Opinion | The gains of the radical right make it clear: this country is in the process of abolishing itself

What seemed to be a turnaround after the summer departure of Mark Rutte, Sigrid Kaag and Wopke Hoekstra – new political faces, new parties, new plans – ended on Wednesday evening in a victory for the longest-serving Member of Parliament among the candidates.

Geert Wilders, firebrand since 1998, has turned into the game changer of 2023.

The day before, he also won the student election by a significant margin. Thierry Baudet came second. New indications that anti-migration politics has little to fear from a progressive counter-movement with electoral potential.

At the same time, Wilders’ victory reveals diminished national visibility. We know from Machiavelli that you can measure the intelligence of a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. There is plenty of uncomfortable knowledge available about Wilders in this area.

He internally called Ino van den Besselaar, the PVV member who devised the Poland hotline in 2011, “a stupid elephant”. The confidante with whom he prepared his anti-Islam rhetoric until 2014, Joram van Klaveren, became a practicing Muslim. The man who was his spokesperson for five years turned out to be a cocaine-addicted fraudster. Dion Graus, re-elected on Wednesday, accused the Chamber’s technical service of discrimination because he did not receive slats. And when Martin Bosma, also re-elected, completed a book about South Africa in 2014, Wilders sent a confidant to his party secretary. “Again, be careful with MB,” Wilders emailed him.

And don’t think that this is just from the past: in recent months, at least two faction members – Harm Beertema and Danai van Weerdenburg – left Wilders’ world with dissatisfaction. Lilian Helder also left for BBB.

Of bottom line: this man constantly has difficulty trusting people around him, cannot suppress his suspicions, and has remarkably poor judgment. Then consider practicing coalition politics.

Anyone who looks back at the timeline – perhaps something for Pieter Omtzigt – will see another uncomfortable phenomenon: as soon as Wilders gets himself into trouble, he strikes out. His most infamous moment, his ‘fewer Moroccans’ statement in 2014, was staged when he lost in the municipal elections.

So it was fascinating how Wilders last week News hour seized the opportunity to transform himself into a moderate man. But what was missing from the campaign, including from other politicians, is the question of his democratic capabilities: can he trust other politicians, can he curb his radical outbursts?

Risk

On election day, with no idea of ​​the results, I called former VVD senator Sybe Schaap, who in 2010 opposed the PVV’s toleration of Rutte I. He was punished, he said, and dropped on the list of candidates for 2011. the Senate from fourth place to twelve.

So when Dilan Yesilgöz made another opening for Wilders this summer, he canceled his membership. “You felt liberalism disappearing from the party,” he said. “I was sick of it.”

Wilders praises an un-Dutch authoritarian culture

More people realized the risk the party was running: already in 2010, when Mark Rutte opened up cooperation with the PVV, Wilders won 24 seats, also a record at the time. The love was over when Wilders unexpectedly defeated the Rutte I cabinet two years later.

Many of Rutte’s progressive critics overlooked how, unlike his successor, he created a barrier against Wilders. He made electoral gains in the middle. And he blocked PVV growth by rejecting cooperation and thus politically isolating Wilders.

It was highly effective – until the April 1 debate of 2021, when Rutte faltered. He had to make far-reaching concessions to D66 to survive, the VVD agreed, and from 2022 onwards rebelled against itself. The party was annoyed by Rutte IV’s high D66 content, resulting in the fall of the cabinet over migration.

Overconfidence that you often see in parties that have been the largest for too long. And this was confirmed by the disastrous choice to open the door to Wilders again.

Collapse

His victory this week accelerates the collapse of the post-war political order. The three movements – Christian Democracy, Social Democracy, Liberalism – that formed the welfare state after 1945, and since then provided all the prime ministers, now no longer even have a majority together: VVD, D66, GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA remained stuck at a total of 62 seats. .

At the same time, the radical right pulverized the record of LPF and Leefbaar Nederland from the Fortuyn year 2002 – 28 seats. On Wednesday, the radical right (PVV, FVD, JA21) reached 41 seats (!). The radical right flank has never been so strong. The political center has never been so weak before.

The impact should not be underestimated: this country is in the process of abolishing itself. The consensus culture, in which these three movements operated for decades, is a consultation model that, despite all differences, can only exist through understanding the other and putting one’s own worldview into perspective. It is where you end up when (religious) minorities realize that they have to make do with each other.

Wilders’ actions over the past 25 years have been one long attack on that tradition. Discrimination on the basis of religion was his starting point. It went further. Every minister who gave up something of his own position for the sake of the coalition was a target for him. Stokebrand exposes weakling.

It changed The Hague: since the Balkenende cabinet, the prime minister’s coalition partners almost always lose elections, partly because the opposition routinely hunts down the losers. Wilders’ urge for destruction has become mainstream.

The man himself now praises an un-Dutch command culture in which authoritarian urges and staccato positions are the new normal (‘borders closed’, ‘Black Pete back’, ‘coal-fired power stations open’, etc.). Also look at his party: members are not welcome – there can only be one in charge.

Also read
The formation becomes a complex puzzle with many questions

And make no mistake: these authoritarian urges include Wilders’ earlier admiration or mildness for Vladimir Putin. Given the situation in Europe, quite a theme, which unfortunately did not appear in television debates. For example, shortly after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, he urged a fellow party member not to be too critical of Russia. Putin’s subsequent interference in eastern Ukraine led to the shooting down of MH17 that year, in which 198 Dutch people died. A year later he supported the initiative of Thierry Baudet and others against the European association agreement with Ukraine. In 2018 he flew to Moscow to make friends.

And in his election manifesto he rejects military support from the Netherlands to Ukraine, making the Netherlands – after Hungary and Slovakia – the third European NATO member whose largest party, in line with Putin’s wishes, takes this position.

Under Wilders, back to the pre-war order, without NATO or EU: national neutrality that favors the aggressor.

Bargain hunters

Election winners often tend towards overconfidence. The reality is that the importance of the result is decreasing: this week, for the fifth time in four years, the Netherlands chose a different party as the largest.

In 2019, first FVD (State elections), then the PvdA (European elections). In 2021 the VVD (parliamentary elections). Eight months ago BBB (State elections). Wednesday the PVV (parliamentary elections). Voters as bargain hunters.

So profit as such is no longer an achievement. At most its starting point. Then follows the confrontation with the system, however shaky.

Many of Rutte’s progressive critics overlooked how, unlike his successor, he built a dam against Wilders

The paradox is that Wilders himself now has to be the weakling who gives away his views for the sake of a coalition. It won’t be long before the first firebrand in the House has a go at him – politicians are rarely original.

In addition, every candidate prime minister learns in such a formation that you never have the last word in the board. Command culture doesn’t work there. As Herman Tjeenk Willink once said: anyone who wants to be the boss in national politics should never play the boss.

This result pits two great forces against each other: a tottering system and a winner who must shake his uncompromising identity in order to lead the system.

On Thursday you heard that Wilders is considering the option of leaving the premiership to someone else (Omtzigt?). I think it is a reason for negotiators to be alert. This would be the worst possible outcome: Wilders who, as the leader of the largest party, is de facto in charge, but retains the space in the House to continue his destructive work.