Geert Wilders’ decision to withdraw from the Schoof cabinet has triggered widespread criticism and isolation, raising questions about his leadership style, the stability of his party, and his future prospects in Dutch politics. The move has left coalition partners and even some within his own party bewildered and frustrated.

The decision to abandon the coalition comes as a surprise to many, particularly given the proximity to a crucial NATO summit. Wilders’ actions have been described as rash, irresponsible, and even a betrayal, with virtually no one defending his decision. Even Thierry Baudet, leader of the Forum for Democracy (FvD), expressed disappointment.

This is not the first time Wilders has found himself isolated. He previously broke away from the VVD in 2004, withdrew support for the Rutte I cabinet in 2012, and faced condemnation for his anti-immigrant rhetoric in 2014. Despite these controversies, he has maintained a loyal base of support of around twenty seats in parliament.

The resounding election victory of 2023 presented Wilders with an opportunity to broaden the PVV’s appeal and attract individuals with administrative expertise. However, the party appears to have stagnated, failing to adequately prepare for governmental responsibility. Some newly elected PVV members of parliament have had limited speaking time or involvement in debates, highlighting a lack of internal support and available positions.

Wilders’ leadership style, characterized by operating as a soloist who is difficult to gauge and distrustful of others, has also contributed to the current situation. His decisions regarding candidates for key positions have been inconsistent and unpredictable, creating uncertainty within the party.

The future of the PVV and Wilders’ political career remains uncertain. While he maintains a dedicated base of support, his reputation for being an unreliable coalition partner may hinder his ability to form future governments. The other coalition parties are wary of collaborating with a leader who is perceived as being willing to sacrifice stability for political gain.