Dutch Drama?

The election outcome is a plain language call to get to work

It was projected by most pollsters, yet the actual size and margins took the entire Dutch nation by surprise on Wednesday night. Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom decisively won the elections and became the largest party in parliament which in theory gives them the keys to form and lead a new government.

This political earthquake represents a few things. Most notably of course the Dutch dissatisfaction with the sitting centre-liberal coalition under Mark Rutte which lost heavily on Wednesday night. From the child care affair, poorly managed migration, the farmers crisis as well as the steady failure of neo-liberalism as an economic policy, there was a long list that contributed to voter frustration and a need for change. With the incumbent government failing, the progressive opposition appeared incapable of turning this broad resentment into their favour. However, the endless stream of asylum seekers and labour migrants combined with the affordability crisis were tailor made for the man who had been - apart from a brief spell in the early 2010s - locked out of political power. His radical anti-immigrant rhetoric and outspoken non-establishment positions that for a long time were a hurdle for him politically, now were just a shadow of the past: a kinder and gentler Geert Wilders left everyone behind on election night.

The morning after was comparable to the aftermath of Trump’s unexpected US presidential win in 2016. Despair and anger on the left, street protests, commentators threatening to leave the country and progressive leaders stepping up with voices of support for various minorities who all of a sudden felt threatened. And a quick scan of local media painted a very bleak picture: the Dutch were now apparently set to slide into the dark ages. But is that really the case?

On closer inspection, and this is also where international commentators often fall short, things are not nearly as dramatic as many would have us believe. Wilders won 37 seats in a 150 seat parliament which means he has to form a coalition government with a few other parties to ensure majority support. The relatively new Farmer-Citizen Movement is keen to join, the defeated Free Market Liberals and the New Social Contract party are less enthusiastic, but these are the most logical right-of-center fits for Wilders to establish a cabinet that he can chair as prime minister.

The other thing to bear in mind is that Wilders, who has a firebrand reputation, has ran a fairly moderate campaign. His positions from leaving the EU (‘Nexit’) to suspending support to Ukraine to outlawing the Koran and ban mosques, as well as undoing climate policies have already taken a backseat. He focused cleverly on social-economic issues and the immigration file which has been a pain for most Dutch, left and right. Moreover in a potential coalition certain topics could well be moderated to a point where everyone, including Wilders’ party is happy. There will be no ‘Nexit’, but it is very likely that the Dutch will become a far more critical EU member. There will be no legalized discrimination of Muslims, but there may be more attention to the influence of radical Islam. And as it will be quite tricky to roll back various climate and environmental initiatives, there may be different and less costly approaches in this area while healthcare and poverty alleviation can benefit from the freed up funds. The farmers may have to make some adjustments here and there, but nothing like what was proposed previously. Something like that, let’s call it a diluted Wilders agenda. A journey to consensus.

There is one area where Wilders is unlikely to compromise and that is on the country where he spent some time as a young man: Israel. Dutch foreign policy could be in for an unconventional approach and the country at war in Gaza is likely to be its first beneficiary. Some commentators have argued that the many pro-Palestinian protests and rallies on Dutch train stations since October 7 where ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' could be heard directly, influenced the Freedom Party’s win. His stance on Ukraine is a concern and this could prove to be a stumbling block when negotiating a governing deal with other parties.

What is telling in all this is how the Dutch left was completely impotent in seizing the opportunities presented by the affordability and care crises as these are the areas where in particular the Dutch social-democrats have a track record like no other. No more. The progressives’ adoption of neo-liberal economic policies and costly climate projects have led to a disconnect with the average Dutch struggling to pay the mortgage (if they can even find a house) and accessing appropriate care solutions. Wilders not only successfully seized these issues during the campaign, he did so in a very plain and effective Dutch manner that everyone could understand. This election was a repudiation of the centre-liberal consensus that has governed the lowlands for the better part of the past three decades. The established order completely ran out of ideas and the ability to see and connect with what many Dutch were feeling and seeing.

And it is not that a racism will be now be institutionalized and a feature of life on, say, the streets of Amsterdam. Quite the contrary. Many with an immigrant background actually voted for Wilders and Dutch-Turkish TV personality and writer Özcan Akyol on election night jokingly laughed away any potential ‘deportations’. Wilders never was a racist, but rather the one politician unafraid to point out what massive immigration without proper integration could mean for Dutch society. His main beef was with a socially conservative religion, not race. That he did so in plain and politically incorrect language did not help him and it kept him out of government for most of his career. That is, until this week.

That brings us to the ‘what now’ question. There are a few possible scenarios. The most difficult one, but also the one that would do most justice to voters’ wishes is to build a right-of centre coalition government. It will take a few months of negotiations, but it can be accomplished if the political will is there. As of this morning, one party already balked at that route. Wilders could also preside over a minority arrangement whereby he seeks parliamentary support on a case-by-case basis. These two are the best possible options. If Wilders fails here, the opposition could in theory exclude him and build a national cabinet where left and centre-right form a broad coalition government. This is also feasible, but it would be a deep affront to all those that voted for Wilders. There is however precedent for this: in 1977 the winning Labour Party was cleverly locked out of government by the right after long negotiations.

All of the aforementioned options have a timing aspect attached: rather than four years to the next election each could fall apart and the Dutch could find themselves at the ballot box again very soon. Frankly anything is possible, but given the urgency on a number of files and the political paralysis that has held the Dutch captive for a while it is time that the political class gets to work. The Dutch gave them an unusual and complicated, yet clear mandate to get to work. And Wilders will have to make compromises like never before in order to do justice to the large number of people that voted for him.

A radical change in The Netherlands? Yes. A drama? No. As the old Dutch saying goes: “the soup is never eaten as hot as it is served”.