Geert Wilders’ success serves as a warning for mainstream parties everywhere

Geert Wilders delivers a speech after his party's victory in yesterday's general election. Picture: Getty Images.

Geert Wilders electoral success in this week’s Dutch election should serve as a warning for mainstream political parties the world over.

Wilder is a radical right wing nationalist who has for years expressed opinions on race most people would condemn. His party has polled the way you’d expect a fringe minor party to poll; winning seats but not that many. Remaining on the margins only.

But when cost of living pressures squeeze mainstream voters and incumbent political parties don’t appear to have any answers, radicals often fill the void. Their votes increase, their influence grows and the risk develops that some of their radical positions go mainstream.

Wilders’ success is built on the back of voters struggling to make ends meet. There is a chance we’ll see similar results in 18 months time when Australians go to the polls. Our electoral system may even encourage mainstream parties to push in similar directions, given that minor parties struggle to win lower house seats.

To be sure, the Dutch electoral system may end up being responsible for pushing Wilders to the fore but also preventing him from forming a government. The proportional electoral system which uses party lists will require his Party for Freedom to form a coalition government, and most parties contesting the election have ruled out doing so. Proportional systems make it near importable for single parties to govern on their own.

While exit polls suggest Wilders’ party will win the lions share of seats – around 35 – because of the proportional system that equates to less than a quarter of the seats in the parliament (which has 150 seats in total). He’ll need allies which might be a bridge too far for the radical MP.

Unless he tempers his rhetoric and his policies.

Wilders did some of that on the campaign trail, but his platform still included banning Islamic schools, the Koran and mosques. Suffice to say he has Islam in his sights.

It is worth pointing out that Wilders won no more of the vote at this election than Pauline Hanson did at the 1998 Queensland state election. The different electoral systems meant that Hanson won minimal seats in the subsequent parliament and her party faded as a consequence.

The point is that radicals winning sizeable numbers of votes is nothing new. What mainstream politicians need to understand is the why behind voters parking any concerns they might have about radicalism to send a message to the political parties they feel let down by.

There may also be a component of the vote which represents a rejection of political correctness. And of course some Wilders supporters would agree with his more abhorrent views, or at least forgive his abhorrent rhetoric.

Policies arguing the Netherlands should remove itself from the European Union, while impractical, speak to the disenchantment within large swathes of the electorate.

Wilders’ showing has surprised many, but it really shouldn’t have. Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign and the British Brexit vote highlighted that when people feel ignored or let down they will defy the pundits and deliver a protest vote. Even if that also endorses a form of radicalism they aren’t necessarily comfortable with.

When democracy legitimately serves up politicians like Wilders, giving them mainstream status via a strong electoral showing, it’s a sign citizens feel let down.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.