Wilders’ ‘Patriotic Spring’ meets its Waterloo: Will Nationalism too?

Geert Wilders

The ‘Patriotic Spring’ has ended, or has it? If Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s election at the German Federal Convention in February 2017 gave Europeans a glimmer of hope in trouncing the rise of nationalism, Mark Rutte and the Dutch ensured Geert Wilders ‘patriotic spring’ ended, and with it, the tide has been reversed. Wilders, having campaigned heavily on immigration issues and promising exit from the EU, was set to benefit tremendously if the Rotterdam rallies went ahead. Intended to shore up support for the Turkish leader, the rallies would have served as ideal ammunition for heightened tension and possible violence if the Turkish Ministers took to the stage. Thwarting the move, the Dutch Prime Minister drew fierce criticism from Erdogen but his hard stance contributed to another term.

Securing a majority of seats, Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy will, over the next few days, begin coalition talks and form a government. Leaders across the continent have breathed a sigh of relief welcoming the news. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy noted ‘the Dutch people made a show of responsibility and maturity.’ France’s leader-in-waiting Emmanuel Macron claimed ‘you can defeat the extremes.’ European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the Dutch for preserving the values of Europe of free and tolerant societies, given that the Netherlands risked electing a leader who would have marked the 60^th anniversary of the European Union with an ignominious exit of a founding member state.

The celebrations will die down and euphoria soon disappear. Yet this Dutch election seen as a litmus test by many will remain a critical platform from which the sphere of International Relations and her adherents will engage in much reflection. How and why was the rise of nationalism stymied?

‘Trumpism’ and the possible fall out of Brexit have woken voters. Stirred out of the nationalist rhetoric that seemed to engulf everyday discourse as tension flared, animosity grew and violence remained imminent, most Europeans appear to have realized the gravity of the experiences of their British and American counterparts. Rallying as they did on the eve of the Brexit referendum, European countries used their heritage monuments, including the Eiffel Tower and Spanish Palace among others to display the colours and the Union Jack itself, sending the strongest possible signals across the Channel to refrain from opting out.

The referendum is history. As Prime Minister May prepares to invoke Article 50, Britain, having sought the preservation of sovereignty is today poised with a bigger and possibly more worrying issue: that of Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon’s repeated calls for a second referendum on independence. The impact of Brexit will be felt for decades to come, yet it is what the British wanted and it is what they will get. They wanted to retain the Pound over the Euro, and they did. They wanted to remain out of the Schengen Agreement and they did.

Impacting regionalism and integration, the British move questions the relevancy of integration. Timo Behr and Juha Jokela’s assertion that regional cooperation provided the high-demand global good of ‘certainty’ appeared to fail owing solely to Brexit, which proved just the opposite. Questioning the appropriateness of deeper integration and shaking the European Union to its very core, the effect has and is being felt by Europeans. Le Pen’s calls for a looser Union, Wilders’ promise to leave it and the general far-right taking umbrage at Brussels, although raising alarm bells, has stirred the European psyche to wake up and take note of ramifications and the rigors of the past.

Across the Atlantic, Americans, and more rightly the American electoral system chose to abandon the vision of Truman, for the vulgarity of Trump, and those cautionary remarks to Congress that faltering ‘in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world, and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.’ His warning seventy years ago, whilst unheeded locally, has gained credence with global and particularly European populations, many of which he endeavored to assist through his Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Whether it is the protests, climate change ignorance, travel bans or the high degree of frivolity with which attempts are being made to ‘make America great again,’ the United States is fast becoming an unenviable model of governance. Arguably herein lies the secret to the receding tide of nationalism.

Democracy and its intricacies, costly as they are, are weathering some of the roughest of storms, but experience remains the winner. The media, most of which in America has earned the wrath of the White House, has reveled in the disclosure of everything from minute details to gross misdemeanors and of course errant policies emanating from Washington. The information has if anything jolted populations. The level of awareness however remains questionable. Wilders may have lost his chance at governing, but his party garnered five more seats and taking their total to twenty, thereby becoming the second largest party in the Netherlands. Yet the Patriotic Spring he articulated has, if only for the present, passed.

While Steinmeier will be sworn in as the new German President on 19 March and the Dutch Premier as soon as he forms a coalition, Macron and Merkel have gained greater confidence in facing their own constituencies. Wilders has lived to face another day and unlike Napoleon this will not be the last we hear of him. 

- Editorial