Since Wilders’ seismic election win in November that sent shockwaves across Europe, he has been trying to win over other parties deeply sceptical of his anti-Islam, anti-European manifesto.
His preferred option is a four-way coalition with the centre-right liberal VVD, the farmers protest party BBB, and the New Social Contract (NSC), a new party created by anti-corruption whistleblower Pieter Omtzigt.
Talks have been tricky from the start, not helped by sniping on social media — mostly from Wilders’ prolific account on X, formerly Twitter — but also marked by fundamental differences over policies considered anti-constitutional.
And in a long-awaited report, the “informer” overseeing the talks, Ronald Plasterk, said the differences between Omtzigt’s NSC party and Wilders were too big to bridge.
“It should be noted that there are certainly significant differences between the four parties on various topics,” said Plasterk.
His report suggested the parties had made little headway in their coalition discussions.
“It is also not possible to compromise on one topic, as the willingness of parties to make concessions depends on others making concessions themselves,” he wrote.
Things came to a head last Tuesday when the NSC abruptly pulled out of talks, seemingly without telling anyone, ostensibly because the fiscally conservative Omtzigt was “shocked” by the parlous state of Dutch public finances.
Omtzigt’s withdrawal did not go down well with Plasterk, who told reporters he had found out via WhatsApp and later fumed about a lack of respect.
The NSC said it would be prepared to lend support to a minority cabinet on a case-by-case basis but not provide ministers.
The gap between the party and the PVV of Wilders on the rule of law was “too big”, the NSC said, according to Plasterk’s report.
Plasterk said a deal was eventually possible but not under his leadership.
“I recommend appointing a new informer with extensive administrative and political experience,” said Plasterk.
Catch-22
MPs will debate the report tomorrow, but it is not obvious how talks will proceed.
“It’s a big, big puzzle,” said Rene Cuperus, senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute.
Waiting in the wings is Frans Timmermans, whose left-wing Green/Labour party came a distant second in the election, but it is far from clear how the former EU commissioner could garner enough support to form a government either.
Plasterk noted that the participation of other parties in future talks “could well be useful”.
Re-running the election is viewed as an unpalatable option as parties already have a European election to fight in June, and polls suggest support for Wilders has grown since the November election.
What does the chaos mean for a possible Wilders premiership?
“I don’t think this is really a feasible option because it would be such a scandal for the Netherlands internationally,” said Cuperus.
But he added there do not seem to be many good options from the current talks.
“It will be a disaster with Wilders and a disaster without Wilders. That’s the Catch-22 we are in,” he told AFP.
The only thing everyone agrees on is that the process will not be quick. The last government formed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte took 271 days to take shape.
Cuperus said the political turmoil was hurting the Netherlands’ image as “one of the best organised countries in the world”.
“It looks like a mess from the outside. But then again, in the end, there’s always a government. And we have a very stable bureaucracy still running the country,” he added.