Dutch Coalition Sidelines Left While Far-Right Fractures

Analysis of: Dutch parties strike minority coalition after D66 election upset
The Guardian | January 28, 2026

TL;DR

Netherlands forms minority coalition after centrist upset, but excludes both left and far-right parties while promising to not 'pass debts to future generations.' The left offers 'responsible opposition' cooperation—revealing how European social democracy contains rather than advances working-class interests.

Analytical Focus:Class Analysis Contradictions Historical Context

The formation of the Netherlands' new minority coalition government reveals the structural constraints of parliamentary politics within capitalist democracies. Despite D66's 'progressive' branding and the collapse of the far-right PVV, the resulting government firmly excludes left-wing parties while incorporating the conservative VVD—the same party that enabled the previous far-right coalition. The VVD's explicit rejection of GroenLinks-PvdA as 'too radical' while D66 simultaneously blocked the radical-right JA21 creates a false equivalence that masks the asymmetry: capital-friendly conservatives remain essential coalition partners while modest social democratic reforms are deemed beyond the pale. The material priorities announced—'enormous investment' in defense, 'getting migration under control,' and fiscal responsibility to avoid 'passing debts to future generations'—represent the familiar neoliberal playbook dressed in centrist rhetoric. The austerity framing around debt naturalization prepares ideological ground for future cuts to social spending, while defense investment signals alignment with NATO expansion and European remilitarization. Housing affordability is mentioned but subordinated to these priorities, despite being the material crisis most directly affecting working-class Dutch households. Most revealing is GroenLinks-PvdA's positioning as 'responsible opposition,' explicitly promising to support the government on 'big issues' while only drawing lines at direct attacks on workers' conditions. This cooperative stance—framed as necessary given 'global instability'—demonstrates how social democratic parties function to channel working-class discontent into system-stabilizing reforms rather than transformative politics. The left's willingness to provide parliamentary majorities without cabinet participation represents class compromise without even the modest gains such compromises historically extracted.

Class Dynamics

Actors: Professional-managerial class (D66's base), Traditional bourgeoisie and business interests (VVD), Christian democratic middle class (CDA), Industrial and service workers (GroenLinks-PvdA constituency), Petty bourgeoisie and declassed workers (far-right base), Finance capital and European institutions

Beneficiaries: Defense industry and military contractors, Property owners and real estate capital, European financial institutions, Professional-managerial strata, Employers seeking 'flexible' labor markets

Harmed Parties: Working-class households facing housing crisis, Public sector workers facing austerity, Migrants and Muslim communities (continued restrictive policies), Workers vulnerable to employment deregulation, Those dependent on healthcare funding

The coalition structure reveals capital's veto power within parliamentary democracy: the VVD could exclude the left entirely while D66's 'progressivism' operates only within bounds acceptable to conservative coalition partners. The largest left party is relegated to supporting the government from outside, providing stability without demanding concessions. Meanwhile, far-right fragmentation temporarily weakens that pole, but the underlying conditions (housing crisis, wage stagnation) that fuel its support remain unaddressed.

Material Conditions

Economic Factors: Severe housing affordability crisis, European defense spending mandates, Post-pandemic fiscal pressures, Labor market 'flexibility' demands from capital, Healthcare funding constraints, Wage stagnation amid inflation

The coalition's stated priorities reveal the subordination of social reproduction (housing, healthcare) to capital accumulation and geopolitical competition. The emphasis on 'investing in the new economy' signals continued support for financialized and tech-driven accumulation benefiting professional classes, while 'getting migration under control' addresses labor supply management for capital rather than migrant welfare. The 'debt to future generations' framing naturalizes austerity as intergenerational responsibility rather than a political choice favoring creditors over public investment.

Resources at Stake: Public housing stock and development land, Defense budget allocations, Healthcare funding streams, Employment protection regulations, Tax burden distribution between classes

Historical Context

Precedents: Dutch 'poldermodel' consensus politics (1980s-present), Third Way social democracy across Europe (1990s-2000s), Grand coalition governance in Germany, Minority governments in Scandinavian countries, European social democratic parties' rightward drift

This coalition represents the mature phase of neoliberal governance in Western Europe, where ostensibly 'progressive' parties have abandoned redistributive politics in favor of cultural liberalism combined with fiscal orthodoxy. The pattern mirrors developments across the EU: the traditional left-right axis has partially reorganized around 'open vs. closed' frameworks that obscure class politics. D66's victory over the far-right was celebrated as progressive, yet the resulting government differs little in material policy from what conservative coalitions would deliver. This reflects how the European project has locked member states into fiscal and monetary constraints that narrow the policy space regardless of electoral outcomes.

Contradictions

Primary: A government claiming progressive legitimacy from defeating the far-right while implementing policies that address none of the material conditions (housing, wages, job security) driving far-right support—thereby creating conditions for future far-right resurgence.

Secondary: Minority government requiring opposition cooperation while excluding the opposition from policy-making power, Pro-European integration stance combined with restrictions on migration within the EU framework, 'Fiscal responsibility' rhetoric contradicting promised 'enormous investments', GroenLinks-PvdA offering support while simultaneously warning against attacks on workers—a position that cannot hold when austerity measures arrive

The coalition's structural instability (lacking majorities in both chambers) combined with its inability to address housing and cost-of-living crises suggests two possible trajectories: either GroenLinks-PvdA will be gradually absorbed into supporting austerity measures in exchange for minor concessions (the German SPD path), or material conditions will deteriorate sufficiently to collapse the arrangement. The far-right's current fragmentation is temporary; JA21 and FvD's continued polling growth indicates the underlying grievances remain potent. Without material improvements for working-class Dutch households, the 'progressive' center is simply managing decline while preparing ground for the next far-right surge.

Global Interconnections

The Dutch coalition must be understood within the broader European political economy shaped by EU fiscal rules, NATO military spending targets, and the ongoing transformation of European social democracy. The emphasis on defense spending reflects pressure from Washington and Brussels following the Ukraine conflict, directing public resources toward militarization rather than social investment. This aligns with similar developments across the EU core, where 'progressive' governments have embraced military Keynesianism while maintaining austerity in social spending. The housing crisis driving Dutch politics connects to financialized real estate markets across European capitals, where speculative investment and institutional landlordism have made homeownership increasingly impossible for working-class and young households. This is not a policy failure but a structural feature of contemporary capitalism, where housing has become a primary vehicle for wealth storage and extraction. D66's promise of 'affordable homes' without challenging these property relations will necessarily fail, as previous 'progressive' governments across Europe have demonstrated.

Conclusion

The Dutch coalition formation illustrates how parliamentary democracy within capitalist states functions to contain rather than express working-class interests. The exclusion of even modest social democratic forces from government, combined with that left's willingness to provide 'responsible opposition,' demonstrates the structural limits of electoral strategy alone. For Dutch workers facing housing costs, healthcare cuts, and employment precarity, the lesson is that neither the far-right (now fragmenting over its own contradictions) nor the liberal center offers material solutions. The conditions generating political polarization—stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, precarious employment—require organization at the point of production and reproduction, not merely at the ballot box. The coming period will likely see this coalition's contradictions sharpen as fiscal constraints collide with promised investments, creating openings for either organized working-class politics or further far-right consolidation.

Suggested Reading

• Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg (1900) Luxemburg's analysis of how parliamentary reformism channels working-class movements into system-preserving compromises directly illuminates GroenLinks-PvdA's 'responsible opposition' strategy and its structural limitations.
• The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's examination of the capitalist state's class character helps explain why coalition arithmetic consistently excludes genuine left alternatives while accommodating conservative forces.
• Prison Notebooks (Selections) by Antonio Gramsci (1935) Gramsci's concept of hegemony and 'passive revolution' illuminates how D66's 'progressive' victory actually preserves capitalist relations while incorporating and neutralizing oppositional energies.