Ten years ago, Geert Wilders launched his anti-islam party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, or PVV, after a spell as an MP for the VVD and as an independent. Today the party is way out in front in the opinion polls but commentators are divided about what the real impact of the PVV actually is.

Trouw hones in on what it considers Wilders’ trademark: his talent to antagonise. MPs have (almost) learnt to cope with his jibes and sneers but it has taken time, the paper writes. Alexander Pechtold is among those who is still an easy target. In 2014 Wilders called him ‘a pathetic little man and a hypocrite to boot’.

‘I will never get used to it. It appears we have to ignore him but I want to let people know I will never accept it,’ Pechtold is quoted as saying about Wilders’ behaviour.

Prime minister Mark Rutte has been more successful in handling the PVV provocation, mainly by agreeing with part of what Wilders is saying, or ‘moving with the Wilders flow’ to deflate Wilders’ rhethoric, the paper states. He roundly condemns terms like ‘Islamic tsunami’ and ‘testosterone bombs’, and then moves on.

In the year Wilders’ led a chant for ‘fewer, fewer, fewer’ Moroccans and called on his adherents to ‘resist’ asylum seeker centres, MPs turned away in silent disgust. ‘It worked,’ Trouw writes, ‘Democratic and non-violent protest, Wilders later specified, amending his statement without any outside encouragement.’

Appeal

In the NRC journalist Emilie van Outeren looks at the growing appeal of the PVV. ‘With a predicted 41 seats in the polls, the Wilders electorate has to consist of more than islamophobes without job prospects. So who are these potential PVV voters?’ she wonders.

Wilders, political scientist Josse de Voogd tells her, ‘has found a golden combination of right-wing populism and an increasingly left-wing agenda which makes him a competitor not only for the VVD but also the SP.’

Pollster Jeroen van Kesteren is quoted as saying that ‘the party knows how to channel people’s worries about refugees, healthcare, while other parties struggle to come up with answers. (..) That means he is garnering support from women, young people and the well-educated, groups that would not have considered voting for him earlier.’

Van Outeren also quotes a number of commentators on the fact that Wilders’ use of language ‘has moved the goalposts of what is considered decent and acceptable’.

‘He is profiting from a process started by Pim Fortuyn who single-handedly demolished political correctness. (..)  Protection from discrimination was considered more important than freedom of expression. That has changed since Fortuyn, especially after he was murdered.’

Scandals

In the Volkskrant the emphasis is on the PVV party structure. In true PVV style the celebrations are taking place amid the umpteenth scandal, the paper writes. VK calls it ‘the permanent PVV paradox’.

‘It is an important political factor while at the same time producing scandal after scandal. There is Wilders saying he can lead the country to prosperity while at the same time choosing a spokesman involved in fraud and booze and drug abuse.

‘The party is not a prime example in other administrative areas: the party is still only represented in two local councils, The Hague and Almere, without much success.’ Not that this has made any difference to its popularity in the polls, VK concedes.

Leadership

Wilders’ leadership, a frequent cause of inside party rumbling, remains undisputed. ‘The sun can only shine on Geert,’ the paper quotes one ex-PVV politician as saying. Wilders is still the only member of his party.

According to the paper, Wilders has intimated that should he become prime minister he may have problems finding the right people to prop up the cabinet. It would mean relinquishing control, and perhaps being ignored or even overruled by other PVV ministers. ‘He has never allowed this to happen. One thing hasn’t changed in 10 years. The PVV is Wilders’, the paper concludes.

‘The fact that the PVV is Wilders is his weakness,’ says political scientist Meindert Fennema in AD. ‘If he stops tomorrow, or someone shoots him, that’s it for the party. That’s how it goes with parties which lean on one person.’