The Inevitable Collapse Of Dutch Cabinet Ahead Of Key NATO Summit

Geert Wilders, Nickname Dutch Trump, Pressed Mustache

Prime minister with shadow prime minister— that worked out badly

-by Toon Janssen

Amsterdam DWT correspondent 

Note: The political system of The Netherlands differs greatly from that of US. Both countries have House and Senate but are represented through elections other ways. In The Netherlands social groups may have their own parties, and an electoral threshold determines whether they can participate in the Parliament. November 2023 voting counted 1,126 candidates, divided over no fewer than 26 parties. Therefore, gaining an absolute majority is virtually wishful thinking. During government formation, this leads to coordinating agendas. 

What could be expected to happen indeed came along: once more Dutch government resigned, as it has been outgoing - over five recent years - almost half the time. The coalition experiment with Geert Wilders’ right-radical PVV had failed. The laboriously constructed Schoof Government fell after only about 100 days: ‘Schover’— Schoof is over— the Dutch say. On June 3 Wilders himself pulled the plug. Because of haggling about asylum— spearhead of his program— to which his one-man ’party’ owed its unexpected victory: 37 out of 150 seats House. Policy would not be strict enough, and all Dutch borders had to be closed immediately for asylum seekers. Because otherwise…

At start the cabinet was focused— next to asylum— on tackling the major problems Dutch society faces. Main issues were housing, social security, nitrogen, safety and migration. Four coalition parties then agreed on the main points, reflected in an extremely shaky ‘Hoofdlijnenakkoord’— outline agreement. After more than 7 months, they finally managed to cobble together—according to a proud Wilders— “the most right-wing government ever.” Under leadership of a non-partisan, barely known and politically inexperienced ex-civil servant: Dick Schoof.

But during the ride, it turned out neither the premier nor his cabinet was in charge: House faction leaders called the shots. If any one of them would rebel, the coalition was threatened. However, there was constant unrest, mainly driven by PVV House parliamentarians. The signed ‘Hoofdlijnenakkoord’ turned out to be poorly thought-out and financially underfunded: a noose around ‘shadow prime minister’ Wilders’ neck. He had promised his voters much, but achieved next to nothing. As this became increasingly clear, he decided to draw his favorite asylum card once more: ten new demands. To be signed by the three partners: “Tomorrow, at the cross!” In particular the demand that closed borders for new “fortune seekers” is what turned out to be the final blow. 

Note: In The Netherlands— and the rest of Europe— the political term ‘liberal’ refers to someone who prioritizes individual liberties and limited government, encompassing some aspects of American conservative thinking.

                                                                                                                    The Electoral Council set new elections for next October 27. Until then, the remaining ministers of VVD (conservative ’liberal’ people’s party, 24 seats), NSC (semi-conservative Constitution loyalists, 20) and BBB (populist conservative farmer-citizen movement, 7) will try to push the battered government program through parliament. Without Wilders, who sentenced himself and his docile disciples— characterized by opposition as “Gru and his minions”— to just House benches. Your DWT Amsterdam correspondent— dear readers of this post— wonders what drove him and how he expected to gain from it. Your correspondent also wants to report on the impact of all this turmoil on Dutch society.

It must be stated that the Schoof Cabinet was formed under Wilders’ protest. As prime minister of right-wing The Netherlands, he would have loved to fulfill his main voter’s promises: less asylum and migration, with Dutchmen— Henk and Ingrid— number one. “But I could only become premier if the coalition supported”— as posted on Twitter— “And that was not to be. With me in charge the cabinet would never have fallen. NSC Constitution fetishist Pieter Omtzigt has that on his conscience. But, the love for my fatherland and voters is greater than my own position.” 

Frustration was high. He not only wanted the premiership, he also claimed the “fullest” right to it. However, his chagrin was feigned and just for show. First, because no rights can be derived from the election victory— in Dutch parliamentarian history more often winners did not become premier— and secondly, based on his provocative behavior over many years.

Let me give you some examples of the latter: by constantly causing unrest through vicious and xenophobic Twitter behavior; by dismissing population groups as cause of national problems; by frustrating parliamentary debate; by pinning down NSC-captain Omtzigt as “budgetary comma fucker” and “catholic creep not to be trusted”; by undermining institutions basic to constitutional democracy: “fake judges and parliament”; and by spitting on Brussels policy. You read that right, dear readers: these are quite a few. But still I don’t want to withhold from you two other examples of chronic obstructiveness.  

His trip to Hungary was most provocative, right in the middle of the government formation. At the ultra-conservative CPAC-congress his “good old friend” Victor Orban rolled out the red carpet. There, he was, guest of honor among related ‘woke busters’, enabling pro-Russian, anti-EU and corrupt Orban to show the world he does not stand alone: “Wilders joined us, the real Dutch ‘head of state’, the winner!”

His 2024 December trip to Israel— at the nvitation of the Likud— was no less impressively problematic. There he visited West Bank settlers, hugged Netanyahu in Jerusalem— “My friend needs support, the world has gone mad by denying”— and addressed Knesset.

Both visits caused irritation in ‘his’ cabinet. Dick Schoof could not handle it and Minister of Foreign Affairs Veldkamp (VVD) put on a diplomatic spin: “The visits are at odds with government’s program, but members of parliament are free to visit foreign countries. They do that more often than not, in their own name.”  

In short, all these examples clarify Wilders himself anticipated ‘Schover.’ Already, many Dutchmen wondered whether this coalition should ever have been. Right from its start it was obvious who was pulling the strings. Most  Dutchmen knew exactly who they were dealing with. Before in 2012, he had already withdrawn from a ‘tolerated’ Mark Rutte-I coalition, also on a fuss surrounding asylum. After, he continuously made his marks: from House benches— armed with Twitter and unbound— could easily be shot. At government, including ‘his’ PVV ministers and state secretaries who were stuck to ‘Hoofdlijnenakkoord’; at left-wing GroenLinks-PvdA: “These vandals are completely lost and caused all the mess in this country promoting open borders”; and at journalists and commentators: “Scum!” Sound like Trump and the GOP much?

History books will be brief about ‘Sch…ilders’ Cabinet performance. So much was promised: strictest asylum policy ever! And— just to mention some— lower taxes, better but lower health care deductibility, rent freeze and free childcare. But then— of course— the question arises as to what has become of all these plans. Although you may probably guess the answer already, your correspondent has globally unraveled them below.                                                                                                                                                               In case The Netherlands might not suffer from an asylum crisis— which was statistically shown not to exist— then at least— as the Schoof Cabinet promoted— it was “experienced” that way.  And so the entire system had to be overhauled, to curb asylum and influx: “with urgency!” Last year, the four partners had enthusiastically written this wish down in main lines. ‘Spreidingswet’ for instance— regulating a more simultaneous distribution across Dutch municipalities— would be withdrawn. 

Wilders and associates figured a ‘Noodwet’— emergency law— was inevitable: “They come and fly on our syrup! We signed up for the strictest policy ever, but now other European countries outdo us.” Emergency legislation would give the possibility to take decisions immediately— it was reasoned— sidelining time consuming House procedures as well as Senate approval. But it didn’t come through. PVV Asylum and Migration Minister Marjolein Faber— known for her one-liners and considered by the opposition as an “incompetent spreader of fake news who makes symbol politics a job”— couldn’t argue with necessity. She had to submit her plans in regular bills and could also forget about the much desired opt-out on EU rules.

Her ‘Tweestatusvoorstel’— proposal for two different status systems— regulates a division of refugees. Flight reasons are then examined: religion, political belief and sexual orientation would go for an A-status, flee from war for B— “since wars do end”— with lesser rights, for example on family reunification. Other Faber proposals regulate shortening of residence permits to a 3 year max and restriction of onward migration for adult children and single partners.

Faber’s bills were heavily criticized as unworkable and poorly substantiated— in content and moneywise. Council of States— highest advisory body to government— was negative and Senate— where the coalition is in the minority—would definitely opt out. Still, the minister refused to make changes to the texts and feigned to be surprised by all House commotion: “I was even presented with more than 700 questions!”

In summary— now taking stock of asylum— there are only minor successes to report. Border controls were introduced indeed, but proved to be practically feasible. Influx decreased slightly— quickly claimed as “Faber-effect”— but was due to Syria's Assad-regime’s collapse: not policy. Instead— what definitely can be reported about - is the turmoil created by incessant bickering and symbol drumming. Many Dutchmen got tired of that.  

And now— with the Schoof Caretaker Cabinet in charge— much needed legislation is frustrated: no controversial decisions may be taken. It has yet to be decided what these can or cannot be. ‘Spreidingswet’ for example, is still running. The caretaker Cabinet will probably soon discuss Faber’s proposals in parliament. These will then definitely be polished up in line with rule of law, and prepared for Senate success. For that not Faber but her successor will then take credit. Not surprisingly her vacant position is badly wanted by all three leftover partners, eager to show right-wing Netherlands they can outdo PVV. The dispute about this was recently contained diplomatically: three asylum ministers, one for each. 

Resolving housing market problems was also high on the Schoof Cabinet’s wish list. Unaffordable private home prices, too few social housing units, sky-high rents and waiting lists too long, created serious tensions all over society. This year there is shortage of over 400,000 homes. Of course, 11 months of the Schoof Cabinet turned out little else. Grand plans were made, with no fewer than 15 new locations for large residential areas to be developed, but no extra money came through. The promised rent freeze also disappeared into mist, including associated rent allowances. All hands on deck: due to housing the country was in danger of stagnation. 

Since housing and sustainable living are intensely linked, huge nitrogen and manure problems— caused by intensive agriculture and livestock farming— are plaguing Dutch limited and fragile environment. All kinds of projects— not limited to just housing alone— were frustrated by lawsuits of environmental organizations and EU ruling. Even Dutch state— accused of turning blind eyes— was whistled back by judges. In short, the country was threatened by a serious lockdown. Ironically— as stated in ‘Hoofdlijnenakkoord’— agriculture and fisheries were promised a good future: “No more nitrogen causing farmers and fishermen pain.” However— with farmer-citizens BBB at the helm— that goal also failed. Besides Minister of Agriculture Wiersma, also Minister of Housing and Spatial Planning Mona Keizer— both BBB and taking care with Schoof— suffer from this: “A nitrogen lock can’t be, we must keep going!”  

Now— in overall view— there was little legislation since Schoof showed up. As written above, of all firm promises— with inflation raging— too little remained. But is there nothing positive to report at all?— might then be wondered. Well, tax on labor was slightly reduced but, annulled by VAT increases causing huge protests. Subsequently, sports and culture were— temporarily— spared, at general budget expense. Also— effective next January 1st— welfare recipients might have some relieve, once the Senate agrees. But health care deductibility reduction and free child care? A thick layer of fog obscures visibility. Experts noticed: “No funding. The plans were just balloons.” 

Back now once more to Wilders and his motives. Over-promising and a too tight agreement-corset crippled him and made no gains. Best response may then be a flight forward, for attack and chaos: ‘Schover’. Under such circumstances a common public response to populist, autocratic politicians— exceeding standards— then often is: moral outrage. However understandable— dearest reader—moral judgements are no good for effective ‘noise control’. They only make the autocrat— to your correspondent’s opinion— grow. More interesting might then be questioning the attraction of politicians who systematically obstruct democracy: how did it come and what to do in turn?

The attraction of inappropriate politicians fits the ‘romantic’ image of a strong leader. Those who break norms radiate dominance and power, decisiveness and leadership. That aura is especially attractive in times of conflict, scarcity and threat. People then may think to benefit from a leader who withstands. Constantly pointing out dangers— immigrants, left-wing elites, EU and Brussels policy, press or science— makes the autocrat’s aura grow. It therefore does not help to counter on immorality. Instead—what may help— is debunking the idea immorality solves society’s problems. And, come back to it continuously. Cost-benefit analysis can then be useful: calculations that undermine unfounded promises. Bumbling ministers often offer opposition great service: examples of bad governance are everywhere. Also— in many cases— stage politics and faking can easily be refuted. Think of cuts in education while quality decreases; of failure tackling nitrogen while farmers lack perspective; of less allowances and rent freeze while cutting; of undermining science as just an opinion; or frustrating health care waiting lists by cuts. 

Since PVV’s founding in 2005— after splitting from VVD— Geert Wilders’ close associates never officially became members. This is still the case. Related to this, experts figure— concerning Wilders’ psyche— something striking: an ingrained distrust for cooperation. Historian Geerten Waling— in a 2023 biography— typified Wilders as a “quite alert, paranoid and bossy control freak, who constantly thinks people try to trick.” PVV parliamentarians suffered from fear to talk to the press— as became apparent from conversations Nieuwsuur— current affairs program— revealed. “If Geert discovers we talk to you or sees us shaking hands, our names will be passed around,” was confessed. 

Precisely that element of distrust— according to Waling— made him also unsuitable as a coalition partner and explains why he pulled the plug: “He was afraid to no longer have his people in the Schoof Cabinet under his thumb. For example, ministers like Agema (Public Health and Sports) or Madlener (Infrastructure and Water Management) took on a prominent role that they visibly enjoyed. That stung Wilders and was a last straw.” 

Waling’s viewpoint is supported by a Nieuwsuur respondent: “He is a great campaigner, good at one-liners with cracking texts, and verbally superior to everyone, we all know that. But he distrusts people and is suspicious. It’s shocking coalition partners apparently didn’t realize this when starting collaboration. PVV’s unexpected 37 seat growth spurt made him even more difficult to work with.” “He was fine when PVV faction was small, but once new and inexperienced people were appointed, his character traits came to fore,” the interviewee added.   

Above mentioned biographer Waling estimates Wilders might bet on two horses in next elections campaigns: “Either he goes for opposition— with all chickens back in coop and freed from this dual role in which he loses control— or he will grow so big to no longer be ignored as prime ministerial candidate. I guess he secretly dreams about the latter. But then he must get above majority seats. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.” 

Note: Waling’s scenario should be viewed in perspective. While PVV was still in coalition the number of seats fell significantly in polls. Immediately after resignation however— to Wilders’ great pleasure—a five percent growth was noticed.

Wilders— in a press conference— needed only 8 minutes to communicate ‘Schover’. He then overwhelmed the other party leaders, who responded in shock: “reckless!,” “runaway!” and “traitor!” 

But ‘his’ own ministers were also surprised: “We didn’t know anything, until now.” Ready then, end of story, ‘Scho…over’— one might think. However, the government became caretaker.

Schoof found ‘Schover’ “unnecessary and irresponsible.” As far as he was concerned, The Netherlands could not afford a standstill at all: “No way!” Loyal ministers would certainly help battling migration, asylum or new NATO standards: “They are expected to take over tasks of no less than three departed PVV ministers, definitely no easy job.” He estimated parliament would provide his leftover cabinet enough space for decision making— by shopping around with House opposition. On Wilders neither Dutch premier Schoof, nor VVD, BBB or NSC no longer count: “He was constantly hitting brakes: too unpredictable!” Several members of parliament already stated they would be happy to discuss individual cabinet proposals until October: “After all, the country must be governed.” Recently new NATO demands were effortlessly completed, with broad support for upgraded Defense spending: five percent of GDP. 

Strikingly, Dick Schoof appears to be relieved. Freed from Wilders’ yoke he no longer has to tolerate his shadow premier behavior. His predecessor Mark Rutte— who governed Holland in four different coalitions and nowadays serves as NATO Secretary General— sometimes joked enjoying cabinet care taking: “I couldn’t be fired then after all.” Schoof will certainly stick to these words. 

Meanwhile, Dilan Yesilgoz— VVD leader after her predecessor’s NATO departure— is busy painting herself into a cramped corner. Not even so long ago there existed a VVD party that strongly opposed PVV cooperation. Mark Rutte once shook it right out of his sleeve: “Wilders has become increasingly hardened in his rejection of core liberal values and systematically undermines rule of law.” In those days Rutte was continuously walking on tip toes to avoid offending voters on the right wing. Instead— as times have changed— Dilan Yesilgoz had no trouble pleasing Wilders.

Yesilgoz enjoys a proven unreliable reputation. Her lying about follow-up migration— which would be huge but was statistically insignificant— caused the last Rutte Government’s fall. She didn’t learn from that though. The moment of taking office— copying Wilders’ asylum program— PPV blockade was over. Once the genie had left the bottle, the way for cobbling together Schoof Government was paved. Even recently— right after ‘Schover’— in a letter to VVD party members— her main concerns against Wilders were practical— “That man is impossible to work with”— and not on content: “After the October elections we do not exclude any party from governing.” Electoral strategy was obvious: “Vote for us if you’re desperate for PVV policy to be implemented.” 

Concerning the latter— dearest readers— your DWT Amsterdam correspondent wonders about how this may end. One day other parties might reject VVD ruling as well, lacking proper rescore values. It is a telling sign Yesilgoz recently took a sharp ideological stand against GroenLinks-PvdA. She then accused headman Frans Timmermans to cheer when companies threatened to leave The Netherlands for tax reasons. He would also deny migration and integration problems, while demanding ordinary hard working people to adapt to radical left wing elites. Hamas violence was also said by her to suit his ideological agenda.

Of course, all this is a grotesque caricature of reality. Throwing and tossing is standard while competing for voter’s favor. Dutch political history since 1970s however, shows there have been multiple successful coalitions between left and right: seven— as far as your correspondent’s statistics go. Soon, Yesilgoz will have to make clear how she actually imagines the next government. With Wilders banned and Timmermans even worse. 

Note: Yesilgoz’ fear of a left-wing bloc is not unrealistic. On June 12 recently, GroenLinks-PvdA announced the will merge next year. Despite the fact the new party will not run in the October elections, they will share a joint program and electoral list. As they did in 2023, conquering 25 seats, with a gain of 8.