The cabinet that would stand up for the citizen went down on amateurism and inability

The Sheaf Cabinet (PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB) was a knit full of gaps, a gathering of parties with opposite styles and ideas, which entered into a wild political experiment almost a year ago. Almost no one in The Hague counted on the first cabinet with the radical-right PVV to be there for a long time. It often looked like the cabinet would fall.

But the Schoof cabinet managed to defuse every crisis in a miraculous way. Not because the basis was good, behind the scenes, coalitionmates told about a dysfunctional collaboration. But simply because parties were only busy with the pre -elections, and searched for the best time to get out.

The Cabinet Schoof was a risky experiment, because for the first time the radical-right PVV was given government force. During the Rutte I of VVD and CDA (2010-2012) cabinet I, only a spectacle was discussed. There was bad thought about that construction: Wilders was given complete freedom to get rid of and did not have to take responsibility for cuts or other unpopular choices.

Curb

Also this time the role of Wilders was badly thought out. He could not become a prime minister, although he indicated behind the scenes that he did. As a party leader, he could freely criticize the Schoof cabinet from the House of Representatives. The prime minister himself tried to curb Wilders’ danger by explaining all his statements on X out of order. But the mistake of 2010 was repeated: Wilders had maximum freedom, and used it too.

There has never been a functioning cabinet since the Cabinet Schoof, on July 2, 2024. It was full of weaving errors from the start. It already started with the messy formation of 233 days. Reluctantly, the VVD of Dilan Yesilgöz started to participate. After Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s departure, the liberals had lost ten seats in November 2023.

In the room, the four party leaders were increasingly forming a collaboration that looked like a competitive mini cabinet

Even greater was the reluctance of the new party New Social Contract (NSC) by Pieter Omtzigt, which had won twenty seats. Until the very last moment, Omtzigt continued to look for ways to get away from it.

Three of the four government parties (PVV, NSC and BBB) grew great in the November 2023 elections because they settled with the era Rutte. They did that by delivering substantial system criticism. Supplementary parents, farmers, local residents of AZCs-they were all abandoned by the preceding cabinets-Rutte. They promised to do it differently. And promised, with ‘guts’, to prove that they could translate their criticism into a new style of administrative style.

Hate

Have the PVV of Geert Wilders sailed – it was a taboo in The Hague. After the failed tolerance construction with the PVV, Mark Rutte had decided to never let the party participate again. Yesilgöz already put the door ajar before the elections, making the PVV suddenly important. The party booked a huge election victory (37 seats).

The formation period showed why the four parties, although all the right, could not work together. There is between the four party leaders (Omtzigt, Yesilgöz, Wilders and Caroline van der Plas (BBB)) on a personal level and, sometimes, pure hatred. Coalitions are being built on trust, and that trust has never been able to grow between the party leaders.

Geert Wilders’s PVV moored – it was a taboo in The Hague

After a difficult formation, the parties found that only a different construction could lead to success. The four party leaders stayed in the Lower House. Another agreement would be in outline. They would outsource government to an ‘extraparlautar cabinet’, partly consisting of ‘professional ministers’ without a party -political binding, which would work out the agreements between the leaders with a ‘government program’.

Expensive words, who had to disguise that it was an emergency to massage four parties in a form of cooperation. Wilders could not become prime minister due to his very controversial past, so a partyless prime minister had to come. That became, after a long search and some rejections, top official Dick Schoof (67).

Nora Achahbar (NSC) speaks to the press after she has resigned as State Secretary, out of dissatisfaction with statements from cabinet members about people with a migration background.

Photo Lina Selg / ANP

Crises

Pieter Omtzigt, the biggest proponent of such an extraparlementary construction, noticed the disadvantages quickly enough. The other party leaders, Wilders in front, used their position from the room to bombard the cabinet and each other and openly argue.

In the Chamber, the four party leaders were increasingly forming a collaboration that looked like a competitive mini cabinet, which did not care about what shoved. The result was that the prime minister and ministers were waiting for what happened at the party leaders. Prime Minister Schoof did not play a role in Crises, sometimes had to literally wait in the corridor to hear what the outcome of negotiations was.

Geert Wilders’s PVV moored – it was a taboo in The Hague

As a result, the cabinet ruled with its hands on its back. It was not allowed to make their own plans, because they had to keep the main line agreement. Dick Schoof, who had stood in the shade all his life, acted as loyal executor of what the four party leaders in the Chamber had decided. That also meant that if the four of them were unable to get out, Shoved did not even help. « That is up to the party leaders in the room, » he said after every fight at his Friday press conference.

There were hardly any plans, let alone legislative proposals. The Senate was bored so deathfully that it decided to clear the annual budgets. It almost led to several budgets being rejected. And also finding majorities or performing political manual work was not spent on most (inexperienced) ministers.

Between the four parties in the Chamber resentment, distrust and sometimes outright hatred. In all parties, malignant stories were told about each other. Everyone took a quick fall into account from the start.

Ramp

Another weaving error: parties wanted to profile themselves to the maximum on topics that were important for their supporters. So BBB was in charge in agriculture, the PVV was allowed to go over asylum and migration, NSC received administrative renewal and the VVD Finance. The result was an extreme profiling urge and an ingrained conflict. Minister Marjolein Faber (PVV, asylum and migration) is the best example of this. She came up with the idea of ​​placing signs at asylum seekers’ centers (« here is working on your return ») and five volunteers refused a royal award because they are committed to asylum seekers.

But above all it couldn’t go well because the four parties speak a completely different language. Populism and technocracy turn out to be a difficult marriage. The radical-right PVV has no message to legal discussions and heavily fought compromises. The PVV says, as a populist party, on behalf of the will of the people. NSC was established as a party that wants to strengthen the rule of law. This almost went wrong when Minister Faber wanted to invoke the asylum law law, which NSC refused. The VVD, the only government party with administrative experience, was suspected by the other parties to be mainly concerned with the next elections.

BBB, in the core also a populist party, started to resemble the PVV during the reign, although this party seemed to be the only one that is important to find the survival of the cabinet important. Last weekend written BBB leader Caroline van der Plas on X, which is also BBB, just like the PVV, for ‘curbing of Islamization’.

The cabinet has almost fallen several times. It came closest November last yearwhen State Secretary Nora Achahbar (Surcharges, NSC) resigned. There were stories about alleged racism in the Council of Ministers around her resignation, although Achahbar had talked about polarization in the cabinet in general.

Two NSC MPs stepped back, but NSC remained Sentence the cabinet. Nobody actually knew why

Two NSC MPs stepped back, but NSC stayed in the cabinet. Nobody actually knew why. Moreover, it led to a complicated situation: if the departure of his own state secretary who feels unpleasant in the cabinet is not enough reason to be solidarity, what is a good time to step up? In addition: NSC leader Pieter Omtzigt left early this spring, his successor Nicolien van Vroonhoven does not yet have the internal authority to make major decisions. In addition, NSC is dramatic with one or two seats in the polls.

Because there was no mutual trust, the political leaders in the Chamber and the four Deputy Prime Ministers in the cabinet shared little information. Then it leaks out again, it was often said.

The coalition that promised to stand up for the citizen who felt abandoned, has lasted less than a year. It was, in the end, longer than the parties had thought in advance.

To share

Mail the editors