The campaign began on 28 January 2002, with a debate in
The Hague over sports policy. Leaders from CDA, D66, GroenLinks, PvdA and SP were present; the VVD was notably absent. 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) (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. 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 ==