The Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij (SDAP), or Social Democratic Workers’ Party, was a Dutch socialist political party founded in 1894, whose parliamentary representatives consistently opposed the Aceh War from 1897 onwards and exposed its economic and human costs. The party was the first socialist party in the Netherlands to achieve parliamentary representation.
Parliamentary representation
In 1897, the party won two seats in the Tweede Kamer (Lower House of Parliament): P. J. Troelstra for the district of Tietjerksteradeel and H. van Kol for the district of Enschede. A third member, J. H. Schaper, joined them in 1899 after winning a by-election in Veendam. These three became known as the Sociaaldemokratische Kamergroep (Social Democratic Parliamentary Group).
Anti-war position
The SDAP was the only party in parliament to systematically oppose the Aceh War and demand an accounting of its costs. Its members argued that the war was driven by “kapitalistische hebzucht” (capitalist greed) and that it was a “nationale ramp” (national disaster) that had brought untold suffering to the people of Aceh and the Dutch East Indies — see Van Kol’s Aceh War Motion (1897) and Economic interests in the Aceh War.
The class struggle principle
The party’s opposition to the Aceh War was grounded in its analysis of the war as a product of class conflict and capitalist expansion. During the first budget debate after their election, Troelstra explained: “de klassenstrijd bestaat en een parlement, dat een weerspiegeling moet zijn van het volk, is dit niet meer als de klassenstrijd er niet gebracht wordt.” (the class struggle exists and a parliament which is supposed to be a reflection of the people, ceases to be that if the class struggle is not brought into it.)
Van Kol elaborated: “de geheele geschiedenis ten slotte niet anders is dan een eeuwenlange reeks van klassenstrijden.” (all history is ultimately nothing but a centuries-long series of class struggles.) He argued that “de weinigen, die over de schatten van den aardbol beschikken, ten slotte degenen zijn die voordeel hebben bij het bestaande, terwijl de groote massa van de onterfden voordeel heeft bij de komende, wordende maatschappij.” (the few who dispose of the treasures of the globe are ultimately those who benefit from the existing order, while the great mass of the disinherited benefits from the coming, emerging society.)
Policy positions
Beyond its opposition to the Aceh War, the SDAP advocated for:
- Universal suffrage (algemeen kiesrecht)
- Workers’ pensions (arbeiders-pensioen)
- An eight-hour working day
- Improved conditions for railway workers, soldiers, and other employees
- Social insurance for accidents, sickness, and old age
- The abolition of the First Chamber (Senate)
- The establishment of labour courts (Kamers van Arbeid)
Significance
The SDAP was the first political party in the Netherlands to systematically challenge colonial warfare and expose its economic underpinnings. Its parliamentary group, though small, served as a persistent voice for anti-militarism and anti-colonialism in a parliament dominated by conservative and liberal parties. Its analysis of the Aceh War as a product of capitalist greed and colonial exploitation prefigured later critiques of imperialism and provided the basis for anti-colonial sentiment in the Dutch labour movement. The party’s failure to halt the war, despite its advocacy, underscored the strength of colonial interests in Dutch politics.
Account from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (1897)
The pamphlet Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (1897), published at Amsterdam by J. A. Fortuijn in 1897 under the party’s imprint — Sociaaldemokr. Arbeiderspartij in Nederland — is the party’s principal document on the Atjeh-oorlog. It reprints the verbatim record of the Atjeh debate of 16–17 November 1897 and was sold at ten cents.
The three deputies
At the time of the debate the party had three members in the Tweede Kamer: H. van Kol for Enschedé, Troelstra for Tietjerksteradeel, and Van der Zwaag for Schoterland. All three spoke, and all three voted for Van Kol’s motion, which was rejected by seventy-two votes to three.
The party’s position
Troelstra set out the grounds on which the small group claimed strength notwithstanding its numbers. First, “onze handen [zijn] totaal rein… van wat in Atjeh is gebeurd, terwijl van alle andere partijen de eene er de handen wel eerder in heeft gestoken en de andere later, maar toch aller handen bezoedeld zijn, daar alle partijen hebben medegedaan en verantwoordelijk zijn voor de wandaden in Atjeh.” — our hands are totally clean… of what has happened in Atjeh, while of all the other parties the one has put its hands in earlier and the other later, but yet the hands of all are soiled, since all parties have taken part. Second, that they fought there for the application of the principles of right, humanity and common sense, and stood alone because they did not from opportunist considerations hang their conscience on the peg. Third, that by virtue of the principle from which they spoke a great part of the Dutch people was on their side.
He announced the party’s agitational programme in terms: “wij stellen ons tot taak, heel Nederland doortrekkende, steden, dorpen en gehuchten, het volk op te wekken, opdat, wanneer wij eenmaal met eene protestmotie tegen den Atjeh-krijg terugkomen, wij een groot deel van het Nederlandsche volk aan onze zijde hebben.” — we set ourselves the task, traversing the whole of the Netherlands — towns, villages and hamlets — of rousing the people, so that when we come back one day with a motion of protest against the Atjeh war, we shall have a great part of the Dutch people on our side. The pamphlet was the instrument of that programme.
He also declared the motion to be a vote of no confidence: “Wij ontzeggen aan deze Regeering, aan dezen Minister van Koloniën, in zake Atjeh ons vertrouwen. Wij hadden gewenscht, en het ware voor Nederland beter geweest, dat de verschillende meerderheden in de Kamer ook aan vroegere Ministers van Koloniën haar vertrouwen hadden ontzegd.” — We deny to this Government, to this Minister of Colonies, our confidence in the matter of Atjeh. We could have wished, and it would have been better for the Netherlands, that the various majorities in the Chamber had also denied their confidence to earlier Ministers of Colonies. The declaration cost the motion the support of the radical Ketelaar.
The party’s publications
The last leaf of the pamphlet advertises the party’s other publications, among them Troelstra’s Wat willen de Sociaaldemokraten? Antwoord op vijf vragen van Pastoor Arriens and De S.D.A.P., haar ontstaan, doel en streven; W. P. G. Helsdingen’s Neemt deel aan den strijd!; W. H. Vliegen’s pamphlet; and works by Rienzi, Trevor, Volney and Liebknecht. They were obtainable from the party treasurer at Kwakkeldijk 6, Utrecht; from the administration of De Sociaaldemokraat at Zwaanshals 127, Rotterdam; and from J. A. Fortuijn at N. Leliestraat 69, Amsterdam.
The same leaf advertises the party organs: De Sociaaldemokraat, appearing twice weekly, edited by Mr. P. J. Troelstra and W. H. Vliegen, at sixty cents a quarter; and De Nieuwe Tijd, at eighty-seven and a half cents a quarter.
See Also
- H. van Kol
- Troelstra
- Van der Zwaag
- Schaper
- Van Kol’s Aceh War Motion (1897)
- Aceh War
- 1897
- Tweede Kamer
Sources
De Sociaaldemokraten in de Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam, c. 1901). Vrije Universiteit Bibliotheek, pp. 1-32.
Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898, uitgave van de Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij in Nederland (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Br P95-178, title-page, pp. 44–45, and the final leaf.
Acknowledgement of sources. This article combines material from the publications cited above; the material newly added derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897) and Een strijd in Atjeh (Rotterdam: N.V. Drukkerij Korteweg for the Vereeniging „SIMAVI”, 1934). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering.