A Dutch dilemma offers a glimpse of a deepening problem for Europe
Just a few months ago, Geert Wilders was anathema to most Dutch political parties.
Mr Wilders has been a disruptive and divisive force within the far right for twenty years. He has said he wants to end immigration from Muslim countries, tax headscarves and ban the Koran. He has called Moroccan immigrants “scum.” His Freedom Party has supported leaving the European Union.
But then Wilders convincingly won the national elections in November. Nearly a quarter of Dutch voters chose his party, which won 37 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives, a huge margin by the standards of a divided party system that relies on consensus and coalition building.
Since then, Mr Wilders has become an unavoidable political force. “He is the greatest,” says Janka Stoker, professor of leadership and organizational change at the University of Groningen, about Mr Wilders. “They just can’t ignore him.”
That dilemma has made the Netherlands a test case for Europe, as the country grapples with the question of what to do with far-right forces that have advanced so far into the mainstream that they can hardly be considered on the fringes anymore.
Italy already has a far-right leader, and the Swedish government is dependent on a party with neo-Nazi roots. The far right currently represents a significant portion of the opposition in France and Germany, raising the question of how much longer it can be avoided.
In the Netherlands, some mainstream parties have responded by holding their noses and marching forward into the negotiating room to find a way to work with Mr Wilders.
Coalition talks to form a new government, which in the past took weeks or months, collapsed in February, not because of anything specific Wilders said or did to further offend the political establishment, but because of the budget figures.
It was a telling everyday obstacle that betrayed the increasing normalization of Mr Wilders and his political acceptance by the other parties.
“His normalization has happened very quickly,” said Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist at the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs.
“Most mainstream media and politicians have treated the coalition negotiations with Wilders as normal,” Mudde said, “which also seems to be the opinion of a majority of Dutch people.”
The parties on the left have categorically said that they still reject Mr Wilders. But the question of how to rule with him is not theirs; it is for parties in the rest of the political spectrum.
Mr Wilders has negotiated with the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, a centre-right party that has governed for the past thirteen years; the Farmer Citizen Movement, a populist pro-farmer party; and New Social Contract, a new centrist party. Together these four parties have 88 seats in the House of Representatives, a comfortable majority.
But the discomfort of Wilders’ negotiating partners is clear, even if they do not express it publicly.
Concerns surrounding Mr Wilders remain so great that early in the talks the four parties around the table took the unusual step of signing a document committing themselves to upholding the Dutch Constitution, something long taken for granted .
The pledge, as well as the need to marshal multi-party support, is expected to limit Mr Wilders’ ability to drastically change the pillars of the Dutch government or push through unconstitutional laws.
The signing of the document also helped Mr Wilders to gain some political distance from his most extreme positions as he tried to find common ground with the other parties, giving the impression that he was moderating his views.
But Mr Wilders’ party is built entirely around him and has a unique structure that gives him the sole authority. The platform still contains numerous unconstitutional proposals, including a ban on mosques and Islamic schools.
Mr Wilders has said he has not changed his views, and he has refused to take back comments that landed him in hot water. This includes his question to supporters in 2014 whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, which resulted in chants such as ‘Less! Fewer!” from the crowd.
“Our view and criticism of Islam have not changed,” Wilders told lawmakers last month.
Given his refusal to deny his most extreme statements, and the fact that he and his party are one and the same, the country and the political establishment are left with the lingering issue facing Mr Wilders.
“The question is: how credible is someone who has not taken the Constitution seriously for 20 years?” says Léonie de Jonge, assistant professor of European politics and society at the University of Groningen. “If you look at his Twitter feed, he is no less radical.”
At the same time, Mr Wilders is a known figure, one of the many contradictions that surround him. He is one of the best-known faces in politics in the Netherlands and is known for his blunt language. He has been a member of the House of Representatives since 1998, making him the longest-serving member.
For most of that time he was a fixture in the opposition. But he achieved his greatest success in the last election by linking his long-standing antipathy to immigration with other issues that Dutch citizens cared about most, such as a shortage of affordable housing.
In an effort to find a way out of the impasse over forming a government – and to avoid everyone’s least favorite option, new elections – politicians have talked about unorthodox arrangements with little or no precedent.
Some have floated the idea of forming a minority coalition, or a cabinet that could include ministers from other, smaller parties. It could also include political outsiders, possibly respected former politicians who could serve to create a greater buffer between the cabinet and parliament. But both political analysts and politicians themselves do not know what that would mean in practice.
But even those options could only reduce Mr Wilders’ role. They could prevent him from becoming Prime Minister, but in almost every conceivable circumstance his party would have to be part of the government. There is almost no escape.
During the round of coalition talks that collapsed last month, Mr Wilders used his opportunity to be the center of political attention to show his best side and present himself as professional and constructive.
“I behaved like the leader of the largest party,” Mr Wilders said during a recent debate in the House of Representatives.
Even traditionally hostile parts of the Dutch news media have described him as reliable and professional, including the left-wing newspaper De Volkskrant, which has long been highly critical of him.
Yet Mr Wilders has remained combative on social media, a favorite platform for his most vitriolic outbursts. His behavior continues to raise questions about his ability to serve as a unifying force, a side of Mr Wilders that Dr Stoker says was not seen or tested during his time in opposition.
For now, the four negotiating parties will have to resume their talks and agree on what kind of coalition structure they can support before attempting to broker a coalition agreement.
Although the chances of a traditional coalition with Mr Wilders at the helm may diminish in a new round of talks, that option remains.
Mr Wilders himself says that he wants to lead the country. When asked in a recent parliamentary debate whether he was still willing to become prime minister, his answer was clear: “I can’t wait.”