whose findings NIOD deemed incomplete. while Hasan Nuhanović, who served as a UN interpreter, demanded justice rather than symbolic sacrifice. Commentators observed that standing down enabled Labour and the VVD to distance themselves from a now-criticised coalition and to demonstrate political accountability, yet opinion polls registered almost no shift.

Shifting to economics, Melkert lauded eight years of purple coalitions for eradicating 1990s unemployment and deficits, thus safeguarding future pensions. Fortuyn dismissed job creation boasts and argued that government competence should be measured by public services, which he deemed bloated and detached from ordinary citizens. Regarding immigration, Melkert condemned Fortuyn's vow to seal borders as both unenforceable and uncivilised, warning it would undermine post‑war humanitarian achievements and Rotterdam's open economy. He called it "painful" that this had to be discussed on Liberation Day. Fortuyn retorted that asylum spending should fund refugee camps in neighbouring regions and that undocumented entrants must be repatriated immediately.

Assassination of Pim Fortuyn (6 May 2002)

Volkert van der Graaf, an environmental and animal rights activist, viewed Fortuyn as a growing threat to the foundations of Dutch society, particularly to vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers, Muslims, and disability benefit recipients. Convinced that Fortuyn's rise endangered democratic norms and social justice, he resolved that the politician had to be stopped and that assassination was the only means. He began preparing for the attack by printing floor plans of the Mediapark and studying Fortuyn's movements, having learned online that Fortuyn would be at the radio studios on 6 May from 16:00 to 18:00. Van der Graaf familiarized himself with the layout of the location and ensured he would not appear out of place. He retrieved the weapon on the evening of 5 May or the morning of 6 May.

On the morning of 6 May, Van der Graaf completed the final steps of a meticulously planned attack on Fortuyn. He loaded a seven‑round magazine, wore latex gloves to avoid fingerprints, and buried his pistol, wrapped in a plastic bag, within shrubbery bordering the Mediapark car park so that, if challenged, he would not be found armed. After leaving his office around 12:30, he bought shaving supplies, halted at a lay‑by on the A12 to remove his conspicuous stubble, and drove on to Hilversum. Near 16:00 he parked close to the studios, entered on foot via a cycle path, and scouted the grounds. Spotting two Jaguars, he assumed Fortuyn would emerge nearby after a scheduled broadcast, concealed himself in undergrowth for nearly an hour, and kept white spirit at hand to wipe objects of prints. Dressed unobtrusively, with earrings removed, cap low and sunglasses on, he waited for Fortuyn.

After shooting Fortuyn, Van der Graaf ran away. Hans Smolders, Fortuyn's driver, pursued him. At the Celebeslaan, Van der Graaf pivoted, extended his arm and shot Smolders, who braced for another round and persisted as Van der Graaf veered into the Lage Naarderweg. Maintaining a brisk pace, Van der Graaf reached the Texaco forecourt, where police converged, subdued him and removed the firearm—still loaded with four cartridges—from his right‑hand jacket pocket. In contrast, a series of face-to-face interviews conducted by the NKO (National Kiezersonderzoek, National Voter Study) in Apriland only published after the electionshowed the CDA leading at 20.7%, with Labour as runner-up at 13.4%.

NIPO's final projection (first after the assassination), published on 14 May, displayed the CDA as the emergent frontrunner at 31 seats. The LPF advanced to 28, Labour and the VVD trailed at 25, and Livable Netherlands remained at two. Analysts observed that bereaved Fortuyn sympathisers often chose the CDA because that party had declined to demonise their leader and kept open the prospect of cooperation with the LPF. At the same time, renewed concern for "norms and values," of which the CDA was considered an "issue owner", gained salience after the assassination, giving the CDA critical momentum into the election. NIPO analysts conceded that the principle that late momentum magnifies at the ballot box had been undervalued in weighting models. With campaigning suspended and news scarce, news headlines proclaiming CDA Leads on the eve of voting nudged strategic choices among the 15% who decided inside the final 48 hours, transforming polling from a descriptive exercise into a catalytic one, to the CDA's benefit.

Opinion polls

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"

|- style="height:40px;"

! style="width:85px;" rowspan="2"| Polling firm

! style="width:60px;" rowspan="2"| Date

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| PvdA

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| VVD

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| CDA

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| D66

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| GL

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| SP

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| CU

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| SGP

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| LPF

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| LN

! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;"| VSP

! style="width:30px;" rowspan="2"| Lead

! style="background:;"|

! style="background:#8a91c8;"|

| Interview/NSS

| 14 May 2002

| 26

| 25

| style="background:#BADBD3;"| 35

| 9

| 13

| 8

| 5

| 2

| 24

| 3

| 0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;"| 9

| NIPO

| 13 May 2002

| 25

| style="background:#BADBD3;"| 31

| 8

| 14

| 8

| 6

| 2

| 28

| 2

| 1

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;"| 3

| NIPO

| 2 Mar 2002

| style="background:#F6C5C1;"| 34

| 28

| 31

| 8

| 11

| 7

| 3

| 13

| 8

| 0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;"| 3

| Interview/NSS

| 6 Oct 2001

| style="background:#F6C5C1;"| 45

| 41

| 26

| 6

| 13

| 6

| 4

| –

| 3

| –

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;"| 4

|- style="background:#E9E9E9"

| 1998 election

| 6 May 1998

| style="background:#F6C5C1;"| 45

| 38

| 29

| 14

| 11

| 5

| 3

| –

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;"| 7

Result

By province

The CDA increased its vote share in every province and secured a plurality in all except Groningen. This marks a significant shift from 1998, where the CDA failed to secure a plurality in any province. In Groningen, which had been the Labour's second-strongest province in 1998 with 37.1% of the vote, the CDA received 22.2% in 2002—still trailing the PvdA's 23.9%, but closing the gap to just 1.7 percentage points, representing a tightening compared to the 21.1-point deficit the CDA had faced there in 1998 (CDA at 16.0% vs. PvdA at 37.1%).

In terms of vote share, the CDA's strongest province was Overijssel, where it reached 36.9%, followed by Limburg (36.7%) and Zeeland (29.6 percent). The CDA's weakest province was North Holland at 20.6%; Groningen, despite the lost plurality, stood at 22.2% and was the second‑weakest.

Measured by relative improvement between 1998 and 2002, the biggest improvement in Zeeland, adding 12.39% to the CDA tally. Close behind were Limburg (+12.36) and Gelderland (+10.3). The smallest gain occurred in Groningen at +6.2 points; Friesland was next‑smallest at +6.7 points.

The CDA garnered the most votes in South Holland (479 540 votes), North Brabant (450 606) and Gelderland (364 064). Combined, these provinces comprise 48.8% of the CDA's 2 653 723 vote total.

|- style="height:40px;"

! rowspan="2"| Municipality

! style="width:40px;"| CDA

! style="width:40px;"| LPF

! style="width:40px;"| VVD

! style="width:40px;"| PvdA

! style="width:40px;"| GL

! style="width:40px;"| SP

! style="width:40px;"| D66

! style="width:40px;"| SGP

! style="width:40px;"| CU

! style="width:40px;"| LN

! style="width:40px;" rowspan="2"| Others

! style="background:;"|

| align="left"|

| 10.4 (38 518)

| 16.5 (61 185)

| 14.4 (53 243)

| style="background:#F6C5C1"|23.4 (86 601)

| 13.2 (48 707)

| 10.8 (40 052)

| 7.7 (28 349)

| 0.1 (352)

| 1.0 (3 527)

| 1.4 (5 052)

| 1.1 (4 199)

| align="left"|

| 15.7 (47 023)

| style="background:#FEF1BD;"|29.6 (88 861)

| 11.8 (35 321)

| 20.4 (61 127)

| 7.2 (21 483)

| 6.3 (18 778)

| 4.4 (13 192)

| 0.8 (2 393)

| 1.6 (4 727)

| 1.4 (4 317)

| 0.9 (2 663)

| align="left"|

| 17.9 (45 077)

| style="background:#FEF1BD;"|22.8 (57 446)

| 18.9 (47 749)

| 16.6 (41 794)

| 8.0 (20 183)

| 5.5 (13 860)

| 6.3 (15 810)

| 0.5 (1 345)

| 1.3 (3 237)

| 1.3 (3 228)

| 1.0 (2 398)

| align="left"| Utrecht

| 17.4 (26 533)

| 13.8 (21 140)

| 15.0 (22 920)

| style="background:#F6C5C1"|18.3 (27 969)

| 14.3 (21 867)

| 9.4 (14 346)

| 8.0 (12 159)

| 0.3 (521)

| 1.4 (2 182)

| 1.5 (2 283)

| 0.6 (922)

| align="left"|

| style="background:#BADBD3"|25.3 (29 310)

| 17.7 (20 540)

| 15.0 (17 397)

| 14.4 (16 643)

| 8.6 (9 936)

| 8.6 (10 000)

| 6.2 (7 236)

| 0.1 (128)

| 1.0 (1 202)

| 1.8 (2 043)

| 1.3 (1 531)

By policy issue

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px"

|+ Most important policy issues (top two cited) by intended vote, 4–5 May 2002

|- style="height:40px;"

! rowspan="2"| Policy issue

! style="width:40px;"| CDA

! style="width:40px;"| LPF

! style="width:40px;"| VVD

! style="width:40px;"| PvdA

! style="width:40px;"| GL

! style="width:40px;"| SP

! style="width:40px;"| D66

! style="width:40px;"| All respondents

! style="background:;"|

| align="left"| Combating crime and insecurity

| 58

| 65

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|67

| 50

| 26

| 38

| 45

| 53

| align="left"| Improving healthcare quality

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|44

| 38

| 28

| 41

| 44

| 43

| 38

| align="left"| Stricter asylum admission policy

| 22

| style="background:;"|44

| 27

| 14

| 6

| 4

| 16

| 21

| align="left"| Restoring norms and values

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|29

| 10

| 13

| 20

| 15

| 9

| 27

| 21

| align="left"| Improving education quality

| 13

| 4

| 12

| 16

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|32

| 25

| 15

| align="left"| Protecting the socially vulnerable

| 8

| 5

| 2

| 18

| 11

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|27

| 8

| 10

| align="left"| Countering price increases

| 6

| 7

| 5

| 8

| 2

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|15

| 6

| 8

| align="left"| Healthy public finances

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|10

| 4

| 7

| 6

| 8

| 2

| 6

| 7

| align="left"| Stimulating economic growth

| 4

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|14

| 2

| 10

| 6

| align="left"| Combating terrorism

| 6

| style="background:;"|10

| 5

| 2

| 0

| 8

| 6

| align="left"| Combating environmental pollution

| 3

| 2

| 6

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|10

| 4

| align="left"| Reducing the number of disability beneficiaries

| 4

| style="background:;"|6

| 2

| 0

| 4

| 3

| align="left"| Increasing citizen participation

| 2

| style="background:;"|6

| 3

| 2

| 4

| 3

By prior vote

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px"

|+ 1998 vote → intended vote in 2002 (survey, April 2002)

|- style="height:40px;"

! rowspan="2"| 1998 vote (sample size)

! style="width:40px;"| CDA

! style="width:40px;"| VVD

! style="width:40px;"| PvdA

! style="width:40px;"| D66

! style="width:40px;"| GL

! style="width:40px;"| SP

! style="width:40px;"| CU

! style="width:40px;"| SGP

! style="width:40px;"| LPF

! style="width:40px;"| LN

! style="width:40px;"| Other

! style="width:40px;"| Undecided

! style="width:40px;"| Will not vote

! style="background:;"|

| align="left"| CDA voters (1998) N = 325

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|73.8

| 1.8

| 0.3

| 1.2

| 1.5

| 0.9

| 1.5

| 0.0

| style="background:;"|3.7

| 0.6

| 1.2

| 13.2

| 0.0

| align="left"| VVD voters (1998) N = 420

| 10.7

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|43.3

| 0.7

| 1.2

| 0.7

| 0.5

| 0.2

| 0.0

| style="background:;"|20.2

| 2.1

| 0.5

| 19.3

| 0.5

| align="left"| PvdA voters (1998) N = 403

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|6.9

| 1.5

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|50.1

| 2.2

| 6.0

| 2.7

| 0.0

| 0.2

| style="background:;"|6.9

| 0.2

| 1.0

| 22.1

| 0.0

| align="left"| D66 voters (1998) N = 168

| 7.7

| 6.0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|10.7

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|26.2

| 7.7

| 4.2

| 0.0

| 2.4

| 0.6

| 31.5

| 0.6

| align="left"| GL voters (1998) N = 99

| 2.0

| 1.0

| 2.0

| 1.0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|62.6

| 8.1

| 0.0

| style="background:;"|10.1

| 0.0

| 12.1

| 1.0

| align="left"| SP voters (1998) N = 64

| 1.6

| 0.0

| 1.6

| 4.7

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|56.3

| 0.0

| style="background:;"|12.5

| 0.0

| 20.3

| 1.6

| align="left"| CU voters (1998) N = 59

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|10.2

| 0.0

| 1.7

| 0.0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|67.8

| 3.4

| 5.1

| 0.0

| 1.7

| 8.5

| 1.7

| align="left"| SGP voters (1998) N = 30

| 0.0

| 0.2

| 0.0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|6.7

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|90.0

| 0.0

| 3.3

| 0.0

| align="left"| Other voters (1998) N = 21

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|9.5

| 0.0

| 4.8

| 0.0

| 4.8

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|9.5

| 0.0

| style="background:;"|9.5

| 0.0

| style="background:#CCCCCC"|23.8

| 28.6

| 4.8

| align="left"| Non‑voters in 1998 N = 137

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|13.9

| 5.1

| 3.6

| 1.5

| 2.9

| 1.5

| 0.0

| style="background:;"|29.2

| 2.9

| 0.7

| 20.4

| 16.8

| align="left"| Not eligible in 1998 N = 17

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|23.5

| 11.8

| 0.0

| style="background:;color:#FFFFFF"|17.6

| 11.8

| 0.0

| 11.8

| 0.0

| 23.5

| 0.0

Maps

Aftermath

Labour Party (May–November 2002)

The Labour Party anticipated a setback yet was shocked by the loss of 22 seats on 15 May—its then-steepest decline ever and worse than the CDA’ record loss in 1994. Melkert resigned on the night following the election under pressure from Koole and Kok. He remained in parliament until he later accepted an executive directorship at the World Bank, an appointment unsuccessfully opposed by LPF house representatives. In his valedictory remarks, Melkert warned against reflexive national self‑loathing and maintained that the 2002 platform remained a sound basis for opposition. On 16 May, the caucus elected Jeltje van Nieuwenhoven its chair, though she disclaimed party leadership.

LPF internal conflicts (May–October 2002)

Two days after the election, MP Leon Geurts was rejected from the LPF's parliamentary caucus after it was found he had falsified parts of his CV, including making an unverified claim that he was a doctorandus in economics from Erasmus University Rotterdam. He subsequently stepped down from the House and retired from politics citing media pressure and threats made to his LPF colleagues.

After the election, the LPF gradually descended into administrative chaos: correspondence went unanswered, the membership register was incomplete, and treasurer Herman Dost blocked any audit of party accounts. but still ended up taking a position under Maas. Following consultations with her constitutional advisers and parliamentary leaders—none but the LPF favoured salvaging the coalition—the Queen accepted the resignation. Balkende set 22 January 2003 for new elections, allowing time for new parties to register by 28 October. Balkenende explained the date as the earliest practicable moment satisfying the House's wish for rapid elections. In the intervening caretaker period the portfolios of the departed LPF ministers were reassigned to CDA and VVD colleagues—Aart Jan de Geus took Health and the deputy premiership from Bomhoff, while Hans Hoogervorst assumed Economic Affairs from Heinsbroek.

2002 Dutch general election

Background

Incumbent coalition wins re-election (1998)

Foundation of the Pim Fortuyn List (9–15 February 2002)

Assassination of Pim Fortuyn (6 May 2002)

Opinion polls

Result

By province

By policy issue

By prior vote

Maps

Aftermath

Labour Party (May–November 2002)

LPF internal conflicts (May–October 2002)

See also

Notes

References