The Netherlands recently voted in a parliamentary election that — by the narrowest of margins — appears to have checked the recent surge of far-right politics, yet without delivering a comfortable victory to the centrist forces. The liberal-centrist Democrats 66 (D66) and Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) are locked in a near-tie at 26 seats each in the 150-seat Tweede Kamer, with D66 holding a slim numeric lead in several tallies. These results immediately thrust coalition arithmetic and a long, delicate government-formation process back into the spotlight.
Wilders’ PVV, which rose as the country’s largest party in the last parliamentary elections of 2023, has been checked, and many mainstream leaders publicly reaffirmed a refusal to govern with him after the campaign, after the debacle of the last coalition government, of which the PVV was indeed a member.
What the numbers say — and what they do not
On paper the headline is simple: the PVV has lost ground (-11 seats) relative to its strong showing in the last legislature, while D66 has surged (+17 seats) from single-digit representation to become one of the largest parties. But the underlying story is far more intricate. Part of the PVV’s loss reflects a fragmentation within the broader far-right and nationalist bloc. Voters seeking a hardline stance on immigration, Euroscepticism, or cultural conservatism increasingly shifted to parties such as Forum voor Democratie (FvD) and JA21, which offer similar ideological positions but present themselves differently. This internal competition diluted the PVV’s dominance, demonstrating that while Wilders’ personal brand remains potent, it is no longer the sole repository of far-right sentiment in the Netherlands.
Isolated by principle and practice, Wilders’ strongest tools are now, once again, rhetorical visibility and the ability to make coalition formation politically costly for moderates tempted to cooperate with him. In short, the PVV has been electorally nudged back, but it remains a force capable of exerting outsized influence on Dutch politics, particularly in shaping narratives on identity, migration, and national sovereignty.
Read also: The Netherlands, slipping into political crisis over the asylum issue
Meanwhile, the Dutch party landscape remains deeply fragmented, a reflection of the country’s multiparty proportional representation system, where even relatively small shifts in voter sentiment can yield meaningful changes in parliamentary composition. No single party – or even coherent ideological bloc – approaches a majority, meaning that coalition formation is not merely arithmetic but a delicate balancing act of ideology, strategy, and compromise.
This complexity underscores a central truth: the election’s real outcome will be determined not by raw seat totals alone but by the political will of mainstream parties to maintain a tacit cordon sanitaire around Wilders’ PVV, a strategy that has previously isolated the far right from governance despite its electoral support. At the same time, the ability of centrists and moderates to assemble a workable majority will depend on their capacity to reconcile competing policy agendas, and present a coherent vision for governance. In this context, the Dutch electorate has produced a parliament that is both representative and inherently unstable, offering opportunities for moderation but also risks of prolonged negotiation, policy gridlock, and the persistent influence of an emboldened far-right opposition.
Policy issues and the Dutch model of restraint
Dutch governance is, by its very nature, an exercise in negotiation and restraint. With the same number of seats for D66 and for PVV, the decisive question is not who “won” the election, but who can build bridges wide enough to carry 76 votes across the ideological spectrum. The answer will determine whether the Netherlands reaffirms its tradition of pragmatic centrism or drifts into the gridlock of fragmentation.
The most plausible path forward is a broad centrist coalition, uniting D66 — progressive, pro-European, and future-oriented — with the VVD, the liberal-conservative party long associated with fiscal prudence and economic liberalism; the CDA, representing the social stability of Christian-democratic moderation; and the merged GroenLinks–PvdA, the moral and social conscience of the center-left. Together, these forces could restore a sense of continuity and purpose to Dutch governance, steering it back toward a policy agenda that is open, innovation-friendly, and fiscally cautious, yet attentive to social cohesion and climate responsibility.
But such a coalition would be held together more by a shared sense of duty than by ideological alignment. On migration, the spectrum runs from D66’s humanist liberalism to the VVD’s tougher border pragmatism. On housing and taxation, interests diverge between market liberalization and social protection. Even within the green-left block, there are tensions between idealism and feasibility. The art of governing in the Netherlands — and what distinguishes its political culture from many others — lies precisely in this capacity to transform contradiction into coexistence.
The coming months will likely see a long and delicate formation process, not because the Dutch are indecisive, but because their system institutionalizes deliberation and coalition forming as a democratic virtue. It is a process that tests patience, but also prevents the capture of power by extremes.
Wilders’ PVV, even though electorally significant, will probably remain outside these negotiations, as a result of the clear moral line drawn by other parties in the electoral campaign. Its exclusion underscores an enduring Dutch principle: that the right to representation does not automatically translate into the right to govern.
In this sense, the Dutch model — often slow, occasionally frustrating —is not one of dominance, but of restraint. Its strength lies not in speed or simplicity, but in its capacity to absorb division without rupture. If such a coalition can be formed and sustained, it will reaffirm that even in an age of populist impatience, careful governance and moral steadiness still might have a place — and perhaps, in the long run, the stronger claim.
The potential implications for Europe at large
The outcome of the Dutch election carries quiet but far-reaching significance for Europe. It is neither a triumph of centrist liberalism nor a collapse of the new models of national-populism, but rather a moment of redefinition — a recalibration of political forces that reflects the deeper mood of the continent. Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) has lost seats and thus momentum, yet the national-populist electorate has not disappeared; it has reorganized and fragmented, dispersing its energy among multiple parties. This is not the decline of nationalism in the Netherlands, but its mutation — from a single banner under Wilders to a more diffuse, pluralized populist field encompassing Forum voor Democratie, JA21, and new anti-establishment movements.
That fragmentation is both reassuring and unsettling. On the one hand, it prevents any one figure or faction from consolidating the illiberal trends that have transformed politics elsewhere. On the other, it shows that the anxieties fueling national-populism remain as present as ever — over migration, economic security, national sovereignty, and the perceived distance between citizens and European institutions. This political stream has lost coherence, not relevance. It has been divided, not defeated.
From a European perspective, the Dutch result is an important reaffirmation of democratic resilience. It demonstrates that a country can confront populist anger without surrendering to it, absorbing political shocks through dialogue, proportionality, and institutional patience.
For Brussels and other European capitals, this outcome brings a cautious sigh of relief. The Netherlands — historically a pillar of pragmatic Europeanism — is likely to remain aligned with the EU’s strategic direction. A D66-led or broad centrist coalition would preserve the country’s pro-European stance, supporting policies of collective security, green transition, and responsible fiscal coordination. The Netherlands will continue to play its traditional role: a sober, economically disciplined advocate for cooperation that combines open markets with the rule of law.
But Europe would be mistaken to read the Dutch election as proof that the national-populist threat is fading. The underlying emotional currents — cultural dislocation, mistrust of elites, and the yearning for national agency — are not Dutch anomalies but continental realities. What is happening in The Hague mirrors the broader European condition.
The Netherlands thus offers Europe a paradoxical lesson in hope. Its democracy has absorbed the new political trend without collapsing under it. Its institutions have held. But the price of that stability is permanent negotiation. Whether this model of restrained pluralism can deliver the visionary leadership Europe now requires remains an open question.
Still, in a continent often pulled between fatigue and fear, the Dutch result reminds that democracy’s greatest strength lies not in speed or spectacle, but in endurance and in its ability to adapt.