Why solidarity Makes the Movement against the Budget Cuts Stronger
Benjamin Jabold, Guus Dix, Elias König, Patricia Reyes Benavides
Dutch version published in Science Guide
Last week, the Netherlands were shocked by the government’s attack on the freedom to protest. After weeks of mobilizing to protest the draconic budget cuts in higher education, thousands of students and staff members from universities across the Netherlands were prepared to speak up in Utrecht. Only one day before the scheduled protest, local authorities brought up concerns about alleged threats from pro-Palestine protestors who wanted to ‘hijack’ the protest and use it as an opportunity for violent riots. The authorities concluded that the safety of the protestors could not be guaranteed. Without being presented with any evidence of this ‘threat’, but likely under pressure, the unions (FNV, AOb) cancelled the protest at the last minute, stating that the mayor would have banned the protest if they had not withdrawn.
By not forcing the mayor to provide proof in court for a protest ban, the unions unwittingly conceded to a playbook tactic of government repression of peaceful protest. In a direct sense, local authorities sought to repress the biggest protest for higher education in recent Dutch history. They did so, moreover, by evoking a stereotyped and racist image of violent pro-Palestine movement which could further marginalize that movement in the Netherlands and create division in the emergent mobilization against the budget cuts. The government narrative made it easy for some commentators to accuse pro-Palestine protesters of being responsible for the cancellation and of diluting its ‘main’ message.
The subsequent call of some academics to ‘keep the message pure’ wrongfully reproduces the government’s narrative of ‘having no other option’ but to restrict our democratic freedoms. Fortunately, a large segment of the movement against the budget cuts immediately challenged the reality of any such ‘threat’. Groups with more experience with government repression, like climate and pro-Palestine activists, called out the de-facto ban of the protest as a clear case of silencing dissent. As a consequence, while thousands of people were laudably protesting at their home universities, the protest in Utrecht did take place and was attended, according to WOInActie, by more than four thousand people. Because of their experience and swift action it was possible to disprove the government’s racist narrative. For after the protest could proceed completely peacefully as expected, it is now safe to conclude that there was no (threat of) violence whatsoever – a valuable lesson for a movement against budget cuts that might still have a long struggle ahead of it.
More than just a failure to acknowledge the added value of those who stand in solidarity with other causes, like Palestine, the call to ‘keep the message pure’ also fails to address the wider issue thematizing broader societal concerns. Whereas a solidarity-centered approach to the budget cuts holds great potential for including multiple perspectives and gain in strength over time. These perspectives provide reasons for diverse groups to unite in a common cause.
Take the 3000€ long-study fine. This measure will disproportionately affect working class students. Students in the Netherlands work on average 14 hours per week to afford the study fees and living expenses. This entails that working class students face more time pressure while studying than non-working students from wealthier families. These former are thus also more likely than the latter to have to pay the long-study fine while having less economic means to pay for it. A class-oriented narrative, present in the speeches from student union representatives in Utrecht, helps to explain the differentiated effects of the long-study fee on various student groups and gives them a reason to protest the policy package.
In a similar fashion, pro-Palestine student groups emphasized that the budget cuts do not stand alone. Being just one element in a broader government budget, they point out that decreased spending in higher education coincided with the simultaneous increase in military spending (among other things to support the far-right Israeli Government with the genocide in Gaza). Establishing a link to other policies is not beholden to these groups, moreover, but is also constantly done by members of the current government.
Scientist Rebellion (SR) offers yet another perspective. Though SR is part of the broader climate and ecological movement, they see that the budget cuts on higher education are inherently also an assault on science. For there are several political parties for whom scientific expertise on climate change, agriculture and migration is a direct threat to the interests they defend and the misinformation they like to spread. The extreme-right PVV, for instance, celebrates the budget cuts explicitly in political terms.
Solidarity hence does not ‘dilute’ an allegedly ‘pure message’. Instead, it holds the potential of making the movement against the budget cuts stronger. First, mobilization through and in solidarity with other movements allows the emerging budget movements to benefit from their experience, as was evidenced by the successful demonstration in Utrecht. Second, solidarity sharpens our analysis of the social meaning and consequences of the budget cuts beyond directly affected students and staff. Thereby, it can provide the basis for societal learning which could spill over into other progressive causes. Third, a solidarity-centered approach to the budget cuts can mobilize different groups of students and staff to show up at protests. As long as the central objective is clear – namely: getting these harmful policies off the table – their presence in large numbers can hardly be considered as a sign of weakness. There is no reason for fear here as long as one group does not claim that the protests are ‘actually and only about’ something that this particular group fights for.
We hold that a strong movement against budget cuts in higher education is necessarily characterized by solidarity. Such a movement is both large in numbers, diverse in tactics and includes a variety of perspectives on the harm that these budget cuts do. Clinging to the idea that there is something like a ‘pure message’ risks dividing the academic community that is fighting for the same cause. And such divisions would come in handy for the state’s playbook of repression of progressive social movements by driving a wedge between different groups that, together, have the power to halt the destruction of higher education and the knowledge and values it holds dear.