[EAI Commentary] 2017 Dutch General Election: The European Union's Uneasy Victory

[Editor's Note]

On March 15th, the Dutch general election was held, drawing the attention of many Europeans. This was due to widespread anxiety that far-right populism might spread to the Netherlands, potentially leading to a 'Nexit' following Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President. However, with the victory of the center-right ruling People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Europe breathed a sigh of relief. Yet, according to Professor Kang Shin-gu of Ajou University, the situation does not warrant complete reassurance. Although the ruling party successfully maintained its position as the largest party, the fragmentation of votes compared to the past has increased the likelihood of future political instability.

On March 15th, the Netherlands held a general election to elect 150 members of the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer). This election, which garnered unusually high interest from Europeans for a recent Dutch general election, allowed the European Union and its supporters to exhale, but left a lingering sense of unease. This article aims to elaborate on why the author feels this way, step by step.

First, it is necessary to examine why this Dutch general election attracted so much attention from Europeans. Although its past glory may differ, the Netherlands' current role in Europe and the European Union is objectively not very significant. As one of the 28 member states of the European Union, the Dutch population of approximately 17 million constitutes only about 3 percent of the total EU population of over 500 million. The reason for specifying the population is that when the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, which function as the EU's legislative bodies through the co-decision procedure, make decisions by vote, member states are assigned weighted votes based on their population. Out of the total 751 members of the European Parliament, 26 are elected from the Netherlands (approximately 3.5 percent), reflecting this population-based allocation. While the Netherlands ranks sixth in economic size among the 28 EU member states and contributes the sixth-largest amount to the EU's operations, its contribution accounts for only about 5.8 percent of the total EU budget, which is merely a quarter of that of Germany (approximately 21.4 percent), the largest contributor.

However, despite these objective conditions, the Dutch general election was held amidst considerable European interest, driven by the current era's circumstances. This election was the first national election held after the refugee crisis swept across Europe starting in 2015, the UK's decision to leave the EU (Brexit, June 2016), and Donald Trump's unexpected victory in the U.S. presidential election (November 2016). Although geographically distinct, these events represent the success of anti-establishment political forces that have successfully mobilized the resentment of citizens marginalized by the benefits of integration against the established political order that has promoted cooperation and integration among nations. Furthermore, 2017 is a year of significant elections in Europe, with the Dutch general election in March, followed by the French presidential election in late April and early May, and the German federal election in September. Historically, elections held around the same time in Europe have often seen similar outcomes across borders. This was evident in the wave of the center-left 'Third Way' movement in the mid-to-late 1990s, and the neoliberal conservatism that gained momentum from the early to mid-2000s. Such cross-border electoral patterns are not necessarily a result of one election's outcome spreading to voters in another country; rather, they reflect the emergence of similar conflicts arising from comparable socioeconomic changes, leading to similar responses. This phenomenon can be interpreted as a sign of deepening European integration and the increasing homogenization of European society.

While the causes remain debated, such domino effects have been observed in recent European elections, and the Dutch general election was seen as a crucial test of whether the trend of anti-EU integration, anti-globalization, and anti-establishment politics, initiated by Brexit and Trump's election, would continue. This is the primary reason why the Dutch election garnered such unprecedented attention. Moreover, the Netherlands, along with France and Germany, which also had elections scheduled for that year, is one of the six founding members (the Original Six) of the European Coal and Steel Community, the precursor to today's European Union. Therefore, this general election was perceived as having symbolic ripple effects that extended beyond the objective assessment of the Netherlands' weight within the EU. Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the ruling People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), who framed the election as a 'quarter-final' in a tournament determining the fate of the EU while appealing for support, reflected this awareness.

As the background explanation suggests, the biggest point of interest in the Dutch general election was whether Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV), a far-right populist party advocating anti-immigration, anti-EU, and anti-Islam sentiments, would become the largest party in parliament. The PVV's manifesto, starting with a slogan reminiscent of Trump's, 'The Netherlands Ours Again!', was less than a page long but included anti-Islam measures such as closing mosques and Islamic schools, banning the sale of the Quran, and prohibiting the entry of Islamic refugees, as well as the Netherlands' withdrawal from the European Union. While some of these proposals violated international covenants to which the Netherlands was a party and even its own constitution, the public's response was different. In most opinion polls conducted since the summer of 2015, when the refugee crisis intensified, Wilders' PVV led in party support over Prime Minister Rutte's VVD. This trend continued until February, just weeks before the election. The fear of a 'Nexit' following Brexit was increasingly becoming a reality for those who supported the European Union.

However, there were no major upsets. Prime Minister Rutte's center-right People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) successfully fended off the strong challenge from Wilders' far-right populist Party for Freedom (PVV) to retain its position as the largest party. The so-called 'shy Trump, shy Wilders' phenomenon did not materialize this time. Supporters of the European Union, who had anxiously awaited the election results, breathed a collective sigh of relief. Rutte, at the VVD's election celebration after the exit polls provided a clear outline of the results, expressed his joy, stating, 'This is the night the Netherlands stopped the 'wrong populism' that followed Brexit and Donald Trump's election. It is a celebration of democracy.'

However, a closer examination of the election results and their underlying dynamics reveals that even supporters of the European Union cannot feel entirely relieved and joyful. The aftermath of the election leaves an unpleasant and uneasy feeling. Firstly, regarding the results, although the VVD, which produced the Prime Minister, maintained its status as the largest party, its vote share decreased by 5.3 percentage points and its seats from 41 to 33, an decrease of 8 seats, compared to the 2012 results. Calling this a victory is awkward and embarrassing. The biggest loser in this election was the Labour Party (PvdA), which formed the government coalition with the VVD. The Labour Party secured only 9 seats with a 5.7 percent vote share, a decrease of 19 percentage points in vote share and 29 seats compared to 2012, a truly devastating outcome. Combined, the two parties that formed the government coalition (VVD and PvdA) saw a decrease of 24.3 percentage points in vote share and 37 seats, barely retaining more than half of their previous strength. In contrast, the far-right PVV, while not reaching its record high of 24 seats in 2010, achieved a 'success' by securing 20 seats, an increase of 5 seats, with a 13 percent vote share, up 2.9 percentage points from 2012. Ultimately, this election produced results that are difficult to attribute as a clear victory for anyone. The fact that the decrease in votes for the governing coalition parties was significantly larger than the increase in votes for the PVV indicates that votes were fragmented among multiple parties. Indeed, a record 28 parties competed in this election. As a result, 13 parties secured seats, increasing the effective number of parties from 5.7 in 2012 to 8.1, demonstrating extreme fractionalization. These results reflect citizens' distrust and dissatisfaction with the political establishment as a whole, lending credence to the forecast of a more chaotic and unstable political future.

However, what concerns me more about this election is not the outcome itself, but its substantive aspects. In parliamentary systems, election results do not directly determine the next government. Especially in countries like the Netherlands, where highly proportional electoral systems routinely lead to multi-party parliaments, coalition negotiations are essential for government formation, and sometimes governments emerge that deviate from the election results. In fact, while many rejoiced that the far-right PVV did not become the largest party, few would have expected a government led by the PVV to be formed. This is because, given the nature of Dutch parliamentary elections, the PVV had virtually no chance of securing an absolute majority of seats (76) on its own, and almost all major parties had publicly pledged during the election campaign to rule out coalition possibilities with the PVV. While the exclusion of the largest party from government formation might seem undemocratic and thus pose another challenge, it is also a functioning aspect of parliamentary democracy, and it is why I focus on the substance of the election rather than just the outcome.

There were two notable incidents related to the ruling VVD maintaining its position as the largest party in this election. One was Prime Minister Rutte's publication of an election advertisement in the form of an open letter to the Dutch citizens in major national newspapers on January 22nd, approximately six weeks before the election. This open letter conveyed the message, 'Accept Dutch values and culture, and act like the Dutch. If you don't like it, leave.' It presented freedom and tolerance as core Dutch values while paradoxically imposing them. The other incident was the diplomatic dispute with Turkey that occurred in the final stages of the election. The Netherlands denied entry to Turkish ministers who intended to visit, ostensibly to rally support from Turkish expatriates ahead of a referendum on constitutional amendments strengthening presidential powers. This measure was preemptive, taken out of concern that if Turkish rallies were to materialize in major Dutch cities, it could inflame anti-Islam sentiment among citizens and potentially lead to increased support for the PVV. Both incidents were aimed at curbing the rise of the far-right PVV, which advocates anti-Islamism, and are considered to have played a role in the VVD maintaining its position as the largest party in this general election. However, neither incident aligns well with the values of freedom and tolerance.

Although the two cases mentioned above are related to the VVD, a common observation among those who closely followed the Dutch election is that the policy lines of almost all major parties shifted further to the right. Ultimately, although the Netherlands, in support of European integration, 'won' this election, the Netherlands and Europe they envision are likely to look different from what they have been. This is the reason for the uneasy feeling after this election. ■

Author

Kang Shin-gu_ Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Ajou University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Rochester. His research interests include comparative political institutions, parliamentary politics, and European politics. His major works include "The Influence of Presidential Heads of State on Government Formation in European Democracies" (2009), "Representation and Policy Responsiveness" (2010), "What Kind of Democracy? Exploring the Development Direction of Korean Democracy through the Alignment of Institutions and Value Systems" (2011), "The Concept and Practice of Semi-Presidentialism" (2014), and "The Impact of Anti-Immigrant Party Growth on Mainstream Left and Right Party Support" (2015).

EAI Commentary is a commentary series designed to provide a platform for experts from various fields to offer in-depth analysis and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting.

EAI is an independent research institution unaffiliated with any political faction. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not endorsed by EAI and represent solely the views of the individual author.