Ideology & Issues
The CHU lacked a coherent political ideology as it was formed by politicians who emphasized their own independent position. Furthermore many times it served as the counterpart of the ARP:
- Between 1908 and 1918 the party served as the more conservative of the two main Protestant parties. It was more anti-papal than the ARP, which was more oriented towards cooperation with Catholics. It was also more sceptical about universal suffrage.
- In the period 1918-1940 the differences between the ARP and CHU were mainly religious, with parties advocating similar policies, like a strong defense and fiscal conservatism. With the ARP representing the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the CHU conservative parts of the Dutch Reformed Church and other non-aligned churches. Arguably, the CHU inclined to be “both more sophisticated and (...) more dogmatic” than the ARP
- Between 1945 and 1960 the differences between the ARP and the CHU were focused on the issue of decolonization of the Dutch Indies: while the ARP was vehemently against this, the CHU was pragmatic about the issue.
- In the 1960s and 1970s the ARP became more progressive, while the CHU began to emphasize its conservatism.
Generally the political course of the party can be seen as conservative and Christian-democratic. It saw the government as the servant of God and emphasized the special role of the Netherlands, with its history of Protestantism. The CHU had relatively constant positions on several issues:
- The party was conservative in social and ethical matters, rejecting divorce and protecting the position of religious schools.
- The party took a strong position in favour of law and order and it favoured the Dutch monarchy
- The party was fiscally conservative, combining support for the welfare state with tight budgetary controls.
Read more about this topic: Christian Historical Union
Famous quotes containing the words ideology and/or issues:
“Liberation is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can never fulfill its promises.... It has the therapeutic quality of providing emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred—it is the amphetamine of its believers.”
—Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950)
“The “universal moments” of child rearing are in fact nothing less than a confrontation with the most basic problems of living in society: a facing through one’s children of all the conflicts inherent in human relationships, a clarification of issues that were unresolved in one’s own growing up. The experience of child rearing not only can strengthen one as an individual but also presents the opportunity to shape human relationships of the future.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)