It happened on Wednesday afternoon, the first day of the House of Representatives debate on the government statement. Geert Wilders, whose PVV still has nineteen seats after a split, spoke in his contribution about the plan of the Jetten minority cabinet (D66, VVD, CDA) to raise the state pension age. It seemed to sound to MPs like the Wilders of 2016, or 2018, or 2022.
Since the short-lived government of the PVV ended last summer, hardly anyone really pays attention anymore when Wilders speaks. There are virtually no interruptions anymore. When Wilders talked about “this madness”, “working to the edge of the grave” and “that idiotic proposal”, it seemed to pass by silently.
Then Gidi Markuszower stood up. He did have questions for Wilders. For years he was a loyal member of the PVV faction, but recently he left the party with six group members and formed the Markuszower Group. Wilders could still avert “the disaster”, he said, and help “soften” the state pension plans.
Wilders only had to support a deal that Markuszower and SGP leader Chris Stoffer had worked out with the coalition parties over the past three weeks. There would be a motion to map out the consequences of cuts to social security for vulnerable groups. The coalition would help that motion gain a majority. Why didn’t Wilders participate in that, Markuszower asked.
Vicious debate
A vicious debate arose between the former allies, which was about many things at the same time. About the AOW. About a broken relationship in politics. And, especially, about the question of how radical right-wing populism should relate to this cabinet. Wilders did not want to give in an inch, he said. He was not going to take part in “a lame duck.” “You can kneel down in front of this cabinet every time, but people will look at you angrily for that, not at us.”
On Friday, Markuszower said about this moment: “I am not an interruption king. Geert is.” But, he says, his plan succeeded. “There is no substantive difference. We were elected on the PVV’s election manifesto and we want to honor that. Only our approach is different. I want to achieve results, that is also part of politics.”
The right of the VVD is teeming with seats, and has been for years: almost a third of all MPs can be found with the PVV, JA21, Groep Markuszower, FVD, BBB and, since this week, the Keijzer Group of BBB split-off Mona Keijzer. The far right, as shown in the 2021 National Voter Survey, has become a fully-fledged third political movement, in addition to the center-left and center-right. According to political scientists, BBB has also established itself in this movement in the last few years.
The experiment with the Schoof cabinet showed that governing is not going well for the far right wing. But now that the Jetten minority cabinet has taken office and the far right is in the opposition, there are new opportunities. The cabinet does not rely on a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives and must seek support from other parties for every budget, every bill, every plan.
This week, Gidi Markuszower proved to be an attractive party for the coalition parties to do business with. The motion received a majority. This did not mean that Markuszower, with whom the coalition concluded the deal, adjusted his message. In his contribution he talked about “status holders who started assaulting and raping students”, “left-wing will-o’-the-wisps” and Dutch people who are “seriously confused”. “They often no longer even know the biological difference between man and woman and find concepts such as ‘God’, ‘fatherland’ and ‘family’ primitive or even wrong.” He received no interruptions.
Despite these opportunities for the majority-seeking coalition, it remains a particularly unstable flank. This week, Mona Keijzer left the BBB faction after a conflict that had been building up for a long time. Under the influence of Keijzer, the party had increasingly adopted far-right themes. For example, BBB had campaigned with an anti-Islam note. Party leader Caroline van der Plas and her successor Henk Vermeer wanted to move BBB back to the agricultural populism of the past.
Voters quickly leave far-right parties, but remain loyal to the current
It is a pattern that has been visible since the entry of the LPF into the House of Representatives (in 2002). Populist parties are emerging quickly, often under the influence of an appealing leader. But they don’t hold seats, fall apart or lose voter interest. Many MPs on the far right flank have a long resume from political families, such as Joost Eerdmans (including LPF, EenNL, FVD and now leader of JA21). Voters leave quickly, but remain loyal to the current: they usually switch to other parties on the same flank.
You can see this instability as a sign of weakness. Parties on the far right often lack good organization. A lot depends on the leader. Once his charisma has worn off, a party often collapses quickly. There is usually no elaborated ideology.
Vitality
But you can also see the many splits as a sign of vitality, says professor of right-wing extremism research Léonie de Jonge, affiliated with the University of Tübingen. The far-right movement has grown in a relatively short time, she says, and the many splits are a result of that enormous growth. “The bloc has become so large that currents naturally arise. The dynamics are often the same. More radical wings gain the upper hand in parties, moderates fall away, after which schisms arise again.”
Most of those parties don’t make it. In terms of content, the differences are often small. Roughly speaking, there are two movements on the far right internationally, although there is a gray area: a nationalist-populist movement, such as the PVV. And an extreme right-wing, more identitarian movement. There is plenty of room here for conspiracy theories, ideas about ‘remigration’ and outright anti-Semitism. FVD moves into this last wing. In the MAGA world in the United States, this movement is becoming more influential, fueled by online influencers as Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens. The latter spoke at an FVD conference in 2024.
But behind this permanent social Darwinism, the far right is remarkably stable, says Léonie de Jonge. “Look at FVD, which has become highly professionalized in recent years and has strengthened its organizational structure. FVD almost collapsed due to its own radicalization. But now the party has found local roots and is participating in municipal elections in more than a hundred municipalities.”
It is becoming increasingly easier for the far right to exert influence, according to De Jonge. This can be seen, for example, in the asylum laws of then Minister Faber (Asylum and Migration, PVV), which were adopted slightly modified by the House of Representatives, with the support of parties in the center. The laws are now before the Senate, where a majority is still uncertain.
This week, the debate on the government statement showed that the dynamics surrounding the far right have fundamentally changed. In the past they never really participated. But that’s different now. Léonie de Jonge: “Because there is a minority cabinet, their seats are suddenly very interesting. That became apparent this week with Gidi Markuszower.” But it also became apparent when Geert Wilders and Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks-PvdA) jointly expressed their complete rejection of the government’s AOW plans. De Jonge: “A strange new dynamic is emerging in The Hague, which the far right can benefit from.”
Geert Wilders opts for old-style opposition, in the Anglo-Saxon tradition: I am against everything the cabinet is for. Markuszower made it clear this week that he does not intend to move substantively, but that there are certainly deals to be made. He does this at a time when, as became apparent this week, there is a great willingness to collaborate with the far right in The Hague.
The question remains whether Markuszower will get what he wants with the AOW. The motion was adopted, partly thanks to support from the coalition parties, JA21 and FVD. PVV and GroenLinks-PvdA voted against. Minister Hans Vijlbrief (Social Affairs, D66) told journalists on Friday morning that as far as he is concerned, the motion does not change the plans: “We are not going to water down anything at all.”
