OP-ED: The fall of the Dutch government – that took longer than expected

By Michiel Kruyt and Femke de Vries

On 3 June, the Dutch government collapsed. Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), walked out of the four-party coalition over a created dispute on asylum policy, effectively bringing down the cabinet of Prime Minister Dick Schoof, after just 11 months. For many in the Netherlands, the only surprise was that it lasted this long.

Unstable foundation

The Schoof cabinet was a political experiment: Could a government function when one of its core components was a party with no internal democracy, no formal membership beyond its leader and a long history of inflammatory rhetoric? The answer is now clear. The PVV may have won the most seats in the 2023 election but it was never a reliable coalition partner.

The irony is hard to miss. Wilders spent years criticising the “political elite” for being detached, unaccountable and having no real solutions. Yet his own party is the most opaque of all: the PVV has exactly one official member: Wilders himself (the longest serving member of parliament). It has no party congress, no internal checks and no leadership elections. What Wilders says, goes. And in this coalition, that meant constant unpredictability and no solutions – only chaos.

A forced break

The asylum dispute that broke the government was inflicted by Wilders himself. Earlier, during the negotiations at the start of the coalition government, Wilders demanded hardline measures that legal experts warned would never survive judicial scrutiny (or would actually have no effect on the number of people seeking protection in the Netherlands). The other coalition parties agreed on reducing migration (read: asylum seekers) but maintained that policies had to be in line with democratic and rule of law principles. A compromise was found to impose the “toughest asylum policy ever” while staying within the scope of EU and international law, and the coalition was formed. Fortunately, the “opt-out” from the EU asylum acquis was the first measure that collapsed.

As expected, Marjolein Faber – the PVV politician who served as Minister of Asylum and Migration in the Schoof cabinet – gained more attention by scandals and bold statements than by actual policy changes. Meanwhile, geopolitics and real worries about security in Europe (e.g. war in Ukraine, genocide in Gaza etc.) were growing among voters and in the media, causing the PVV to lose virtual seats in the polls. Therefore, it seems that Wilders wanted to put asylum and anti-Islam rhetoric back at the centre of the debate, as they are his main issues and raison d’être for the PVV. On 26 May, he drew up a list of ten proposals on asylum policy, including pushbacks at the borders and the deportation of 60,000 Syrians with a residence permit, which he knew the other coalition parties would never agree upon. When he did not get his way, he left.

But here’s the twist: although Wilders walked, main parts of his asylum agenda appear likely to survive.

Asylum policy changes likely to be pushed through

Since the fall of the cabinet, several political parties including (former) coalition parties the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, the Farmer-Citizen Movement and New Social Contract have indicated they still support significant portions of the proposed asylum package (they even fought publicly to take over the vacant post of minister of asylum and migration). Key measures such as restricting family reunification and ending permanent refugee statuses could very well be adopted under the outgoing caretaker cabinet, with the support of a right-wing majority in the parliament. The (former) coalition parties that were left by Wilders are hoping to conclude some proposals just before the elections to show the voters that they are, in fact, more effective at governing (and “managing asylum and migration”) than the populists.

This contradiction reveals the uncomfortable truth behind the collapse. The fall was less about policy and more about performance. Wilders needed a moment to reassert control over his voter base and perhaps he sensed that he could do better in fresh elections. The asylum debate provided a convenient exit – but not because his demands were denied. In fact, many of them had already been accepted.

Takeaways for the next elections

The current situation makes it a strange kind of political implosion. Usually, when a government falls, so do its plans. This time, the government fell, but much of its asylum policy may live on. Meanwhile, Dutch citizens are left with yet another snap election, scheduled for 29 October, and no guarantee that the next coalition will last any longer than the previous one.

What this episode shows is that trust is key for a functioning coalition government. Trust that a coalition partner will act in good faith. Trust that policy is more than political theatre. Trust that governing is a responsibility – not just a stage for populist tactics. The PVV has proven, once again, that it functions only in opposition. Governing demands compromise, patience, capable ministers and institutional reliability – none of which are possible when power is concentrated in one man’s hands. Wilders had his chance. He chose the exit.

The fact that Wilders’ proposals on asylum and migration remain on the table shows just how much the political landscape has shifted in his far-right, Islamophobic direction. This shift may continue in October – or it may provoke a correction. Either way, Dutch voters will soon have another chance to decide.

Michiel Kruyt is Political Affairs Officer and Femke de Vries is EU Policy & Advocacy Officer at ECRE member organisation the Dutch Council for Refugees.