The Dutch Government Has Collapsed: What's Really Going On

Should we believe the prime minister's claims?

So, what happened in The Netherlands? On Friday evening, July 7, the government of the country traditionally known for its windmills and tulips, and more recently its massive farmers’ protests, suddenly collapsed. Equally suddenly, on Monday morning Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced he was leaving politics altogether, seemingly drawing to a close the longest premiership in Dutch history. This news came after his announcement just a few days earlier, immediately after his government’s fall, that he would in fact be available again for re-election. 

The circumstances of the government’s downfall add to the mystery. Ostensibly, a feeble multi-party coalition finally imploded under the strain of a dysfunctional migration policy. Looking at it more closely, however, various observers called the government’s fall a carefully planned controlled demolition carried out by the prime minister himself. 

A Dutch Vessel in a Strong Breeze, by Willem van de Velde the Younger, The National Gallery, London. Public Domain.

Many speculated that Rutte has his eyes on an international job: NATO general-secretary, president of the European Commission, or perhaps even successor to his friend Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum. Others conjectured that Rutte simply tried to force an immediate election while facing weak competitors, thus maximizing his chances of extending further his record-breaking hold on power. Finally, there was the prime minister’s own public explanation for his government’s downfall: on migration, his coalition partners had simply asked for too many concessions. This had been unacceptable to him personally and to his political party.

Should we believe his claims? It is easy to be skeptical: during his thirteen years as prime minister and his seventeen as party leader, Rutte built a widespread reputation for being untrustworthy and ruthless. The internet and social media are filled with lists of his broken promises and outright lies. In one infamous encounter, when confronted with undeniable evidence proving his deception, he retorted that he simply had “no active memory” of what had happened. The expression swiftly became a staple of Dutch culture, and it remains so to this day. Husbands jokingly use it with their wives, and even school children, having failed to do their homework, protest that they have “no active memory” of any assignment.

Moreover, during his time as party leader, Rutte built a reputation for being willing to sacrifice every election promise in order to secure a governing majority. Nominally the head of a center-right party, his last governments were arguably the most radically left-wing in Dutch history. It is difficult to think of a concession he denied his progressive coalition partners, who themselves felt threatened by competition from the Green Left. As a result, Rutte’s governments increasingly carried out the radical progressive agenda, against his own voters’ wishes and those of the majority of the country. This agenda–of mass immigration, war on the farmers, and tens of billions of euros to be spent on fighting miniscule amounts of “climate change,” among other things—has proven deeply unpopular and nothing short of insane. Not coincidentally, Rutte and his inner circle secured his position as party leader through the systematic destruction of ordinary party members’ influence, including that of many conservatives, collapsing party-membership numbers.

The Night Watch, by Rembrandt, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Public Domain.

Finally, Rutte and his party remained comfortable amidst his governments’ many scandals, the largest of which—the unjustified state removal of more than two-thousand children from their parents, most of whom remain separated to this day—eventually led to his previous government’s fall, only for the same coalition to return to power after the elections.

The next elections will not be until November, and negotiations for a new government afterwards will further extend Rutte’s time in office. If and when he departs as prime minister, many problems will remain. Much like American President Lyndon B. Johnson—his political hero—Rutte’s political talent is enormous, and his departure will leave a huge gap. He has a demonstrated, extraordinary talent for creating majorities in unlikely circumstances, giving him the unique ability to prop up a political system that has faced a half-century of slow collapse. 

Since the 1960s, The Netherlands has suffered from what Tocqueville (in the French context) identified as a discrepancy between a country’s “pays légal” and its “pays réel”—what the country is on paper versus actuality. Much like the constitution of France’s Old Regime, The Netherlands’s political institutions represent a country that no longer exists. The country’s current political arrangements continue the “pillarization” days, when Catholics, Protestants, and liberals lived segregated lives, each in their own social “pillar,” with each pillar containing workers and elites. Politics and its institutions were negotiations among these pillars’ representatives on behalf of their entire pillar. 

Today, however, these pillars are long gone. The husks of their representation remain in government institutions, but the connection with ordinary citizens has been cut. As a result, the last several decades have witnessed an ever wider gap between the Dutch voter and the Dutch government, eroding the latter’s legitimacy. 

The Hague. Frans Berkelaar/Flickr.

This problem is further exacerbated by the effective removal of much decision making power from voters to the E.U., which writes 70-80 percent of the new legislation The Netherlands enforces, and the judiciary. Society’s resulting depoliticization has given the country an increasingly despotic flavor. Without withdrawal from the international treaties that give the E.U. and the judiciary this power, the outcome of ordinary elections cannot change many hot button issues.

Taken together, The Netherlands faces an enormous constitutional reform challenge, and its resolution is difficult to foresee. Only a few voices in the wilderness, such as pollster Maurice de Hond, noted parliamentarian Pieter Omtzigt, and former government minister Mona Keijzer seem to publicly recognize the problem. In light of this, Mark Rutte’s self-serving political flexibility has allowed The Netherlands to muddle through for a little bit longer than it would have otherwise. But the collapse of his unpopular, troubled government seems only a beginning. After Rutte’s departure, the country will likely become increasingly ungovernable.

Dr. Melvin Schut is the director of Common Sense Society–The Netherlands, a board member of the Amstel Institute for the Liberal Arts and Sciences, and a political science faculty member at Amsterdam University College.