With a reputation often compared to that of Donald Trump, the man known as the ‘Dutch Trump’ has faced numerous death threats from Islamic extremists, has been convicted for insulting Moroccans, and has even faced a ban from entering the United Kingdom. These experiences highlight the controversial nature of his persona, making him a figure of both admiration and criticism.
He’s Geert Wilders and is a force to be reckoned with in the Netherlands and possibly Europe.
In a surprising turn of events last month, Wilders achieved a resounding victory in the recent Dutch election. Not only is he now in a prime position to form the next ruling coalition, but he also stands as a strong contender for the role of Netherlands’ next prime minister.
Even at 60 years old, this political veteran was taken aback by the overwhelming support revealed by the exit poll.
The recent surprising electoral success of the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands has raised concerns about the mainstreaming of far-right politics in the country and the potential for a wider shift to the far-right in other European countries. Geert Wilders, the leader of the PVV, secured a significant number of seats in the Dutch parliament, and his anti-immigration and anti-Islam agenda gained traction.
One factor contributing to the PVV’s success is the normalization of far-right politics across Europe, driven by concerns over immigration and its societal impacts.
This trend has been observed in other countries, such as Italy, Sweden, and France, where far-right or right-wing populist parties have gained prominence.
However, the behavior of mainstream parties in the Netherlands played a crucial role in the PVV’s electoral gains. The center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) failed to effectively counter the threat posed by the far-right and, in some instances, appeared to co-opt Wilders’ views on immigration. This approach inadvertently legitimized the PVV’s anti-immigration agenda and encouraged voters to support the far-right party.
Additionally, the VVD’s signaling during the campaign that they might be open to working with the PVV in a coalition government further bolstered the PVV’s credibility as a legitimate political prospect. This led many potential supporters to cast their votes for the PVV, as they believed it had a realistic chance of entering government.
Geert Wilders also adjusted his rhetoric during the campaign to present himself as a potential governing figure. While he moderated some of his extreme positions, there was no indication that he had abandoned those beliefs.
The strong support for the PVV does not necessarily indicate that the Dutch voting public has become significantly more anti-immigrant or shares all of Wilders’ extreme views on Islam.
However, there has long been a substantial group of voters concerned about immigration and related issues who feel that traditional parties have not adequately addressed their concerns.
The outcome of complex coalition negotiations will determine whether Geert Wilders gets the opportunity to implement his policies. However, the mainstream parties’ attempts to blunt the PVV’s threat by adopting similar positions backfired and only served to legitimize the far-right agenda.
“We are a country of consensus-building. We don’t even have that many far-right people in our country; we never will,” he told the BBC. “Indigenous people are being ignored because of the mass immigration… they feel mistreated.”
“The Netherlands can’t take it anymore,” he said. “We have to think about our own people first now. Borders closed. Zero asylum-seekers.”
The Dutch experience offers a potential lesson to other countries: attempting to copy far-right positions as a strategy to counter them can be risky and may inadvertently help such parties grow further.
Please share your thoughts below on the controversial Geert Wilders.
