“Those who facilitate kakistocracy will learn the taste of shit.”
The collapse of the right-wing government of the Netherlands has provided new insights into what happens when kakistocracy and democracy no longer add up. The government fell because the largest party in the coalition – the PVV (Party for Freedom) – withdrew its support.
Before we engage with the political question of why the PVV did this—which is by no means as simple as it looks—it must first be stressed that the PVV is not a political party. It has no members. It has only one member: the Geert Wilders Foundation. Effectively, it is a one-man operation. The name PVV is thus a complete and utter lie: it is neither a party nor is it for freedom. It is the personal vehicle of a man who dislikes democracy, because democracy would force him to negotiate.
The only “freedom” that Geert Wilders truly stands for is the unfettered ability to do whatever he pleases. This is, of course, also Donald Trump’s understanding of freedom. It is an extremely immature and dangerous worldview.
The official reason why Wilders caused the collapse of the coalition is that the government was allegedly unable to pursue a more aggressive anti-immigration agenda. However, the agenda for reducing the number of immigrants and refugees had already been agreed upon before the coalition was formed.
The main problems in reducing immigration in the Netherlands are threefold:
(1) Legal – All policy measures must comply with the Dutch Constitution, European law (as agreed by EU member states), and international law (anchored in United Nations resolutions).
(2) Financial – Effective border control and enforcement require substantial funds: more police, faster asylum procedures, and stronger institutions.
(3) Political – A realistic anti-immigration framework would require collaboration with multiple stakeholders, including other EU member states. In short: compromise and negotiation are unavoidable.
Wilders and his coalition partners lacked the ability and political intelligence to understand this.
This leads me to propose a simple theory of the limitations of kakistocracy within democratic systems (in Europe):
Three Structural Limitations of Right-Wing Populism in European Democracies
1. Legally Unenforceable Promises
Right-wing populist parties encounter immediate limits upon entering government, as many of their core campaign promises—especially regarding immigration, citizenship, and national sovereignty—are legally unenforceable. These proposals often conflict with constitutional protections, EU treaties, and international human rights law. The legal system thus exposes the incompatibility between populist rhetoric and institutional reality, rapidly eroding their legitimacy.
2. Fiscal Incoherence and Budgetary Illusions
On domestic issues such as housing, healthcare, defense, infrastructure, and public safety, right-wing populists make ambitious promises while categorically rejecting tax increases or redistribution. They often claim that cuts to asylum systems and development aid will fund these improvements—but these alleged savings are vastly exaggerated or outright false. Once in office, fiscal arithmetic fails, revealing a gaping divide between ideology and reality.
3. Political Incompatibility with Coalition Governance
Right-wing populism thrives in opposition via anti-establishment rhetoric that frames compromise as betrayal. However, in pluralist parliamentary systems where absolute majorities are rare, coalition-building is essential. Populist parties’ inflexibility and ideological rigidity—often intentionally cultivated—make them incapable of sustaining coalitions. As a result, their cabinets are inherently unstable and prone to collapse.
Hence, the promises of Geert Wilders could never be fulfilled within the legal, financial, and political boundaries that constitute democratic feasibility. Because many of the other promises made by Wilders and his coalition partners—like those on immigration—were also unfeasible, the PVV began to slide in the polls. To reverse this trend, Wilders had to perform strength by collapsing the government and forcing new elections, hoping to secure a larger mandate.
The mandate Wilders is seeking is not governance, but the dismantling of democracy. This is the fascist and National Socialist playbook, now reactivated in less extreme forms by figures like Putin, Trump, Erdoğan, Orbán, Netanyahu, Vučić, Bolsonaro, and the British Conservative Party. Whenever the Executive encounters the limitations set by the Legislative or the Judiciary, these are bypassed—if necessary—through emergency decrees.
The USA and Russia are deeply invested in the dismantling of European democracy, and thus actively support political forces that amplify kakistocratic tendencies. This is further enabled by the self-sabotage of European democracies, which for decades have kowtowed to global finance and to advocates of genocidal imperialism.
The question we now face is a simple one:
Are we going to defend the ruins left by the kleptocrats—or surrender to the kakistocrats and learn to eat shit?
Disaffected Sociology 
Leave a comment