The Rise and Fall of Geert Wilders: A Political Analysis

The creation so far has been a complex game of twists and turns, rapprochement and alienation, negotiation and distance. Mistrust reigns. Is that also because Geert Wilders has made wrong choices in the past?

You can win the elections.
Decades of discontent had mounted. The corona crisis, the benefits, the treatment of natural gas damage in Groningen, the nitrogen crisis and the housing shortage: the confidence of many voters in the politics of The Hague had suffered such a blow that they were ready to voice a protest. As a result of the harvest of that vote came 37 seats in the last parliamentary elections, meaning that the PVV is the largest party by far and Wilders had the campaign to create a new cabinet.

Grinding teeth

You can then make several discounts.
Wilders retracted his unconstitutional statements and proposals, which were neatly documented in seven points by whistleblower Kim Putters. Wilders then also said that military aid to Ukraine is not out of the question. And he even made the ultimate sacrifice and abandoned the main place.

You can only be helpful.
Suddenly Wilders turned into a moderate who not only rebelled against the establishment, but was willing to work hard week after week, during long negotiations to reach an agreement with the others. Through gritted teeth, he watched the outgoing cabinet spend billions in the Spring Memorandum, even though the financial framework for the next four years was already tight. There were points – related to migration and agriculture. But he stayed at the table, because that new cabinet on the right side of the center must be created.

And still you don’t get what you want.
What makes it so difficult to create that new cabinet these days? Are these indeed these barriers and the tight financial framework? International agreements that make strict measures to stop migration impossible, especially in the future?

Or is there something else going on – something like a basic mistrust, despite all the concessions and despite that helpful attitude, towards Wilders and his PVV?

No conditions similar to LPF

When Wilders finally broke with the VVD in September 2004 and started his own party, there was one big scene: that of the Lijst Pim Fortuyn, a group full of big egos and querulants, which fell apart in time any and which left the legacy of Fortuyn. lost. You are only as strong as your weakest link, and Wilders also knew the (shall we say) laziness of the media, who would always be able to shove a microphone under the nose of a party member and the – make the most rabid statements. And that’s why Wilders made a tough decision: the PVV, that’s it. No members, no conferences, or ‘LPF-like situation’.

The second option was the pragmatic option. During the first elections in which he participated (autumn 2006), Wilders, a resident of a furnished bank vault, consciously chose the only note on the election leaflet: the anti-Islam note. Since then, the creation of ideas on various topics has almost stopped, not to mention the reputation of a regular story wrapped around a list of ideas.

Risks

The third option was the option for the terrible. If you stand alone (as of September 2004) or form a small group, there is a risk that you will sink unnecessarily. No airtime, no media attention, no voice in the living room, no contact with potential supporters. That’s why you benefit from the disruption. By your choice of words (‘kopvoddentaks’), by violations (‘act normal, man!’), by actions (walking away from a discussion), by a film, by suggestions that are not in accordance with the rule of law, by disobeying -the approval of Parliament as such, from the media, from the judges.

All of these options involve risks. Anyone who leads a one-man party makes themselves vulnerable to the charge that they are not a true democrat. Anyone who comes up with a list of positions at most every election, without any underlying vision, runs the risk of distrust among others thinking that you are infallible, even your -believable.

And anyone who chooses rudeness and a position that specifically moves away from the ‘card’ cannot avoid the risk that no one will want to associate with you anymore and when you hire representation agencies you have to fall back on a small group every time. a group of loyalists from the very beginning, and you don’t have a pool of political talent to recruit new workers.

Unwilling to make the party professional and democratic, or willing to frame the populist voice in a consistent story, unable to recruit convincing workers – these are the options that ultimately work against Wilders , despite those concessions and that professional opinion during the negotiations? Because at the end of the day the interlocutors – at least from NSC and VVD – do not have confidence in it, whether they sincerely mean it or pull their hair as an argument?

‘inappropriate’

The last encounter between Wilders and the rest was telling. Secretary of State Eric van der Burg allowed himself to say that it is a good thing that there will be no Wilders-1 cabinet. To which Wilders responded to X as if he had been bitten by a handkerchief with the comment: ‘A great choice that there will be no Wilders Cabinet 1? That Van der Burg is a scary guy, it’s time to move on quickly.’

It is an answer that his supporters expect from him, but which makes his interlocutors distance themselves. “Irrelevant,” said Omtzigt and Yesilgöz. And so the twist and turn continues, between rapprochement and alienation, negotiation and distance, without any hope of a way out of the situation.

Bart Jan Spruyt he is a historian and a journalist. His columns on politics and society appear every Saturday in Wynia’s Week.

Wynia Week always appearing, twice a week. It is the donors who make that possible. Not a donor yet? Look HERE. Thank you!