The Dutch cabinet’s collapse presents an opportunity for opposition parties to demonstrate effective governance and address the shortcomings of populist politics. Instead of solely focusing on the moral failings of the previous administration, the opposition should highlight the practical ineffectiveness of its policies and present viable solutions.

The previous cabinet’s inability to address key issues provides ample evidence for the opposition to build a compelling case. Cuts to education, continued investment in fossil fuels, failure to resolve the nitrogen crisis, and obstruction of housing construction are all examples of policies that exacerbated problems rather than solving them.

Psychological research suggests that moral appeals are often ineffective against populist leaders. People are drawn to the perceived strength and decisiveness of those who break norms, especially during times of crisis. Emphasizing the immorality of such leaders can even backfire by reinforcing their image as strong and decisive.

Instead, the opposition should focus on the “business case,” demonstrating how the cabinet’s policies failed to deliver tangible benefits and, in fact, harmed the country. Neglecting the environment, undermining education and science, and failing to address healthcare waiting lists all have concrete negative consequences for citizens and society as a whole.

The opposition must present a clear alternative by outlining effective policies that address these issues and improve the lives of Dutch citizens. By focusing on practical solutions and avoiding moralistic arguments, the opposition can effectively counter the appeal of populism and gain the trust of voters. This requires demonstrating how the costs of the previous cabinet’s policies outweighed the benefits, thereby making a compelling case for change.