After months of false starts, dramatic twists, and the most unusual government formation process in memory, the Netherlands has produced a “Netherlands First” right-wing government. This coalition consists of four parties: the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), known for its anti-Muslim stance; the centre-right Liberal Party (VVD), which has led the country for the past 13 years; and two new right-wing parties, the New Social Contract (NSC) and the smaller Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB). Frankly, this is the most bizarre coalition government anyone here can remember. An internal policy analysis by the Ministry of Home Affairs warns that some of the proposals are at odds with the constitution and international treaties.
This new “PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB” coalition is not only an embarrassment but also a warning. Politicians like Dilan Yeşilgöz, the leader of the VVD, have normalized the abnormal by not excluding the nationalist and xenophobic PVV from government participation. By doing so, Yeşilgöz dismantled the “cordon sanitaire” around the PVV, a party exhibiting characteristics of fascism. This led to the PVV achieving 24% of the vote in the 2023 election, compared to the usual 12-15% when the cordon sanitaire was in place.
On a European level, there is a strengthening far-right wind, driven by member states disregarding judicial independence, press freedom, cultural diversity, and academic autonomy. The commitment of the current president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to the legal values and standards on which the EU was built seems secondary to her focus on EU enlargement and preventing the extreme right from coming to power.
By entering into a coalition with the PVV, the VVD is contributing to the growing influence of extreme right forces in Europe and distancing itself from the values of the Liberal Renew Europe group. Cooperation with far-right forces is rightly unacceptable to Renew Europe and weakens and erodes the collective commitment to democratic principles and human rights.
By entering into a coalition with the PVV, the VVD is contributing to the growing influence of extreme right forces in Europe and distancing itself from the values of the Liberal Renew Europe group. Cooperation with far-right forces is rightly unacceptable to Renew Europe and weakens the collective commitment to democratic principles and human rights. To place the normalization of Wilders by Yeşilgöz and the VVD in a historical perspective, even during the 1930s, the darkest period in European history, the Netherlands never offered the NSB (National Socialist Movement) government participation, underscoring the importance of safeguarding democratic institutions.
Despite the relief that Geert Wilders did not become Prime Minister, his presence in government is troubling, even dangerous. Wilders, known for his extreme right demagoguery, anti-Islam, anti-EU, and anti-court rhetoric, poses a threat to our liberal society. Recently, he has tried to present a more moderate image, claiming to respect the rule of law, the constitution, and international treaties. He accepts that Islam is a religion, not a “totalitarian ideology,” and agrees to back Ukraine in its war.
However, his 20-year history of anti-European policies, marked by hatred, discrimination, and exclusion, is well-known. Wilders’ nationalistic platform has included calls for a Nexit, a return to the Dutch guilder, banning the Quran and closing Dutch mosques, cutting climate spending, halting foreign aid, abolishing public broadcasting, and reinstating border control. Yet, the Nexit utopia is unrealistic. In an increasingly connected world, such nationalism is a fool’s errand, sacrificing future prospects. Just as unrealistic is the cutting of climate spending for the Netherlands, a country below sea level in a climate crisis.
The populist Wilders has shown disdain for institutions and the independence of the courts while decrying human rights. His opposition to the European Union is part of his vision to “reclaim the Netherlands,” which involves glorifying the past and framing immigration as a crisis affecting national identity, with truth as the biggest casualty. His political allies in Europe, like Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, and Giorgia Meloni, known for seeking control over public broadcasting, celebrate his rise, but many others do not share their enthusiasm for his nationalist views and his intent to weaken the EU from within.
In his bid for power, Wilders has toned down his extreme views and usual rhetoric, like the infamous “fewer Moroccans” remark, more fitting for a 1930s Munich beer hall. He is now presenting himself as “Geert Milders” during coalition negotiations, pledging to be a responsible partner in a coalition government and pausing his anti-Islam rhetoric. However, this moderation is like putting lipstick on a pig, likely superficial and temporary, as his core beliefs remain unchanged.
Having arrived in the corridors of power, Wilders is biding his time until he has “real” power to realize his most controversial demands, such as banning the Quran and mosques, which violates the constitution. Another demagogue in the 1930s, who also promoted “Das Gesundes Volksempfinden” and followed “The will of the people” rhetoric, said when prioritizing his vision over democratic norms, with devastating consequences, “The constitution only maps out the arena of battle, not the goal. Once we possess constitutional power, we will mold the state into the shape we hold to be suitable.”
To lead this extra-parliamentary government, 67-year-old technocrat Dick Schoof, former head of the AIVD Domestic Intelligence and Security Service, has been nominated as Prime Minister. Schoof has also served as the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) and was the director of the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND). He is currently the top civil servant at the Ministry of Security and Justice. Throughout his long and respected career, Schoof has shown himself to be a capable administrator, yet his willingness to push the boundaries of the law has raised concerns among civil rights groups about the balance between repression, legal protection, and discrimination.
The coalition’s agreement, titled “Hope, Courage, and Pride,” outlines the new government’s policy directions and signals a shift in Dutch politics. It promises different climate policies, including increasing the speed limit on public highways to 130 km per hour, and more support for businesses and middle-income earners. However, the agreement is inconsistent and vague on strategy, with ambitious but unrealistic cutbacks, such as a 22% reduction in civil servants and stringent asylum reception policies.
An internal policy analysis by the Ministry of Home Affairs indicates that many measures in the coalition agreement are legally vulnerable, difficult to implement, or lack budget. For example, reading mobile phones of asylum seekers is a “curtailment of fundamental rights,” public broadcasting reform “affects freedom of expression,” and toughening up on notorious rioters at demonstrations “will be difficult […] without eroding the right to demonstrate.” The analysis also questions the agricultural paragraph and concludes overall, “The social costs and benefits do not seem to be balanced.”
ING economists are uncertain about the coalition agreement’s impact on the Dutch economy. While noting a clear change in economic policy direction, they see uncertain outcomes for growth. The significant cuts to EU contributions, asylum seeker numbers, and the civil service are deemed unrealistic. These cuts might necessitate ad hoc reductions later, potentially exacerbating economic downturns and causing political tensions and policy uncertainty.
This government signals more challenging relations with the EU, as its domestic ambitions conflict with European law. It plans more restrictive immigration regulations, an opt-out from the EU’s asylum rules, reduced financial contributions to Brussels, and renegotiated commitments on nitrogen emissions. This stance will likely delay European decision-making, aligning with far-right goals to undermine the EU and the rule of law.
In conclusion, the longevity of this hard-right coalition government, under the direction of the nominated Prime Minister Dick Schoof, who has the challenging task of navigating the coalition’s ambitious goals, is questionable. Despite Schoof’s assurances for a shared future and being a prime minister for all, I diverge from this illusion. To protect democracy from within, there can be no compromise with extreme right-wing ideologies. By legitimizing Wilders’ harmful views, which undermine the very foundations of democracy, we risk sliding into darkness—where authoritarianism, discrimination, and oppression thrive.
Contrary to Wilders’ assertion that “The sun is going to shine again in the Netherlands,” the collapse of this hard-right coalition government cannot come soon enough, for the sake of democracy, the Netherlands, and the European Union.
Postscript:
Lower House Speaker Martin Bosma, who has been working for the Group Wilders since 2004 and later for the PVV, has recently clashed with MPs over the use of the term “extreme right.” Bosma believes that parties or members should not be called that because, according to him, it is equivalent to a “Nazi comparison.” D66 MP Paternotte pointed out to Chairman Bosma that he himself has used the term “extreme left” frequently and has compared the extreme left to Nazism. This highlights the lack of independence of the chair.
From a broader perspective, the terms “far-right” and “extreme-right” can sometimes be used interchangeably, but they do carry slightly different connotations. “Far-right” is a more general term encompassing a wide range of right-wing ideologies typically characterized by nationalism, anti-immigration stances, and conservative social policies. “Extreme-right,” on the other hand, often implies a more radical, militant approach and is sometimes associated with authoritarianism and overt xenophobia.
Given that Geert Wilders and the PVV are known for their strong anti-immigration rhetoric, criticism of Islam, attacks on the elite, judiciary, media, and nationalist policies, the term “extreme-right” is more appropriate to underscore the severity and radical nature of their positions. The use of the term “extreme right” emphasizes the potential threat they pose to liberal democratic values and aligns with the tone of this diatribe, conveying the nature of the political shift and the associated risks.
WJJH – 1.6.2024
Diatribe: The Netherlands has formed a “Netherlands First” right-wing government comprising the PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB parties, unusual and worrying due to the PVV’s extreme-right stance. Geert Wilders’ presence is troubling as he has advocated for Nexit and anti-European policies. The coalition’s policies may impact the economy negatively and strain relations with the EU.
In what kind of world do we wish to live 