Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Sociology of Gender, Migration and Racisms at Queen’s University Belfast.

Dr. Vieten: Dutch Progressive Liberalism Is Rather Cosmetic as Fractured Far Right Gains

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviews

In an interview for the ECPS, Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten offers a sharp sociological reading of the 2025 Dutch elections, arguing that “progressive liberalism appears rather cosmetic, and the Dutch elections reveal a significant win for fractured far-right populist parties.” Despite Geert Wilders’ setback, Dr. Vieten stresses that the far right remains structurally resilient, with PVV, JA21, and FvD together securing 42 seats. She highlights the normalization of anti-immigration rhetoric, the co-optation of far-right frames by centrist actors, and the deepening tensions between state-centered citizenship and post-migrant identities. From femonationalism to coalition politics, Dr. Vieten situates the Dutch results within broader European trajectories of nativism, militarization, and socio-economic neglect—warning that liberal democracy risks privileging cultural cohesion over social justice.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a political landscape marked by shifting coalitions, fragmented party systems, and the normalization of far-right discourse, Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten—Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Sociology of Gender, Migration and Racisms at Queen’s University Belfast—offers, in an interview with the European Center for Populism Studies’ (ECPS), a trenchant sociological analysis of what the recent Dutch election reveals about the deeper transformations reshaping Dutch and European politics. As she succinctly observes, “progressive liberalism appears rather cosmetic, and the Dutch elections reveal a significant win for fractured far-right populist parties.”

While Geert Wilders suffered an electoral and institutional setback, Dr. Vieten underscores that far-right forces have neither receded nor lost structural relevance. She notes that Wilders’ PVV secured “a similar outcome to D66 in terms of parliamentary seats—26,” and that new actors such as JA21 and FvD collectively pushed the far right to 42 seats, signaling the entrenched resilience of nativist politics. This development, she argues, stems from longer-term shifts accelerated by the pandemic—an evolution she previously theorized as “pandemic populism.”

Yet the interview also probes the paradoxical dynamics of the 2025 contest: a weakened Wilders paired with the persistent mainstreaming of anti-immigration rhetoric. Dr. Vieten stresses that the far right’s discursive power continues to shape “cultural belonging and national identity,” even when its institutional credibility falters. Simultaneously, she warns that centrist and center-left parties have often co-opted far-right frames, thereby reproducing segregationist logics while claiming to oppose extremism.

A major theme running through the conversation is the shifting terrain of citizenship, identity, and post-migrant belonging. Drawing on her earlier work on “new European citizens,” Dr. Vieten observes that the pandemic’s border closures and re-territorialization of state authority profoundly disrupted the transnational lives of minority citizens. She also highlights how post-migrant elites—such as VVD leader Dilek Yeşilgöz-Zegerius—may themselves align with exclusionary agendas, complicating assumptions about progressive identifications among minority communities.

The interview further explores the gendered politics of far-right rhetoric. Here Dr. Vieten draws attention to how appeals to women’s rights have been tactically mobilized to justify anti-Muslim policies, echoing Sara Farris’s concept of femonationalism. Liberal narratives of emancipation, she warns, can themselves reinforce racialized boundaries of belonging.

Looking ahead, Dr. Vieten situates the Dutch outcome within broader European trajectories marked by the rise of far-right parties, centrist recalibrations, and an EU increasingly driven by anti-migration and militarization agendas. Liberal democracy, she suggests, risks becoming a project “selling cultural cohesion instead of social cohesion,” unless it confronts underlying socio-economic inequalities.

This interview thus contributes a critical and timely perspective to ECPS’s ongoing effort to interpret the Dutch elections within a wider European and global context.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten, slightly revised for clarity and flow.

A Splintered Far Right Still Sets the Tone in Dutch Politics

Election posters near the Binnenhof featuring Geert Wilders of the PVV in the foreground, The Hague, the Netherlands, October 12, 2025. Photo: Dreamstime.

Despite the electoral setback for Geert Wilders, far-right parties collectively gained ground. How should we interpret this outcome in terms of the structural endurance of nativist, populist politics in the Netherlands?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: The official setback to Wilders leading the strongest party this year (2025) doesn’t change the fact that (a) he achieved a similar outcome to D66 in terms of parliamentary seats—26, and (b) other far-right “kids on the block,” such as JA21 and FvD, also saw a rise in their share of populist votes. This clearly illustrates that the far right (populist) parties have splintered yet continue to pose a serious threat to liberal, socially diverse, and inclusive societies. All three parties (PVV, JA21, and FvD) can claim 42 seats out of 150 (compared to 41 they won in the last election in 2023). This means nativist (autochthon-oriented) ideology has gained and consolidated political ground over the years, particularly after the pandemic—a development I warned about when writing on “pandemic populism” (Vieten, 2022).

To what extent do the recent results illustrate a reconfiguration of far-right populism—from an electoral takeover strategy toward indirect agenda-setting power that continues to shape public discourse on immigration, cultural belonging, and national identity?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: Though I have not followed the election campaign closely, as I do not currently live in the Netherlands, what was striking about the success of D66 and Rob Jetten—and several national and international media outlets have emphasized this—is that Jetten sold his politics with an overall positive message of “we can do it.” Dutch voters were not impressed with the performance of Geert Wilders and the last government on central issues such as housing provision and health services. In the end, the Dutch are often viewed as very pragmatic (similar to the English, as they say), and it might be the case that Wilders’ loss is an outcome of his lack of reliability in terms of policy delivery, and only to a lesser degree driven by the ideological content his far-right populist party conveys. Anti-migration policy—let’s not forget, Wilders’ coalition government resigned because he walked out on that issue—remains a sticking point. Rob Jetten’s overarching approach to what you call “cultural belonging and national identity” was to give the Dutch national flag a more positive (prideful) meaning, not always as a defense against others, but filling it with a form of socially cohesive meaning.

Post-Migrant Elites Don’t Always Align with Progressive Politics

Billboard featuring the main candidates in the Dutch elections on June 9, 2010, in Amstelveen, the Netherlands. Photo: Dreamstime.

Given your work on “new European citizens,” what do the 2025 elections reveal about ongoing tensions between state-centered citizenship regimes and the transnational identifications of post-migrant communities?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: My research and publications on European minority citizens (2016; 2018) now feel like “light years away” (Lichtjahre entfernt). It was a comparative study of three EU countries (pre-Brexit England included) that examined how hyphenated Dutch, German, and British citizens identified as European and related to the European Union. Though I interviewed Moroccan-Dutch citizens—some of them very visible in the public sphere—the general argument may also apply to Turkish or Kurdish-Dutch citizens. However, all of this was carried out pre-pandemic, and as international lockdowns and travel bans taught us, the mundanity of transnational community life was largely suspended. One of my interview partners in Germany explicitly told me that her life as a transnational—maintaining friendships and family ties in Turkey, for example—was shattered and ignored during the pandemic. Nation-states restored their authority and sovereignty over citizens’ movement and territorial borders. Between 2020 and 2022, we witnessed a strict re-territorialization of governance—perhaps a prelude to what has come since and what we see today.

When we speak about “new Europeans,” and you bring up the concept of post-migration, it seems that some minority European/national citizens have made it into the ranks of national (and even international) elites, similar to “old established Europeans.” Ideological or value orientations do not necessarily differ simply because one has a post-migration background. An interesting and perplexing example is Dilek Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, the leader of the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy), the conservative Dutch party, who explicitly stated she would not join a coalition with the merged GroenLinks/PvdA party. This means she would rather accept a coalition with far-right parties such as JA21. Yeşilgöz served as a minister in Rutte’s government and is a very experienced politician. But this tells a story of socially classed divisions within ex-immigrant and transnational communities, who do not automatically occupy a liberal-progressive or anti-authoritarian space.

Institutional Failure, Discursive Success

Wilders’ collapsed coalition appears to have weakened his institutional credibility, yet anti-immigration rhetoric remained central in campaign debate. How do you interpret this paradox of reduced governing legitimacy but persistent discursive power?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: As I mentioned before, the collapse of Wilders’ coalition discredited him in terms of reliability and triggered the recent election. Coalition building is at the heart of most Continental European countries, including the Netherlands, and—as far as I remember—it took Wilders nearly a year to form a government anyway. So, the record of being in government and in power for just a year looks quite poor. The mainstreaming (or normalization; see Vieten & Poynting, 2022) is a discursive project that has been unfolding for years—post-2008 economic crisis and with a further push post-pandemic—accelerating at a pace that makes it difficult to challenge, as the underlying socio-economic problems are not going away.

To what extent do the Dutch results reflect a broader European pattern in which centrist parties co-opt right-wing discourses—thereby reproducing segregationist and anti-immigrant logics even while formally opposing the far right?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: Well, unfortunately, it is not only conservative or center-right parties that have jumped on the anti-immigrant—e.g., anti-refugee—scapegoating wagon; center-left parties such as the Labour Party in the UK and the Social Democrats in Denmark have similarly placed anti-migration policy at the top of their agendas. That said, I would go beyond Europe here, as this reflects a broader zeitgeist and a global phenomenon. Though Brazil shifted leftward after the far right damaged the country, mainstream media worldwide continue to give center stage to far-right politicians such as Trump and follow closely the agendas they set. At some point, people may have forgotten that 15 years ago (or earlier, in the early 2000s) there was a very different spirit—embracing cosmopolitanism (albeit Eurocentric), diversity, and openness toward difference.

Returning to what I said earlier about the need to build coalitions, we will now see how Jetten bridges ideological divides, as he needs to form a coalition with three other parties, while the leader of the Dutch conservatives (VVD) has expressed her dislike for including the GreenLeft/Social Democrats in the government. Jetten might end up asking one of the smaller far-right parties, e.g., the FvD, to join. And then we will see how realistic and reliable such a coalition arrangement will be. It is not all out of the woods, and formal opposition is more of a strategy than a reflection of political will and capacity post-election.

Cosmetic Liberalism Cannot Counter Deepening Inequalities

Billboard of D66 featuring Rob Jetten with the slogan Het Kan Wel in Amsterdam, the Netherlands on October 28, 2025. Photo: Robert van ’t Hoenderdaal.

Does D66’s civic-progressive liberalism meaningfully challenge racialized boundaries of European belonging, or does it risk perpetuating a “thin cosmopolitanism” that leaves structural inequalities untouched?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: Your question speaks directly to what I mentioned earlier. The appealing persona of D66’s leader, Rob Jetten, may resonate with urban populations and those identifying as liberal-progressive in middle-class neighborhoods. Even the fact that he is openly gay (his partner originally from Argentina) is not, in itself, an indicator of anti–far-right trajectories. For years, Wilders politicized homosexuality in his rhetoric against Muslim communities, and Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, is a lesbian living with her partner in Switzerland. Therefore, an image of liberal pro-gayness does not say anything about how social cohesion will work in the Netherlands after the 2025 election.

A conservative agenda that is deemed not to tackle socially unfair living conditions in a post-migration society—such as access to housing, rising property prices, and the gap between living standards and affordability for young people—can easily slip into adopting far-right agendas of cultural cohesion. In that sense, a “thin cosmopolitanism” is not enough, as it fails to engage with the socio-economic concerns of a large segment of the population. Progressive liberalism appears rather cosmetic, and as we noted earlier, the election outcome shows a significant win for fractured far-right populist parties.

Fragmentation Masks the Growing Influence of Nativist Politics

With the rise of multiple smaller far-right parties (e.g., JA21, FvD), what does the diversification of the nativist field reveal about ideological differentiation, constituency segmentation, and the long-term resilience of the Dutch radical right?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: I think we covered some of this before. The fragmentation of the Dutch far right—and the way center and liberal parties have adopted racist far-right political agendas, e.g., anti-migration/anti-refugee rhetoric—confirms that we are facing a normalization of far-right, nativist ideologies. The fragmentation reflects nuances as well as socially and culturally classed differences, but this does not diminish the broader presence of far-right actors. We might even see a smaller far-right party joining the government, which poses serious questions for the rule of law and for how the center-right continues to adopt policy agendas set by far-right politicians. The cordon sanitaire has already been abandoned elsewhere. An important piece of EU legislation, the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, was just modified and diluted in scope and reach—and waved through with the votes of far-right parties/politicians, just this week.

Building on your research into gendered culturalism, to what extent has the strategic mobilization of women’s rights within far-right rhetoric served to legitimize exclusionary policies toward Muslim communities—thus normalizing racialized boundaries of national belonging?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: I would go beyond this argument by questioning how liberal notions of female emancipation have also played into anti-Muslim rhetoric and have not prevented the passage of generically racist legislation. The latter refers to laws banning the veil and sustaining narratives of white European supremacy. My colleague Sara Farris (2017) argues that “neoliberalism [is] a political-economic formation that institutionalizes the femo-nationalist ideology as part of the functioning of the state apparatus in order to (re)organize the productive and particularly the socially reproductive sphere” (2017: 14).

Following closely the national civic integration strategies, not only addressing Muslims, but generally migrants, Farris scrutinized data in three EU countries spelling out that Muslim women (and female migrants) are incorporated into the concrete European ‘femo-nationalist economies’ as domestic space keepers. While Muslim men (and migrants, predominantly Muslims) are constructed as outsider-threats, Muslim women are displaced into the social reproduction sphere of the different nation-state. Her argument is intriguing because it interrogates the mainstream liberal narrative that only the far right (or extremists) threatens “our way of life.” But certainly, this kind of post-Marxist analysis is not very fashionable, insisting that normal gendered belonging is already the problem as it is keeping hierarchies of exploitation untouched.

Liberal Democracy Risks Prioritizing Cultural Unity Over Social Justice

People on the street near the National Monument in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on April 14, 2018. Undocumented migrants selling shoes. Photo: Elena Rostunova.

Finally, what do the 2025 Dutch election results suggest about broader European political trajectories—especially the concurrent resilience of far-right nativism and the tactical recalibration of centrist actors seeking to contain it—and how might this interplay shape the future of liberal-democratic politics on the continent?

Dr. Ulrike M. Vieten: Like what happened in Austria and Germany where far-right parties were either coming into first place (Austria) or second (Germany) these countries managed to build coalitions, excluding the far-right for now. As I mentioned above, it now depends on how Jetten and crucial parties such as the VVD can hold their ground and compromise on a trustworthy and stable coalition. We already have far-right parties in government in Western Europe, such as in Italy, and long established in Eastern Europe, such as in Hungary. And if we think of the European Union more broadly, its anti-migration policy (e.g., anti-asylum stance) has shifted toward far-right, anti-foreigner hysteria—for example, outsourcing asylum processes—and is dominated by Angst (both in terms of real and imagined politics) of the Russian.

Accordingly, the second major theme is militarization (and its multi-billion-euro funding), which—let me guess—is undermining spending for social and cultural policies and cohesion across the EU and within European countries. The potential new Dutch government will fit this trajectory very well, as left (or socialist) visions have been rejected across the board. The problem with liberal democracy is that it continues to promote a narrative that ignores socio-economic questions of redistribution, selling cultural cohesion instead of social cohesion.

Election posters near the Binnenhof featuring Geert Wilders of the PVV in the foreground, The Hague, the Netherlands, October 12, 2025. Photo: Dreamstime.

Dr. Vossen: The Anti-Islam Core Is the Most Important Part of Wilders’s PVV

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviews

In an in-depth interview with the ECPS, Dr. Koen Vossen, political historian and lecturer at Radboud University, analyzes the ideological evolution and endurance of Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV). He stresses that “The anti-Islam core is absolutely the most important part of this party,” noting that despite tactical moderation, its fundamental worldview remains unchanged. According to Dr. Vossen, the PVV’s “one-man structure” and lack of internal democracy make it both flexible and fragile. Wilders’s “clash of civilizations” narrative, rooted in his early attachment to Israel, continues to shape his politics. As Dr. Vossen observes, media normalization, cultural anxieties, and declining institutional barriers have allowed the PVV to become a lasting—though polarizing—force in Dutch politics.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) following the Dutch general elections of October 29, 2025, Dr. Koen Vossen, a political historian and lecturer in political science at Radboud University, offers a nuanced analysis of the ideological evolution, strategic positioning, and organizational structure of Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV). Dr. Vossen, a leading scholar on Dutch populism and right-wing movements, situates the PVV within a broader European radical-right context while emphasizing its distinctly Dutch trajectory.

As Dr. Vossen underscores, “The anti-Islam core is absolutely the most important part of this party.” While the PVV has, over time, expanded its platform to include positions on welfare, housing, and law and order, these remain secondary to its central ideological fixation. The PVV, he explains, “is really basically one man… It is purely a matter of what Wilders wants, what he does, and what he likes.” This personalization of power, combined with the party’s lack of internal democracy, explains both its tactical flexibility and its chronic difficulty in governance.

Dr. Vossen traces Wilders’s ideological consistency to what he calls a “clash of civilizations” worldview, deeply informed by his “special connection with Israel.” Having worked on a kibbutz as a young man, Wilders came to see Israel as “the main buffer against Islamization.” This perspective not only anchors the PVV’s foreign policy but also shapes its domestic narrative of cultural defense. According to Dr. Vossen, Wilders’s “absolute core ideology is this anti-Islam ideology,” while his steadfast pro-Israel stance serves as both a symbolic and programmatic pillar in PVV discourse.

On the domestic front, Dr. Vossen attributes the PVV’s durability to a combination of structural and contingent factors: the decline of pillarized institutions, the fragmentation of the Dutch party system, and the normalization of far-right rhetoric through media amplification. “Over the last ten years,” he notes, “we’ve seen the clear emergence of a very right-wing media… strongly conservative and very much anti-left. ‘Left’ as a word, as a concept, has almost become an insult in the Netherlands.” The weakening of social intermediaries and the culturalization of political conflict, he argues, have made space for a stable radical-right electorate of roughly 30%.

Despite periodic moderation—what Wilders once called putting his ideas “in the freezer”—Dr. Vossen believes the PVV’s ideological substance remains intact. Even temporary participation in government, he argues, only suspends rather than transforms its radicalism. The 2025 elections, he concludes, show both the limits and persistence of Dutch populism: a movement still revolving around one man, one message, and one enduring enemy.

Dr. Koen Vossen is a political historian and lecturer in political science at Radboud University.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Dr. Koen Vossen, slightly revised for clarity and flow.

Dutch Voters Long for Stability After Polarization Fatigue

Professor Koen Vossen, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: The recent Dutch election produced a dramatic reversal for the PVV, whose brief coalition participation ended in collapse, while D66 surged to the top of the polls. To what extent should we interpret this outcome as evidence of a structural electoral realignment favoring centrist, pro-EU forces—or as a temporary recalibration following the PVV’s troubled spell in government? In other words, are we witnessing a durable shift in voter preferences or merely the electoral consequences of perceived misgovernance?

Dr. Koen Vossen: I think both. Interpreting Dutch election results is always tricky because we are a country of minorities, so there are always more stories than one story in an election result.

What you saw in the last election was a longing for more stability—for a more stable coalition among a part of the electorate. People were fed up with the old polarization and longed for more centrist politics. That was absolutely there.

At the same time, you have also seen in the Netherlands that the border between the radical right and the center-right has somehow been blurred, especially in the conservative-liberal VVD, the party once led by Mark Rutte and now by Dilan Yeşilgöz. It has moved very much to the right and wanted an exclusively center-right coalition without Wilders’s party.

So, one could also interpret the result as support for this center-right coalition or as support for a more centrist coalition. At the same time, Wilders’s party still had about 17 or 18 percent of the vote. He lost some votes but remains the second-largest party in the Netherlands, so there are different stories here.

The Radical Right’s 30% Support Shows Structural Stability

Despite near-parity in seat totals, Geert Wilders appears politically isolated, as most mainstream parties again refuse coalition cooperation. Does this effective ‘cordon sanitaire’ signal the enduring resilience of Dutch party-system norms against radical-right institutionalization? Or does the continued aggregate strength of far-right parties (including FvD and JA21) indicate a deeper, longer-term transformation in the ideological landscape that may eventually erode such exclusionary practices?

Dr. Koen Vossen: The radical right maintained its position with about 30% of the vote. So, it’s still there—this 30%. They did not really lose in the last elections, but their support was divided among different parties, maybe even 35% in total. Previously, Wilders had the largest share of this radical-right vote—around 25%. The rest went to smaller radical-right parties, but now these smaller parties have grown, and most of the voters that Wilders lost went to them. So, there’s been more of a transfer of votes within this bloc than an overall loss. A small portion, maybe, went to the VVD—the conservative liberals who also tried to attract votes in the radical-right sphere. But in the end, there remains a fairly stable 30% of the Dutch electorate that supports these parties.

The PVV’s Core Is Anti-Islam

An elderly man holds a protest sign during a PEGIDA demonstration against the perceived Islamization of Europe in Enschede, the Netherlands on September 17, 2017. Photo: Dreamstime.

You argue that Wilders cannot be understood solely within the populist frame. How has the PVV’s ideological trajectory shifted from anti-establishment protest toward a more coherent political project, and what classifications better capture this evolution?

Dr. Koen Vossen: Populism has always been a thin ideology, so it needs other ideologies. In the case of the PVV, that has always been a strong nationalism and nativism, anti-immigration, and an anti-Islamic stance based on a “clash of civilizations” type of ideology, combined with a conservative law-and-order orientation. Since around 2010, you can see some tactical changes, but overall, the ideology has become quite clear and crystallized. Its main pillars are populism—with a very strong anti-elite sentiment—anti-immigration, welfare-state chauvinism, anti-Islam, and conservatism on law and order.

It should also be noted that the party is relatively progressive on some immaterial issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia policy—more so than many other parties. But on most other issues, it is quite conservative, particularly anti–climate policy. In that sense, the PVV is a fairly classic radical-right populist party, comparable to Rassemblement National (RN), Farage’s movement, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), or the Swedish Democrats (SD). Some of them even sit together in the European Parliament.

What distinguishes the PVV, however, is its very strong focus on Islam—this is quite specific to the party—and Wilders has been a pioneer in this regard. The party is also pro-Israel and relatively progressive when it comes to issues such as gay marriage, women’s emancipation, and abortion. These are the main ideological characteristics of the PVV.

Right-Wing Media Have Made the Radical Right the Only Alternative

You have written that the PVV has become increasingly normalized in Dutch politics. Which institutional mechanisms—parliamentary collaboration, media treatment, coalition signaling—have most contributed to this mainstreaming?

Dr. Koen Vossen: Media treatment is very important. Over the last ten years, we’ve seen the clear emergence of a very right-wing media. One could even compare it to Fox News–type outlets—strongly conservative and very much anti-left. The left wing has become the main enemy. “Left” as a word, as a concept, has almost become an insult in the Netherlands. “Leftist people” and similar terms are not neutral—they never were, of course, but this tendency has grown stronger.

The media treatment means that if the right-wing parties did not deliver in coalitions, the left was not seen as an alternative. Then the radical right became the alternative. If the radical right proved not to be the alternative, people looked to other right-wing parties—never to the left. The left has been out of the race, especially in these media. So, the radical right has become the alternative.

This also has to do with the fact that, in 2023, after eleven years of cordon sanitaire, the VVD decided to open the door again for collaboration with Wilders’s party, the PVV—purely strategically. They thought, we always have to go into coalitions, we always have to look to left-wing parties; now they wanted to look to a right-wing party, even an extreme right-wing party, to have more options. This proved to be a strategic blunder because now, for many parties, Wilders became an option. Before, they could always say, “Well, that’s a wasted vote because he will never govern.” But now it was not a wasted vote anymore—it became an option, and for a lot of these voters, even a better one.

So, helped by the media and by the end of the cordon sanitaire, one could say that the PVV emerged as the winner in 2023.

A newspaper rack displaying several Dutch newspapers, including De Telegraaf, Trouw, AD, and regional papers. Photo: Dreamstime.

Anti-Islam Is the Core; Everything Else Is Secondary

Anti-Islam alarmism remains central to the PVV. Do recent policy expansions toward welfare and housing reflect ideological maturation, tactical vote-seeking, or merely cosmetic adjustment that leaves the anti-Islam core intact?

Dr. Koen Vossen: The anti-Islam core is absolutely the most important part of this party. I say party, but the thing is, with the PVV, it’s really basically one man. Although he has more than 2.5 million votes, talking about the PVV—especially on a national level—is talking about one man: his considerations, his thinking, and his decisions. The rest is not really relevant. So, one has to look into his head to find out what he thinks, as there are no public discussions or debates in this party. There’s no party organization, no conferences, no party manifesto, or party newspaper. It is purely a matter of what Wilders wants, what he does, and what he likes. Wilders’s absolute core ideology is this anti-Islam ideology. The rest of it—maybe calling it purely tactical is a little too cynical—but it is certainly not the main issue for him.

PVV Support Is Driven by Cultural Fear, Not Economic Anxiety

To what degree has the erosion of pillarized structures and intermediary institutions created the social fragmentation necessary for PVV success? Do cultural anxieties outweigh economic grievances in explaining the party’s appeal?

Dr. Koen Vossen: I think it’s mainly a cultural matter—it’s all about immigration. These voters’ main concern is immigration, absolutely. Housing is second, but it’s connected to immigration. If you look at the socioeconomic profile of the PVV voter, one cannot say that these are the less fortunate ones economically. Of course, you also see them in the lower-income classes, but also in the middle- and higher-income classes, where people do not really experience economic anxiety. Economically, the Netherlands is doing quite well.

So, it is mainly a cultural thing—a fear of immigration, fear especially of asylum seekers, which has become a very big issue in the Netherlands. Incidents involving asylum seekers have attracted a lot of attention in the media, and as a result, these issues became the most salient in the election campaign. Immigration was the issue people talked about, and Wilders benefited from this. So, if you see immigration more as a cultural issue, then I would say it was more on a cultural level than on an economic one.

Wilders’s ‘People’ Are Defined Against the Leftist Elite

How does the PVV’s construction of ‘de volk’ differ from earlier Dutch nationalist discourses? Is the imagined community increasingly defined through civilizational frames—especially Judeo-Christian identity—rather than ethnic or civic nationalism?

Dr. Koen Vossen: That’s an interesting one. The main difference is that, first of all, until the 1960s or 1970s, the Netherlands was a pillarized country. You had these different minorities—the Catholics, the Protestants, the Socialists, the Liberals. These pillars have disappeared, and in a way, we have now become one big population, without this idea anymore of four different groups.

There is actually a majority culture—secular, quite progressive in many ways, but also liberal in an economic sense. So, there has been a kind of majority culture. What has now become the new cleavage for many people is between the elite, which is often associated with the left, and the people—and that is what Wilders capitalizes on.

This imagined community of Wilders is very much an anti-elite community, especially anti–cultural elites. In the Netherlands, we call this the Amsterdam Canal District—that’s the center of Amsterdam—and that’s where, in this imagined community, live the elites who disparage the common people. A little bit like the Rive Gauche in Paris, or similar places elsewhere—these left-wing people who, in his narrative, look down on ordinary citizens. That has mainly become his imagined community: a “good people” who have been betrayed by a leftist elite. So, it’s an anti-elitist conception of the people. That is the main difference between now and the past.

In Dutch Elections, Two or Three Percent Can Decide Everything

Billboard featuring the main candidates in the Dutch elections on June 9, 2010, in Amstelveen, the Netherlands. Photo: Dreamstime.

Was the PVV’s 2023 electoral breakthrough driven primarily by long-term ideological convergence between party and electorate, or did short-term crises—housing, asylum pressure, inflation—create an episodic opportunity?

Dr. Koen Vossen: What happens in the Netherlands is that election campaigns matter a lot. We are a country with many parties—very fragmented, without any single dominant one. So, you usually have three or four major contenders—it’s almost like a cycling tour. In the end, a few escape the peloton, race toward the finish, and then there’s a sprint where two or three percent makes the difference. Sometimes, a small push at the end—some luck, a sudden event, or a strong debate performance—can deliver those few extra percentage points.

So, the PVV this time, because of what I already mentioned—the end of the cordon sanitaire, the VVD signaling that the PVV was now an option, immigration becoming a hot topic, and Wilders presenting himself as a bit more moderate—these factors, combined with a few strong debate performances, especially one widely watched debate where he clearly came out as the winner, gave him that final two, three, or four percent that made him the victor in these elections.

Had this not happened, it might just as well have been the centrist liberals who caught that last bit of momentum—with a good campaign and a little luck—and made the final sprint to become the largest party.

It’s a One-Man Party—And That’s Its Greatest Weakness

The PVV’s unique one-member structure creates tactical agility yet hinders institutionalization. How does this model shape accountability, policy competence, and the party’s ability to govern?

Dr. Koen Vossen: The main problem for the PVV is absolutely the fact that they lack personnel. They lack good people. And that should not have been a problem, except that Wilders is a very distrustful man. He does not trust anyone outside his very small circle of people. So, if he needs ministers, junior ministers, or people he can send to do a job, he has to rely on this small circle of people who have been around him for 10 to 15 years. These are people without any experience in governing. Their only experience is helping Wilders in his opposition work. So, they are not people who can govern a whole ministry.

This is the main problem—and he does not want to recruit people from outside because he does not trust them. He’s also afraid that other people could become more popular than he is, and all these kinds of things. So, that’s really the main problem of the PVV, and that’s why he basically failed in government—because he lacks both people and quality within his party.

Wilders’s Longevity Is Partly a Matter of Luck

Compared with LPF and FvD, the PVV has exhibited remarkable longevity. Does this durability reflect ideological clarity, organizational discipline—even if minimal—or simply an absence of credible far-right competition?

Dr. Koen Vossen: I think there’s even a fourth option—and that’s luck. For instance, the FvD seemed to be a really good competitor, but then the coronavirus hit suddenly. At the moment when the FvD made its breakthrough and was really campaigning across the whole country, the pandemic broke out. Everybody had to go into lockdown. For Wilders, this was nothing new, because he’s basically been in lockdown for the last 20 years, living under strong security measures. But for Thierry Baudet, for Forum voor Democratie, this proved to be a real disaster, because he got tangled up in all kinds of conspiracy theories about the coronavirus and vaccination. So, Wilders was just lucky that Baudet made a mess of things in his own party and made himself impossible.

Having said that, the story of the FvD isn’t over. They won again with a new leader—a young female leader, 28 years old—and became more attractive again for some voters. But for Wilders, what also matters is that he’s a political professional. He knows how to play the game. He’s very experienced in debates and in how to attract media attention—not too much and not too little. He knows exactly how to do these things. So, it’s also a skill that plays a role here.

Wilders Has Returned to His Old Anti-Islam Routine

The collapse of the most recent governing arrangement highlighted constitutional constraints on Wilders’ maximalist proposals. Has the forced “freezing” of radical positions substantively moderated the movement, or merely deferred ideological confrontation?

Dr. Koen Vossen: I think they lost. Since they are out of government, he’s kind of back to his old anti-Islam routine. He moderated his viewpoints for a while—he always said, “I put them in the refrigerator for a while, in the freezer.” But now the refrigerator is open again, and all the old viewpoints are back. One could even say that, in a way, he contaminated the conservative liberals and the Farmers Party, his partners in the coalition. He influenced them with his ideology because they also became more anti-Islam and very much pro-Israel. There’s, maybe, not a clear answer here, either.

Wilders Is the Ultimate Insider Who Plays the Outsider

Geert Wilders (PVV) in House of Representatives during a debating at the Tweede Kamer on April 5, 2023 in Den Haag, Netherlands. Photo: Jeroen Meuwsen.

You note that Wilders seems most effective in opposition. If the PVV returns to government, might governance responsibilities erode its anti-system identity, or does the “Schrödinger’s populism” phenomenon enable Wilders to frame himself as both insider and outsider simultaneously?

Dr. Koen Vossen: I didn’t know the Schrödinger’s paradox, so I’ll have to look it up. Wilders has been an insider from the very beginning. He’s been in politics since 1990—first working for the conservative-liberal parliamentary group as an assistant, then becoming a member of the parliamentary group in 1998. He started his own party in 2004. So, he’s always been there. He’s an insider as much as one can be an insider in politics in The Hague, in the Netherlands. He has the longest tenure of all parliamentarians in the Netherlands, absolutely. But he has always managed to give himself an outsider profile by provoking and making these harsh statements. So, in that sense, he can really play with these elements. I don’t know the exact article about this Schrödinger’s populism, so I’m hesitant to go deeper into it, but at first glance, I would say yes—he plays this insider–outsider role very well.

Wilders’s Anti-Islam Discourse Grew from His Pro-Israel Stance

PVV foreign policy is heavily filtered through a clash-of-civilizations narrative. How does this framing shape its positions on Israel-Palestine, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine, and does it distort pragmatic assessment of national interests?

Dr. Koen Vossen: He’s very much pro-Israel, pro-Netanyahu. He doesn’t allow any criticism of Israel, and all the victims there—that’s just part of a war. So, in that sense, he’s very much pro-Netanyahu. When he was 19 years old and had just left school, he went to work on a kibbutz. He’s not Jewish himself, but he went there to spend a gap year. Before starting his studies, he wanted to do something different, so he did this. And since then—this was 1980 or 1981—he has had a special connection with Israel. One could even say that this special connection with Israel shaped his worldview early on. Already in the 1990s, he really saw the enemies of Israel as Islamic enemies. So, his whole anti-Islamic discourse partly comes from this pro-Israel stance, and he still sees Israel as the main buffer against Islamization. This whole story is still very much there.

With regard to Ukraine and Russia, the story is more complicated. Around 2017–2018, for a while, he made some remarks that were more pro-Russia. He even went to Moscow, but never as much as the Front National, Salvini, or Orbán. When Russia invaded Ukraine, he really distanced himself from Russia. But at the same time, he was not a very enthusiastic supporter of Zelensky or of Ukraine either. So, he tries to keep a little bit of distance there.

It’s the same with NATO. On the one hand, he’s very pro-Trump. On the other hand, Trump demands the 5% expenditure on defense, and that’s also something that for Wilders is problematic—that’s quite a lot, in his opinion. So, in foreign policy, does it sometimes hurt national interests? Yes, sometimes it does. In trade with Arab countries, with Islamic countries, Wilders can really be a problem for the Netherlands with all his remarks. For him, it’s not a reason to say, “Okay, I’ll tone down my voice a little bit.” No, he just says, “We should not deliver any weapons to Islamic countries,”for example, and things like that. So, he’s quite principled on these matters.

Israel Is Seen as the Vanguard Against Islamization

You have argued that the PVV positions Israel as the civilizational vanguard of the West. Is this symbolic architecture primarily a theological-civilizational justification for its anti-Islam platform, or does it carry genuine programmatic implications for Dutch foreign policy?

Dr. Koen Vossen: It did. The last government, which is still there now as a caretaker government, was also quite pro-Israel—one of the most pro-Israel governments in the European Union for a long time. So, there was not much criticism of Netanyahu for a long time. They were very much against sanctions. For example, when there was the question of some sick children going to the Netherlands for treatment, the PVV was very much against it, and this government was also against it. So, in that sense, it really had programmatic implications, absolutely.

But does it have theological roots? That’s difficult to say. It’s this whole idea of “Israel first” as well—there are different reasons for supporting Israel. There is this historical feeling of guilt toward the Jewish population in the Netherlands. The Netherlands was one of the countries with the highest percentage of Jews deported during the war, so there’s this lingering feeling of guilt. Then there’s the idea of Israel as the vanguard against Islamization, as part of this clash-of-civilizations narrative. There’s also a specific Christian motive in supporting Israel—you see this among Orthodox Christians. There’s a whole Christian theory behind that, similar to what you see in the United States. So, these are the three main reasons to support Israel in the Netherlands, and you see this reflected in the programmatic policy toward Israel.

Wilders Learned That Nexit Was an Unwinnable Battle

Concept illustration with road sign reading “Nexit.” Photo: Dreamstime.

And lastly, Professor Vossen, the PVV has oscillated between advocating Nexit and merely proposing a referendum. Does this reflect strategic ambiguity intended to broaden its electorate, internal ideological uncertainty, or recognition that Euroscepticism is increasingly cultural rather than institutional?

Dr. Koen Vossen: Here you can really see a tactical motive. Nexit is not really popular in the Netherlands. It has never, in any poll, come even close to a majority. At most, 20–25% of the Dutch electorate favors some kind of Nexit. Because it’s such a trading country, it would be economically very stupid to have a Nexit. We are completely dependent on Germany economically. And people saw what happened in the UK with Brexit. So, Wilders thought, “Maybe with Nexit, I will never win this battle.” Like Le Pen did in France, he said, “I’ll drop the whole Nexit idea.” He mentioned something about a referendum, but in his last program for the European Parliament elections, he was quite vague and moderate about the European Union. He’s not a fan—he will never be a fan of the European Union—but Nexit is also a bridge too far for him.

Dr. Monika de Silva is a political scientist at the University of Gothenburg.

Dr. de Silva: Anti-Gender Narratives Are Highly Interlinked and Interconnected Across Borders

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryGenderHomeHuman RightsInterviews

“Anti-gender discourses are very interlinked and interconnected; we see these floating narratives repeated across countries like Latvia, Poland, and Russia,” says Dr. Monika de Silva. She explains that populist actors strategically exploit linguistic ambiguity around concepts such as gender, transforming technical legal terms into polarizing political symbols. “Language is never neutral… this linguistic openness is used to argue that because gender replaces the word sex, we can no longer talk about men and women,” she notes. The Istanbul Convention—intended to prevent violence against women—has thus been reframed as an LGBTQ+ threat or “radical feminist project.” Yet Dr. de Silva stresses the importance of civic resistance: Latvia’s mass protests “undoubtedly shaped” the president’s decision to return the withdrawal bill to parliament.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In recent weeks, Latvia has become a focal point in Europe’s ongoing struggle over gender equality, human rights, and democratic resilience. On October 31, 2025, the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) voted 56–32 to withdraw from the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention—only a year after ratifying the treaty designed to prevent and combat violence against women. The move relied heavily on claims that the Convention promotes “radical feminism” and “gender ideology,” echoing narratives with well-documented transnational origins. President Edgars Rinkēvičs soon returned the bill to parliament for reconsideration, warning that overturning ratification within a single legislative term would send “a contradictory message… to Latvian society and Latvia’s allies internationally.” He urged postponement until after upcoming elections, noting that Latvia risked becoming the first EU member state to renounce a human-rights treaty.

The backlash triggered the country’s largest civic protests since the 1990s. On November 6, 2025, more than 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Riga under the slogan “Let’s Protect Mother Latvia,” signaling a groundswell of civic resistance. At stake is not only the institutional integrity of gender-equality policy but also the credibility of Latvia’s constitutional and international commitments, especially given that the EU itself acceded to the Convention in 2023, making certain provisions binding regardless of national withdrawal.

It is against this turbulent backdrop that the European Center for the Study of Populism (ECPS) spoke with Dr. Monika de Silva, a political scientist at the University of Gothenburg. Her research, situated at the intersection of international relations and EU studies, examines how contested normative frameworks travel across borders. Her 2025 doctoral dissertation, “‘Gender Wars’ in Europe: Diplomatic Practice under Polarized Conditions,” traces how bilateral diplomacy and Council of the EU negotiations have been reshaped by conflicts over gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights. She is also affiliated with the Gender and Diplomacy project (GenDip) and the Centre for European Research (CERGU).

In the interview, Dr. de Silva argues that anti-gender discourse is best understood as a transnationally circulating narrative rather than merely a domestic reaction: “Anti-gender discourses are very interlinked and interconnected… we see manifestations of that as floating narratives that are very similar, whether we look at Latvia, Poland or Russia, etc.”

She identifies both supply and demand factors driving the spread of “gender ideology” rhetoric across Europe, noting that populist radical right actors strategically translate technical legal language into ideologically charged frames, exploiting linguistic ambiguity: “Language is never neutral… this linguistic openness is definitely used to advance such narratives.”

Dr. de Silva further highlights how withdrawal debates are reframing the Istanbul Convention away from its core purpose—preventing violence against women—toward narratives that depict it as an LGBTQ+ threat or “radical feminist project.” These interpretations, she warns, are not new; similar tropes have circulated across Europe for nearly a decade.

Yet her analysis also highlights agents of democratic resilience. Civil society mobilization, she observes, has already influenced decision-making: “The president… decided to return the  law to parliament, and I am sure that seeing the largest protests in Latvia helped shape this decision.”

Finally, she issues a clear warning about governance consequences. Withdrawal would remove Latvia from GREVIO’s monitoring regime, generating critical transparency and implementation gaps: “A state not part of the Convention would not report to GREVIO… whatever it does is therefore less transparent, especially internationally.”

This interview thus offers rich insight into how legal, discursive, and geopolitical forces converge to shape contemporary anti-gender mobilization—and how democratic institutions and civil society may yet respond.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Dr. Monika de Silva, slightly revised for clarity and flow.

Latvia’s Withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention Signals Deep Democratic Trouble

Demonstrators in Riga on April 25, 2023, demand accountability after a woman’s murder, calling for political responsibility over Latvia’s years-long failure to ratify the Istanbul Convention. Photo: Gints Ivuskans.

Dr. Monica de Silva, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: Latvia became the first EU state to vote to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention—just a year after ratifying it. The move, driven by the right-wing Latvia First party and backed by a governing coalition partner, relied on claims that the treaty promotes “gender ideology,” echoing Kremlin-style narratives. It triggered Latvia’s largest civic protests since the 1990s, despite the country having the highest femicide rate in Europe; President Edgars Rinkēvičs has since sent the bill back to parliament for review. How do you interpret this backlash—primarily as a cyclical conservative reaction, a structural anti-gender countermovement, or a strategic tool of PRR mobilization?

Dr. Monika de Silva: Of course, the fact that populist radical right parties like Latvia First mobilized around the Istanbul Convention and now seek to withdraw from it is not surprising; it is a continued strategy of populist radical right parties. What is different—and concerning—in this case is that a conservative party, the Union of Farmers and Greens, has joined these radical right actors in pursuing withdrawal from the Convention.

The Union has always had reservations about the Convention, which is typical not only of radical or far-right parties but also of more mainstream conservative parties. However, what distinguishes this situation is that the Union is part of the government, and, as such, agreed to a coalition deal in which the Latvian government committed to ratifying the Istanbul Convention. Now they are backing away from a commitment they made to the Latvian public and to their coalition partners, which is deeply troubling for the state of our democracy.

It has been a very long process from Latvia’s signing of the Istanbul Convention to its ratification just last year. During this period, we saw extensive democratic debate in parliament, as well as a case before the Constitutional Court, which confirmed that the Convention complies with the Latvian Constitution. Upon ratification, Latvia also adopted an interpretive declaration affirming that it would not replace the word “sex” with “gender” in national legislation, and so on. Many voices participated in this process, and concerns—for example, about the legal implications of the Convention—were duly assessed.

It is therefore very worrying that, at this stage, we still face efforts to retract this commitment. This raises questions not only about Latvia’s commitment to its own citizens—particularly women—but also to other states that are parties to the Convention.

The Supply and Demand of Anti-Gender Politics in Europe

In your view, what explains the political salience of “gender ideology” narratives in opposition to the Istanbul Convention across such varied contexts as Latvia, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Hungary?

Dr. Monika de Silva: I like to think about the gender ideology narrative as having a supply side and a demand side. On the supply side, we have in all of these countries very strong populist radical right parties, but also other political movements that are very effective at mobilizing against the Convention and transnationalizing this issue. So this is the supply side of the narrative.

But what is even more interesting is the demand side. This strategy would not work without the resonance of this argument among a certain part of the population. What is similar in all of these countries—you mentioned Latvia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary—is that they all participate in European integration but are not at the core of this project. They are not Western European countries; they are Central and Eastern European countries, or even countries on the boundary between Europe and other continents.

There are also many interlinkages between European identity and gender equality norms. We see that adopting certain norms or laws gives states a certain status within European integration. The case of Turkey is illustrative. The Istanbul Convention is named the Istanbul Convention for a reason. It was adopted in Turkey, and Turkey gained a lot of status points by hosting the conference; it was able to brand itself as European, liberal, etc.

But let’s remember that this was over 10-15 years ago, and now we live in a different moment. Today, Turkey’s accession to the European Union is much less likely. We also live in a moment where the European Union does not have as much power as it used to. So, this linkage between Europeanness and gender equality does not work as well as it once did, and it creates backlash. 

Gender equality norms are very dear to people; they are part of people’s social identity, whether on the left or on the right. So, it is not something that can be easily changed. People also do not want to feel that something is being imposed on them, so it is very easy to mobilize against this narrative in these countries—arguing that this is Western Europe, or the EU, or the Council of Europe, etc., or the elites forcing them to change their core norms.

Women and LGBTQ+ activists in İzmir, Turkey, rally for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, highlighting femicide and the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention. Photo: Idil Toffolo.

Populism, Geopolitics, and the Cross-Border Spread of Gender Backlash

To what extent is anti-gender discourse a domestic phenomenon, and to what extent is it borrowing transnational scripts, including Kremlin-linked rhetoric that frames the Convention as destroying “traditional family values”?

Dr. Monika de Silva: Of course, anti-gender discourses are very interlinked and interconnected, and we see manifestations of that as floating narratives that are very similar, whether we look at Latvia, Poland or Russia.

In the Latvian case, for example, I have not seen any new tropes in the anti-gender discourse, even though we have had this conversation since 2015–2016. So now, almost ten years on, there is nothing new. The Istanbul Convention is presented as a threat to the family, sneaking in certain gender-equality or feminist or LGBT norms that states did not initially think were in the Convention, or that it will make states allow for non-binarity in their legal systems, or make more lenient laws regarding transgender rights.

We see this over and over again, across time and space. What is the reason for that? To some extent, it is coordinated. We have coalitions of states that cooperate with each other in venues like the United Nations—traditional-values coalitions and so on—and they exchange and build their discourses together. We also have non-state, transnational organizations like the World Congress of Families that do this.

Regarding the link between these narratives and Russia or the Kremlin: we definitely see why there would be an incentive for Russia to stir up the conversation around the Istanbul Convention in Latvia and other Baltic states. This creates a lot of mistrust between countries like Latvia and other Western European countries and the EU, especially in a situation where we have this aggression on the eastern border of Europe. This is a problem that can steer the fate of this country one way or another.

We have elections in Latvia next year, and the Istanbul Convention will surely be a significant part of the campaigns. Hopefully, it will not steer the political scene in this country toward a pro-Russian direction. I hope we will see well-informed, democratic debate on the Istanbul Convention. But of course, since this is such a polarizing topic, there are certain risks involved.

Populist Actors Exploit Linguistic Ambiguity in EU Gender Debates

How do PRR actors transform technical legal language into ideologically charged rhetoric, especially around contested terms like “gender,” which your work has shown can be strategically mistranslated or emptied of meaning in EU negotiation spaces?

Dr. Monika de Silva: The discussion around the term “gender” shows us that language is never neutral. It is always politically charged, whether it is adopted as technical or legal. In the case I studied, several EU member states at some point decided that they did not want to use the word “gender” in EU-adopted documents. This, of course, stirred a lot of contestations around what gender even means for the EU, and so on. The fact is that what gender means, or what gender equality means for the EU, has never been a settled issue.

As you know, all EU languages have equal legal value. In different languages, gender equality is translated basically as equality between men and women. This had not been an issue for a long time because it did not spark as much discussion as it does now, with many states being very attached to the idea that gender should include more than men and women, and some countries being attached to the idea that it should not.

So, there is this discursive openness in what gender means for the EU. It existed before the so-called gender-language crisis. Populist parties, populist governments, are very skilled at using this discursive openness. Because if we do not know what the exact boundaries of a certain word are—and this is not atypical in political discourse—it is very easy to argue that this word means something essentially ridiculous. For example, because gender replaces the word sex, we can no longer talk about men and women. This is, of course, not what the word “gender” means, but this linguistic openness is definitely used to advance such narratives.

Why Some States Avoid Ratification: The Limits of EU Influence

European Union flags against European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium.

In your research, you explore “language bargaining” and diplomatic-legal talk. How have these dynamics influenced EU-level negotiations on the Istanbul Convention, and how did they enable states such as Hungary or Slovakia to avoid ratification?

Dr. Monika de Silva: Definitions and decisions in the EU are always outcomes of negotiations. There are diplomacy and negotiation involved in reaching a jointly acceptable outcome. That, of course, is a good, healthy thing if we have parties that are not always expecting to arrive at their maximalist outcome. This is not possible in an organization with 27 member states.

The ability to make these compromises and negotiate was something that enabled the European Union to accede to the Istanbul Convention, even though several member states decided that they themselves would not accede to the Convention. But they accepted the fact that, within a legitimate process and based on the rule of law—with also a case in the Court of Justice of the EU confirming that the EU can accede to the Istanbul Convention—yes, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

So, there is very little that the EU can do to make other member states ratify the Convention. This is their sovereign decision; they are not obliged to ratify the Convention under EU law. Even given the narratives that we talked about—the imposition from the EU and so on—this may actually have a reverse effect, a backlash against this sort of narrative of imposition.

So, I think the way to go is to maintain a culture of compromise, which assures these governments and their populations that this is the way we work in the EU, including in cases like the Istanbul Convention.

How a Women’s Protection Treaty Became a Culture-War Symbol

Could you reflect on how the Istanbul Convention became symbolically detached from its core purpose—preventing violence against women—and reframed instead as an LGBTQ+ threat or “radical feminist” project?

Dr. Monika de Silva: Of course, this is very unfortunate—what we see is that a convention intended to protect women from violence, gender-based violence, and protect domestic-violence victims, not only women, suddenly becomes a token in political discussions.

Even if some political movements would like the Istanbul Convention to stand for LGBT rights and feminist projects to a larger extent, it does not do so, as populist parties would like us to believe. That is why it is very important to counter misinformation around the Istanbul Convention and always go back to what it actually stands for and what it actually says. This is how movements across Europe will succeed in ensuring that the Convention is a successful tool—by returning to its true purpose, which is largely consensual. If we look at public opinion across Europe, most people agree that violence against women is not something they want to see in their societies.

We may have different ideas about the scope of the problem and how to tackle it, but returning to this core purpose is something that can mobilize support for the Convention. Bringing the Convention back to its purpose and localizing that purpose—not as something imposed or defined by other countries on Latvia, for example, but as something important within Latvian society itself—is very important.

We see civil society learning to do that—to focus on these two things. When we look at the protests in Latvia, I have seen a lot of Latvian flags; the protest itself has this motto of protecting Mother Latvia. So, it gives you the idea that this is about the citizens and population of Latvia. It is not about the EU; it is not about how we look in the eyes of EU bureaucrats. This is a local issue.

People Power Matters: Protest as a Deterrent to Anti-Gender Politics

Women protest in Warsaw, Poland, against the abortion ban and new laws restricting the right to contest fines or penalties. Photo: Eryk Losik.

What role does civil society mobilization play against gender backlash? Latvia has seen some of its largest protests since independence—can such mobilization create durable political resistance?

Dr. Monika de Silva: Of course it matters, and we have seen this in the case of Latvia. The president of Latvia decided to return the decision about the Istanbul Convention to parliament, and I am sure that seeing the mobilization of people and witnessing the largest protests in Latvia helped shape this decision.

We have other cases as well. Poland is a very good example of how civil society mobilization really works. Think about the Women’s Strike in Poland, and the fact that even though Poland had a populist government for over eight years, very much threatening gender equality, Poland has not withdrawn from the Istanbul Convention. This was, to a large extent, the success of civil society mobilization, acting as a deterrent to incumbents—showing that if you take a decision that is against our core values and beliefs, we will not continue supporting you.

At the end of the day, people want to stay in power, and civil society mobilization shows them that they can only do so if they take into account what civil society wants. This mobilization has to continue until the elections in Latvia next year, and hopefully in a way that mobilizes a large part of society rather than polarizing it.

Can EU-Level Binding Offset National Withdrawal?

How has EU legal accession to the Istanbul Convention (2023) shaped the political field? Does EU-level binding partially compensate for national withdrawals or refusals to ratify?

Dr. Monika de Silva: This is a complex legal issue—really an issue for legal nerds—but it is important for the public to understand it, too. Some parts of the Istanbul Convention are ratified by the EU, and the majority of the Convention can be ratified by EU member states, depending on who has competence in a given issue.

So, the EU—regardless of whether member states ratified the Convention or not—will have a certain part of the Convention apply, for example in the case of Latvia, just because the EU ratified it. But this is a very limited scope: it includes transnational cooperation between national court systems on violence against women and domestic violence.

A second area is asylum and refugee policy, because the EU has competence over this policy. And third, the EU has to implement the Convention within its own institutions.

So, this is a limited scope—this is one thing. Another issue is that although in theory it may sound all well and good, a division of competences, in practice this is a bit of a mess. Even though the EU is legally responsible for asylum policy, it is actually member states that implement it. It is states that run asylum-seeking centers, states that receive asylum requests, and so on. So, in practice, it may be difficult to differentiate who is responsible for what, and we have yet to see how this will work in practice.

The Real-World Costs of Leaving the Istanbul Convention

Women and LGBTQ+ activists in İzmir, Turkey, rally on November 25 for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, highlighting femicide and the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention. Photo: Idil Toffolo.

And lastly, Dr. de Silva, from a governance-effects perspective, what are the tangible consequences of withdrawal or non-ratification for women’s lives, particularly in terms of monitoring gaps and legal reform trajectories?

Dr. Monika de Silva: In the case of Latvia specifically, the Istanbul Convention is still in force and will be so until the parliament votes otherwise. But this will likely not happen until the next parliamentary elections in Latvia next year. So, in the case of Latvia, we are so far safe.

But what would happen if Latvia withdrew from the Convention? Let’s think about this. Many provisions of the Convention are already implemented in this case, and then we would have to focus on keeping these provisions in place. This is also a strategy in countries where it is very clear that they will not ratify the Convention in any foreseeable future. Think about Hungary. This is where civil society should focus on national law on domestic violence and violence against women being as strong as possible and perhaps reflecting the provisions of the Convention to the largest extent possible.

Latvia has already reported to GREVIO, the expert body of the Convention that monitors its implementation, and from this report we know that there are still gaps. The government itself says, for example, that it does not yet have assistance centers for rape victims. Now the government is legally obliged to establish them in the foreseeable future. If Latvia were not a member of the Convention, it would not have a legal obligation to do so.

There are situations like that. But the biggest and most immediate difference we would see is that a state not part of the Convention would not report to GREVIO. Whatever it does is therefore less transparent, especially internationally. There is less scrutiny, because once a state reports to GREVIO, it is evaluated by this body of experts—experts on violence against women and domestic violence who know what the Convention requires and how it should be implemented. States outside the Convention would also not face scrutiny from other member states or from international civil society.

So, this would be the biggest difference.

Geert Wilders (PVV) in House of Representatives during a debating at the Tweede Kamer on April 5, 2023 in Den Haag, Netherlands. Photo: Jeroen Meuwsen.

Professor de Lange: D66’s Victory in Dutch Elections Cannot Be Presented as a Victory over Populism

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviews

In an in-depth interview with the ECPS, Professor Sarah de Lange of Leiden University cautions that “D66’s victory in Dutch elections cannot be presented as a victory over populism.” While the liberal centrist D66 led by Rob Jetten revitalized the political center, Professor de Lange stresses that “the total size of the radical right-wing bloc has not diminished—it’s just more fragmented.” She argues that Dutch politics is shaped less by populism than by nativism, which has “seeped so much into the mainstream.” Despite the PVV’s exclusion from government, Professor de Lange warns that illiberalism remains a significant threat, while the defense of liberal democracy has only recently become “more salient for mainstream parties and more visible to citizens.”

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Sarah de Lange, Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University’s Institute for Political Science, offers a sharp and nuanced interpretation of the 2024 Dutch elections, warning that “D66’s victory in Dutch elections cannot be presented as a victory over populism.” While the liberal centrist D66 emerged as the largest party, Professor de Lange argues that this outcome reflects both a revival of the political center and the continuing normalization of populist discourse within Dutch democracy.

According to Professor de Lange, the election results underscore a complex duality: “We can conclude that both things are happening at the same time.” Although centrist and Christian Democratic parties gained ground, the radical right bloc remains as strong as before—only more fragmented. This persistence, she notes, illustrates not the decline of populism but its adaptation: “The total size of the radical right-wing bloc has not diminished; it’s as strong as it was in the 2023 elections—it’s just more fragmented.”

Professor de Lange cautions against the view that the PVV’s losses signal a populist retreat. Instead, she interprets them through “traditional political science theories about governing and negative incumbency effects.” Geert Wilders’ participation in government, she explains, produced electoral backlash, but his influence on mainstream parties remains unmistakable—particularly regarding migration and national identity, now central themes even for the conservative-liberal VVD. “The VVD moved so close to the PVV in the campaign that it even supported some proposals by the radical right that had anti-constitutional implications,” she observes, underlining how populist narratives have reshaped the Dutch mainstream.

What truly defines this political transformation, Professor de Lange insists, is not merely populism but nativism. “It is this nativism that has seeped so much into the mainstream, rather than the populism,” she explains, pointing to the xenophobic nationalism that has become a structural feature of Dutch political discourse.

Reflecting on the broader European context, Professor de Lange rejects the notion that populism has been “domesticated.” Despite Wilders’ exclusion from coalition talks, she warns that illiberalism remains deeply entrenched. “There is still clearly a threat of illiberalism,” she notes, citing violent demonstrations and political intimidation during the campaign. Yet, she also detects a countermovement: “Defending liberal democracy and the rule of law has become more salient for mainstream parties… making citizens more aware of how vulnerable liberal democracy actually is.”

Ultimately, Professor de Lange’s analysis situates the Dutch case within the wider European struggle between liberal resilience and populist endurance, emphasizing that the current equilibrium represents neither populism’s decline nor liberalism’s triumph—but rather, a tense coexistence shaping the future of democratic politics in Europe.

Sarah de Lange is a Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University’s Institute for Political Science.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Professor Sarah de Lange, slightly revised for clarity and flow.

The Radical Right-Wing Bloc Has Not Diminished—Only Fragmented

Professor Sarah de Lange, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: The October 29 Dutch elections resulted in a striking balance between D66’s liberal centrism and Wilders’ populist radical right. From a comparative perspective, how should we interpret this outcome—does it mark a recalibration of Dutch democracy or the normalization of populism within it?

Professor Sarah de Lange: I think we can conclude that both things are happening at the same time. On the one hand, we’ve seen in the Dutch elections a revival of the center. Not only has the social-liberal D66 gained a lot of seats, but so have the Christian Democrats, and the two parties will be needed for any coalition government that will be formed. At the same time, we also see that Geert Wilders’ PVV has lost seats due to its government participation, but it has lost those seats to other radical right-wing populist competitors, namely JA21 and Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy. So, the total size of the radical right-wing bloc has not diminished; it’s as strong as it was in the 2023 elections—just more fragmented.

Do you view the PVV’s losses as evidence of a populist retreat, or rather as a transformation of its discourse into the mainstream—particularly given the centrist parties’ increasing emphasis on migration and national identity?

Professor Sarah de Lange: The loss of the PVV should really be seen from the perspective of traditional political science theories about governing and negative incumbency effects. Geert Wilders’ PVV governed together with three other parties in the cabinet, and all four parties have lost to some extent in these elections. The loss of the PVV was significant, but perhaps not as large as one would expect for a party that participated in government. There’s a saying in politics that “the breaker pays,” and in this case, Geert Wilders did indeed pay—he did lose voters—but most of those he lost were voters who had joined his party only in 2023, when the VVD opened the door to the PVV.

Many previous non-voters turned out to support the PVV, given that there was finally a chance that the party would govern. So, it’s the newest voters of the PVV who have left again. But interestingly, although some of them came from the mainstream in 2023, few have returned to the mainstream in these elections. Some have—for example, to the conservative-liberal VVD—but in relatively small numbers, which explains why the radical right populist bloc is as strong as it was in 2023.

There’s also a second way in which Geert Wilders’ PVV has had a significant impact on these elections. All mainstream parties, and especially the conservative-liberal VVD, have taken up migration as the core theme of their campaigns and have advocated for a clear reduction in immigration, meaning stricter immigration regulations. 

That has especially been the case for the conservative-liberal VVD of former Prime Minister Mark Rutte, now NATO Secretary General. The party moved so close to the PVV during the campaign that it even supported some proposals by the radical right with anti-constitutional implications. For example, Forum for Democracy, a smaller radical right-wing populist party, proposed during the campaign in Parliament that there should be a motion to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization—very much inspired, of course, by Donald Trump’s proposal to do the same. Even though Dutch legislation is very clear on this point—namely that it is up to the judiciary to designate organizations as terrorist organizations and not to Parliament—the conservative-liberal VVD nevertheless supported this proposal.

So, in that way too, the influence of radical right-wing populist parties in the Netherlands remains significant. What I’ve seen in much of the international press is that the victory of D66 has been presented as a victory over populism, but I certainly do not think it should be interpreted that way.

Nativism, Not Populism, Defines the Radical Right in the Netherlands

Photo: Dreamstime.

To what extent does the Dutch experience illustrate the idea of a “stabilized populism,” where populist rhetoric persists even as its organizational strength fluctuates?

Professor Sarah de Lange: It’s a clear case where we see a potential for the populist radical right that cannot be easily accommodated by the mainstream parties, in the sense that it’s very difficult for mainstream parties to win back voters who, at some point, have turned to the radical right. But I would also highlight that we tend to discuss this very much in terms of populism, while what has really been key to the transformation of Dutch politics—more than populism—is nativism.

What truly defines Geert Wilders’ political platform, as well as those of other radical right parties in the Netherlands, is their nativism, their xenophobic nationalism, and their othering of groups perceived as non-native—which, in the Dutch context, for the PVV, refers mostly to Muslims but more broadly includes anyone with a migration background, even extending to the third generation now living in the Netherlands.

It is this nativism that has seeped so deeply into the mainstream, rather than the populism. In fact, in this particular campaign, populism was not as pronounced in some of the radical right parties. Take, for example, JA21, which picked up a significant number of former PVV voters and could be involved in the coalition negotiations. The party remained clearly nativist in the campaign but was far less outspokenly populist, as a way to be more acceptable as a coalition partner—a serious partner—to mainstream parties.

Populism in Europe Has Not Been Domesticated or Contained

Looking beyond the Netherlands, what do these results reveal about the broader European and global trajectory of populism? Are we witnessing its institutional domestication or the emergence of a new post-populist equilibrium?

Professor Sarah de Lange: What we’re seeing is not its domestication. What was also very clear, already from the start of the campaign, was that Geert Wilders would not be acceptable as a coalition partner to mainstream parties for the next government. Some Dutch mainstream parties have said they don’t want to work with him on principle, because his program contains proposals that are not in line with freedom of religion and that conflict with the rule of law.

Other parties don’t want to work with him again because they don’t find him a trustworthy coalition partner, as he has now toppled two Dutch governments—the last one from which he withdrew, as well as the minority government that ruled the Netherlands from 2010 to 2012 with PVV support. It was therefore very clear to him that he would not be included in the government coalition again, and he immediately reverted to his strong populist and nativist rhetoric. Any moderation that existed during the coalition government—and there was very little of it—disappeared as soon as the coalition collapsed. So, certainly no domestication.

I also don’t necessarily think that we’re in a post-populist age. As I indicated, the radical right in the Netherlands remains as strong as ever, and what was particularly notable in the first survey data from the election is that the group of voters considering support for one of the radical right parties in the Netherlands has actually grown. The potential for the radical right to expand even further in future elections is therefore certainly there.

Wilders’ Personal Control Over the PVV Is Both His Strength and His Weakness

Election posters near the Binnenhof featuring Geert Wilders of the PVV in the foreground, The Hague, the Netherlands, October 12, 2025. Photo: Dreamstime.

Building on your research on party agency and leadership, how do you assess the contrasting political performances of Rob Jetten and Geert Wilders—one mobilizing optimism and inclusivity, the other polarization and grievance?

Professor Sarah de Lange: These are two very different parties, of course, in terms of ideology but also in terms of party organization, and this is a very important part of the story for the Netherlands—one that sets it apart from other countries in Western Europe when it comes to the radical right.

Geert Wilders’ PVV joined the government in 2024, having had no significant experience with governing at the local or regional level. Why is that the case? For two reasons. First of all, Geert Wilders’ party does not have a traditional membership base. It is organized exclusively around the figure of Geert Wilders, who runs the party himself. It doesn’t have a membership base or a cadre. Even the representatives in the national parliament are not members of the party.

This means, first, that it is very difficult for him to participate in many municipal elections. He only participates in a select number of municipal elections, so there is very little opportunity for him to gain experience there. Secondly, it also means that people within the party have no executive experience—no experience with heavy management functions, etc.—and that there is no support staff within the party to assist those who need to take up government responsibility.

It was very evident in the cabinet that the PVV ministers, in particular, performed quite poorly on average. They didn’t know what their role was as ministers or junior ministers, how to deal with the bureaucracy, or how to bring legislation to a successful conclusion—meaning legislation that would be accepted by parliamentary parties and would actually be feasible, without including any anti-constitutional elements. So overall, quite poor performance.

That contributed to the early collapse of the government, because Geert Wilders saw that voters noticed this, and it is plausible that he withdrew from the government to avoid further electoral losses that might occur if voters became even more aware of how weak his pool of ministers was.

This really sets the Netherlands apart from other countries where the radical right can actually govern quite successfully because they have a trained cadre and local or regional experience. In that respect, if we compare the Netherlands to Italy, it is a completely different case.

Jetten’s Positive Campaign Reclaimed Hope and Unity

Rob Jetten attends the New Year’s Reception hosted by the King of the Netherlands in Amsterdam on January 3, 2025. Photo: Robert van T. Hoenderdaal.

Jetten’s campaign drew on emotionally resonant, populist-style messaging—“het kan wél” (“yes, we can”)—without embracing populist antagonism. Does this signal that centrist liberalism is learning to compete in the emotional arena that populists once dominated?

Professor Sarah de Lange: Yes, this is a very interesting development that we’ve seen. D66 ran a campaign that was very positive in tone, speaking of hope and unity, and even went so far as to reclaim the Dutch flag as a symbol—quite surprising for a party that, in its stances, is extremely cosmopolitan and progressive, very pro-European Union, for example.
It seems that this approach worked, as it drew voters from other left-wing, progressive, and centrist parties. One explanation for this is that research shows having a genuinely positive atmosphere around a party can be beneficial in electoral campaigns.

Has Wilders’ long-standing personalistic leadership become both a strategic advantage and a constraint—particularly in terms of coalition-building and sustaining voter trust?

Professor Sarah de Lange: Yes, as I already explained, it’s certainly a disadvantage in one sense, as it makes it very difficult for the party to be ready for government—to have qualified and experienced people who can take up ministerial and junior ministerial positions. However, at the same time, it also offers him an advantage, in that he has full control over his members of parliament. So even though his parliamentary group grew significantly, since he controls which parliamentarians can speak to the media and on what topics, and in which debates they participate and in which they don’t, his parliamentary group didn’t experience any major scandals despite this massive growth in its size. Of course, one important element made this possible: Geert Wilders was not an acceptable prime minister to the parties with which his PVV governed, and he was therefore forced to stay in parliament as leader of the parliamentary group. Had that not been the case, it would have been much more difficult for him to control his members of parliament.

Current Exclusion of Wilders Is Pragmatic, not a Principled Cordon Sanitaire

In “New Alliances,” you analyze why mainstream parties sometimes collaborate with the populist radical right. Given the refusal of other parties to govern with Wilders, do current coalition negotiations represent a reinvigorated ‘cordon sanitaire’ or a temporary tactical alignment?

Professor Sarah de Lange: This is a very good question, because my research in the past showed that once radical right parties are large enough to help mainstream right parties achieve a majority, those mainstream parties are often inclined to govern with them, even if they might have said in advance that they were not interested or thought the radical right was too extreme to govern with.

What we’re seeing now in some countries—and that’s not only in the Netherlands but also, for example, in Austria—is that, on the basis of previous coalition experiences with the radical right, the picture has become more complex. There are a number of mainstream right parties that have had such bad experiences governing with the radical right that they are no longer willing to do so.

However, I think this is very different from a cordon sanitaire, because a cordon sanitaire is motivated by a principled rejection of the radical right on the basis of its stances—because the manifestos of the radical right contain nativism and proposals that are anti-constitutional or in conflict with the rule of law. What we see here, in both the Austrian and Dutch cases, is that the reluctance is based more on the fact that previous experiences have shown that radical right parties are unreliable partners. And of course, that is a more pragmatic argument, which can also be abandoned—for example, if the radical right gets a new leader who is believed to be more trustworthy, or if the mainstream right changes leadership and feels differently about cooperating with the radical right.

So, in that sense, we should really keep these pragmatic reasons separate from the more principled exclusion represented by a cordon sanitaire.

Exclusion Strengthens Wilders’ Anti-Elite Narrative Among Supporters

Election posters of all Dutch political parties displayed at the Binnenhof in The Hague, the Netherlands, in March 2017. Photo: Dreamstime.

What are the long-term risks and benefits of excluding the PVV from coalition governance? Could such exclusion paradoxically reinforce its anti-establishment narrative, as observed in other European contexts?

Professor Sarah de Lange: This is a very valid question. Of course, the advantage is that there will be no negotiations about plans that are anti-constitutional. If we look at the previous cabinet, of which the PVV was part, that cabinet tried to declare an asylum crisis in order to introduce emergency legislation that would partially circumvent Parliament. That would have been a clear sign of democratic backsliding if it had happened. Luckily, some of the government parties changed their minds at the last minute, and it never came to fruition—but the idea was clearly on the table. Without the radical right in government, there is, of course, far less likelihood of these kinds of plans being implemented.

The downside, however, is equally clear. Excluding the PVV makes the rhetoric of the radical right more believable—namely, the idea that there is an elite governing the country that is out of touch with what citizens want because it excludes the radical right, which also represents a part of the population. In the Netherlands, this risk is particularly real, because the only four-party coalition capable of securing a majority would be a very broad ideological alliance, ranging from the Green Labour Party to the social-liberal D66, the Christian Democratic CDA, and the conservative-liberal VVD. Such a coalition, both on socio-economic issues and on matters like immigration, would have very different positions and would need to compromise extensively—only reinforcing the PVV’s narrative that it alone stands outside an isolated political elite.

The Netherlands Could Learn from Scandinavia’s Clear Left–Right Blocs

How might a centrist, multi-party coalition led by D66 influence the structure of competition in Dutch politics? Could it serve as a model for containing populist disruption in fragmented systems elsewhere?

Professor Sarah de Lange: I don’t think it’s a model to be emulated; it’s a model that exists only because the Dutch parliament is so fragmented. The largest parties are very small— even D66, which became the largest party in the elections, holds less than 20% of the votes and seats. The same applies to the other parties likely to join the coalition, each of which has around 15% of the vote. This makes the structure of the Dutch party system highly untenable in the long term, as it requires four- or five-party coalitions, which would have been necessary even if the PVV had not been excluded. Such coalitions are very likely to be unstable, leading to short-lived governments and limited policy output.

So, I think it’s actually the other way around. Looking across Western Europe, the Netherlands could benefit greatly from having a structure more like a Scandinavian party system, with a clear left-wing and right-wing bloc, rather than the highly fragmented system it currently has to manage.

Weak Party–Society Links Drive Extreme Electoral Volatility

Your work on party–civil society linkages shows that strong organizational ties stabilize voter support. Does D66’s success suggest that centrist parties can rebuild civic connections that were eroded by decades of depoliticization? Conversely, how does the PVV sustain long-term voter loyalty despite its limited organizational infrastructure and weak civic embedding?

Professor Sarah de Lange: Let’s start by observing that in the Netherlands, political parties generally have weak linkages to civil society organizations, and this partly explains why Dutch elections are so extremely volatile—they are among the most volatile in Europe.
What’s interesting is that the two largest parties in the elections, D66 and the PVV, are both known for lacking many of these traditional ties. This indicates that while they may be very successful in a given election, they could just as easily lose that support again. This applies especially to D66, which has always been a party marked by very high highs but also very deep lows. It has an extremely volatile electorate that also considers many other left- and right-wing progressive parties at election time.

The PVV is slightly different. It has no ties to civil society organizations at all, yet it has a remarkably loyal electorate that remains faithful to the party for several reasons. First, PVV voters genuinely believe that Wilders is the only person who can change immigration policy in the way they want. Election surveys show that 90% of PVV voters view immigration as the biggest social challenge the Netherlands faces, and they see Geert Wilders as the most competent and trustworthy politician to act on that issue. Second, these voters tend to have relatively high levels of political distrust, which makes them unlikely to return from the PVV to mainstream parties.

PVV Support Is Strongest Outside the Cosmopolitan Randstad Region

Women cycle through the historic Kerkebuurt (Church District) in Soest, Netherlands, known for its old farms and streets such as Eemstraat. Photo: Inge Hogenbijl.

How much of the PVV’s enduring appeal still stems from regional and class-based resentment, and how much from broader cultural anxieties related to immigration and demographic change?

Professor Sarah de Lange: I think both are connected. We see that Geert Wilders’ PVV is more successful outside the big cosmopolitan cities in the Randstad—the central area enclosed by major cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht. The PVV performs better beyond that region. This is partly due to a sense of regional resentment—the perception that people in areas where the PVV is strong are not being taken seriously by the political, economic, and cultural center of the Netherlands; that they are not adequately represented; and that there is little respect for their norms, values, and traditions.

These feelings are also partly rooted in real developments in these regions, such as economic decline, the out-migration of young citizens, and the erosion of public and private services. So, even though there may not be many migrants in these areas, these socio-economic developments feed into anti-immigrant sentiment—not least because Wilders consistently draws links between immigration and other social problems.

Jetten to Become the Netherlands’ First Openly Gay Prime Minister

In your co-edited volume “Gender and Populist Radical-Right Politics,” you highlight the gendered dimensions of populist leadership. How do you interpret the symbolic contrast between Wilders’ assertive, masculine populism and Jetten’s inclusive liberal masculinity?

Professor Sarah de Lange: That’s a very interesting question, because the Netherlands will, with Rob Jetten, have its first openly gay prime minister, who is about to marry his male partner. He has always been very open about this, and it was an important element in the campaign, where he frequently spoke about his upcoming wedding. This stands in stark contrast to the traditional masculinity promoted by Wilders, and even more so by Forum for Democracy’s Thierry Baudet.

Interestingly, in terms of voter base, we see that the PVV—now that it has become such a large party—is actually quite representative of the Dutch population as a whole, including in terms of gender. We don’t see a strong gender gap among its voters, unlike with the more extreme Forum for Democracy led by Baudet. It therefore seems that female voters are not put off by Wilders’ masculine leadership style, nor by a party program that is not particularly outspoken on gender issues.

LGBTQ Acceptance Is Central to the Dutch National Self-Image

Does the normalization of openly gay political leadership in the Netherlands challenge the gendered and heteronormative foundations of populist radical-right discourse, or does it reflect a uniquely Dutch liberal exceptionalism?

Professor Sarah de Lange: This is quite an interesting question. During the campaign, it was clear that Geert Wilders could not realistically attack Jetten on the basis of his sexuality or the fact that he is marrying his male partner. This is because a core part of the Dutch national self-image is its perceived tolerance toward the LGBTQ community.

That does not mean, however, that PVV supporters share this perspective. They have very mixed attitudes when it comes to LGBTQ issues. Of course, since same-sex marriage has been legal for a long time, there is little resistance to it. But when questions turn to more contemporary sexuality issues—such as trans rights or stances on non-binarity—you can see that these voters tend to hold a very heteronormative outlook.

Radical Right Strength Shows Illiberalism Remains a Persistent Threat

Anti-Islam demonstration in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on January 20, 2017. Protesters carry signs opposing “Islamization.” Photo: Jan Kranendonk.

And finally, Professor de Lange, does the Dutch election signal that liberal democracies are learning to integrate populist affect without embracing its illiberal impulses—or are we entering a phase of hybrid politics where the emotional grammar of populism becomes a permanent feature of democratic life?

Professor Sarah de Lange: The elections show that, because the radical right remains so strong, illiberalism is still present—and it was very visible in the campaign as well. There were incidents involving extreme-right demonstrations that turned violent, and numerous cases where politicians were threatened by political opponents or ordinary citizens with different political opinions. So, in that sense, there is still clearly a threat of illiberalism.

At the same time, this particular campaign also demonstrated that defending liberalism—or liberal democracy, and the rule of law has become more salient for mainstream parties, especially among more progressive forces. The issue is now more openly discussed, making citizens more aware of how vulnerable liberal democracy actually is, and that it is something that must be safeguarded rather than taken for granted.

Dr. Simon Otjes, Assistant Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University.

Dr. Otjes: The 2025 Dutch Elections Marked Not Populism’s Decline, but Its Reconfiguration

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviews

In an in-depth interview with the ECPS, Dr. Simon P. Otjes, Assistant Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University, argues that the 2025 Dutch elections signaled not the decline but the reconfiguration of populism. “What was previously very strongly concentrated on the PVV has now dissipated into three different parties, representing three different ways of doing politics,” he notes. While JA21 seeks governmental influence and FvD appeals to conspiratorial electorates, the overall radical-right bloc remains stable. Dr. Otjes warns that a broad centrist coalition could “reproduce the very disaffection it seeks to contain,” fueling further populist resurgence. Far from a post-populist era, he concludes, “we’re still very much inside this populist moment.”

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Simon Otjes, Assistant Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University, offers a penetrating analysis of the evolving dynamics of populism, centrism, and democratic governance in the Netherlands and Europe. His reflections, delivered in the aftermath of the 2025 Dutch elections on October 29, illuminate the cyclical nature of populist mobilization and the institutional resilience of liberal democracy in an era of fragmentation and recalibration.

For Dr. Otjes, the Dutch political landscape exemplifies a persistent alternation between “almost technocratic, centrist governments… being interrupted by brief periods of radical right-wing governments,” a pattern visible over the past three decades. He observes that while populist radical-right parties such as PVV, JA21, and FvD have become structurally entrenched, their participation in government remains precarious and short-lived. “Populists enter government, those governments prove to be unstable, and then there’s a response from the center,” he notes, emphasizing that this oscillation does not represent a post-populist phase but rather “an enduring populist moment.”

The 2025 elections, in Dr. Otjes’s view, marked not the decline but the reconfiguration of populism. “What was previously very strongly concentrated on the PVV has now dissipated into three different parties, representing three different ways of doing politics,” he explains. While JA21 seeks policy influence within coalition frameworks, FvD appeals to conspiratorial electorates “in news environments very different from the mainstream media.” This diversification, Dr. Otjes warns, “is the key explanation of why [the radical right] remains so stable—their ability to attract very different electorates by diversifying their offerings.”

At the same time, Dr. Otjes cautions that a centrist grand coalition—combining GroenLinks–PvdA, D66, VVD, and CDA—could inadvertently deepen democratic alienation. Such an arrangement, he argues, would lead to “quite centrist compromises that lack the change these parties promised,” thereby driving dissatisfied voters back to the populist right. While this centrist stability may project pragmatism, it risks “reproducing the very disaffection it seeks to contain.”

On the European front, Dr. Otjes underscores that despite D66’s pro-European rhetoric under Rob Jetten, Dutch European policy is unlikely to shift dramatically. “The Netherlands won’t necessarily be a particularly progressive government on this issue,” he remarks, given the enduring influence of conservative fiscal and migration stances within the coalition.

Ultimately, Dr. Otjes’s analysis situates the Netherlands within a broader European pattern: an ongoing alternation between pragmatic centrism and reactive populism, rather than a linear progression beyond it. In his words, “We’re still very much inside this populist moment.”

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Dr. Simon P. Otjes, slightly revised for clarity and flow.

Dutch Populism Has Stabilized, Not Declined

Geert Wilders (PVV) during an interview at the Plenary Debate in the Tweede Kamer on June 4, 2024, in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Orange Pictures.

Professor Simon Otjes, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: The October 29 elections produced a near tie between D66 and the PVV—symbolizing not a populist collapse, but a recalibration of its appeal. From your perspective, does this outcome signify a stabilization of populism within an institutionalized party system, or rather its transformation into a normalized mode of political contestation across Europe?

Dr. Simon Otjes: What I think is very important to note about the election results is that although the PVV lost more than 10 seats, the other populist parties that we have in the Netherlands—we have two other populist radical right-wing parties in the Dutch parliament—both won. So, if you look at the combined share of seats for the populist parties, they have really stabilized. In the previous elections, the votes were heavily concentrated on one party, the PVV, but now they are more evenly spread among the PVV, the radical right-wing populist JA21—which in some respects is more right-wing on economic issues but more moderate in its use of anti-Islamic and anti-elite rhetoric—and Forum for Democracy, a party that, according to specialists, is an extreme-right party bordering on anti-democratic. Some of its members have been sanctioned for inciting violence within parliament, and others have recently been found to be involved in plots to assassinate politicians. In that sense, we can see overall stabilization, but with movements both toward more moderate versions of the radical right and toward more extreme ones.

You have described the Dutch system as one of “fragmented pluralism.” How does this structural fragmentation affect both the endurance and the moderation of populist actors such as the PVV and JA21? Could the Dutch case exemplify how fragmentation simultaneously limits and sustains populist influence?

Dr. Simon Otjes: In the Netherlands, we had a government with populist parties between 2024 and 2025, which fell because of internal instability. But that doesn’t mean populism won’t play a role in the new government formation. There are two possible coalitions that people are discussing. One would be a coalition of all the parties in the center, from the Green Left Labour Party on the center-left to the VVD on the center-right. The other alternative would be what the Liberal Party calls a center-right government, which would involve Jason Sester, a center-left party, the CDA, a center-right party, the VVD, also a center-right party, and then JA21, the more moderate radical right-wing populist party in the Netherlands.

That option is a serious contender—it’s a question of whether they can secure 75 or 76 seats. It’s the first preference of the Liberal Party, their favored option. And that means that even though Rob Jetten proudly declared on election night that he had beaten Geert Wilders and that this was the end of the Wilders era, in reality, there is a strong chance that another radical right-wing populist party will enter government, even governing alongside the social liberals who so proudly claimed to have defeated the populists on election night.

Jetten’s Success Was Built on Progressive Patriotism, Not Populism

Rob Jetten attends the New Year’s Reception hosted by the King of the Netherlands in Amsterdam on January 3, 2025. Photo: Robert van’t Hoenderdaal.

As mainstream parties increasingly adopt affective, emotionally resonant campaign styles—such as Rob Jetten’s “positive populism”—do we witness the diffusion of populist communication logics into liberal centrism, and what might this imply for the future boundaries of populism as a concept?

Dr. Simon Otjes: I would note that I don’t think Jetten is a populist, nor did he really operate with populist rhetoric. What was striking was that he adopted a “yes-we-can” kind of orientation from the Obama campaign, which still resonates deeply with a segment of Dutch voters. But what he did do was position his party much more conservatively on the division between cosmopolitans and nationalists, taking a far more centrist stance compared to his party previously—a change that was more rhetorical than policy-based.

You could see him speaking out against asylum seekers who break the law, while also positioning himself in debates between the far left and the far right on this issue. On election night, the room celebrating his success was filled with little Dutch flags. So, you can see that the system felt the need to adopt a more nativist tone—a less extremely cosmopolitan tone—in its positioning. It’s not necessarily nativist, but more akin to a kind of progressive patriotism.

That was instrumental in how they won, because they were able to appeal to center-right voters by no longer positioning Jetten’s party as a very extreme representative of the cosmopolitan side, but rather as a party that’s centrist on this dimension. This shows that the discussion about immigration and the importance of cultural dimensions in the Netherlands have not been swept away by the defeat of the populists. In fact, the only way the social liberals were really able to win the elections was by co-opting part of the flag-waving and the more anti-immigration rhetoric, particularly when it comes to asylum seekers.

Excluding the PVV Risks Deepening Democratic Dissatisfaction

In your work on government alternation and satisfaction with democracy, you argue that meaningful alternation underpins democratic legitimacy. Given the repeated exclusion of the PVV and its allies from governing coalitions, could this exclusionary dynamic paradoxically reinforce perceptions of elite closure and deepen democratic alienation?

Dr. Simon Otjes: When it comes to the voters of the PVV, they’ve been able to access government only twice in the last 20 years—that is, between 2010 and 2012, when the PVV tolerated a center-right government, and between 2024 and 2025, when they were part of a radical government. In that sense, these voters are largely excluded from government participation, and we know that this is not good for their satisfaction with democracy.

We also know that this means the PVV increasingly attracts people who are dissatisfied with how democracy functions, which, from the perspective of the future of democracy, is seen by political scientists as a very important variable in sustaining legitimacy.

On the other hand, we saw that when they governed, they didn’t necessarily undermine institutions like the courts, but they did undermine coalition cooperation. So, in that sense, it is a very difficult bargain. On one side, co-optation of the radical right into government is a way to signal to their voters that their choice matters, but on the other, their involvement in government also risks undermining democratic principles.

A Grand Centrist Coalition Could Drive Frustrated Voters Back to the Radical Right

Relatedly, your research on coalition governance and “frustrated majorities” suggests that complex multiparty arrangements can generate their own legitimacy deficits. Might a centrist, D66-led coalition risk reproducing the very disaffection it seeks to contain, despite its pluralist intentions?

Dr. Simon Otjes: A centrist government—a government that would include GroenLinks–PvdA, D66, the VVD, and the CDA—although on substance they might be able to negotiate very well, because these are all parties with government experience, carries a danger in terms of what it would mean in the long term for where dissatisfied voters can go.

These parties will need to make compromises, and because they’re so broad, those will end up being quite centrist compromises that lack the change these parties promised in their coalition manifestos. In turn, that would mean that voters will grow frustrated, and in the Netherlands, given that the largest opposition party will be the PVV, frustrated voters will likely flock to the PVV.

So, in many ways, a large government of the center might seem promising now—and it’s certainly what D66 wants, because they want both left-wing and right-wing parties in government—but it’s very unattractive in the long term, because dissatisfied voters can only flock toward the radical right under those conditions. Rather, you would want a situation where at least one of the traditional parties of government is in opposition, because that can attract some of the voters dissatisfied with the government.

An Endless Cycle of Centrist Compromise and Populist Backlash

Dick Schoof attends the New Year’s Reception hosted by the King of the Netherlands in Amsterdam on January 3, 2025. Photo: Robert van ’t Hoenderdaal.

Drawing on your findings on anti-elitism and local political space, do the 2025 elections reveal a contest between technocratic centrism—embodied by D66—and localized anti-elitism, expressed through populist and regionalist currents? How do such competing modes of representation reshape the Dutch democratic fabric?

Dr. Simon Otjes: It’s important to note that in the study about localism and populism, we didn’t find—at least at the party manifesto level—that those two were necessarily strongly related. I didn’t find that. So, I want to stay away from a picture where anti-elitism is concentrated in some regions. Rather, what we find is that there is political dissatisfaction both in major cities and in more rural areas. While we do find evidence for specific forms of regionalized dissatisfaction, what seems much more likely now is that general political dissatisfaction played a major role in why voters supported the PVV.

In that sense, I would want to avoid an image where one is more local and one is more national. However, I do agree with the idea that we are seeing two different modes of governance in the Netherlands. One is the centrist governments that end up being quite technocratic, making compromises—quite gray compromises—where all the different colors are mixed together, leaving no clear political expression or policy choices made by the government. These are then alternated by brief periods of radical right-wing populist government.

That would be a good way to describe the Netherlands over the last 30 years: a centrist coalition between 1994 and 2002, followed by a populist moment in 2002 with the LPF (Pim Fortuyn List), which couldn’t govern and fell apart. Then we had different centrist governments until 2010, when the VVD was willing to govern with the PVV in the 2010–2012 minority government, which also collapsed. It was followed by the centrist Liberal–Labour coalition, and then more centrist governments until 2024, when we had the Dick Schoof government.

So, basically, what we have are periods of rather gray, technocratic, centrist government, alternated by radical right participation in 2002, 2010–2012, and 2024–2025—very short periods, because they have so far proven to be unreliable partners. This seems to be the pattern the Netherlands is caught in: an alternation between uninspiring centrist governments and brief bursts of radical right-wing dissatisfaction, which fail to make lasting changes because of their inherent instability.

Voters Shift from PVV to JA21 for Real Policy Impact on Migration

Your research with Green-Pedersen shows how party competition drives issue salience. Have the 2025 elections further diffused the immigration debate across the party spectrum, eroding the PVV’s ownership of the issue? If so, what new issues might sustain populist mobilization going forward?

Dr. Simon Otjes: Although I don’t really have the numbers right now, because students are only going to start coding manifestos for 2025, I don’t think the PVV has lost its issue ownership on migration. Rather, if you asked voters, a large share of them would still say that the PVV has the most credible and promising positions on migration.

Instead, voters shifted to different parties mainly because the PVV was excluded from government, and therefore, voters who wanted to influence government policy could no longer vote for the PVV—it became more of an expressive vote on immigration. That meant that, in particular, JA21, which is much more likely to enter a government coalition than the PVV, was a good alternative for voters who, on one hand, wanted a change in migration policy, and on the other, wanted to have a chance to influence government policy.

So, that is essentially why that party gained support—because of its ability to attract voters dissatisfied with migration policy but still eager to have a real impact on government decisions, something the PVV currently seems unlikely to achieve.

Populism Persists by Adapting to Different Electorates

Election posters near the Binnenhof featuring Geert Wilders of the PVV in the foreground, The Hague, the Netherlands, October 12, 2025. Photo: Dreamstime.

You have observed that populism adapts rather than disappears. Does the simultaneous decline of the PVV and rise of smaller radical-right parties like JA21 and FvD represent ideological splintering, or a strategic diversification ensuring the persistence of the populist bloc?

Dr. Simon Otjes: It would be difficult to really assign a strategy to it, but what we can see is that what was previously very strongly concentrated on the PVV has now dissipated into three different parties, representing three different ways of doing politics. There is JA21, which still has radical right-wing positions, but we can really debate to what extent this party is populist. Does it really use the logic of populism? Does it really appeal to this idea of a united, virtuous population versus a corrupt elite? Rather, these groups want to be part of the government, so they don’t really use this kind of anti-elite rhetoric, but they have very clear anti-immigration stances.

So, that is a party that at least appeals to voters who want to influence government policy. That’s still a large segment. It’s still the second party of the Netherlands, despite their inability to govern. In many ways, that party performed well among voters who were dissatisfied with migration and politics, mobilizing a very traditional radical-right electorate.

And then the third party is FvD, which is much more extreme, as I pointed out at the beginning, and also appeals to a different segment of the electorate—one that has ended up in news environments very different from the mainstream media, where conspiracy theories are much more common. It’s particularly notable and worrying from a democratic perspective that FvD grew this much. They were shunned by traditional media under their previous leader, Thierry Baudet, and then they changed their leadership without changing their manifesto or distancing themselves from, for instance, the MP who was sanctioned for inciting violence. When they changed their leader to a more acceptable face, suddenly the media cordon that Baudet had faced disappeared. That is really worrying. This party has now more than doubled its seat total, despite taking very extreme positions and harboring a membership that seeks to undermine democracy.

So, in that sense, I wouldn’t necessarily talk about strategy here, but I would emphasize that there are different parties on the radical right that appeal to different groups, and that is the key explanation of why they remain so stable—their ability to attract very different electorates by diversifying their offerings.

Religious and Cultural Attitudes No Longer Align in Dutch Politics

In light of your work on religious parties and immigration attitudes, how do you interpret the enduring moral and cultural anxieties that underpin populist narratives in an increasingly secular and urbanized Netherlands?

Dr. Simon Otjes: So, the question is, what is the relationship between religion and these cultural attitudes? And there, I have to be a little bit skeptical, in the sense that in the Netherlands, religious attitudes and cultural attitudes aren’t strongly coherent, and we can also see that in the party landscape. There are three Christian democratic parties currently in Parliament—that is, the SGP, which is a very conservative Protestant party; the CDA, the mainstream Christian democratic party that did quite well in the elections; and the ChristenUnie, a more center-left Christian party, particularly when it comes to environmental and economic issues.

On migration, the SGP isn’t really differentiable from the radical right. They take very clear radical-right positions without being populist—very strongly anti-immigration, anti-Islam, and believing that Christianity is superior to Islam. Then the CDA takes much more centrist positions. They favor measures against migration, particularly citing that the Netherlands can’t really handle that many migrants, without veering into nativist territory, but they are quite conservative when it comes to migration. They, for instance, supported the principles of the far-reaching migration bill that was introduced by the previous government. They voted against it for a few amendments, but not because they disagreed with the principles in it.

And then there’s the ChristenUnie, which is much more progressive on migration. It really is a party of the kind of churches that want to help refugees in this country. So, this diversity shows that in the Netherlands, there isn’t necessarily a strong relationship between migration attitudes and voting for different Christian democratic parties. Rather, Christian democracy shows different shades.

The Netherlands Won’t Necessarily Be a Particularly Progressive Government on EU Issues

In “From Eurorealism to Europhilia,” you trace D66’s evolution toward a more assertive pro-Europeanism. Does Rob Jetten’s victory reflect a genuine societal re-legitimization of the EU in Dutch political discourse, or is it a contingent reaction to populist overreach?

Dr. Simon Otjes: We have to really note here that Jetten didn’t win the election because the population in the Netherlands changed its opinion. Public opinions about migration or about the European Union in the Netherlands are surprisingly stable, and rather, if anything, we can see that Jetten appealed to voters by becoming more centrist on this issue. This traditionally very pro-European party decided to have a big Dutch flag during their party conference, signaling that they wanted to move away from the cosmopolitanism that was associated with them. So, I wouldn’t necessarily see his victory as a change in opinion about the European Union or even about migration. Rather, it’s about a party strategically positioning itself on these issues to appeal to a larger segment of voters.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Dutch policy on the EU won’t change. We’ve had a very Eurosceptic government—also a government that was really unable to influence European policy because the Prime Minister wasn’t tied to one of the major party families and was an unknown in Brussels. And so, the Netherlands will play a more active role in the European Union.

Depending on how the government formation turns out, it could also play a more positive role, particularly on issues where the Netherlands has been quite conservative, such as budgetary expansion. At the same time, despite D66’s entry into government, it seems very likely that the VVD will also be in government. And a government with the VVD will mean a government that inevitably moves against too large an increase in European budgets or too expansionary policies. They are fighting a rearguard battle against an increasing role for the EU in these matters. So, in that sense, the Netherlands won’t necessarily be a particularly progressive government on this issue.

Your study of Volt highlighted the rise of transnational “Europhile populism.” Could D66’s success, with its emotionally charged yet pro-European message, indicate a broader continental trend toward the hybridization of populism and cosmopolitanism?

Dr. Simon Otjes: I really want to emphasize that both in the study about Volt and in the study about D66, I did not claim that these parties are populist. I wouldn’t necessarily call them populist. They don’t make this differentiation between “the people” and “the elite.” D66 is rather a traditional party of government that was able to mobilize dissatisfaction with the current government, but not necessarily by appealing to broader dissatisfaction with democracy. So, no, I don’t think there’s any basis for calling these parties populist. These parties are—I mean, D66 was quite good at running its campaign and adopted a more patriotic, progressive patriotic message—but there’s nothing about them that makes them populist. The same is true for Volt.

D66’s Appeal Is Governmental, Not Populist

Billboard of D66 featuring Rob Jetten with the slogan Het Kan Wel in Amsterdam, the Netherlands on October 28, 2025. Photo: Robert van ’t Hoenderdaal.

How might the Dutch election reshape the EU’s political equilibrium—particularly in debates over migration, democratic reform, and responses to illiberalism? Is the Netherlands now positioned to play a normative role in defending liberal democratic values within the Union?

Dr. Simon Otjes: We really have to differentiate migration from the debate about liberalism. When it comes to migration, all the parties in Parliament, perhaps with the exception of very small ones, support the European Migration Pact, and that is even seen by the parties of the left, such as D66 and PvdA, as a solution to their migration problem. They really make it a European problem. So, there’s broad support for those kinds of measures, including dealing with refugees in third countries and making deals with third countries—although legal scholars seriously doubt whether those measures comply with refugee conventions. But that’s what they see as a solution to the migration problem.

When it comes to the discussion about illiberalism, the Netherlands doesn’t really play any major role, because the issue is largely shaped by the fact that several countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, are willing to tolerate each other’s illiberalism, and moves against illiberalism within the EU require unanimity. So, in that sense, the change of government in the Netherlands hasn’t really changed anything.

I think the Schoof government might perhaps be a little more accepting of illiberalism than previous governments, but it’s important to note that both NSC and VVD, which are in that government, are parties that favor maintaining the rule of law and supporting actions against illiberalism. So, in that sense, I don’t think a change in government will mean much for these discussions—particularly because this debate really centers on Hungary, Slovakia, and soon also Czechia, and increasingly Poland, which continue to allow an area of illiberalism within the European Union. So, in that sense, I don’t think the change in government will necessarily affect this issue at the EU level.

No Major Democratic Changes Expected

Building on your research with Bedock et al. (2022) on the populist challenge to democracy reform, how do you interpret the PVV’s brief period in power? Has it intensified mainstream reflection on the tension between majoritarian responsiveness and liberal constraint in Dutch democracy?

Dr. Simon Otjes: No, I don’t think that the PVV’s participation in government has really changed views about democracy. What we can see is that the NSC, which was one of the government parties, pushed an agenda of government reform, including changes to the electoral system. The previous government was quite open to the introduction of a referendum in the Netherlands.

The interesting question now is what will happen with those portfolios, particularly because the PVV and the VVD are quite skeptical—especially about freezing the introduction of a referendum. There was quite an ambitious reform agenda that was stalled because the government lasted such a short time, and it really is uncertain what kind of reform agenda they will adopt.

What you can see in the centrist part of Dutch politics is an understanding that democracy needs reform, but there isn’t a clear or united agenda around how to do it. What is notable, particularly about the participation of NSC in the previous government, is that they had a very clear reform agenda, but it is now closely associated with them. So, I don’t expect that the next government will do anything in terms of major changes like electoral reform.

I have sincere doubts about whether the referendum bill that had already progressed to Parliament will move forward—it’s likely to be stalled even longer. So, I don’t think this will lead to any major changes in the way democracy functions in the Netherlands.

Centrist Governments and Radical Right Experiments Will Keep Alternating

Billboard featuring the main candidates in the Dutch elections on June 9, 2010, in Amstelveen, the Netherlands. Photo: Dreamstime.

Across Europe, we observe a convergence between adaptive liberal centrists and fragmented populist right formations. Do you see this dynamic producing a long-term hybridization of democratic politics—where populist affect and centrist rationality coexist as dual pillars of contemporary representation?

Dr. Simon Otjes: This description, where you have an alternation between almost technocratic centrist governments—often including parties from the center-left and the center-right—having to govern together, leading to compromises where you can’t really see the course of the party anymore, being interrupted by brief periods of radical right-wing governments because the radical right has become governable, is quite accurate. That is a pattern we can now see, at least for the last 30 years. And that seems—I can see no basis for another path than that. You would continually have these centrist governments that try to deal with the issues, but because of their breadth inside the coalition, aren’t really able to deliver very clear either left- or right-wing policy solutions, and then being interrupted by different forms of government with the radical right. We saw the government with the LPF in 2002, the tolerated government in 2010, and now this whole experiment, and we’ll just continue to have this alternation between these two options.

The Netherlands Remains in an Enduring Populist Cycle

And finally, Professor Otjes, when viewed globally—from Trump’s America to Milei’s Argentina and Meloni’s Italy—do the Dutch elections signify the emergence of a post-populist phase characterized by ideological diffusion and strategic normalization, or do they mark merely another turn in populism’s enduring cycle of reinvention?

Dr. Simon Otjes: I don’t think we can talk about a post-populist phase. What we see here fits a pattern that we’ve observed before: populists enter government, those governments prove to be unstable, and then there’s a response from the center, which seeks to govern together again. They do that for a while until, once more, the populists become so large that they can’t be ignored. That’s the pattern I’m seeing, so I wouldn’t call this a post-populist phase—we’re still very much inside this populist moment.

When it comes to diffusion, I really don’t think that populism has spread very strongly among mainstream parties. You could argue that mainstream parties have moved to the center, or sometimes to more conservative positions—as with the VVD on migration. So, we can clearly see that populism, and particularly the radicalizing influence of populist parties, is shaping how other parties make policy.

But that doesn’t mean we’re now in a post-populist phase. Rather, we’ll continue to see this alternation—radical right-supported governments briefly interrupting a more general pattern in which the parties at the center have to govern together.

Photo: Dreamstime.

What Is the Ideology That Has Attained Social Hegemony? Let Us Call It Simply “Nativism”

by CommentariesEditor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeMigration

In this thought-provoking commentary, Dr. João Ferreira Dias argues that the dominant ideology underpinning contemporary right-wing movements is not populism or illiberalism, but nativism—a worldview centered on defending the “native” population against perceived external and internal threats. Drawing on theorists such as Cas Mudde, Ernesto Laclau, and Fareed Zakaria, Dr. Dias shows that while populism offers the form of political antagonism (“the people” versus “the elites”), nativism provides its substance: the protection of cultural and demographic identity against globalization and multiculturalism. Dr. Dias concludes that nativism’s emotional and existential appeal—rooted in fear of the “other” and longing for cultural homogeneity—has achieved social hegemony across much of the West.

By João Ferreira Dias

We often speak of populism, the radical right, or illiberalism. Yet, to truly understand the rise and entrenchment of the contemporary right, we may need to shift our analytical lens toward nativism. What unites right-wing populist leaders with individuals such as Mr. Armando, the bakery owner; Ms. Aurora, a civil servant; Uncle Venâncio, a retiree; or José Maria, a private school student, is not a coherent philosophical conception of the state. It is something more elemental and psychological: the belief that globalization and multiculturalism—especially in the form of immigration—are dismantling national identities.

When radical right-wing populism first emerged, it proved difficult to classify. While it drew from the Nouvelle Droite (Taguieff, 1993), it also contained a performative, mobilizing dimension, and a radicalism based on the division of society into “us” and “them.”

Cas Mudde (2007), a leading scholar in the field, defined this populism as a “thin-centered ideology,” rooted in the binary logic of “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elites.” Ernesto Laclau (2005), in contrast, identified populism as a political logic—a way of constructing the political—rather than a specific ideological content.

Generally, the radical right populism of recent decades rests on a threefold structure: (i) the moral division between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elites”; (ii) the defense of national identity against multiculturalism; and (iii) the combat against the political left, viewed as conspiring against Western values and the traditional family.

From a governmentality perspective, Fareed Zakaria (1997) introduced the concept of “illiberal democracy” to describe regimes that maintain electoral institutions while eroding liberal principles: consolidating power in a charismatic executive, weakening checks and balances, politicizing the judiciary, and overriding constitutional limits in the name of majority will.

However, illiberalism, in my view, is either inextricably tied to the radical right, or it remains conceptually ambiguous. In fact, the radical left also exhibits illiberal tendencies—engaging in practices such as censorship or moral cancellation—but in favor of minorities and a coercive form of progressive social purification, rather than a majoritarian ethos. This suggests that illiberalism is not exclusive to the right, nor is it sufficient to describe its ideological nucleus.

The term nativism, although first used in 19th-century America to describe anti-immigration movements such as the Know Nothings or the Ku Klux Klan, reemerged in modern academic discourse in the 1950s, particularly through John Higham’s Strangers in the Land (1955). In that work, Higham captures the sense of alienation experienced by native populations facing rapid demographic and cultural transformation.

In the 1990s, as scholarly attention to populism intensified, Paul Taggart and Hans-Georg Betz argued that modern right-wing populism was characterized by a fusion of three elements: populism, nativism, and authoritarianism (Betz, 1994; Taggart, 2000). In the following decade, Cas Mudde (2007) identified nativism as the core ideology of these parties, and populism as their political form. Later refinements clarified this conceptual division: populism provides the structure—the antagonism between “the people” and “the elites”—while nativism offers the content, namely the opposition between natives and foreigners (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017).

This clarification substantiates the central argument of this essay: that nativism should be analyzed as an ideology. Let us consider why.

First, the populist discourse of “us” versus “them” is not exclusive to the radical right. It is equally present on the radical left, which often constructs a similar dichotomy between “the people” and “the elites,” or between the “majority” and “minorities.” The difference lies in the subject being defended and the identity politics at play, rather than in the structure of the discourse.

Second, the radical right is not uniformly illiberal. It exhibits significant internal variation. Many such parties and movements are illiberal with respect to morality—advocating traditionalist or exclusionary cultural values—while remaining economically liberal. Others, though equally illiberal in terms of cultural values (a sine qua non), adopt statist economic models, defending welfare policies but restricting their benefits to the native population. Thus, illiberalism is not a constant across the radical right, but nativism is. It constitutes the shared ideological foundation that allows for otherwise divergent policy positions.

This is why it may be more accurate and analytically fruitful to define these movements simply as nativist, and their ideology as nativism. This classification applies to both political elites and voters alike.

At its core, the ideology’s resonance lies in the perceived demographic threat, most radically articulated in Renaud Camus’ “Great Replacement” theory. This idea has circulated widely, in varying intensities and local adaptations, across Western societies. As native populations decline demographically—due to lower birth rates—and immigration brings culturally distinct newcomers, a so-called “perfect demographic storm” is formed: the “demographic winter” of the native population collides with the “demographic summer” of incoming groups.

The result is a growing sense of existential threat, particularly toward Muslim immigrants, who are seen as both culturally incompatible and demographically ascendant. This sense of threat fuels resentment toward multiculturalism and the progressive left, which is often held responsible for promoting it. What emerges is a feeling of estrangement in one’s own homeland—a central affective dimension of modern nativism.

In sum, the ideology that has achieved social hegemony in many Western societies today is best understood not as populism or illiberalism, but as nativism: a worldview centered on the defense of the native population’s perceived interests, identity, and territorial integrity. Those who support nativist movements are not primarily mobilized by economic platforms, but by a profound distrust of the “other.” This “other” is not necessarily blamed for stealing jobs, but for competing for scarce welfare resources—access to schools, healthcare, housing—or even for altering the cultural landscape of spaces that once symbolized familiarity and social cohesion.

Biology reminds us that the presence of the “other” is often the most basic trigger in the formation of the “we.” Thus, what we are witnessing is not merely populism or illiberalism, but nativism at its core—an instinctive social reaction which, when politicized, seeks to defend what is perceived as the homeland (the nation) and protect those considered its rightful heirs.

 

References

Betz, H.-G. (1994). Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.

Higham, J. (1955). Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. Rutgers University Press.

Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. Verso.

Mudde, C. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press.

Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Taggart, P. (2000). Populism. Open University Press.

Taguieff, P. A. (1993). Origines et métamorphoses de la nouvelle droite. Vingtieme siecle. Revue d’histoire, 3-22.

Zakaria, F. (1997). The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.

Professor Gijs Schumacher is a Professor of Political Psychology in the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam and founding co-director of the Hot Politics Lab.

Professor Schumacher: The Netherlands Is Moving into a Post-Populist Era 

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviews

In an interview with the ECPS, Professor Gijs Schumacher of the University of Amsterdam argues that Dutch politics may be entering a “post-populist era.” As the Netherlands approaches yet another general election, Professor Schumacher highlights growing fragmentation across left, right, and radical-right blocs, noting that “many voters no longer perceive meaningful differences between centrist parties.” While populism’s anti-establishment appeal remains psychologically powerful, he observes that this sentiment is now spreading “more evenly across the political spectrum.” According to Professor Schumacher, the Netherlands’ long tradition of elite cooperation could allow a shift toward “pragmatic governance,” provided that “the mainstream left and right tone down their toxic rhetoric.” The post-populist phase, he suggests, reflects not decline but recalibration.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

As the Netherlands heads toward its third general election in just five years, the country’s political landscape appears more fragmented and volatile than ever. To understand the deeper psychological and structural undercurrents behind this instability, the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) spoke with Professor Gijs Schumacher, Professor of Political Psychology in the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam and founding co-director of the Hot Politics Lab. In this wide-ranging conversation, Professor Schumacher reflects on the fragmentation of Dutch politics, the endurance of populist discourse, and what he calls the emergence of a “post-populist era.”

According to Professor Schumacher, the defining feature of contemporary Dutch politics is fragmentation across three major blocs — the left, the right, and the radical right. Yet despite the proliferation of parties, he notes that “people don’t travel much between blocs … the only real possibility for governments is through the middle.” This narrowing of viable coalitional options, he argues, leaves voters disillusioned and searching for alternatives: “Many voters no longer perceive meaningful differences between these centrist parties … and they often end up supporting either other parties within the same bloc or more radical alternatives.”

Populism, Professor Schumacher emphasizes, remains central to understanding this dynamic — particularly its anti-establishment appeal. He observes that this instinct is deeply rooted in human psychology: “It’s a powerful psychological tendency to be skeptical of leadership — to doubt whether those in power are there for your good or their own fortune.” However, Professor Schumacher points out that the Dutch left has largely abandoned its own anti-establishment roots, creating a political vacuum that figures like Geert Wilders have exploited: “Historically, the left had a strong anti-establishment agenda … but in opposing the populist radical right, they’ve completely muted that stance.”

Despite this, Professor Schumacher does not foresee a permanent populist capture of Dutch democracy. Instead, he suggests the country may be entering what he calls a “post-populist era” — a phase in which anti-establishment politics no longer belongs exclusively to the radical right but becomes “more evenly distributed across the political spectrum.” In his words: “The Netherlands has a long history of deep affective polarization — even though we didn’t use that term at the time — but it was never a major problem because, at the elite level, there was greater cooperation. The mainstream left and right don’t need to fight each other; there’s little to gain from it. If their rhetoric were less toxic, there would be no real barrier to a return to pragmatic governance.”

For Professor Schumacher, this shift signals neither a triumph of populism nor its total eclipse but rather a recalibration — a search for equilibrium in a political system that remains both fragmented and remarkably resilient.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Professor Gijs Schumacher, revised for clarity and flow.

Non-Policy Issues Now Matter Much More

Geert Wilders (PVV) in House of Representatives during a debating at the Tweede Kamer on April 5, 2023 in Den Haag, Netherlands. Photo: Jeroen Meuwsen.

Professor Gijs Schumacher, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: As the Netherlands approaches its third general election in just five years, how would you characterize the current political landscape? What structural and psychological factors — fragmentation, voter volatility, or declining partisan loyalty — best explain this ongoing electoral instability?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: The best characterization is indeed fragmentation. If you look at the party system, there are, roughly speaking, three different blocs of parties: the left bloc, the right bloc, and the radical right bloc. The last bloc has grown the most over the past 10 to 20 years, but there’s also a great deal of fluctuation within it.

In fact, there’s a lot of fluctuation across all the blocs. However, on average, people don’t move much between them. In that sense, voters tend to shift from one right-wing party to another, or from one left-wing party to another. Ultimately, the only real possibility for forming governments lies in the middle — between the left and the right.

The problem with that is that many voters no longer perceive meaningful differences between these centrist parties. This frustrates them, and they often end up supporting either other parties within the same bloc or more radical alternatives. Of course, the last government was an exception to this, as it was a right–radical right coalition, but it was so short-lived that, in a sense, it only demonstrated how difficult such a government would be.

If you ask about the psychological characteristics — that’s a very complex question. One key factor is that voter loyalty is very low. In contrast to the 1980s, people identify far less with a particular party and therefore move more easily between them. Voters today are less loyal, which is not necessarily a bad thing; you could also say they’re more critical.

Because there are multiple parties that are ideologically close to each other within each bloc, and because there is competition within blocs, non-policy issues start to matter much more — things like how a particular leader performs in election debates or in the media. Do we like this party because they were in government, or not? These considerations are becoming increasingly important compared to policy-based reasons.

Overall, this calls for a research agenda focused on political psychology — one that specifically studies these non-policy-related factors. I think the leader of D66 put it quite aptly — although I’m not entirely sure whether he meant it ironically — when he said: “Policy is less important; it’s more about the vibe you’re getting with a party.”  That’s exactly the point. But what is this vibe? How can we study it? How can we analyze it?

The PVV Leads a Parade of Dwarfs

Despite Geert Wilders’ authoritarian leadership style and his role in repeated government collapses, the PVV continues to lead in the polls — how do you interpret this enduring voter support, and what does it reveal about Dutch citizens’ tolerance for personalist populism and their affective attachment to strong, anti-establishment leadership?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: Yes, they are the party leading the polls, but it’s basically leading a parade of dwarfs. All the parties are small now. So, the size that the PVV has in the polls — about 30 seats, or 20% of the vote — is actually a very low number for the largest party. I sometimes like to turn it around. I don’t think the question is why the radical right is so large, but why the middle is so small. Because in the middle, the centrist parts of the left-wing and right-wing blocs — there are parties that are very similar. If you added their votes together, they would be much larger than the Freedom Party. It’s just that they choose not to join hands in these elections, and that’s why they end up as the second, third, or fourth party. Now, there’s one footnote to make: for the second time, they are running with a joint list, and also, formally, these parties are on track to merge with each other. Still, there are many other parties they could potentially merge that are ideologically quite close.

Then, more specifically about Wilders. There’s something about populism that is extremely powerful psychologically, and that’s the anti-establishment aspect. There are other things that are also psychologically very powerful about populism, but I want to focus on this one because I think it’s important. An anti-establishment stance is one of the defining features of populism, and this is very firmly rooted in human psychology — to be critical of leadership, skeptical even, doubtful whether the people in power are actually there for your good or for the general good, as opposed to their own personal fortune. That’s a very powerful human psychological tendency, and it’s actually a very good one. It has been an extremely important feature of the survival of humans as groups.

The Left Has Abandoned Its Own Anti-Establishment Agenda

So, the question I want to raise is this: one of the problems of the left and the right blocs — particularly the left-wing bloc — is why they have dropped their own anti-establishment agenda. They have adopted the position of being the power. In the Netherlands, the media continuously speak of the “left-wing media” or the “left-wing church,” as they call it. This “left-wing church” is supposedly so influential, but it doesn’t make any sense — the left barely has a third of the votes. They don’t get more airtime or anything. And the left adopts this narrative, accepting its role as being elitist. That makes for a very strange political dynamic because they’re not the elite, they’re not in government, and they haven’t been in government for a while. They’re not particularly politically powerful. Historically, the left has always had a very strong anti-establishment agenda — for example, critiques of capitalism — and this now seems so muted. In their opposition to populist radical right parties, they have completely abandoned their own anti-establishment stance, and that’s really a pity because it’s a powerful psychological force that really sways voters. Therefore, part of this group of people is really moved by this anti-establishment approach to politics.

Election sign of the Leefbaar Party and statue of its murdered founder, Pim Fortuyn, in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Photo: André Muller.

Now, the other reason why they face large support is through another mechanism — that’s the more authoritarian, anti-immigrant type of agenda. There’s always been strong support for anti-immigration policies in the Netherlands. In that sense, there’s been absolutely no change since the 1990s. The difference is that political parties are now doing something with it. This already started in 2001 with the rise of Pim Fortuyn, so it’s not new at all. The only new thing is the degree to which mainstream parties are also adopting anti-immigration stances. By doing so, they legitimize the radical right and make it more normal, which also affects voters. The party becomes less tainted, and people become more likely to vote for it.

So, it’s really this mix — on the one hand, the anti-establishment stance, and on the other, authoritarianism — that makes the party popular. But it’s not necessarily the same type of people. It’s the combination of one group that finds the authoritarian route appealing and another group that is in the anti-establishment camp. If you want to think about how we can systematically change the distribution of votes across these three blocs, then my suggestion would be to look in the anti-establishment direction.

Affective Contagion Works Differently in Politics

We have seen the normalization of populist rhetoric across the political spectrum — from immigration and national identity to housing and cost of living. To what extent do you think populist narratives now define the terms of political competition in the Netherlands? Are mainstream parties engaging in what you’ve described as “affective contagion” from populist discourse?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: That’s a good question. So, starting with how pervasive populist narratives are in politics — I think they’ve always been there, and they’ve been present on both the left and the right. I’m particularly referring to anti-establishment stances. I mean, D66, one of the most centrist parties in the Netherlands, emerged from a populist agenda — a very strong anti-establishment position. Some of that critique is still there, but much of it has been watered down or disappeared from their platform. Populist narratives are always pervasive, and sometimes also very useful, because they can bring about innovation in the party system — which is a good thing. When we talk about representation, sometimes old ideas need to go, and new ideas need to enter. It also means, of course, that sometimes bad ideas enter the political system — that’s also true.

If we talk about anti-immigration policies, as I already mentioned earlier, the party system has shifted toward a much more critical stance than before. People are associating problems with housing and immigration. But that’s really just the radical right; I don’t see other parties making that argument. It’s interesting in this election that the Farmers’ Party, which started a few years ago really trying to represent agricultural interests, has now completely adopted radical-right rhetoric as well. But, they were already in the radical-right camp, so that’s not surprising. For a while, they looked like a more centrist alternative, but they turned out not to be.

To put it differently, I do think a lot of politicians believe it’s necessary to talk about immigration because there’s a strong idea that it’s the most important topic in the elections. The thing is, though, that this idea is not true. If you ask Dutch citizens what the most important issues are in Dutch politics, you get a whole list of issues — and they are all equally important. The problem is that there’s a lot of fragmentation in the answers. Lots of people find different issues important: cost of living, housing, climate change, the international situation, and immigration, of course. In that sense, the populist narrative around immigration has been extremely successful — in the sense that media and politicians believe they need to talk about it so much.

Now, whether there’s affective contagion — it’s funny that you use this term in this context, because the word affective contagion comes more from interpersonal psychology. It’s about whether the emotion of person A is adopted by person B, who is listening to person A. In politics, the model of affective contagion is very complex because whether I take over the emotion that person A has depends very much on what my beliefs are about person A. So, if person A is a politician from a party I like, I will probably listen more carefully. If person A is a politician from an out-party, I will be incensed, angry, or upset. I will actively try to think about arguments for why this person is talking nonsense.

But there’s also another, slightly different, and older use of the word — one that comes from earlier work on political parties in sociology: “contagion from the left.” The idea was that right-wing parties adopted all kinds of ideas from left-wing parties in the early 20th century. For example, the mass organization of left-wing parties was adopted by right-wing parties as a way to counter the electoral threat of the left.

So, if you interpret contagion in this sense, then without a doubt, the Dutch political system has been very much influenced by the success of different radical-right parties in the Netherlands — LPF, PVV, initially also the so-called Leefbaar parties, and, of course, the latest ones like Forum for Democracy and JA21.

The Debate Fixates on Asylum Seekers Instead of Real Solutions

People on the street near the National Monument in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on April 14, 2018. Undocumented migrants selling shoes. Photo: Elena Rostunova.

Housing shortages, migration management, and rising living costs dominate the campaign. In your view, how do these issues interact with emotional and identity-based appeals in shaping voter preferences? Are material concerns or cultural grievances more decisive in the current moment?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: Yes — that’s the short answer. In the Netherlands, the traditional left–right economic dimension has effectively collapsed into a largely cultural one.

When it comes to housing, the problem with the immigration debate is that there are many different forms of immigration. Typically, the type that is politically sensitive involves asylum seekers — and that’s what all the fuss is about. People don’t want to have a center in their municipality where asylum seekers are housed.

That’s what the PVV rallies behind: reducing asylum seekers. But this group represents a very small share of total immigration — I think only a few percent. So even if we somehow magically got rid of asylum seekers, we would still have massive immigration.

The point is that other forms of immigration — for example, seasonal immigration — make up a large share. There are many seasonal immigrants in the Netherlands; in fact, the entire agricultural sector essentially depends on them. They’re not politically problematic because the right doesn’t want to make an issue out of them — the companies that support these parties need these workers and can’t do without them. How would our apple farms function — how would those apples be picked — if there were no people from Eastern Europe coming here? The same goes for asparagus and other high-value vegetables.

And then there’s, of course, the more “expat” type — high-profile professionals with high salaries coming in, particularly to Amsterdam for well-paid jobs. Nobody’s complaining about them in any cultural sense, although their impact on the labor market is much greater than that of asylum seekers. Here in Amsterdam, housing prices are also extremely high because of people coming from abroad — people who receive relocation allowances from their companies and can therefore outbid Dutch buyers. But that’s not how the discussion is framed. The focus is on asylum seekers. So, it’s a really strange — or rather, a really striking — discussion in the sense that the way it is shaped isn’t meaningfully directed toward the real solution.

Voters Now Choose Parties Like Beers in a Bar

Given the widespread refusal of other parties to enter a coalition with Wilders, yet his continued dominance in the polls, what does this suggest about the representational capacity of the Dutch party system? Are we witnessing a deepening crisis of coalition politics — or an evolution toward a new equilibrium shaped by populist pressure from the margins?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: There are two things. About 20% — or maybe a bit more — goes to Wilders. But also, something like 20% goes to about eight political parties that each have just a few seats. And then you’re left with 60% of large dwarfs, let’s call them that. That’s where the coalition mostly needs to come from. So that makes it super complicated. It basically means the traditional large Dutch political parties — the Christian Democrats, Labour (now merged with the Green Party), and the Liberal Party, VVD — essentially need to cooperate. So, you get these governments that are well known in Germany as “Grand Coalitions.” But we also know from those experiences that these governments are always very unpopular because people don’t really see differences between the parties anymore. Then again, this gives rise to splinters — or not-so-small parties now, actually — on both the left and the right.

But the question is: what is the representational capacity of the Dutch party system? If we define that as the distance between the party you vote for and what that party stands for, then with so many parties, you actually have excellent representational capacity. In terms of government policy, you would just have something in the middle, which would always be relatively close to a large group of people. The problem lies in the manageability of such large coalitions — large both in terms of the number of parties and the range of policy differences between them.

Secondly — coming back to the point about the “vibes” that I mentioned earlier — Jock Robiette, the leader of D66, once said that vibes are the reason people vote for parties. I agree with him. Vibes are very important, but they’re a distraction from representational capacity because they have little to do with policy, to some extent. In the Netherlands, it sometimes feels like voters are in a supermarket or a bar, handed a list of 25 different kinds of beer. They spend a long time thinking about which specific type to choose — a New England IPA or a double IPA? That’s the kind of choice Dutch voters are making now. But, of course, politics isn’t a bar. You need to combine beers to get a majority. That’s where the real problem lies.

The Party Landscape Has Changed Too Much to Compare Over Time

Election posters of all Dutch political parties displayed at the Binnenhof in The Hague, the Netherlands, in March 2017. Photo: Dreamstime.

Based on your work on affective polarization, do you observe rising emotional hostility between Dutch party blocs — or is the Netherlands still characterized by pragmatic, cross-partisan attitudes?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: I’m not sure whether this is increasing or stable over time. It’s actually a pretty tricky research question because the parties themselves change over time. For example, if you go back to 2010, there was no Forum for Democracy, no JA21, and the PVV had basically just started — it was a very minor party. So, if we had asked in 2010 what people felt about different political parties and compared it to now, when we have all these parties that are much more radical, you can’t really compare the two periods.

That makes it difficult to know for sure whether affective polarization is actually increasing. In general, I don’t think the Netherlands is all that dramatic in this regard. Everybody hates the radical right — that’s almost the uniting factor. What has been more problematic is that the right —mainly the Liberal Party — has been polarizing by labeling Labour–Green as a radical extremist party, which, by any standards, it’s not. By introducing this kind of language — and of course, what politicians say has an effect on people — they may cause voters to become more polarized and more hostile toward the left.

The PVV Relies So Heavily on One Person That It Can’t Grow Strong

Wilders’ one-man party structure is unique in Western Europe. How does this extreme centralization of authority affect voter perceptions of accountability, competence, and representation?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: I think the real problem with the PVV is that, since it relies so heavily on a single person, it struggles to become a genuinely strong and influential party. Essentially, its only way to influence politics is by shouting bizarre things — and, in fact, that works quite well for them. But the party lacks the capacity to effectively propose or implement policies that could actually address the issues it highlights.

This weakness stems from the fact that the PVV is structurally too weak. It has no detailed policy proposals beyond slogans like “all foreigners out.” When they are in government, they basically have to rely on civil servants to come up with plans to execute this — which, of course, is complicated and slow. Then they end up blaming the civil servants for blocking their ideas. But a good political party would not only have a slogan but also a set of coherent policies to realize it. The PVV simply doesn’t have this to any meaningful extent.

The second problem is the training of talent. Traditionally, political parties were expected to develop policy ideas through their connections to civil society, but the PVV doesn’t do that either. When they had ministers for the first time, almost none of them had any executive experience — perhaps none at all — and it was evident. The Minister for Immigration, for instance, had real difficulty even hiring a spokesperson. They couldn’t manage the most basic tasks.

That was really problematic. If you look at Wilders’ list, you’d expect his ministers or vice ministers — the most recognizable figures after him — to be ranked high. They’re not. The most prominent one, Ahmed, isn’t even on the list. De Vries is placed somewhat lower, and Madlener is also very low. This was hardly a vote of confidence in them. We’ve seen many times in the PVV that whenever someone begins to stand out, their head immediately comes off — and that person ultimately leaves the party. So, yes, this is a real problem. The PVV does represent a segment of the Dutch population, but if it cannot effectively formulate and implement policy, then the issues its voters care about will never truly be addressed.

If Rhetoric Were Less Toxic, Pragmatic Governance Could Return

And finally, Professor Schumacher, do you see the Netherlands as entering a post-populist phase where affective polarization stabilizes and institutional pragmatism returns, or are we witnessing a longer-term transformation in the emotional foundations of Dutch democracy?

Professor Gijs Schumacher: I think we’re moving into a post-populist era. If anything, we might be entering a phase where anti-establishment politics becomes more evenly distributed across the entire political spectrum, rather than being concentrated mainly on the radical right.

The Netherlands has a long history of deep affective polarization — even though we didn’t use that term at the time — but it was never a major problem because, at the elite level, there was a greater degree of cooperation. And that’s ultimately where the goal should lie.

The mainstream left and right don’t need to fight each other; there’s little to gain from it. They’re not going to win many more votes that way. If their rhetoric were less toxic toward one another, there would be no real barrier to a return to pragmatic governance.

Vlastimil Havlík, Professor of Political Science and leading expert on Czech party politics and populism at Masaryk University, Czech Republic.

Professor Havlík: Babiš’s Government Is Not Good News for the Quality of Czech Democracy

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviews

Professor Vlastimil Havlík warns that the incoming Babiš government “is not good news for the quality of Czech democracy.” Although constitutional majorities are “very unlikely,” he predicts “a slower, incremental decrease in the quality of democracy” through politicization of public service media, weakening of liberal civil society, and the conflation of private business and state power. He describes ANO’s victory as “a consolidation of the illiberal space” and emphasizes that probable coalition partners like the Motorists and SPD share “hostile rhetoric toward NGOs” and key democratic institutions. Strategically, ANO now pursues “a soft version of Euroscepticism,” aligning with median voter preferences while maintaining a pragmatic, catch-all profile.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

On October 4, 2025, billionaire populist Andrej Babiš’s ANO party won the Czech parliamentary elections with just under 35% of the vote, securing 80 of 200 seats—an increase from the previous election. Although short of a majority, Babiš is expected to lead coalition talks. His most likely allies are two small right-wing, Eurosceptic parties: the anti-Green Deal Motorists for Themselves and Tomio Okamura’s anti-immigrant Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD). While ANO shares the Motorists’ opposition to EU emissions targets, relations with the SPD may prove more complicated due to internal divisions and radical demands. A new Babiš government would likely shift Czech foreign policy, notably by scrapping the Czech ammunition initiative supporting Ukraine.

In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Vlastimil Havlík, a leading expert on Czech party politics and populism at Masaryk University and the SYRI National Institute, analyses the electoral outcome and its implications for Czech democracy. He argues that ANO’s 2025 victory represents “a consolidation of the illiberal space,”with the party securing record electoral support and aligning with far-right forces, but without the constitutional majorities that enabled Hungary’s Fidesz to overhaul the political system. Despite this, Professor Havlík warns that the incoming government “is not good news for the quality of Czech democracy.”

According to Professor Havlík, Babiš’s coalition arithmetic now depends on “Eurosceptic and far-right actors such as the Motorists and SPD,” making stable governance uncertain but also potentially dangerous. He cautions that their shared hostility toward public service media and liberal civil society could translate into concrete measures to weaken democratic institutions: “We may see attempts to limit the role and funding of public service media, or even to take it over,” he says. “There has also been very hostile rhetoric from the three parties toward NGOs… essentially liberal, left-leaning civil society organizations.”

Professor Havlík also highlights structural constraints that differentiate the Czech case from Hungary and Poland. A majoritarian Senate system and the presidency of Petr Pavel make constitutional majorities for populists “very unlikely.” Yet he foresees a “slower, incremental decrease in the quality of democracy” through piecemeal institutional changes, politicization of media oversight, and the blurring of boundaries between Babiš’s private business empire and the state.

Economically, Professor Havlík emphasizes continuity. ANO’s electoral base resembles that of the former Social Democrats, with strong support in peripheral regions suffering from economic stagnation. Strategically, the party has embraced “a soft version of Euroscepticism” and aligned itself with the “Patriots for Europe” group, adapting its discourse to a skeptical public while avoiding the radical Czexit positions of SPD.

In sum, Professor Havlík sees both continuity and transformation: ANO has evolved from centrist populism into a dominant illiberal force, constrained by institutions but poised to erode liberal democratic checks incrementally.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Professor Vlastimil Havlík, revised for clarity and flow.

ANO’s Victory Reflects Continuity Within a Changing Political Context

Andrej Babiš, leader of the ANO party and one of the richest businessmen in the Czech Republic, during a press conference in Prague on March 2, 2013. Photo: Dreamstime.

Professor Vlastimil Havlík, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: Andrej Babiš’s ANO achieved a clear parliamentary plurality in recent parliamentary elections, consolidating its role as the hegemon of the illiberal camp. How do you interpret this outcome in light of your work on the rise of centrist populism and the persistence of cleavage structures in Czech politics? Does this election signify continuity or a critical juncture in party competition?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: Thank you very much for this excellent question. What is clear is that ANO decisively won the election, as you mentioned. It was a kind of landslide victory, with more than 30% of the votes. In fact, in terms of the number of votes, it was the best result in the history of Czech electoral politics.

You asked me to interpret this outcome in the context of centrist populism. I would say I’m not entirely sure whether the party is still centrist populist in the way it was when it was established 12 or 13 years ago. At that time, the party relied on populism, anti-corruption narratives, and anti-establishment arguments, while simultaneously promoting technocracy and its competence to run the state as the solution, deliberately avoiding clear ideological stances. It declared, “We are not on the left, we are not on the right. That is not important anymore. What is important is to get rid of the current politicians.”

Over time, as a consequence of the party’s participation in government and the immigration crises, ANO had to take positions on many political issues. Today, it still employs populism and technocratic narratives. Babiš remains the central figure, continuing to present himself as a skillful manager capable of running the state effectively. The party, however, is highly pragmatic. It follows public opinion and has adopted relatively clear stances on several issues, combining left-leaning positions—such as targeted social policies for pensioners and protectionist measures—with a culturally conservative, even radical-right orientation.

So, when I return to your question about the persistence of cleavage structures, I would say both yes and no. The shift in the party’s ideology and political discourse reminds me of what we saw in the Social Democratic Party 10 or 15 years ago, when it was a major political force. Electorally, ANO’s base is quite similar to that of past social democratic voters. However, the environment is different now, with the rising salience of cultural issues. So, while it is not really a social democratic party, ANO has adopted a position very similar to what the Social Democratic Party once held. It has also placed a strong emphasis on economic issues, which is another sign of continuity. I don’t view this election as a major rupture; rather, I see clear signs of continuity, albeit within a changing political context.

Czech Party Politics Has Become Two-Dimensional: Culture Now Rivals the Economy

The 2025 elections revealed ANO’s shift toward left-leaning conservatism, especially on socio-economic and cultural issues. How significant is this realignment for reshaping the Czech political space, and how does it affect the interaction between populist actors and traditional party families?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: Actually, I can follow what I said a couple of seconds ago. What we have seen in the party landscape of the party system over the last decade is a major increase in the salience of cultural and post-materialist issues, such as immigration, as a clear result of the so-called immigration crisis. There is also much more discussion about minority rights, such as the position of LGBTQ+ groups, the position of women, and environmental protection vis-à-vis global warming.

In general, the party system in the Czech Republic is no longer unidimensional as it used to be, when Czech party politics was defined for at least two decades by conflicts over economic issues, redistribution, taxes, and social policies. Now, clearly, it has become two-dimensional. The economic dimension is still there, but the cultural dimension has become similarly important.

When it comes to ANO and its position toward traditional party families, this is to some extent determined by the party’s populist profile. It is highly polarizing and somewhat hostile toward mainstream political parties. So, in addition to the two dimensions I mentioned, I would add a kind of populist sentiment—perhaps not an entirely independent dimension, but a significant factor nonetheless. There is quite a high level of polarization between ANO and other populist political parties on the one hand and the rest of the party space on the other. As a result, there are not many positive interactions between populist actors and traditional party families, which are often depicted by populist sectors as the “enemy of the people.”

Babiš’s Coalition with Far-Right Parties Poses Risks to Czech Democracy

The Statue of Justice by Marius Kotrba, a modern sculpture located at the Supreme Court building in Brno, Czech Republic, on March 10, 2022. Photo: Evgeniy Fesenko.

Babiš’s coalition arithmetic now depends on Euroskeptic and far-right actors such as the Motorists and SPD. Drawing on your research on populism–anti-populism divides, how feasible is stable governance under such a constellation, and what risks might this pose for the quality of Czech democracy?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: It’s a really good question. I will start with the effects of populist or anti-populist divides. What I meant by that when we wrote about it, it was before the 2021 election, two major electoral coalitions were formed with the aim of defeating ANO, Babiš’s party. They changed their communication strategy and based it on anti-populist arguments. They depicted populism and Babiš, as well as other populist parties and the communists, as a major threat to Czech democracy and as a force that would take the Czech Republic back to the East in foreign policy. This was highly polarizing rhetoric. On the other hand, we saw similarly polarizing rhetoric on the side of populist actors.

Why do I mention that? It seems that there are not many options to form a government after the election as a result of this polarization. So now it really seems that there will be some sort of government collaboration between ANO and Motorists, a far-right or radical-right populist political party.

As for its stability, it’s difficult to predict. There are some shared policy attitudes between ANO and the other parties, but there are also differences, for example, in their attitudes toward the EU and NATO. Economic policies differ as well, and this may be one of the main sources of conflict after the coalition is formed because, on one hand, you have ANO, which is quite good at spending, and on the other, Motorists, who want conservative fiscal policies.

Another issue concerns SPD, which actually involves four political parties, as members of four parties were elected on the SPD list. This creates more space for tensions. Moreover, both SPD and Motorists lack experience in government participation and high politics. They have been in opposition, and Motorists are a new party. So, it’s difficult to say, but there are not many other options, which may push the parties to maintain the coalition and overcome possible conflicts and disagreements.

When it comes to risks for democracy, I can see several. These stem from similar stances of these parties on, for example, public service media. We may see attempts to limit the role and funding of public service media, or even to take it over. There has also been very hostile rhetoric from the three parties toward NGOs, which they call “political NGOs.” This essentially refers to liberal, left-leaning civil society organizations, so we can expect cuts to state funding for them.

Finally, there is Babiš himself. As the owner of large businesses, his main motivation for entering politics is to profit from the state through subsidies. This creates a major threat to democracy: the blurring of lines between Babiš’s private business and the state. Such a conflation of big private business and the state represents a serious risk to the quality of Czech democracy. Therefore, this government is not good news for the quality of Czech democracy.

Illiberal Consolidation Is Clear, But Institutional Limits Remain

The collapse of traditional left-wing parties and SPD’s decline suggest consolidation of the illiberal space rather than its expansion. Do you see this as a Pyrrhic victory—given the fragility of potential coalitions—or as the institutionalisation of ANO’s dominance akin to Hungary’s Fidesz?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: I would call it more of a consolidation of the illiberal space, although it depends. In a way, the electoral support for illiberal or populist forces remained more or less the same compared to the last election. But there is one difference. In the 2021 election, some illiberal forces did not cross the electoral threshold. Now, Motorists were able to cross it, so we have almost 50% of votes translated into parliamentary seats for illiberal parties. In this sense, we can see an expansion of the illiberal space.

At the same time, some SPD voters shifted, so we may say that more voters opted for a slightly more moderate version of illiberalism. If you compare ANO and SPD, ANO is more moderate.

You asked about a comparison between Fidesz and ANO. One difference is that ANO does not hold a majority in the Chamber of Deputies, so its position is weaker compared to Fidesz. On the other hand, its electoral support is higher—indeed, a record level for ANO. Another difference lies in the institutional structure of the Czech political system. There is also an upper chamber of parliament, where ANO is far weaker, partly because of the electoral system, and it is very far from a majority of populist parties in that chamber. So, the position of illiberal forces is weaker compared to Hungary and Fidesz.

Economic Cleavages Remain Central Despite Populist Surge

A demonstration against the Czech government, high energy prices, the Green Deal, and the EU took place in Prague on September 3, 2022. Protesters demanded a change of government amidst the crises. Photo: Helena Zezulkova.

Your recent co-authored work on “Revolution or Evolution” shows remarkable persistence of socio-economic and cultural cleavages despite electoral volatility. How do the 2025 results reflect the resilience or reconfiguration of these cleavages, and what new issue dimensions (e.g. climate policy, migration) are becoming decisive for party competition?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: Thank you very much for mentioning the article we wrote with Lubomír Kopeček and Martin Vérteši for Prominence of Post-Communism. We looked at party manifestos and found that the economy still plays a significant role in party competition, at least in party manifestos, even after the rise of populist political parties. This remains true, but I would also add that the economy may now be framed differently. The rise of populism does not mean it is framed in exactly the same way as before; it has been presented more in a populist and less in an establishment-oriented way since Babiš’s party entered the system.

Regarding the 2025 elections, I would highlight two points. First, cultural or post-materialist issues became more important in campaigning and in debates between party leaders. Second, and more importantly in my view, the economy remains the key explanatory factor—particularly economic difficulties in peripheral areas. One of the most important aspects of the recent election was the notably high turnout, driven by increased mobilization in economically disadvantaged peripheral regions that voted mostly for Babiš’s party. So, the economy continues to be a major issue, and I wouldn’t say there has been a reconfiguration of the cleavages.

Populism vs. Anti-Populism Becomes Key Communication Axis

In your studies of the 2021 election, you identified a populism vs. anti-populism cleavage that temporarily overshadowed left–right competition. To what extent has this divide become entrenched as the primary axis of contestation, and how does this shape the prospects for liberal democratic parties?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: I would be a little bit careful to call the populism–anti-populism divide a cleavage in the sense that it is well structured in society. I would describe it more as a political divide or perhaps a communication strategy. On one hand, you have populist communication or populist actors, and on the other hand, the communication of democratic or pro-liberal democratic parties, which used anti-populist arguments. As I mentioned, they depicted ANO, SPD, and, at that time, in the 2021 election, the communists as a major threat to democracy. They essentially copy-pasted this strategy in the last election, perhaps stressing more the claim that the populist parties in the Czech Republic are clearly pro-Russian forces, turning Czechia back to the East.

You asked whether this was the primary axis of contestation. I would say it was a very important part of the communication of these democratic or pro-liberal democratic parties. On the other hand, ANO’s communication was clearly focused on the economy. They blamed the government for poor economic performance because, if you look at some indicators, the Czech Republic was not doing particularly well during the last four years.

As for the prospects for liberal democratic parties, I see two important points. This anti-populist communication was a highly polarizing strategy, using emotional arguments and depicting populist parties as a real enemy—not just a rival—and a threat to democracy. This limits the space for possible government collaboration across this divide. Not that ANO and Babiš are interested in such cooperation, but the possibilities are limited also because of this type of communication.

As for the future of this divide or communication, it’s not very clear. After the election, there was much discussion about whether the electoral coalitions—I mentioned the coalitions of the pro-democratic camp, in this case, right-wing political parties—would continue, and now it seems that will not be the case. So, we may again see the three parties that formed the coalition together, “Spolu” in Czech, running in the election independently. But this is still uncertain. There will be party congresses and possibly new leadership of the parties, and they will evaluate this strategy.

Babiš’s Model Is Shifting Closer to Radical Right Discourses

In your 2019 article, you argue that ANO’s technocratic populism constitutes a regime alternative by rejecting pluralism and constitutionalism. How do you foresee this model evolving under Babiš’s renewed electoral dominance—toward a more overt illiberalism or continued reliance on managerial, depoliticised discourse?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: That’s a really good question. I think it’s not very clear. To some extent, it’s difficult to say because the party has changed a bit in its communication. It is now closer to radical right discourses, but what has not changed is Babiš’s view of liberal democracy, checks and balances, separation of powers, public service media, and NGOs. He doesn’t care much about these. He actually sees them as annoying, unnecessary obstacles that limit the ability to govern effectively and slow down the process of government.

If a coalition with other populist or radicalized parties is formed, there will be even more radical elements. What we can expect is a number of attacks on liberal democratic institutions, or institutions that guarantee the liberal part of democracy, such as public service media and some NGOs. We may also see attempts to change parliamentary procedures, although this would be difficult.

You mentioned Fidesz and Hungary several times. I think there is a difference because the government will not have enough votes to change the constitution or the majority needed to change electoral laws, since that requires a majority in both parliamentary chambers. So, I don’t expect major structural changes to the political system, but what we can see is liberal democracy being cut into small pieces. Not because there is a complex plan to do this, but because none of the possibly future government parties cares much about liberal democracy, and the rhetoric we have heard from them, including ANO, is close to Fidesz.

Incremental Democratic Backsliding Likely in Czechia

Unlike Orbán’s Fidesz, ANO operates within a fragmented party system checked by the Senate and President Pavel. Based on your research on illiberal tendencies in Central Europe, what forms of democratic backsliding might occur in a Czech context where constitutional majorities are unlikely?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: You’re absolutely right. A constitutional majority for populist parties is not very likely in the Czech context. The reason lies in how the Senate, the upper chamber, is elected. It’s based on a majoritarian, two-round electoral system, and only one-third of senators is elected every two years. So it’s not very likely—actually very unlikely—that there will be a constitutional majority for populist parties. This means no major changes when it comes to altering the constitution or electoral laws, as I mentioned.

However, there will be many opportunities for the future government coalition to limit Czech liberal democracy. For example, regarding public service media, they can change the leadership or the board—the council of Czech TV or Czech Radio—to increase control. There’s also significant discussion about the funding of public service media. Currently, it’s funded by everyone paying a small monthly fee, which is the main source of funding. They want to abolish this or replace it with state funding, which would again increase government control.

A similar logic applies to civil society organizations. There will be several elections of different state institutions and their leadership, which the government can influence. And, of course, there is the conflict of interest between Babiš’s economic interests and the state. So, we will not see revolutionary changes but rather a slower, incremental decrease in the quality of democracy.

Populist Elite Cues Could Undermine Trust in Democratic Institutions

Chamber of Deputies of Parliament of Czech Republic during constituent meeting in Prague on November 25, 2013. Photo: Dreamstime.

Your work highlights the role of anti-establishment attitudes, political distrust, and low efficacy in fueling populist support. How might these underlying attitudes evolve under another Babiš government, and what implications does this have for the long-term resilience of liberal democratic institutions?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: A really good question. It’s a very complex one. There are many sources of public trust in different institutions. I would choose two points to discuss.

The first is the role of the economy. It’s not directly related to the nature of Babiš’s party, or SPD, or Motorists, but what we have seen in the Czech Republic is that when the economy is doing well—and especially when people feel that they are doing better economically—their satisfaction with politics and trust in political institutions is higher. We saw that even during the first Babiš government between 2017 and 2021: satisfaction with politics went up because macroeconomic conditions were much better, inflation was low, unemployment was quite low, and average salaries rose. Dissatisfaction with politics and institutions increased during the COVID crisis, when trust declined because the government mismanaged the situation and insecurity grew.

So, it will first depend on economic performance, which is partly linked to government policies. As I said, Babiš’s victory was fueled by increased turnout in peripheral regions, where people suffered from worsening economic conditions. If I were in Babiš’s place, I would invest in these regions. This would, of course, increase personal support, but it would also, as a side effect, boost satisfaction with politics and political institutions.

The second point is that, as political science and political sociology research shows, elite cues actually work. Over the next few years, we will hear attacks on liberal democracy, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. This can feed people, especially voters of populist parties, with cues that, despite possibly increased satisfaction with politics, can go hand in hand with lower trust in liberal democratic institutions. These are the two points that seem to me important when it comes to Babiš’s government and satisfaction with institutions.

ANO’s Euroscepticism Is Pragmatic, Not Ideological

ANO’s leadership of the “Patriots for Europe” group and its stance on EU climate policy reflect a new Eurosceptic axis. In light of your research on populism and Europeanisation, how should we understand this development? Is ANO’s Euroscepticism primarily strategic—targeting specific policies—or part of a deeper ideological realignment, particularly compared to SPD’s Czexit discourse?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: It’s definitely strategy. It’s very pragmatic—a calculated approach. ANO has tried to catch as many voters as possible. They use the notion of a catch-all party in a somewhat distorted way, but they actively employ it. They want to be a catch-all party to increase their electoral support. When you look at EU-related public opinion in the Czech Republic, you see quite a lot of skepticism. Many people are not very satisfied with EU membership, and general trust in the EU is not very high. There are also clear indications of skepticism toward joining the Eurozone.

So, ANO has adapted its discourse to align closely with the views of the majority of the population. This is interesting because, when the party was established, it was pro-European and quite positive about the Euro and the Eurozone. Now it represents a soft version of Euroscepticism, using populist anti-elite discourse—for example, criticizing “Brussels elites” and specific EU policies such as migration. Migration has become a salient issue, and most of the population holds negative attitudes toward immigration, so ANO has adopted anti-immigration positions as well. The same can be said about the Green Deal. Essentially, the party tries to position itself close to the median voter on these issues. It’s a very pragmatic strategy.

Czech Populism Shares Traits with Hungary and Poland but Remains Distinct

Lastly, Professor Havlík, when viewed comparatively, how does the Czech populist trajectory under Babiš resemble or diverge from developments in Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia? Are we witnessing a distinct “Czech model” of illiberal populism?

Professor Vlastimil Havlík: Czech model of populism — I don’t know in what sense. I would say that compared to Fidesz, Law and Justice (PiS), and SMER, we can see some discursive differences. In a way, ANO is more moderate and not as clearly pro-Russian compared to Robert Fico. The discourse of Fico, for example, or Orbán is very different from Babiš. He’s quite careful when it comes to commenting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As I mentioned, ANO does not have a constitutional majority, which is different from Hungary. It also differs in the nature of the threats to liberal democracy, which stem largely from Babiš’s private business interests. In this sense, it is similar to Fidesz but in a slightly different way: there’s a much more direct conflation of economic interests and the state, whereas in the case of Fidesz it’s a bit more indirect.

As for similarities, the populist discourses—anti-elitism, moralizing narratives, and anti-liberal rhetoric—are similar. All of the populist parties and discourses strongly resist checks and balances and the separation of powers—those elements that limit their power. So, I don’t know if we can really speak of a distinct “Czech model.” I don’t like to generalize from a single case. But there are both similarities and some differences. 

Andrej Babiš, leader of the ANO party and one of the richest businessmen in the Czech Republic, during a press conference in Prague on March 2, 2013. Photo: Dreamstime.

Prof. Bustikova: Babiš’s Victory in Czechia Is a Big Win for Illiberalism in Europe

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviewsLeadership & PersonaUncategorized

On October 4, 2025, billionaire populist Andrej Babiš’s ANO party won the Czech parliamentary elections with just under 35% of the vote, setting the stage for coalition talks with two small right-wing, Eurosceptic parties. In this in-depth interview with ECPS, Professor Lenka Bustikova analyzes the implications of this outcome for Czech democracy and the broader Central European political landscape. Warning that “Babiš’s victory is a big win for illiberalism in Europe,” she explains how this election represents both a consolidation of illiberal forces and a strategic shift in Babiš’s populism—from managerialism to paternalism—raising concerns about democratic backsliding and Czechia’s future orientation within the EU.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

On October 4, 2025, billionaire populist Andrej Babiš’s ANO party won the Czech parliamentary elections with just under 35% of the vote, securing 80 of 200 seats—an increase from the previous election. Although short of a majority, Babiš is expected to lead coalition talks. His most likely allies are two small right-wing, Eurosceptic parties: the anti-Green Deal Motorists for Themselves and Tomio Okamura’s anti-immigrant Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD). While ANO shares the Motorists’ opposition to EU emissions targets, relations with the SPD may prove more complicated due to internal divisions and radical demands. A new Babiš government would likely shift Czech foreign policy, notably by scrapping the Czech ammunition initiative supporting Ukraine.

Against this backdrop, Professor Lenka Bustikova, Director of the Center for European Studies and Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, provides a detailed analysis of the political transformations currently unfolding in Czechia. In an interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), she warns: “I’m very concerned. Despite the relatively moderate appeal, I do think that Babiš’s victory is a significant win for illiberals in the region. I do not think this will be a bloodbath for Czech democracy, but I do think there’s going to be a lot of bleeding. The patient will survive, but there will be a strong shift.”

Professor Bustikova situates the election within a broader pattern of democratic contestation in Central Europe, describing it as both a consolidation of the illiberal camp and a reconsolidation of the liberal camp. Drawing on her scholarship on technocratic populism, she explains how Babiš has evolved from presenting himself as a competent manager to positioning himself as a paternal figure promising redistribution and state-led solutions to economic grievances. His emphasis on managerial competence now interacts with sovereigntist and anti-Green Deal rhetoric, reflecting a hybrid populist strategy.

Crucially, Professor Bustikova underlines the significance of the far right’s role in the coalition-building process. “If this coalition emerges, it will be the first time in Czech history that the far right is either in coalition or silently supporting the government. That’s a huge breakthrough, and it’s very concerning,” she notes. This development, she argues, marks a major illiberal breakthrough, with potential implications for Czechia’s position in the EU.

Although Czechia retains strong institutional guardrails—including the presidency, the Senate, the Constitutional Court, and a pluralistic media environment—Professor Bustikova expects democratic quality to decline during Babiš’s tenure. Situating these developments in a regional perspective, she warns that the illiberal camp is “numerically much stronger,” making future liberal victories increasingly difficult.

Here is the edited transcript of our interview with Professor Lenka Bustikova, revised for clarity and flow.

Professor Lenka Bustikova is the Director of the Center for European Studies and Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida.

Czech Elections Mark a Strategic Shift Toward Illiberalism

Professor Lenka Bustikova, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In light of Andrej Babiš’s decisive electoral victory, how would you interpret the current realignment of Czech party politics? Does this signify a deeper structural shift toward sovereigntist populism, or is it a contingent backlash against liberal governance?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: Thank you for this wonderful and difficult question. I would say that I am not alarmed by the outcome of the Czech elections, but I’m certainly concerned. What happened in this election—and many others have commented on it as well—is the consolidation of two camps. I would call them liberal and illiberal, because what the previous or outgoing government offered was not a particularly liberal government.

In this election, Andrej Babiš and his party, ANO, very successfully and skillfully consolidated voters who are unhappy, struggling, insecure, and also revengeful—and he did so effectively. The encouraging news about the Czech elections is that, in the previous election, about one million votes were wasted on smaller anti-system parties. This time, it was only 400,000. Babiš managed to unite this “coalition of the unhappy” and those seeking change, and he did it well. That camp has now consolidated, will have a voice, and will act as an accountability mechanism.

The liberal camp actually did quite well; the electoral math just didn’t work in their favor as it did four years ago. They were punished for not delivering on certain issues. They could have implemented progressive policies that wouldn’t have cost them much, but they didn’t—partly due to tensions within the coalition. They could have been more proactive on LGBTQ rights, registered partnerships, and perhaps on women’s rights.

More importantly, voters were facing a country with high inflation and high debt. The government did all it could, but it wasn’t enough. While the macroeconomic statistics in the Czech Republic are quite favorable, the government failed to communicate this effectively and neglected key economic issues, such as the housing crisis, that required greater attention. The outgoing coalition also continued to embody a kind of 1990s economic approach—loyal to an era that many voters now question and want to move beyond.

Overall, this election represents both a consolidation of the illiberal camp and a reconsolidation of the liberal camp. What we are seeing—in the Czech Republic and elsewhere—is that the illiberal camp is much stronger. If these patterns of consolidation continue, it will become increasingly difficult for the liberal camp to win elections. This is a major challenge in many countries today.

From Technocrat to ‘Big Daddy’ Populist

Drawing on your concept of technocratic populism, how does Babiš’s blend of managerialism and anti-elite rhetoric differ from classical populist radical right movements in Central Europe? Has this hybrid model evolved since his first premiership (2017–2021)?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: When we wrote the article with Professor Petra Guasti on technocratic populism, we conceived of it as an ideal type—and, of course, every ideal type, when faced with reality, becomes a bit murky and messy. In the original classification, technocratic populism in its pure form did not involve culture wars, nativism, or sovereigntism. It was about the populist utilization of expertise to win elections.

Babiš, who is a very flexible and savvy politician, has certainly evolved. Especially during the 2023 presidential elections, we saw him significantly amplify his nativist appeal—it was quite remarkable. But then he softened his rhetoric again. In the current election, he and his party, ANO, have toned it down.

We also see a shift away from the original technocratic populist model and its managerial appeal. When he first ran, he presented himself as a competent manager. Now, he positions himself more as a “big daddy” figure who will take care of things and spend generously on his constituents. The party he originally founded was fiscally conservative, advocating for running the state efficiently like a firm. That is no longer the platform. The current platform focuses on redistribution and targeted spending toward core constituencies.

This has little to do with efficiency, even though one of his electoral appeals is that the previous coalition was ineffective at managing economic problems—and there is certainly some truth to that. In many ways, this election has centered on pocketbook concerns, poverty, and voters in economically disadvantaged regions. Babiš and ANO have managed to mobilize these voters very successfully and effectively.

Sovereigntist Rhetoric, Pragmatic Strategy

Given Babiš’s membership in the Patriots for Europe and his critiques of the Green Deal, how do you assess the interplay between sovereigntist populism in Czechia and EU-level constraints? Are we witnessing a gradual erosion of the EU’s leverage over domestic political agendas?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: We certainly see that the European Union either lacks the instruments or is unwilling to use the instruments at hand to deal with autocratic or illiberal leaders, unfortunately. Babiš is a very pragmatic politician. He will criticize the Green Deal, but if, for instance, his agro-federate firm can benefit from it, I’m sure he would be open to discussions. One important aspect of the Green Deal debate is the likely involvement of the Motorists party, which is expected to be part of the future coalition and absolutely opposes the Green Deal. There is even a possibility that this party will get the environment portfolio, which would certainly lead to a strong pushback against the Green Deal from the incoming coalition.

The coalition negotiations have just started and will take some time, but resistance is almost certain. However, Babiš, being highly pragmatic, will likely oppose the Green Deal selectively, in ways that suit his political agenda, while also accommodating his coalition partners. I’m sure he will navigate this very skillfully, as part of the Green Deal is rhetorical, but there are also technical aspects that will not be easy to roll back.

A Volatile Marriage of Convenience

If Babiš succeeds in forming a minority government backed by SPD and Motorists, how might this affect the strategic behavior of far-right actors? Does your research on illiberal alliances suggest a stable coalition or a volatile marriage of convenience?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: The negotiations have just started, and one possibility is a coalition of ANO, led by Andrej Babiš, and Motorists. It’s not clear whether the far-right party—Tomio Okamura’s party—or its 10 plus 5 MPs will be part of the government or whether they will silently support the coalition from parliament. It’s possible that, for the far right, Babiš will ask them to nominate experts.

This is likely to be a volatile coalition, but Babiš has shown in the past that he can handle coalitions very well. In fact, anyone considering entering a coalition with Andrej Babiš should be very cautious. Babiš was once in a coalition with the Social Democrats, and he completely destroyed them, siphoning off all their voters. They are basically gone, especially after this election—a dead party for which Babiš can take much of the credit.

The SPD should really think twice about how to approach this future coalition relationship because the election results have shown that Babiš can very skillfully siphon off far-right voters as well. He is a highly strategic politician who has effectively cannibalized his coalition partners in the past.

With Motorists, there are likely to be some tensions. It’s not a stable party; it’s built around a few personalities. The biggest source of tension in the coalition will probably concern budget balance. The party of Motorists is, in a way, the intellectual child of former President Václav Klaus. They want to keep balanced budgets—an idea that has already been signaled as completely unrealistic. There may be some initial friction, but it’s likely they will get over it quickly.

Babiš is one of the most talented politicians in the Czech Republic today, and I expect he will handle this situation quite effectively, using a combination of arm-twisting and incentives. I suspect he will be very successful.

Okamura Overshoots, Babiš Benefits

Czech businessman and SPD leader Tomio Okamura in Prague on May 5, 2010. Photo: Dreamstime.

The SPD underperformed compared to expectations. How do you explain the resilience of Babiš’s populist appeal despite the presence of established far-right actors? Does this reflect a mainstreaming of radical right discourse in Czech politics?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: Okamura underperformed—his party underperformed. Moreover, he has a group of very undisciplined MPs because, in fact, he had three other parties in the coalition, so he has five MPs who are more like coalition MPs than SPD members. He is no longer an authentic politician. Many far-right voters, including those from other parties, no longer see him as a credible nativist fighter—that’s one aspect. But also, he is too extreme for the Czech context. He ran a very vitriolic, pro-Russian campaign and openly declared that he would like the Czech Republic to leave NATO and the European Union. Czech voters absolutely do not have the stomach for that, so he overshot. This is simply too extreme.

As Aleš Michal, one Czech political scientist, insightfully observed, the mobilization against the far right led by the pro-democratic parties and the coalition Together—when they warned Czech voters against parties that would steer the country towards Russia—actually worked. Anti-system and far-right or far-left voters moved under the umbrella of ANO. So, in a way, the strategy worked, but it did not help the coalition Together—it helped Babiš.

Another important aspect is that during the presidential elections, which Babiš lost but which were highly polarized, he managed to attract a significant number of far-right voters. In 2023, these voters grew accustomed to the idea of voting for him. So, although he lost the presidential election, it helped him enormously in this election, as he became an acceptable alternative for the far right.

Cultural Issues Trigger Policy Backlash

In your work on the “Revenge of the Radical Right,” you emphasize how minority accommodation can trigger backlash. To what extent are current Czech political dynamics shaped by cultural issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, Ukrainian refugees) rather than economic grievances?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: I’ve thought about these issues quite a bit because I do think that with a lot of foreign mobilization today, the appeal of ethnic issues is somewhat subdued. I also have one or two articles with Professor Petra Guasti where we speculate about this. The logic of the book is that backlash ensues after the accommodation of minorities—it’s a backlash against elevating groups and putting forward policies that help them. In that sense, the logic of backlash applies here as well. In the Czech Republic, when you consider the status quo and the pursuit of policies that were genuinely beneficial to Ukrainian refugees, you can anticipate an ensuing backlash. Ukrainian refugees are no longer as warmly welcomed as they once were. There have also been many attempts to advance more robust legislation to protect women against rape and sexual assault, as well as attempts to codify the Istanbul Convention. These are all policies that, in a way, shift the balance of power or policy direction, and we have seen backlash as a result. Similarly, the LGBTQ community is hoping to increase their rights. Much of the public is quite open to this possibility, but the process of getting there involves shifting the balance and policies. Once that happens, advocates on the opposing side are naturally activated. So, I do think the policy backlash logic applies here as well.

Recent scholarship highlights the rise of confessional illiberalism across Central Europe. Do you see religiously inflected sovereigntism gaining ground in Czechia, or does the country’s secular legacy limit this trajectory compared to Hungary and Poland?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: This is an excellent question. It refers to a recent article that I’ve written with Lottam Halevi, who is now at the University of Constance. One important thing to keep in mind is that much of the mobilization around religious issues is actually a mobilization of political identity. It is not necessarily the case that more religiously infused countries will experience a higher mobilization of religious identity or religious activity as political identity. Czechia is a very secular country. However, we do see issues around transgender rights or some LGBTQ questions being framed in ways that are very similar to Hungary and Poland. The culture wars are nowhere near as fierce as in neighboring countries, but the country could potentially develop its own mini culture wars. 

Another important point is that in the Czech Republic, the Christian Democratic Party is firmly in a coalition and belongs to the liberal or pro-democratic camp. As long as they remain on the side of parties that respect the rule of law, this creates a kind of firewall against the politicization of some of these issues. Nevertheless, we have seen signs of this dynamic even in a country as secular as the Czech Republic.

Culture Wars Remain Underutilized in Czech Politics

Ukrainian activists protest against the Russian invasion of Ukraine during a peaceful demonstration with flags in support of Ukraine in Prague, Czechia on February 24, 2023. Photo: Dreamstime.

Your article “In Europe’s Closet” discusses how minority rights can catalyze illiberal backlash. Are Czech populist and far-right actors increasingly weaponizing LGBTQ+ issues as part of their sovereigntist narratives? How does this compare to developments in Slovakia or Poland?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: Suddenly, these issues are high on the agenda in Slovakia and Poland, even though in Poland some LGBTQ issues are not as salient as they were a few years ago. However, we do see narratives about protecting children against transgenderism emerging. This rhetoric often appears as part of anti-EU, Euroskeptic discourse—telling people what to do, how to raise their children, promoting a progressive agenda around women, or framing gender rights as a threat to traditional families. The offshoots of these narratives are present, though they are not a particularly dominant strain. Pocketbook issues largely dominated this election. So, the potential is there, but it remains underutilized. Moreover, the Catholic Church in the Czech Republic is quite restrained and does not enter into these debates in the way it does in Slovakia or Poland.

In your co-authored work on “Patronage, Trust, and State Capacity,” you argue that low bureaucratic trust fosters clientelism. How does this dynamic manifest in Babiš’s political strategy, especially considering his corporate background and patronage networks?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: Andrej Babiš cares about one thing only, and that’s his firm, Agrofert, and his political party is his firm. The party is not a regular party; it is a business project and a business offshoot. He has a huge conflict of interest, which nobody knows how he’s going to solve if he’s nominated as prime minister, because the Czech Republic doesn’t have an institute of blind trust. The conflict of interest will always be there because his firm, Agrofert, is a large recipient of state subsidies. That’s not necessarily patronage networks; it’s, in a way, making sure that the state is in a fantastic synergistic position with his firm. That is a particularity of his business background and the setup of the party. It is a vehicle for him to keep political power and be able to use state and EU subsidies, and the conflict of interest is just written all over him.

In terms of ANO as a party strategy, I would not necessarily define it as clientelism. What we saw when Babiš was in power, I would call targeted distribution—targeting pockets of voters, many of whom actually do need this targeting, and it is very beneficial to them. It involves picking out or dissecting groups that will be selected for state help, and again, the budget deficit is going to balloon. I don’t think that’s necessarily patronage, but it’s a targeted exchange that a lot of parties engage in, and it’s bread-and-butter politics. Having said that, aside from the targeted distribution, Babiš will make sure that his agglomerate benefits from him being prime minister again, which is a very likely scenario, as it seems now.

From Fiscal Conservatism to Programmatic Populism

Do you think Babiš’s economic promises—higher pensions, lower taxes, welfare expansion—should be understood as clientelistic appeals rooted in weak state capacity, or as programmatic populism aimed at reshaping public expectations?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: If I were to choose, I would really use more of a frame of programmatic populism or targeted distribution. We saw this between 2017–2021. What’s happening in the region now is that voter expectations have changed—and this applies to Poland and Slovakia as well—so that populist voters now expect redistribution and higher spending. If Babiš stays in power for four years, these expectations will become absolutely entrenched. There is a recent book on Poland by Ben Stanley that talks about this lock-in: basically, the transformation of the Polish party system in such a way that all voters now expect the next party in power to spend, no matter who that might be. If the current governing coalition ever comes back, they will have to do the same thing. They will not be able to promise balanced budgets. If they want to defeat Babiš four years from now, they will also have to promise spending. Good luck with the budgets, but there is a general entrenchment of voters expecting that the state needs to really open up the valves. It will probably have pretty bad long-term consequences, but nobody’s thinking long-term these days.

Given Babiš’s emphasis on managerial competence, how does technocratic rhetoric interact with populist radical right sovereigntist claims in his current coalition-building efforts?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: It’s going to be a big spending spree, and the Motorists will have to hold their noses. The far right really doesn’t care—actually, it supports spending as long as it’s spending on Czechs, or native spending, and not on Ukrainians or migrants. This is going to be a move from manager to, in a way, a paternal figure who is going to take care of everybody, including making appointments for colonoscopy. Part of the big appeal of Babiš was the emphasis on improving the healthcare system. 

Having been quite critical about ANO, I do have to emphasize that it’s quite possible that some of the portfolios the coalition will control can be given to very competent people. In the previous government, ANO had some ministers or portfolios that were run quite well. For example, the Ministry of Education underwent some really good changes. It’s also possible that some of the infrastructure projects that started and need to be completed, or the huge shortage of housing stock—if Babiš can really deliver on these issues, that’s going to be very successful, rewarded, and it would benefit the country quite a bit. If he throws in managerial competence and delivers, that would be fantastic, and it’s possible that there might be some policy changes that can be done well and have long-term benefits. But I suspect a big spending spree and a very short-term horizon, given Babiš’s age. We’ll see.

A Historic Breakthrough for the Far Right

Analysts have warned that Babiš could align Czechia with Hungary and Slovakia, forming a sovereigntist bloc inside the EU. Do you view this as a tactical positioning or a substantive ideological shift toward illiberal governance?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: I’m very concerned. Despite the relatively moderate appeal, I do think that Babiš’s victory is a significant win for illiberals in the region. I do not think this will be a bloodbath for Czech democracy, but I do think there’s going to be a lot of bleeding. The patient will survive, but there will be a strong shift. Babiš is also very strategic. If he and his coalition partners drag him to some extreme positions, the Czech public may become accustomed to that. If this coalition emerges, it will be the first time in Czech history that the far right is either in coalition or silently supporting the government. That’s a huge breakthrough, and it’s very concerning. The Motorists are not an extreme party, but they are certainly not rooting for the European rule of law and liberal democratic values. This is very troubling, and it’s a big win for illiberalism in Europe. Babiš’s victory is undoubtedly a big win for illiberalism.

Guardrails Exist, But Democratic Quality May Decline

The Statue of Justice by Marius Kotrba, a modern sculpture located at the Supreme Court building in Brno, Czech Republic, on March 10, 2022. Photo: Evgeniy Fesenko.

What are the potential institutional guardrails against democratic backsliding in Czechia, and how do they compare to Hungary and Slovakia during their own illiberal turns?

Professor Lenka Bustikova: There are a lot of guardrails. The most important actor is the current president, Petr Pavel. He can veto, he can play a huge informal role, and he will have to think very carefully about whether the future prime minister is going to violate the law by being in a position of conflict of interest. This is going to be a hard puzzle to solve. The Czech president is a pro-democratic, centrist figure with good temperament and very high levels of popularity.

The second guardrail is the second chamber, which Slovakia does not have. The Czech Senate is still dominated by so-called liberal or pro-democratic parties. There are a lot of roadblocks. Another institution that’s quite important is the Constitutional Court, which has saved Czech democracy many times. That’s also significant.

The media in the Czech Republic have been independent. Babiš is going to go after Czech Television and Czech Radio, but the country has a robust, pluralistic media scene. It might change, but that’s an important characteristic.

Czech civil society is quite active, although one has to be very careful about what mobilization means. For example, work by Petra Guasti and Aleš Michal showed that populists are sometimes much better at mobilizing. This election has shown that people can be mobilized for and against democracy, or for liberal or illiberal causes. This time, the election mobilized the illiberals more, but there were other elections in the past when the pro-democratic camp was mobilized quite well. Civil society is active. It pays attention.

So, there is hope, but I do expect that the quality of Czech democracy will decline during this period because of disrespect for the rule of law. Babiš does not like the rule of law, and his coalition partners are either extremists or at the fringe of the mainstream. Another thing I would like to mention is that one of the leaders of the Motorist Party has accusations of domestic abuse filed against him. In terms of signaling the moral integrity of political leaders, this also doesn’t bode well for appointing people with questionable moral standing to very high positions of power.

Swerve for Now, But the Future Looks Troubling

Finally, situating Czechia within the broader Central European context, do you see the current developments as part of a cyclical populist wave or a deeper structural illiberal swerve, as discussed in “The Illiberal Turn or Swerve in Central Europe?”

Professor Lenka Bustikova: At this moment, I expect that this is going to be four years’ worth, but I don’t know what’s going to happen at the end of these four years, because what we see in other countries is that when the 2.0 comes back—when populists return to power—they are much more effective. They know what to do, they have their playbooks ready, they have done this before, they are much more revengeful, aggressive, and they know how to get things done. So I expect that Babiš will weaken the rule of law and definitely try to weaken some of the guardrails. I do think that the coalition partners will certainly drag the country more towards the East than towards the West. The real question is going to be: after four years, is there anyone who will be able to beat them? It’s going to be very difficult because this consolidation of camps shows that the illiberal camp is simply numerically much stronger. Either they’ll have to make some terrible mistakes—which they will—and the voters may forgive them or may not, or the liberal camp will have to grow, and we see in other countries that it is a very steep hill to climb. So, swerve for now, but I am very concerned about the future.

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman is a Senior Lecturer at the Lauder Institute and in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Locoman: Moldova’s Win Is Real, But Russia Is Not Done Yet

by Editor’s ChoiceEuropean ObservatoryHomeInterviewsMigration

Moldova’s 2025 parliamentary elections mark a pivotal moment in the geopolitical tug-of-war between the European Union and Russia. Despite unprecedented hybrid interference—including disinformation, illicit financing, and the use of new technologies—the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) secured a decisive victory. Dr. Ecaterina Locoman cautions, however, that this success is “more of a temporary setback” for Moscow than a strategic defeat: “Russia will gather its resources again.” In this interview with ECPS, Dr. Locoman analyzes Moldova’s evolving democratic resilience, the adaptive strategies of Russian influence, the role of the diaspora, and the country’s ambitious EU accession goal. She underscores the importance of sustained domestic reform and Western engagement to keep Moldova on its “irreversible European path.”

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Moldova’s 2025 parliamentary elections have emerged as a pivotal moment in the geopolitical contest between the European Union and Russia. Against a backdrop of unprecedented hybrid interference—including disinformation campaigns, illicit financing, and the use of new technologies—Moldova’s pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) secured a decisive victory. Yet, as Dr. Ecaterina Locoman cautions in this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), this success must be understood as both real and fragile: “I expect that Russia will continue to influence domestic politics. It’s part of their strategic goal to regain control over the post-Soviet region, and I don’t think this should be read as a strategic loss. It’s more of a temporary setback, but they will gather their resources again.”

Dr. Locoman, Senior Lecturer at the Lauder Institute and in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, situates Moldova’s electoral resilience within a hybrid framework of domestic determination and external support. “We can interpret the results of the Moldovan elections as a hybrid outcome. On the one hand, they reflect a strong domestic effort—both from political institutions and voters—who showed remarkable resilience in the face of Russian interference and influence. On the other hand, it is also clear that without the support of Western partners, especially the European Union, this success would not have been possible. So, it’s both a domestic and international story.”

This resilience was manifested not only through institutional preparedness—such as stronger oversight of illicit financing and disinformation—but also through robust diaspora engagement and sustained voter mobilization. “The numbers show that 280,000 Moldovans abroad voted in the elections,” Dr. Locoman notes, highlighting how mail ballots and close transnational ties helped bolster the pro-EU vote. She underscores that “the diaspora is relatively young… they maintain very strong links to Moldovan politics and what is happening at home.”

At the same time, Moscow’s influence tactics are evolving. Russia experimented with “the use of AI and alternative financial methods, like cryptocurrency,” to obscure financial flows and spread propaganda. While these efforts ultimately proved less effective this cycle, Dr. Locoman warns against complacency: “Moscow is one of the best students of the post-Soviet region… they will learn from their own mistakes and improve their strategies in the next elections. This fight needs to continue.”

Looking ahead, Moldova’s ambition to join the European Union by 2030 faces both internal and external hurdles. Domestically, slow reforms, corruption, and economic vulnerabilities remain pressing concerns. Externally, geopolitical vetoes—most notably from Hungary—could obstruct accession negotiations. “I have some doubts—not fear, but doubts—about how quickly the situation can move by 2030,” Dr. Locoman admits. Yet she also maintains a note of cautious optimism: “Up until 2022, Moldova had been knocking on the EU’s doors for more than 30 years… and then, in the end, it happened.”

In this interview, Dr. Locoman offers a nuanced analysis of Moldova’s evolving democratic landscape, the adaptive strategies of Russian influence, and the strategic choices facing both Moldovan and European leaders in the years to come.

Here is the transcript of our interview with Dr. Ecaterina Locoman, lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Resilience at Home, Support Abroad

National meeting of the Moldovan people with the flags of the European Union and the Republic of Moldova. Chisinau, Moldova, May 21, 2023. Photo: Andrei F.

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: Moldova’s parliamentary elections delivered a decisive victory for the ruling pro-European Union PAS despite unprecedented Russian interference. Should we interpret this outcome as a durable consolidation of democratic resilience, or as a contingent success heavily dependent on extraordinary EU and Western support?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: Thank you very much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here. I think we can interpret the results of the Moldovan elections as a hybrid outcome. On the one hand, they reflect a strong domestic effort—both from political institutions and voters—who showed remarkable resilience in the face of Russian interference and influence. On the other hand, it is also clear that without the support of Western partners, especially the European Union, this success would not have been possible. So, it’s both a domestic and international story.

Importantly, if we look back at the 2024 presidential elections and now the 2025 parliamentary elections, voters have chosen a similar direction. This indicates that democracy in Moldova, while perhaps not as strong or stable as one might wish, is nonetheless evolving. Moldovans and their institutions are working every day to strengthen it. We saw a high degree of voter mobilization despite significant Russian efforts, including disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and illicit financing. Voter turnout was relatively high at 52%, demonstrating strong civic engagement.

Compared to the 2024 presidential elections, domestic institutions such as the prosecutor’s office and the police clearly learned from past mistakes. They were better prepared to identify and address unlawful use of illicit funding and electoral violations. This helped build voter confidence in the electoral process. As in previous elections, diaspora engagement was also very strong, further contributing to democratic resilience. Overall, these factors point to an increased resilience among Moldovans in defending their democratic process.

Pro-Russian Messages Losing Ground

To what extent do the results reflect a deepening societal commitment to a pro-European orientation, as opposed to a rejection of entrenched pro-Russian elites such as Igor Dodon and his allies, whose populist appeals often fuse anti-elite rhetoric with civilizational tropes about Russia as Moldova’s “natural” ally?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman:  That’s a very good question. The results show that, again, the recent election, as well as those in 2024 and 2021, reflect a continuing trend that society as a whole is more or less committed to a pro-Western orientation. I travel to Moldova on a yearly basis, and I can see that the country has changed significantly in recent years since Maia Sandu became president. There is a very clear pro-European trend. That said, it’s true that we don’t have precise data on how many Moldovans live abroad. Every summer, many of them return, and perhaps my impression of the country is somewhat skewed because I visit during that period when a lot of diaspora members are back home. Still, the spirit in the country is very much pro-European.

It’s also true that there have been numerous reports on this topic. I have studied how both Russia and the West try to influence domestic politics in post-Soviet states, and my research shows that Russia has long been grooming local political actors in countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia. The fact that they were able to attract and cultivate specific types of political figures—such as Igor Dodon, for example, a former president of Moldova who now enjoys little popularity among large segments of the electorate—indicates that Moldovans are increasingly able to distinguish between leaders who genuinely seek to build a democratic, secure, and prosperous future for the country and those who do not.

Pro-Russian actors have not been particularly original or creative in how they promote their message. This message is losing ground, especially because of the war in Ukraine. It is no longer easy to “sell” this narrative. Previously, Moldovan politics often involved strategic shifts between Russia and the West, depending on which side best served domestic interests. Today, this approach is much harder to sustain. The war raging in neighboring Ukraine has made people more aware of the stakes, and Moldova has received a significant number of Ukrainian refugees. As a result, it has become much more difficult for pro-Russian parties to sell their message as effectively as before.

A Blessing in Disguise: Russia’s Unintended Push

Russian military expert at a government operations base, engaged in cyber activities aimed at spreading disinformation and hybrid warfare propaganda. Photo: Dragos Condrea.

With turnout just above 50%, what does this relative disengagement reveal about the durability of PAS’s mandate, and does persistent electoral apathy risk undermining the legitimacy of Moldova’s democratic consolidation over time?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: As I mentioned earlier, yes, the turnout was just over 50%, but this number is not unusually low for Moldova. In fact, compared to some recent elections in the region, 52% is relatively solid. However, you are right that it also signals that a significant portion of the electorate remains disengaged, which has implications for the durability of the ruling party’s mandate to govern over the next four years.

The fact that Maia Sandu’s party won elections for the second time is significant. They secured a clear majority of seats and resisted heavy Russian interference and influence. At the same time, much of their enthusiasm is concentrated during election periods, when the central question is whether the country is moving east or west. This enthusiasm does not always last throughout the full four-year governing period.

Moldovans are frustrated with the slow pace of reforms, the persistence of corruption, and the fact that judicial change has not progressed as quickly as many had hoped. Many voters remain disillusioned with these slow reforms, persistent poverty, and daily economic hardships. For this reason, it is especially important for the governing party to deliver results quickly—both to maintain its stated goal of joining the European Union and to ensure that its policies meet the expectations of the electorate.

In some ways, the Russian presence is acting as a “blessing in disguise.” Without the Russian threat at the border, Moldovan political parties might have been more complacent and less willing to pursue reforms. Because the threat is so close, it creates a greater sense of urgency among both political actors and the population to mobilize and align with the European Union.

What has changed significantly compared to previous elections—particularly over the past decade, since around 2010—is the unprecedented level of symbolic, technical, and financial support the European Union has provided to Maia Sandu and Moldovan political institutions. EU leaders have repeatedly visited Moldova and demonstrated their support, which is unprecedented in the country’s history.

In my own research, I found that since 1991, when Moldova declared independence from the USSR, one of its main foreign policy challenges has been ensuring that the West paid any attention to it at all. For many years, Moldova was on the radar only because of the Transnistrian conflict. As long as things were quiet and stable, there was little engagement. Now, however, Moldovan political elites—especially Maia Sandu—have succeeded in breaking through this indifference and convincing European leaders that Moldova is strategically important to the EU and its security.

Transnationalizing Moldovan Democracy

The diaspora played a decisive role in shaping the outcome. How should we understand this transnationalization of Moldovan democracy, especially given populist narratives at home that cast the diaspora as an illegitimate, “externalized” electorate undermining national sovereignty?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: That’s true. I like the expression you used—the transnationalization of Moldovan democracy. The numbers show that 280,000 Moldovans abroad voted in the elections. This is because the governing party recognized that much of their support comes from the diaspora, so they facilitated the voting process abroad. The introduction of mail ballots was a smart and strategic move, because people living in countries like the United States find it much easier to vote by mail than to go in person to Moldovan embassies or consulates. This was an important step, reflecting the fact that domestic political elites understood the crucial role the diaspora plays.

Another important factor is that the diaspora is relatively young. Most of those who have moved abroad are in their 50s, 40s, 30s, and 20s. They maintain very strong links to Moldovan politics and what is happening at home. Many have families in Moldova, so they remain deeply engaged, and I was pleased to see the high level of civic engagement among the diaspora, particularly their efforts to support and promote European integration.

It’s true that the more pro-Russia parties tend to portray the diaspora negatively. I think it was Igor Dodon who, at one point during a previous presidential election, referred to the diaspora as a “parallel electorate,” claiming that they don’t know what’s happening at home, that they live in the West and therefore want the country to join the West. He argued that they are disconnected from domestic realities, which is not true. The links between the diaspora and Moldova remain very strong.

If you visit in the summertime, you can see many young people and young families returning. In the 1990s and early 2000s, before Moldova had a visa-free regime with the EU, many Moldovans tried to work in the EU illegally. They often ended up stuck abroad, unable to return home, and the maximum support they could provide was through remittances.

Government building decorated with Moldovan and European Union flags, as well as national and EU symbols, in central Chisinau, Chisinau, Moldova on June 1, 2025. Photo: Gheorghe Mindru.

Now, because the EU has introduced a visa-free regime and many Moldovans have been able to obtain Romanian citizenship—thanks to Romania’s revised citizenship law allowing those who can prove family links from the interwar period when Moldova was part of Greater Romania to apply—many people have Romanian passports. This allows them to live and work legally in the EU.

As a result, many young families now live in European countries such as Germany, Belgium, and Great Britain during the year, but they build homes in Moldova, have parents and siblings there, and remain in close contact. So, it is not accurate to argue that the diaspora is disconnected from events at home. In fact, it is very much a part of what is happening domestically. As long as domestic political actors continue to engage the diaspora and maintain these connections, the pro-European movement will hopefully remain strong.

Hybrid Interference: New Tactics, Old Goals

Observers describe Moldova as a “laboratory” for Russia’s hybrid interference. From disinformation to illicit financing, what does the 2025 electoral cycle reveal about the adaptive limits of Moscow’s toolkit of influence?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: Yes, we’ve seen new models of influence that Russia has used in the elections. The use of AI and alternative financial methods, like cryptocurrency, for example, is new. They tried to hide financial links by using cryptocurrency, which, in a way, influenced the process. But, this also revealed the limits of Russian influence. I would add a caveat here: Moscow—indeed the Kremlin—is one of the best students of the post-Soviet region. They know the region very well and have people who have studied it in depth. So, I expect that they will learn from their own mistakes and improve their strategies in the next elections. This means that Moldova’s pro-European victory should not be seen as a sign that we can become complacent or self-sufficient. This fight needs to continue. As I said, Moscow is a very good student of the post-Soviet region. They understand the internal realities of these countries. They know the challenges that people face, the domestic weak points, and they try to exploit these to the advantage of their messages and narratives.

At the same time, many of these tools proved ineffective at this point in time because Moldovan institutions—and civil society as well—were more proactive than in past elections. Moldovan institutions learned important lessons from the last presidential elections. Parties engaged in illicit financing were excluded from the ballot, prosecutions were pursued, and the government was much more transparent in communicating about disinformation campaigns. As a result, people were much more aware of what was going on.

While the Russian toolkit has evolved technologically, its effectiveness is limited when met with resilient institutions, rapid countermeasures, and credible alternatives. If we look at one successful formula that worked in Moldova at this moment, I would still be cautious not to declare this the end of Russian interference. Russian influence will remain strong in the region. But what worked was a credible pro-EU message from domestic political parties, coupled with strong and credible support from the EU, which was very important. Additionally, the pro-Russia parties were not as original in their messaging, and the ongoing war in neighboring Ukraine further strengthened the pro-EU camp.

Exploiting Weak Links: Moscow’s Populist Playbook

The T-34 tank monument and the Parliament building in Tiraspol, Transnistria, Moldova. The tank is a decommissioned T-34, now part of the Memorial of Glory. Photo: Dreamstime.

In the light of your research on Russian influence strategies, how do you interpret Moscow’s reliance on populist-style appeals—framing EU integration as a betrayal of sovereignty, invoking fears of war, or portraying elites as “foreign agents”? Does the Moldovan case suggest a recalibration of these tactics compared to Ukraine or Georgia?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: What is happening in Moldova, again, links to what I was just saying in response to the previous question. When I think about Georgia, the support for a pro-EU orientation was very strong. Public opinion support was extremely high, but it was not enough. When Russia was able to find a credible, strong domestic political actor, it was able to promote its own interests inside Georgia. What is different in Moldova’s case right now is that there was both a credible pro-EU party and strong public opinion support for the European Union. Now, Russia does not necessarily rely only on populist-style appeals. They know the weaknesses in each of these countries—the weak links—and they try to use those for their own interests. One thing I have noticed is that as long as domestic political elites are smart and strategic in how they frame their political messaging, it matters a lot.

I will give an example. Since Moldova declared independence in 1991, one very big question has been whether the language spoken in Moldova is Romanian or Moldovan. Political campaigns and electoral strategies were often built around this division. More pro-EU, pro-Romanian parties argued that the language is Romanian, while more pro-Russia parties insisted it is Moldovan. In every electoral campaign, these pro-Russia political parties used such narratives to distract voters from real issues like economic problems and corruption.

What happened in the years since Maia Sandu came to power is that the Moldovan constitution was amended to enshrine that the language spoken in Moldova is Romanian. So now, there is no debate about it. Nobody is questioning it anymore. The point I want to make is that as long as domestic political elites manage to settle these kinds of debates—which are not central to everyday life—then it becomes much harder for pro-Russia political actors to exploit them. People’s income levels or quality of life do not depend on whether they call the language Romanian or Moldovan.

When the Russians spot these kinds of differences, they manipulate public opinion and can win. But if domestic political elites can agree and establish clear positions on such issues, it becomes much harder for pro-Russia actors to influence the public. For example, pro-Russia parties have strong backing in the Orthodox Church in Moldova, which is very influential. There were reports that some priests were used by the Kremlin to influence public opinion. But as long as there is clear messaging from mainstream political parties in Moldova that they are not anti-religion, that religion is respected and people are free to practice their faith, then it becomes harder for pro-Russian narratives—often based on fake realities—to take hold.

When people hear credible messages from their own political elites, it becomes much easier for them to discern truth from lies. Similarly, the narrative about war has become much harder for Russia to sell right now. Why? Because they are waging a war in neighboring Ukraine. It is much harder to claim that moving toward the EU will bring war when there is already a war caused by Russia next door. This narrative was more effective in earlier elections, but now, as long as the West continues to support Ukraine and Ukraine withstands the Russian attack, it will be much easier for Moldova to remain strong and maintain its pro-European orientation and stance.

Without Reforms, Western Support Won’t Be Enough

How sustainable is Moldova’s reliance on Western partners for countering hybrid threats, given persistent vulnerabilities such as corruption, weak institutions, and economic hardship?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: This is a very good question. I think about it very often. As much as Russian influence may be a blessing in disguise—in the sense that it mobilizes people at home to work hard and pushes political parties to deliver on their promises and act quickly—the support from the European Union, and even from the United States, is the best thing that can happen to Moldova. As long as the EU remains invested in Moldova, we will be able to maintain our pro-European path more easily.

One fear I have is that we might become complacent, assuming that the EU or the West will always come to our rescue and that we can simply continue doing whatever we are doing internally. When I go to Moldova, I often hear people—business people, entrepreneurs—complaining that not much has changed compared to 10 or 15 years ago. Corruption is still rampant. In order to obtain permits to build something, for example, you still need to pay someone in the government. This is unfortunate, and people are aware of it.

My conclusion is that domestic political parties must understand that this is a “make it or break it” moment. If they do not deliver on the promises they have made, it will become much easier for political actors in Moldova who promote Russian interests to regain power. And once that happens, it will be much, much harder to get Moldova out of Russia’s embrace. So, I think it depends very much on the willingness of the ruling party right now, and Maia Sandu, to deliver on the reforms they have promised.

A Temporary Setback, Not a Strategic Defeat

Do Moldova’s elections signal a broader decline in Russia’s ability to project influence across the post-Soviet space, or should Moscow’s defeat here be read as tactical rather than strategic?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: As I shared earlier, I do not think this is a Russian defeat in the long term. Russia is very adept at adjusting its messaging and tactics, not only with respect to the post-Soviet region but also to the wider EU region. They will learn from their mistakes and continue to influence domestic politics in Moldova, as much as we might not like it. Even if the political actors they supported did not win as many seats in Parliament as they initially hoped, we can look at the first four years of Maia Sandu’s party in government.

Basically, these previous four years were devoted to crisis management. Yes, it’s true, initially it was the COVID pandemic, but then the war in Ukraine, caused by Russia, turned everything upside down in Moldova. So instead of focusing on judicial reforms and economic development, as the party had initially promised and as Maia Sandu stated, they had to adjust. I think they managed—they were successful in delivering some of the promises made during the electoral campaign—but it was ten times harder.

I expect that Russia will continue to influence domestic politics. It’s part of their strategic goal to regain control over the post-Soviet region, and I don’t think this should be read as a strategic loss. It’s more of a temporary setback, but they will gather their resources again. Therefore, both Moldovan and European Union leaders need to stay on their toes, remain alert, and be careful about the next steps so they are prepared to counteract those measures.

EU Accession: Between Optimism and Doubt

Nicolae Ciucă (L), President of the National Liberal Party, Ursula von der Leyen (C), President of the European Commission, and Maia Sandu (R), President of Moldova, during the plenary session of the 2024 EPP Congress in Bucharest on March 6, 2024. Photo: Dreamstime.

And lastly, Dr. Locoman, President Sandu has tied her mandate to enshrining an “irreversible European path.” How realistic is Moldova’s aim to achieve EU accession by 2030, given the scale of domestic reforms required and potential geopolitical vetoes within the Union?

Dr. Ecaterina Locoman: Recently, Maia Sandu visited Copenhagen. Denmark hosted a major summit with key EU leaders. Ukraine was there, Maia Sandu was there, and there were reports that they were hoping Hungary would be persuaded not to veto the right of Ukraine and Moldova to start accession negotiations. However, Hungary was not persuaded. So the only hope they have right now is that there will be a political change in Budapest, allowing this to move forward.

A lot of the frustration I hear among policymakers in Moldova, when it comes to the EU, is that they are disappointed the European Union decided to put Moldova and Ukraine in the same bucket for European integration. There were hopes that Moldova would be decoupled, that it would go its own way, and Ukraine would go its own way. But the Europeans still seem to favor moving forward together as a group.

A fear I have is that Moldova is much smaller than Ukraine. Yes, domestic reforms need to be done, but as long as there is political will, it is possible to achieve them. I share a bit of the concern raised in the question. I am afraid that if the situation continues as it is now, Moldova might face the same fate as the Western Balkans over the past 20 years. The door was opened for them too, but then they stalled, and no real progress has been made, apart from Croatia joining the EU.

So, I have some doubts—not fear, but doubts—about how quickly the situation can move by 2030. Is this truly realistic? But then again, up until 2022, Moldova had been knocking on the EU’s doors for more than 30 years, asking for candidate status, and the EU kept saying no. And then, in the end, it happened. Yes, it was because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it was unfortunate that this was the trigger, but it happened. So I try to stay optimistic and hope that by 2030, Moldova will be able to join the EU.