Fall of the coalition in the Netherlands | Migration policy at the heart of debates in Europe

(Brussels, Belgium) The collapse of the coalition government of the Netherlands over a proposal on the reception of refugees highlights once again the importance of immigration as a dividing line in European politics, and the growing problem this poses for mainstream politicians who want to prevent the far right from taking advantage of it.

The current crisis in the Netherlands was precipitated by Conservative Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who resigned after his centrist coalition partners refused to back his tough new refugee policy.

Dutch media reported that Mr Rutte had notably proposed a two-year waiting period before refugee children could come to join their parents, an idea immediately rejected by his coalition partners.

For Mr. Rutte – a shrewd politician nicknamed “Teflon Mark” for his resilience during his 13 years in office – not giving in on an issue close to the hearts of many of his constituents was a matter of political survival, well beyond the life of his coalition, analysts say.

More generally, Mr. Rutte’s eagerness to bring down the government without seeking compromise testifies to a new phase in European migration policy. Increasingly powerful far-right parties have often dominated the immigration debate on the back of growing public concern about national identity. According to analysts, Mr. Rutte’s insistence on adopting an unusual and strict migration policy was intended to prevent this phenomenon.

The far right on the rise

This issue is being played out across the European continent, against the backdrop of the cost of living crisis, the insecurity resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the growing number of asylum seekers and shipwrecks of migrant boats at the borders of the European Union.

Since the height of the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015, Italy, Germany and France, as well as smaller countries in the European Union (EU), have seen a rise in far-right political parties who reshaped the political destiny of their countries.

Matteo Salvini, a powerful far-right politician, for example, is a key figure in Italian politics; France’s Marine Le Pen, who uses anti-migration and anti-establishment messaging, came dangerously close in the spring of 2022 to beating Emmanuel Macron for the presidency of the Republic.

And Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, an anti-European and anti-liberal leader, has used anti-migration rhetoric to become a leading global voice in the identity movement, with a large following within the American right.

A strategy that is running out of steam?

For the past decade, centrist parties have sought to accommodate the draconian positions of traditional conservative voters on immigration, while uniting to keep far-right parties at bay. But as the collapse of the Dutch government shows, this strategy may be running out of steam.

Mark Rutte’s four-party coalition, which included two smaller parties to its left, was already struggling. The way he chose to end it is akin to controlled demolition.

“The fact that the coalition collapsed on this issue is extremely surprising,” said Marcel Hanegraaff, associate professor of political science at the University of Amsterdam. But the fact that she collapsed is not a shock, he adds.

“It just wasn’t a happy marriage,” he said.

Mr Rutte has said he will not form a government with far-right parties like Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, an anti-migration group that came onto the scene nearly 20 years ago when a previous revolt against immigrants.

Mr Wilders enjoyed only limited electoral success, but his ideas found wider resonance and entered the political mainstream after the Syrian refugee crisis, when more than a million sought refuge in Europe.

change of tone

Critics say the hard line advocated by Mr Rutte would have had only limited impact, even if it had been enacted. According to Mark Klaassen, assistant professor of immigration law at Leiden University, the number of refugees in the Netherlands wanting family members to join them is so small that it would not have a marked impact. on the total number of refugees.

Mr Klaassen believes that Mr Rutte, previously known as a consensus builder unwilling to use migration policy to his advantage, appears to be changing his position. “What is new is that with this development, immigration law is being used to gain political advantage,” adds Klaassen.

Mr. Rutte’s difficulties with immigration are partly due to his own government, says Mr. Klaassen. According to him, the slow processing of files has aggravated the bottlenecks in the asylum procedure. And the lack of affordable housing leads recognized refugees to stay longer in processing centers because they struggle to find permanent accommodation, leading to overcrowding and inhumane living conditions.

“His own interests rather than those of the country”

In opposition, Dutch Labor Party leader Attje Kuiken called irresponsible the decision to let the government collapse on the refugee issue, citing the housing crisis and inflation as more pressing issues which the Dutch government must tackle.

“Mr. Rutte has chosen his own interests over those of the country, and I hope everyone realizes that,” said Ms.^me Kuiken in an interview on Dutch television.

“We saw a very different Mark Rutte,” said Jan Paternotte, chairman of the centrist D66 party, one of the coalition parties that refused to support some of Mr Rutte’s migration policies. He added that Mr. Rutte refused any compromise on his proposals and wondered about the real reasons for this intolerance.

The government’s collapse delighted right-wing leader Geert Wilders, who wrote on Twitter that its end would make the Netherlands a “beautiful country again, with fewer asylum seekers and crime, more money and housing for our own citizens”.

But what happens next in Dutch politics is unclear, and probably won’t be until an election is held, most likely in November. Mr. Rutte, who presented his resignation to the King of the Netherlands on Friday evening, will remain interim Prime Minister until that date.

This text was first published in the New York Times.