Cabinet's collapse no surprise: ‘Lack of leadership and policy’
Interview image: ANP
The fall of the Schoof cabinet comes as no surprise to Arco Timmermans, an expert in public affairs. Over a year ago, he advised informateur Kim Putters and already pointed out that a workable cabinet would only be possible if the parties took responsibility.
We spoke last year during and after the formation. Back then, you already referred to it as an ‘unusual’ cabinet.
‘It was in the air from the very beginning. I thought: either the PVV would pull out, or another party would no longer want to continue with the PVV.’
So it turned out to be the first, and we're heading back to the polls.
‘When the news came in this morning, I immediately thought: it would be remarkable if there weren’t elections, because that would be the first time since 1967. Back then, there was a cabinet crisis – the Night of Schmelzer, a historic moment. The KVP pulled the plug, and a new coalition was formed without elections. It was agreed that this would no longer happen. Since then, every cabinet crisis has been followed by elections.’
Two coalition parties still suggested that a restart might be possible.
‘But then it would become a minority cabinet. I understand why NSC wanted this, because they probably thought: if elections are held, it’s game over for us. A minority cabinet would have to rely on support from the opposition.’
You already had little confidence in the new cabinet.
‘And I wasn’t the only one. This coalition could only have been viable if the parliamentary leaders didn’t go in too forcefully – and certainly not if they effectively acted as the opposition from within Parliament while being part of the coalition, which is exactly what Wilders did. That’s why the cabinet has collapsed. It also shows that you can’t maintain a stable cabinet this way. And it doesn’t help that the Prime Minister himself hardly has any authority – which means a key unifying factor is missing. Such a cabinet becomes entirely dependent on the whims of party leaders in Parliament. That’s why I previously called it a super-parliamentary cabinet: entirely dependent on support in the House – and that’s exactly what happened. The largest party just kept acting like the opposition. I must say, Fleur Agema (Minister of Health) was actually doing surprisingly well.’
See: 'The only stable factor was political instability'
Public administration lecturer Lars Brummel appeared on France24. Watch the interview.
Yes? Go on.
‘I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a lot of resentment within the PVV and that someone like Agema is thinking: well, at least I got to be a minister for a while. But Agema has shown that she’s ministerial material – a minister who wanted to get things done, and actually did. Within the PVV, you often see politics without policy: making noise about issues, but without any real policy outcomes. Just look at the role of Faber and Wilders in Parliament. The only one who has truly delivered on policy is Agema. For that reason, it’s possible that some prominent figures within the PVV are thinking: Wilders, you’re taking this too far. Whether Agema will continue to stand close to Wilders is highly questionable – at least if she takes her own policy achievements seriously. She’s put a number of things in motion, and I can imagine it’s a bitter pill to swallow that the job is far from finished.’
Are you thinking of another party then?
‘There may be PVV members who value policy just as much as politics, and who start looking for a party that is willing to take responsibility. That could still happen, and then a split within the PVV may emerge.’
So we’ll just have to wait and see.
‘What becomes painfully clear here is that the Prime Minister presents himself as someone who merely carries out an agreement – and openly admits as much. At a time when the Netherlands is in need of strong leadership, that is concerning. If that fails to materialise, then the cabinet is essentially worthless. We’re seeing that play out now, and it’s particularly painful on the international stage – especially in the run-up to the NATO summit. It’s costing the Netherlands not only money, but also credibility.’
Yes, the timing is something else – just weeks before the NATO summit.
‘Then you really see the consequences of politics without policy – all the noise and playing opposition. I’m curious, you know, when the elections do come, to what extent people in the Netherlands will actually reward the PVV for this. In international literature, it’s often said: the breaker pays – the one who breaks the coalition bears the cost. Voters want strong party leaders – populism has been on the rise for a reason over the past 10 to 15 years – and they don’t judge parties solely on whether they act responsibly. Recent opinion polls already showed a shift back towards the centre, with voters growing tired of new parties. What have the farmers really achieved with this cabinet? And on other major issues, hardly anything has been accomplished. If you have policy expectations, you might be waiting a long time.’
The PVV stated just a week ago that it wanted stricter asylum measures.
‘That’s playing the role of the opposition. Sometimes people grow wiser, more nuanced, more moderate, more capable of governing, more responsible. But with populism, they only become more radical – and Wilders is embarrassing his own party, and even more so his ministers. I’m quite curious to see how voters will judge this. Will the PVV be rewarded or punished? What do people actually judge parties on: being serious and taking responsibility, or speaking plainly and saying it like it is? When I look at how polarised the Netherlands is – also socially – there’s certainly room for continued support for the PVV. There are parties that are thinking: upcoming elections will work in our favour, and we can reclaim the ground we lost to NSC. Think of GroenLinks–PvdA or the CDA.’
And if the PVV wins again?
‘If the PVV becomes even bigger, we’ll end up in an even more painful situation, because there won’t be any party left willing to work with them. In effect, the PVV is manoeuvring itself into a permanent opposition role – which, apparently, is where it truly belongs.’