“THERE’S something wrong with our country,” began an open letter to the Dutch people published last month. It went on to moan about those who “abuse our country’s freedom to cause havoc, when they came to our country precisely for that freedom”, and warned them to “act normal or leave”. The author was not Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Muslim Freedom Party (PVV), but Mark Rutte, leader of the free-thinking Liberals (VVD) and prime minister of a country that presents itself as one of the most tolerant in the world. “Act normal” (doe normaal) is a common injunction in Dutch; it can mean “Don’t be obnoxious” or “Don’t be silly.” But here it had a dark, exclusionary ring.

Mr Rutte’s letter marked how much Dutch politics has changed as the country prepares for a national election on March 15th. The vote will test the strength of European populism in the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, and will be seen as a portent of the French and German elections later this year. If Mr Wilders comes first, says Cas Mudde, an expert on populism at the University of Georgia, “The media will represent him and his European collaborators as ‘the choice of the people’.” That would boost France’s Marine Le Pen, Germany’s Frauke Petry and others of their ilk.

The Netherlands has often been a bit of a bellwether for northern Europe. Its left-wing student rebellion arrived early, in 1966. Wim Kok, a Labour prime minister elected in 1994, propagated Third Way centre-left policies before Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder did. Anti-Muslim populism took off earlier than elsewhere in Europe, and the country elected a centre-right government in 2002, again foreshadowing Britain and Germany.

In those years the competition for the top spot in Dutch elections was generally between the largest right- and left-wing parties. But today it is Mr Rutte’s centre-right Liberals and Mr Wilders’s nationalist PVV who are vying for the lead—and for some of the same voters. Mr Rutte’s letter was an attempt to woo the working-class white constituents whom the PVV calls “Henk and Ingrid”. The letter’s underlying theme of moral panic over immigration aped Mr Wilders’s speeches.

The previous election in 2012 turned on austerity policies and a deep recession. Mr Rutte’s government, a grand coalition with the centre-left Labour party, has carried out some important reforms, and the economy is on the upswing. The central bank recently raised its growth forecast for 2017 to 2.3%. Still, the mood is sour. The Dutch enjoy good health care and generous pensions, yet these and immigration are the subjects they most want politicians to address, according to Ipsos, a pollster. The VVD’s plan, says one campaigner, is to reassure people that the party will protect both social benefits and modern Dutch values.

The biggest loser from the country’s grumpy mood will probably be Labour (PvdA), which (like Germany’s Social Democrats and France’s Socialists) has lost support on the left by governing in the centre. Polls show it shrinking from 38 seats to 12 in the 150-seat parliament (see chart). A few of its voters have drifted to the PVV, which favours more state benefits as well as fewer immigrants. More have embraced the Greens, the far-left Socialists, or 50 Plus, a pensioners’ party. All of these are political outsiders. Established parties, such as the Christian Democrats and the left-liberals of D66, could steal votes from the Liberals’ left flank. With more than a dozen parties likely to make it into parliament, such mid-sized actors will be crucial. The polls put Mr Wilders in the lead by a few percentage points (though the PVV usually underperforms on election day). Yet even if his party becomes the largest, he has almost no chance of leading the country. Most parties have ruled out joining a coalition with him. Meindert Fennema, a political analyst, notes another obstacle: “Wilders, of course, doesn’t want to be prime minister.” It would damage his outsider brand. His only other brush with power, when he backed Mr Rutte’s minority government from 2010 to 2012, ended when he pulled out rather than share blame for unpopular austerity measures. Yet keeping the election’s winner out of government would bode ill for democracy, and substantiate Mr Wilders’s accusations that elites are ignoring the will of the people. And the “Wilders effect” on other parties is immense. Few dare mutter a positive word about Europe or refugees. Parties across the spectrum talk about national identity or “progressive patriotism” (a catchphrase that is as empty as it sounds). This is only exacerbating the Netherlands’ problems with integration. A recent report by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research found that four out of ten Dutch citizens of Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese or Antillean descent do not feel at home in the country. Floris Vermeulen, a political scientist at the University of Amsterdam, thinks gestures such as Mr Rutte’s letter will either discourage minorities from voting or drive them towards the new DENK (Think) party, which targets disillusioned Muslims and ethnic minorities.

With so many parties, and 70% of Dutch voters yet to make up their minds, predicting the election’s outcome is foolish. Easier to forecast is the direction of the country. Mr Rutte’s letter praised such Dutch values as gay rights and the freedom to wear short skirts, and did not explicitly criticise Muslims. But its condemnations of people who decline to shake women’s hands, or who “accuse regular Dutch people of being racist”, made it clear who was allegedly failing to “act normal”.