In November 2023, the Dutch political scene survived a tectonic shift. The Freedom organization (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, had a spectacular triumph in the parliamentary elections. The 37 seats in the 150-member Tweede Kamer (The home of Representatives) made PVV the largest organization in the country—the first time in the past of the group that remained on the margins for years, despite the advanced polling rates.
However, the triumph of PVV did not mean automatic power. In the Dutch political system, based on a proportional representation, no organization wins an independent majority. Coalitions are essential, and Wilders has remained a political pariah for years – his extremist views on Islam, migration and the European Union deterred possible partners.
The situation changed in 2024 when, after months of negotiations, a ruling coalition was established. Alongside PVV, the government included a liberal VVD (now ruling organization of Prime Minister Mark Rutte), a centre fresh Social Agreement (NSC) and an agrarno-populist BBB party. The cabinet was headed by Dick Schoof, an unpartisan technocrat, erstwhile head of intelligence services and minister of justice.
The fresh government has declared its strong position on migration since the beginning – a subject that dominated the public debate in fresh years, especially in the context of the increasing number of asylum applications and overloaded exile centres.
Wilders puts it on a knife blade
But this week, Geert Wilders took a political maneuver that could lead to the collapse of the government. The PVV leader presented a 10-point plan to drastically tighten migration policy. The most controversial elements for the coalition include:
- complete cessation of admission of fresh asylum applications,
- closure of borders for Muslim migrants,
- deport Syrian refugees previously granted temporary protection status,
- suspension of household reunification for asylum seekers,
- relocation of asylum centres outside the Netherlands.
Wilders placed an ultimatum: if the coalition does not accept his demands, PVV will retreat from the government, which in practice means his collapse.
Coalition reactions
Other coalition parties reacted with a mix of surprise, opposition and caution. The VVD, although besides in favour of limiting migration, considered Wilders' proposals to be "contrary to the Constitution" and the Netherlands' global obligations. The NSC pointed out the request to preserve ‘humanitarianism and legalism’ in migration policy. BBB, although initially inclined to compromise, began to distance herself from the most extremist demands.
Prime Minister Dick Schoof himself called for "peace and dialogue", but did not regulation out that Wilders' ultimatum could end the functioning of the current coalition. There was speculation in Dutch media about preparations for possible early elections.
Surveys and public opinion: support is melting
During the months after the election, PVV maintained dominance in the polls. However, in the spring of this year, there were first signs of falling support. In a fresh public opinion survey by the agency Maurice de Hond, PVV lost its lead to the left-wing GroenLinks-PvdA coalition, led by Frans Timmermans. The expected number of mandates for PVV dropped from 37 to 29 while GroenLinks-PvdA could number on 31 seats.
The change in trend may consequence from the increasing fatigue of Wilders' confrontational society, as well as concerns about government destabilisation and possible global isolation of the Netherlands. JAt the same time, support for the NSC, seen as average centre strength, and the D66 party, which has long opposed all forms of nationalistic rhetoric.
Migration as a political battlefield
The subject of migration remains the central point of the dispute. Wilders has been building its political capital on anti-immigration and anti-Islamic rhetoric for years. Its message is simple: The Netherlands must "regain control of its own borders", and Islam is simply a "risk to European identity".
For many voters, especially outside large cities, this message hits a point. The rising cost of living, the deficiency of social housing, overburdened schools and hospitals – all of this is attributed to “uncontrolled migration”. On the another hand, social organisations, experts and leftist parties indicate that reality is more complex. Asylum is only part of the overall migration, and many migrants – especially from Ukraine, India or Sub-Saharan Africa – come to the Netherlands legally, as IT, care and agriculture workers.
The scripts for the coming weeks stay open. Wilders can put everything on 1 card and lead to the collapse of the cabinet. However, specified a decision would entail a hazard – if the next election worsens the PVV result, it could lose real impact on power. Alternatively, the coalition can scope a compromise: accept any of the PVV demands in exchange for abandoning the most utmost demands.
An interesting option is besides Wilders' effort to "turn around" by another coalitions – e.g. to make a number government with the support of centre and leftist parties. However, this arrangement would be fragile and hard to keep in the long term.
The public debate is clearly divided. any citizens request tough action and support Wilders' vision. Others inform against "entering Hungary or Poland", where populist governments have restricted media freedom, justice and number rights.
More and more voices besides call for the restoration of social confidence, dialog and the de-escalation of conflict. In public opinion polls, the Dutch show that they most value the ability of politicians to compromise, competence and work – not just loud declarations and militant rhetoric.
