Until this week, no Dutch party associated with the far right had ever won more than 20% of the vote in a national election. In Europe’s most fragmented political landscape, it is an achievement for any party to cross that threshold. Yet Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) did it with ease in Wednesday’s snap poll, which was precipitated by the resignation of the outgoing prime minister, Mark Rutte, in the summer. This was a victory that threatens to take the normalisation of nativist populist politics in Europe to a dangerous new level.
Campaigning on a nakedly Islamophobic manifesto, which called for bans on mosques and the Qur’an, Mr Wilders won a quarter of the vote. His party has won 37 seats in the 150-seat house of representatives, 12 more than its closest rival and double its tally in the last election. The PVV’s other policies include rejecting all asylum claims, drastically reducing overall levels of immigration, rolling back climate legislation and holding a referendum on leaving the European Union. The party is also opposed to sending more arms to Ukraine. A veteran provocateur on the European stage, Mr Wilders is on the right of the radical right; the dial of Dutch politics has just shifted radically in his favour.
As he attempts to construct a majority in a parliament, it is very likely that many of the PVV’s most extreme policies will be sacrificed as the price of any coalition agreement. An alternative centrist coalition could even exclude the PVV from power altogether. However, it appears that the two main centre-right parties, including Mr Rutte’s VVD, are willing to at least contemplate a deal.
How, then, did the Netherlands reach the point at which a former political pariah finds himself on the threshold of formal power? Mainstream parties on the right, including the VVD, appear to have played into Mr Wilders’ hands by endorsing and attempting to co-opt his anti-migrant agenda. One in four voters ended up choosing the PVV’s full-fat version. A high-profile scandal – relating to false allegations of benefit fraud – also played a part in eroding faith in established institutions.
More generally, as the recent success of protest parties such as the Dutch Farmer-Citizen movement illustrates, Mr Wilders profited from an acute crisis of trust in traditional politics. In one survey this autumn, 72% of respondents said that they believed the country was on the wrong path. Another poll found a “worrisome” level of dissatisfaction on the right with the functioning of democracy. In an age of anxiety and insecurity, large numbers of voters are reeling from the cost of living crisis, worrying about how the green transition will affect one of the world’s agricultural powerhouses, and concerned about a chronic housing crisis. Many had clearly become more open to Mr Wilders’ dark mood music as a result, and the hateful xenophobia that he promotes.
For Dutch Moroccans, Surinamese and other minority ethnic groups, this is a deeply frightening development. Following the election of Giorgia Meloni as Italy’s prime minister last year, and radical right successes in countries such as Sweden and Finland, it also represents an urgent challenge for progressive parties across Europe. In meeting the formidable economic challenges of an increasingly volatile age, mainstream politics must provide better reassurance to vulnerable constituencies that they will not be left behind.
Hopefully, Mr Wilders can be kept out of power, or politically neutered once he achieves it. But the trends that have put him within touching distance of high office need to be addressed. Lessons must be learned from what the Netherlands public broadcaster justly described as a “political earthquake” in one of the EU’s most influential member states.
