The PM’s Gambit -or why we have elections in the Netherlands- was the decision by Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) to pressure his coalition partners D66, CDA, and ChristenUnie to accept his proposal to limit family reunification of refugees fleeing war. Was this a failed power play by the longest serving Prime Minister of the Netherlands or a gambit to campaign on his terms? His decision, just days later, to not lead the party into the 2023 elections increased the confusion around this question.
Considering Prime Minister Rutte’s impressive career, it is unlikely that he failed to consider the possibility of pushback. What is more likely is that the gambit is related to the meteoric rise of the BBB, a new protest party riding the national sentiment that the four consecutive cabinets under Mark Rutte have become increasingly detached from the population. The BBB, the Farmer–Citizen Movement, found its origin in the unpopular government policies to limit nitrogen emissions hitting particularly farmers. However, the party has expanded its critique of the government to include its COVID policy and preferencing the coastal elites.
Just a little over a month before the fall of the government, the Dutch were already gathering for elections of the Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer). The outcome of this confirmed that the BBB would be the real threat to the continued dominance of the VVD in Dutch politics. But the Prime Minister fought off populist threats since the start of his tenure, most originating from the ranks of his own party, the VVD. The Netherlands has had large populist parties against the elites, globalism, and migration since the 90s. Livable Netherlands (Leefbaar Nederland) gave rise to Pim Fortuyn, whose murder catapulted his party into government. This paved the way for Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV) and Rita Verdonk and Proud of the Netherlands (Trots op Nederland), both disgruntled VVD members, the latter leaving the party following a power struggle with Mark Rutte for the VVD leadership. The most recent threat was Thierry Baudet and the Forum for Democracy (FvD) which lost 83% of its seats in the Dutch Senate elections, most to the BBB.
On 28 June, a week before the fall of the cabinet, BBB leader Caroline van der Plas attacked what she called fear mongering by the other parties regarding asylum seekers and called for their humane treatment. This likely rang in the ears of Mark Rutte when he pressured his coalition partners to follow his hardline positions on family reunification. The VVD, and thus -in his mind- Mark Rutte himself, would be in a win-win situation: a win for the VVD would show the country that he is fighting and winning the populist fight against growing numbers of asylum seekers, a refusal by his coalition partners would set the stage for a hardline campaign on asylum seekers, a perceived weakness of the BBB.
This is not the first time the Prime Minister used populist tactics to campaign against populist parties. In 2017, the VVD successfully defended populist attacks by the PVV and the FvD by adopting increasingly hostile positions against refugees and taking out full-page advertisements in major Dutch newspapers telling foreigners to get their act together or leave the Netherlands. A recent leak of the draft text of the coalition compromise on asylum strengthens the likelihood that the fall of the government was a similar tactic. His Christian and liberal partners agreed to many of his positions, restricting migration. Yet, the Prime Minister continued to push the envelope to restrict family unity, a red line of his partners.
Looking at current polls, his strategy was not unfounded. However, he likely misjudged his own position, conflating it with the position of the VVD. Following the fall of the government, it became clear that other major parties did not want to cooperate with Mark Rutte. The man who became “Teflon Mark” became toxic, after several political crises rocked his government. His previous cabinet fell due to the government’s failure to protect thousands of parents and children from serious fraud allegations in the benefits scandal (toeslagenaffaire), while his current cabinet started with the scandal that the coalition party leadership likely conspired silence a critical and popular CDA parliamentarian during the coalition negotiations. Above all, the administrative culture introduced by the Prime Minister which created, perpetuated, and tried to cover up these scandals made the man that led the VVD for 14 years toxic for other parties. Additionally, the BBB was running a campaign aimed against this exact administrative culture. As such, the PM’s Gambit seems to be a genuine political strategy by an experienced politician. For the gambit to have a chance, however, the VVD needed to perform a queen sacrifice.
Please log in to comment.
Login