Whether Geert Wilders’ PVV party ends in first, second or third place in the Dutch general election on Wednesday, one thing is certain: the Netherlands will still be gripped by “populism paralysis”.

All the major political parties have ruled out forming a coalition government with the PVV. But this suits Wilders: he has shown precious few signs of actually wanting to govern. The most likely outcome for the Netherlands therefore is a coalition government of mainstream parties operating much like the one now leaving office.

Can Geert Wilders be more than the Netherlands' agitator-in-chief? Read more

Still, Dutch politics will continue to be dominated by the PVV leader’s well-crafted media stunts and provocations. And the grievances and fundamental questions underlying Wilders’ rise will remain largely unaddressed.

These are unusual elections for the Dutch. They will mark the first time that a western country has gone to the polls since Donald Trump became US president – and also the first parliamentary elections in a founding EU state since the UK voted to leave. So, for the first time in living memory, the outside world actually cares about what is happening in the Netherlands. But those expecting to see another country embrace the populist revolution of Trump and Brexit will be disappointed. Under their system of proportionate representation, Dutch voters do not elect a president or prime minister. They elect a party that may try to form a coalition government with other parties.

Wilders’ staunchly anti-EU, anti-Islam and anti-immigration platform may get 20%, 25% or even 30% of the vote. His party may even come first, earning Wilders the right to have the first go at forming a coalition government. But with no other party willing to join him, he will return to the opposition benches he has come to know so well.

The idea that Brexit is soon to be followed by “Nexit” can also be put to rest. If Dutch voters desperately wanted out, they would overwhelmingly vote for a party that wants out. They do not. Which is not to say that the EU in its current form has many friends left in the Netherlands.

The same is true of multiculturalism. The Netherlands urgently needs what the whole of Europe needs: fresh thinking and a sober debate on the two major issues dividing their societies: immigration and European integration.

For decades traditional parties and mainstream media in the Netherlands would simply not allow any room for honest disagreement on either issue. Let alone that they presented immigration or European integration as options to which the electorate might also legitimately say ‘no’. If you were opposed to further immigration you must be a racist. If you were against further European integration, you must be a dangerous nationalist. In either case there was no place for you in the national political conversation.

Behind this was an entirely understandable wish to keep racists and neo-Nazis out of politics. But the effects have been disastrous. Those who consider European integration to be a mistake have had no place to go but the populists. The same applies to those who believe that further immigration is not in their nation’s interests.

Worse, traditional parties never prepared their voters for the risks, threats, dilemmas and unknowns inherent in allowing millions of migrants to become citizens, and in transferring elements of sovereignty to untested European institutions. Now societies have changed profoundly. The risks, threats and dilemmas have, at least in part, materialised. The traditional parties’ authority and credibility are at an all-time low, and part of the electorate seems consumed by immense resentment.

Thirty years ago the Labour party and the Christian Democrats had more than two thirds of the vote. These days Labour – the PvdA – polls at less than 10%, while the Christian Democrats can only dream of 20%.

In their place is a wide range of newcomers, from Pirate party privacy advocates to a host of rightwing and green parties. There is now even a populist party for Dutch people of immigrant descent. The party is called Denk (”Think”) and it uses the same kind of conspiracy theories, fake news, personal attacks on opponents and contempt for liberal institutions that served Trump so well.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Clashes between Dutch people of Turkish origin and the police amid the government’s row with President Erdoğan, the Turkish leader.’ Photograph: Dylan Martinez/Reuters

Fragmentation is the buzz word in Dutch political circles these days, and this explosion in parties has made addressing the big questions even harder. How is a uniquely open and socially liberal society to accommodate hundreds of thousands of migrants from countries that are deeply conservative? How does it deal with dual nationalities when these may lead to conflicting loyalties, for instance when one’s original country is in open conflict with one’s new country? Witness, for instance, the weekend clashes between Dutch people of Turkish origin and the police amid the government’s row with Turkey’s President Erdoğan.

As for the European project, this may be a wonderful ideal in theory, but is it at all achievable in practice? What do Europeans mean in practical terms by the words “ever closer union”? Or to put it as simply as possible: What kind of EU do Europeans want?

The major Dutch parties seem to lack the ability, the courage and the imagination to tackle these questions head on and offer their voters alternative visions that are both realistic and inspiring. In this void Wilders successfully puts himself forward as the taboo-smashing iconoclast who does to speak truth to politically correct elite power.

Wilders offers spectacular theatre but beyond the Twitter slogans has no policy ideas of any real substance. His election programme is a one-page manifesto containing 11 bullet points. Number two reads: “Netherlands independent again. So out of the EU.” Number seven: “No more money to development aid, wind turbines, art, innovation, the public broadcaster and so on.” This is not the programme of a man who intends to deliver on his promise to “give the country back to its citizens”. Rather, it is the work of someone who relishes the role of the bogeyman.

So what happens next? Mainstream parties will simply point to Wilders and tell their voters: no matter how terrible we are, this man is worse. Thus, the paralysis continues.