United for Democracy

Some insights in Dutch politics – How Geert Wilders is trying to seize power in The Netherlands

There are people living in a democracy who say that they are fine with their country becoming an autocracy. A large number of them are people who claim to live in a dictatorship right now. Simply because sometimes laws are made and measures are taken that they do not agree with. Their definition of a dictatorship is a country where the government decides things that they are against. The fact that it was elected by the majority of citizens does not matter. They distrust the system, the government and institutions to such an extent that they want a revolution, to replace the system.

A strong leader
According to conspiracy theorists, the current government is said to have been appointed by an evil “elite” who want to enslave or kill 90% of the people. For example, by ‘forcing’ chemtrails, fluoride in the water or vaccines. Protection against viruses and protection of vulnerable people would be unnecessary and keeping unvaccinated people out of certain places and situations would only be a way to gain control. Two years after the end of the corona pandemic, they are still in the middle of it. Fueled by conspiracy theories, these people have started to behave maliciously towards people with different opinions. Insulting politicians, civil servants and journalists, trolling on social media, hunting down “leftists”, sending them hateful messages and calling them stupid sheep.

Conspiracy theorists and right-wing extremists ask for a “strong leader” with ideas they agree with. A leader who has identified a clear enemy and has a simple plan for it: guarding and closing borders, deporting immigrants, tribunals for ‘left-wing’ elite/politicians. But what can they expect from such a leader as a citizen? Will he really bring peace, security, freedom, better future prospects? For quick solutions, you have to change the normal democratic but sluggish path of legislation of today, where usually all parties are given the opportunity to have a say. Or you have to declare a so-called crisis under the guise that “that is how people experience it”.

Changing the constitution
When a leader of a country wants to prosecute certain people, he can expect resistance. To start with, from the constitution. The constitution is there to protect citizens, also against their government. According to the constitution, the prosecution of specific groups of people is not allowed. So it has to be changed. With that change, the protection is lost not only for specific groups but for all citizens. So we are no longer protected from the leader or leaders of the country and other authorities.

In a democracy, there is a collection of different political parties, each representing the sections of the people who voted for them. If a leader wants to persecute specific groups of people, other politicians will oppose this. Politicians who represent these groups, stand up for them or in any way stand up for the rights of all citizens, defend our constitutional state. If the leader wants something that goes against the constitution, he will most certainly not get a political majority for it. The easiest way to change the constitution is to dismantle democracy and turn the country into an autocracy where only one person or party makes laws and determines regulations.

What is an autocracy
Now we come to the point of what an autocracy is. When a democracy is overthrown by someone who wants to call the shots himself, we are not dealing with an enlightened autocrat. If there is one person who wants to be the leader who makes the rules, he dictates what happens and this person is therefore a dictator. With such a leader, the country has become a dictatorship. If you think this is okay because you want what the dictator wants, you have not understood what an autocracy, a dictatorship, really means to you and every other citizen. In a dictatorship, you have no say in anything. Even deciding whether you agree or disagree with something is forbidden. You are not allowed to think for yourself. People who can form an opinion can also disagree with the leader at some point, and that is dangerous in an autocracy. That is why a dictator bans books and changes education to lessons with the content he wants citizens to know.

Dictionaries are adapted, and textbooks, history books; history is rewritten to suit the propaganda (rhetoric) of the leader. Trade unions, foundations and associations, everything where people come together and communicate without the leader being able to influence them, are banned. The country is isolated from the outside world by the aggressive attitude of the leader towards democratic leaders of other countries. Those who think for themselves, the enemy within, are tracked down, ridiculed, spied on and eventually arrested and locked up. Or worse if it is someone with influence on other citizens or with influential contacts outside the country: murdered. Anyone who is able or has the courage to think about the decisions of the leader, whether they are good or bad, is a danger, an enemy of the state. Anyone who dares to do so is possibly able to become a political opponent, to lead an opposition. Opposition is part of a democracy. That does not fit in an autocracy.

Recognize the autocrat
You can tell that a politician can be an autocrat by the people around him. Are they constantly active and working impossible hours? Do they have to implement the most hated policy and take responsibility for it while the leader brags about (so-called) positive results? Do a striking number of employees suffer from burnout? Are they called to account by the leader after every striking or controversial statement on social media or in an interview? Do they never contradict their leader or are they ridiculed by him and the rest of the party or otherwise rejected if they do?

During an assertiveness course that I gave, there was a participant who was in a burnout because she had given in to every order from her demanding boss for too long. We talked about the manager and how she could better indicate her boundaries. She was given tools to better recognize her boundaries and for communication. We came up against a cultural difference because the woman had grown up in Eastern Europe before “the wall” was taken down, when it was still a dictatorship. Because she was not used to forming an opinion about everything when she was young, every question from her employer became an assignment that she had to carry out. Her employer turned out not to be unreasonably demanding. The woman had brought her work ethic from her history. It is therefore a sign on the wall when a political leader has a partner who grew up in a dictatorship. As is the case with Donald Trump and Geert Wilders.

I am the policy
The PVV (Party For Freedom) has only one member and that is Geert Wilders. He alone is responsible for the party program. He devises the policy. We see ministers around him working their socks off to create laws and policies that go against the constitution. They are the spokesmen to the media. The statement “I am the policy” by PVV minister Marjolein Faber shows the kind of loyalty that only a dictator would demand. Wilders calls the shots and only his coalition partners can offer a response. The seperately appointed prime minister is trying to act as a kind of referee between them while Wilders is the one with the whistle. He sets the tone.

In order to be able to form a cabinet with the PVV, a different kind of construction had to be adopted. The opposition parties accepted this extra-parliamentary cabinet because it meant that Wilders would not become prime minister. However, the construction was also necessary in order to be able to appoint PVV supporters as ministers or state secretaries. According to the rules, they must be members of a political party. Wilders was not prepared to let them become members of his party.

Demolition from within
Geert Wilders’ behavior and rhetoric are very similar to that of Donald Trump, with open admiration for dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Yong Un. He associates with a group of autocrats and right-wing extremists. Like Trump, he uses the democratic system to gain a place in the political arena and build a larger base of followers. After that he will destroy democracy from within.

If Wilders wins the next election, he will try to get into a more powerful position. Owner of X, former Twitter, Elon Musk will be willing to help him with his campaign by influencing the algorithms of various social media channels such as X, Facebook and TikTok. Mark Zuckerberg has cooperated by stopping the moderation of messages on Facebook. This makes it easier to spread disinformation based on conspiracy theories.

Disinformation and truth-finding
With the help of disinformation you can convince people that they live in a toxic system and that it needs to be changed to be safe. You can declare groups of people as enemies and fuel distrust towards democratically elected leaders. Then you can point to other autocrats as a kind of liberators of their country. Because they have their citizens in their power, these people cannot think safely for themselves and live isolated from free, democratic countries. So they can’t simply warn people outside that country. By feeding the distrust towards the mainstream media, your followers no longer believe the reports about what is really happening in autocratically governed countries.

The Wilders cabinet has decided that the public broadcasters will be reassessed within this term of office for a license to broadcast (after two years instead of four years). In doing so, he is putting pressure on the media. The broadcasters are increasingly being cut back on their subsidies. It is already noticeable in the reporting that they are trying not to upset Wilders too much. Carrying out the function of the media to establish the truth and to critically question political leaders can be punished with cutbacks and the withdrawal of the broadcasting license. Freedom of expression is already being restricted in this way and with that we are automatically rolling towards a dictatorship that an alarmingly large number of people will not reject.

Pitted against each other
The lack of knowledge makes people vulnerable. Feeding them with manipulated information makes them dangerous. By pitting the different groups against each other, the potential autocrat gains more and more power. The right is fighting against the left, the poor against the rich, groups of different cultural backgrounds against each other and m/f and heterosexuals against lgbtqia+. Meanwhile, the autocrat, who has used political opinion merely as a means to take the most promising position, can seize and hold on to power.

Donald Trump was a democrat until he entered politics to save his skin financially. Aided by tech giants, Russian oligarchs and internet trolls spreading disinformation, he came to power.

Wilders was a member of conservative liberal political party VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) before he saw the rise of hatred towards immigrants as an opportunity to climb to the position of national leader. He could win over the largest amount of voters thanks to disinformation spread by Russian trolls. And he was able to form a cabinet with BBB (Farmers and Citizens Movement – lobbyists of the big agro-industry) and NSC (New Social Contract – right-wing religious groups, political moralistic opposition to the former government) and a VVD that is increasingly moving towards the far-right, riding on the ‘concerns’ about immigration.

Putin was a KGB agent before he saw a newly born democratic system as an opportunity to become the leader of an autocracy. He gave the most cunning criminals the opportunity to grow into oligarchs, the richest in Russia. They have helped Putin remain leader of Russia, maintain the Russian autocracy and help finance potential autocrats elsewhere in the world.

The Real Conspiracy
Oligarchs, billionaires, the most economically powerful people conspire with autocrats to finance their power. Autocrats hold citizens captive and turn them against each other while oligarchs scrape together more money. That is the real conspiracy. An autocracy is not a fairy tale with a “happily ever after” ending. To live in an autocracy is to live in the oppression you were hoping to escape. Unless you are at least a millionaire, you will be much worse off financially. You will be stuck in a constant battle with, or running from, potential enemies. The walls will have ears and you are not even allowed to have an opinion about it.

Reading tip about the influence of disinformation: “Het echte complot” / “The real conspiracy – The truth behind the delusions” by Roel van Duijn