In the Netherlands, Geert Wilder’s right-wing populists come to government for the first time. The other parties had tried to exclude Wilders for a long time – and were unable to do so. Lessons can be learned from this when dealing with the AfD.

The Dutch, who have long been considered particularly liberal, are getting a very right-wing government led by Geert Wilders’ right-wing populist Party for Freedom (PVV).

Wilders was the clear winner of the new elections six months ago. Together with the right-wing liberal VVD of long-time head of government Mark Rutte, the newly founded conservative NSC and the farmers’ party BBB, he has a clear majority.

It was primarily the asylum policy and his attacks on Islam and the “elites” that allowed Wilders to almost double his share of the vote in the autumn election – to 23.5 percent.

The election campaign issue of asylum is reflected in the coalition agreement. It announces “the strictest asylum rules that have ever existed,” a tough deportation policy (“including by force), a stop in the processing of new asylum applications and, last but not least, an “exit clause” in the EU’s asylum and migration policy.

This means: The Netherlands does not want to adhere to the EU’s asylum package. Illegal migrants should be deported “immediately to Germany and Belgium”. The AfD would sign such a coalition agreement immediately. Only Höcke, Chrupalla, Weidel have it

Wilders calls the formation of a government “historic”. And it is. After all, his PVV has been more or less excluded from the other parties for more than 20 years.

Regardless of Dutch peculiarities – 14 parties are represented in parliament – Wilders’ success shows that exclusion is not a promising recipe against radicals in the long term.

In the Netherlands, both center and left parties have tried to portray Wilders’ PVV as right-wing and therefore unelectable. The CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens and FDP deal with the AfD in a similar way: You don’t play with dirty children.

This didn’t work in Germany any more than it did in the Netherlands. On the contrary: the AfD could become the strongest force in the state elections in the East, despite the exclusion and despite the scandals it has created itself. And then?

Actually, the CDU/CSU and SPD in particular should have recognized long ago that the exclusion of unpleasant competitors does not work. That didn’t work for the Greens in the 1980s.

Nor could the renamed SED, now known as Die Linke, be brought down by demarcation resolutions in the 1990s and 2000s. Its current existential crisis was brought about entirely by itself.

Decisions to demarcate and exclude unwanted competitors are easy to make. However, voters do not rely on firewalls when new parties take up issues that the political forces that have previously set the tone do not cover.

This was the case with the Greens, who took up the growing awareness of a different environmental and climate policy more consistently than the CDU/CSU and SPD.

That was the case with the left. She took advantage of the fact that the SPD had moved away from some social policy positions with the “Agenda 2010” and had not adequately explained this to the population.

This was the case with the AfD when the grand coalition led by Angela Merkel (CDU) propagated “We can do it” in the refugee crisis. The GroKo absolutely did not want to recognize the resulting threat to social cohesion.

The rise of Wilder, who became popular with anti-Islamist slogans, would probably have been stopped if the Dutch governments of the past decades had gotten the migration problem under control.

But the democratic parties in the Netherlands failed to achieve this. That’s why Wilders was able to “create” her.

During the refugee crisis in the early 1990s, the CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP actually showed how to deal with new challengers. At that time, the right-wing populist “Republicans” recorded considerable popularity.

The black-yellow coalition did not try to wait out the refugee crisis back then – unlike the GroKo in 2015. The CDU/CSU and FDP agreed with the opposition SPD on a more restrictive asylum law.

As a result, the number of refugees fell significantly. It was the beginning of the end for the Republicans.

In relation to the current situation, this means: Politicians must significantly stop illegal immigration, take away people’s worries about the costs of the energy transition and create the framework conditions for an economic transition. Otherwise, the AfD will tend to be strengthened, as will the “Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht”, which is partly spiritually related to it.

From a German perspective, Wilders is a warning example – and an instructive one at that. If the previously dominant parties do not solve the pressing problems, new groups – including radical ones – will emerge. Parties can be excluded, but the concerns and fears of the population cannot.