With regards to which constituencies to target, D66 also did not change course between 1986 and 1989. In the aftermath of the election results, discussion mostly focused on the
180. D66, National Committee, “Verslag van het HB/Fractie-weekend, gehouden op 13 en 14 juni te Leusden,” 3; 6; K. Van den Brink, “Aanzet hoofdlijnen verkiezingscampagne Provinciale Staten,” First Rough Outline of a Campaign Plan for the Provincial Elections of 1987 dated 11th of August 1986 (1986), WP 0218K, inventory nr. 98, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 3.
181. V. Smeulders, “Mededelingen - Aandachtspunten t.b.v. HB-vergadering 17 december 1987,” An- nouncements and Focal Points for the National Committee Meeting held 17th of December 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87/208, inventory nr. 108, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 2.
182. O. Scheltema, “betreft: commissies 2000 en 2001, taakomschrijving,” Memo to the National Com- mittee and National Executive on the Task Description of the 2000 and 2001 Committees (1987), HB.DB- 87/196, inventory nr. 108, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Doc- umentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.
183. Democraten 66, Commissie 2000, “Rapportage commissie 2000,” Report of the committee 2000, ver- sion of December 1988 (1988), inventory nr. 112, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University; Democraten 66, Commissie 2001, “Verslag Commissie 2001,” Report of the committee 2001, dated 12th of December 1988 (1988), HB.DB-88/193, inventory nr. 112, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Gronin- gen University.
184. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Notulen Fractie-HB weekend. 16 en 17 december 1988. Ernst Sillem Hoeve, Den Dolder,” Minutes of the Weekend Meeting of the National Committee and Parlia- mentary Party held 16th and 17th December 1988 (1989), HB.DB-89/021, inventory nr. 115, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 1-2.
blind spots where the party was popular but had few members.185 A renewed interest in
who voted for the party and why certainly seemed to have occurred within the ranks of the national committee.186 Proposals to target specific constituencies, posed in a paper
on communication strategy, were still greeted with some scepticism as to whether this did not offend against the programmatic basis of the party.187
Chiefly, the attitude that voters should not be targeted opportunistically simply because they were available still prevailed. Rather, the party still expressed a preference to target those who logically could be supposed to be attracted to its programme – in this regard, a member even made the observation that this was the natural party base, albeit not an automatic one.188 Major target groups for the 1987 provincial elections were largely the
same: 1986 voters had to be retained and disaffected voters from the major parties, chiefly the VVD, had to be won over.189 Even this, however, could be seen as deriving from the
programme, which the party now acknowledged had a liberal bend (see the discussion on the party label). Since the programme precedes the tactical considerations in every respect, it has to be concluded that the main thrust of D66’s targeting remained narrowly focused on those already attracted to its policies. However, the focus on competing with the VVD adds a slight extending element to the pure reinforcement strategy of the previous electoral cycle.
Efforts among the youth proved highly successful and were continued with renewed vigour after 1986. In a few years’ time, the Young Democrats had grown from a fledgling youth wing into the third largest political youth organisation in the country with 1850 members.190 It should be noted that these members were not equally well-received every-
where in the mother party – many D66 members appear to have seen the Young Democrats as rather upper-class and careerist.191 Still, this proved enough for D66 to continue its
push to increase its prominence among young voters in the coming period, among others with the 2001 Committee, which was solely composed of younger party members.
Now let us turn to the personal component of electoral tactics. Perhaps because of the realisation that Van Mierlo’s popularity had saved the party, the national committee seems to have become acutely aware of the need to improve access to talent scouting. This was one of the main parts of the agenda of the new party chairman, Saskia van der
185. Ten Brink, “D66 Verkiezingscampagne 1986. Evaluatie en Aanbevelingen,” 17; D66, National Com- mittee, “Verslag van het HB/Fractie-weekend, gehouden op 13 en 14 juni te Leusden,” 2.
186. D66, National Committee, “Verslag van het HB/Fractie-weekend, gehouden op 13 en 14 juni te Leusden,” 1-2.
187. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Beleidsplan Publiciteit en Voorlichting Democraten ’66,” Policy Plan on Publicity and Communications (1986), HB.DB-86/111, inventory nr. 98, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Politi- cal Parties, Groningen University, 7; Democraten 66, National Executive, “Verslag van de vergadering van het Dagelijks Bestuur, gehouden op dinsdag 26 augustus 1986 te Den Haag,” Minutes of the Na- tional Executive committee meeting held 26th August 1986 (1986), HB.DB-86/117, inventory nr. 98, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Archives of Democrats 66, Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.
188. D66, National Executive, “Verslag van de vergadering van het Dagelijks Bestuur, gehouden op dinsdag 26 augustus 1986 te Den Haag,” 2.
189. Van den Brink, “Aanzet hoofdlijnen verkiezingscampagne Provinciale Staten,” 3. 190. M. Voorn, “Je bent jong en je wilt wat. Nou en?,” Democraat 19, no. 5 (1986): 19–20. 191. Ibid.
Loo, who took over in 1986.192 Scouting and coaching new talent appeared as part of the
arguments for decentralising the organisation in the organisational discussions, arguing that talent inside the party could only move to the next level with more responsibilities of its own.193 The party was not so much concerned that it did not have all the requisite
expertise within its ranks, but rather that that expertise did not make it to the right place to be able to capitalise on it, and the whole process was found “based too much on coincidence”.194 Efforts were therefore mostly concentrated, once more, on finding the
necessary expertise inside the party.
A large part of this was the evaluation of the voting advice for the candidate list which had first been used in the run-up to the 1986 election. On the advice of the voting advice committee for 1989, it was made possible for the voting advice to be split up into separate tranches in order to gain a better professional and regional balance.195
The national committee remained divided on the issue, however.196 With the planned
elections of 1990 approaching, the national committee decided that it would not give advice to the members, stating that it doubted the added value of the advice in light of its conflicting position with the OMOV principle.197 Nevertheless, it was overruled by the
national congress, and a voting advice committee operated the revised system for 1989, preserving again much of the incumbent parliamentary party in the first tranche.198 Thus,
despite attempts to better use the available resources, the party still largely looked inside its own ranks, part of the reinforcement strategy.
As regards the positioning in the party system, however much the party approved of the
192. M. Voorn, “Voorzitter Saskia van der Loo: D66 moet energie steken in vorming nieuw kader,”
Democraat 19, no. 6 (1986): 3–4.
193. P. Hagedoorn, “Onderwerp: Organisatorische aspekten m.b.t. 1) politieke koers 2) partijstruk- tuur,” Discussion paper for the national committee weekend on political and organisational matters (1986), HB.DB-86/098, inventory nr. 97, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 2.
194. D66, Vrijhoef Committee, “Advies van de Adviesgroep Partijstructuren,” 9; D66, National Com- mittee, “Notulen Fractie-HB weekend. 16 en 17 december 1988. Ernst Sillem Hoeve, Den Dolder,” 7; Democraten 66, National Committee, “Notulen HB-vergadering d.d. 17 januari 1989,” Minutes of the Na- tional Committee Meeting held 17th of January 1989 (1989), HB.DB-89.023, inventory nr. 115, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University, 2.
195. E. Cassee, “Betreft: Evaluatie Stemadviescommissie (CAS),” Evaluation Report on the Voting Rec- ommendation dated 9th of April 1987 (1987), HB.DB-87-081, inventory nr. 105, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Gronin- gen University; Democraten 66, National Committee, “Instellingsbesluit Commissie Aandragen Stemad- vies (CAS)89,” Decision to institute the 1989 Voting Recommendation Committee (1989), HB.DB-89.072, inventory nr. 117, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documenta- tion Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.
196. E. Groen and R. van der Steeg, “betreft: Discussie Stemadviescommissie (CAS),” Discussion paper on the Voting Recommendation, February 1988 (1988), HB.DB-88/036, inventory nr. 109, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofd/-bestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.
197. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Concept-Congresstuk stemadvies Tweede Kamerverkiezin- gen 1990,” Draft Congress Paper on the Voting Recommendation for 1990 dated 24th of April 1988 (1988), HB.DB-88/184, inventory nr. 112, Archives of Democrats 66, Hoofdbestuur/Dagelijks Bestuur (1970/1990), Documentation Centre on Dutch Political Parties, Groningen University.
198. Democraten 66, National Committee, “Stemadvies en toelichting op de totstandkoming van het advies” (1989), Attachment toDemocraat 22(5).
dual positioning strategy opposed to and among the other parties, it remained a struggle. Evaluations of the 1986 campaign sharply observed that the positioning opposed to all major parties was mostly considered detrimental to the clarity of the party’s position.199
In the discussions on the national committee, a clear analysis of the party’s position in the system can be seen to emerge, as well as a clear coalition preference. Social-economically, the party aligned more with CDA and VVD.200In terms of the “liberal heritage”, more with
PvdA and VVD.201 It was this latter combination, in the form of a renewed commitment
to the Des Indes talks, that was preferred. In addition, D66 made the choice to compete more with the VVD than with the PvdA, citing the new “reasonable” course of the PvdA’s new leader Wim Kok as one close to D66, whereas differences with the VVD were both clearer and more likely to win over its voters.202
Here as in other fields, we see slight adjustments rather than major changes in the existing strategy during the second electoral cycle. D66 remained true to itself as a slightly rebellious party that did not quite want to conform to the expectations of the party system it was founded to explode. Nevertheless, it appears that within this broad reinforcement strategy, the party was coming to the conclusion that it needed to confront the lack of clarity surrounding its political positioning, and appeared more ready to exploit its liberal identification to compete with the VVD. With the reinforcement strategy largely successful, the party started to look outward again, trying to poach away voters from other parties, which is part of an extend strategy. This mix can largely be seen to be a result of the large degree of membership participation – sympathies within the membership were clearly with the more traditional option, while the party organs appear to have thought more opportunistically.