The Dutch parliamentary elections are tomorrow and, like most Dutch political scientists, I cannot wait for them to be over. Never before have Dutch elections been so intensely followed by the international media and I am, honestly, tired of having to answer another question about “the Dutch Trump” (Geert Wilders) or “the Dutch Trudeau” (Jesse Klaver). Obviously, the international media are not really interested in Dutch politics. Rather, they have declared the Netherlands to be the bellwether of European politics. Never mind that the country has a fairly specific political culture, and party politics has changed from ultra-stable in the 20th century to ultra-volatile in the 21st century, the Netherlands is Europe’s future.

Given that the Dutch elections are covered in the same frame as the British EU referendum and the US presidential elections, and are the first of a series of similar elections in Europe, much of what is truly at stake is missed. Moreover, much of what is focused on is secondary at best and irrelevant at worst. So, what is (not) at stake tomorrow?

1 These are not “winner takes all” elections



The dominant theme for the Dutch elections, and all western elections since the Brexit and Trump victories of 2016, is that of a fundamental struggle between an emboldened populism and an embattled status quo. Leaving aside that neither Brexit nor Trump was exclusively a populist vote, both elections were contested on the basis of a winner-takes-all principle, with one winner and one loser. In sharp contrast, the Netherlands is electing a parliament based on the most proportional electoral system in the world, which means that there will be many winners and many losers, both in absolute and relative terms. Moreover, the winner doesn’t take all. In fact, the winner takes at best 20% of the vote!

2 The Dutch are not voting on the European Union

This weekend saw pro-EU demonstrations in major cities across Europe. In Germany, many demonstrators had banners that pleaded with the Netherlands to stay in the European Union. They might have been (mis)guided by some international media that have been openly speculating about a possible “Nexit”, that is, an exit from the EU by the Netherlands, because of the anticipated victory of Wilders’s anti-EU Party for Freedom (PVV). However, even if the PVV were to win, which is far from certain, there is no support for a Nexit among other parties. Similarly, there is virtually no support for a withdrawal from the eurozone among the Dutch population and political parties.

Geert Wilders, left, and incumbent Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte. Photograph: Yves Herman/AP

3 The Dutch are not electing a president

International media style the Dutch elections as a “neck-and-neck race” between conservative prime minister Mark Rutte of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and radical-right challenger Wilders, to fit the broader frame of status quo versus populism. Understandably, Rutte has tried to push this idea on the Dutch media too, positioning himself as the only democratic hope to stave off a populist victory. But however convenient it is for selling newspapers or for Rutte, this formula is inconsistent with the essence of the elections. The Dutch are electing a parliament, not a president or premier, and it is not guaranteed that the leader of the biggest party will be the premier. In a parliamentary system the government needs the support of the parliamentary majority, not necessarily of the biggest party. Moreover, the struggle between Rutte and Wilders captures only a minority of the voters: together the VVD and PVV are only polling between 30 and 35%. In other words, the real story is somewhere else.

4 The Dutch are uninspired …

The most stunning number regarding the Dutch elections is that, four days before election day, a majority of the population (54%) did not yet know for which party they were going to vote. Most had narrowed it down to two or three parties, but a staggering 15% had no clue whatsoever. This stunning number can be read in many different ways. At the very least, it shows that an abundance of options – a full 28 parties are contesting the elections – can still provide little choice or inspiration. One could also read this as an indication of the relatively low level, or at least intensity, of dissatisfaction of most people. The Dutch might be not very satisfied with the (many) political options; they are also not so dissatisfied that they have decided upon an anti-establishment party or not voting.

5 … (partly) because the parties discuss the wrong issues

One of the main reasons for the lack of inspiration among the Dutch people could be the mismatch between the issues they care about and the issues the Dutch parties talk about. Since the beginning of the 21st century Dutch political campaigns have been dominated by the “three Is” – immigration, integration and Islam – and this year is no different.

Paradoxically, given that the parties discuss these issues to give voice to the people, the majority of the Dutch population is primarily concerned with zorg (care), notably keeping healthcare affordable – this is the number one concern of the voters of four major parties, including the three rightwing parties most obsessed with the three Is: the PVV, VVD, and Christian Democratic CDA. The second biggest issue is social security, the third is fighting terrorism, and the fourth is more money for education. “Integration of refugees” ranks only ninth.

Perhaps that is the broader story that international media could take from the Dutch elections. The mantra that “the elite” is out of touch with “the people” because they don’t discuss the issues that they are most concerned about holds true, but the issues are no longer European integration, immigration or security. In fact, voters are being beaten around the head with those issues on the campaign trail, even if few concrete solutions are offered, at the expense of some of the basic bread-and-butter issues that are actually concerning the majority of population: economic inequality, education, healthcare, and protection of the welfare state.