Across Europe, election campaigns are increasingly defined by deliberate polarisation rather than a contest of ideas and policy. The Netherlands is no exception. Where campaigns once centred on substantive debate, social tensions and the cultivation of enemy images now dominate political discourse.
This shift is visible in parliament and in the media, but most sharply on the streets and online.
The Malieveld as a stage for polarisation
On 20 September 2025, the Malieveld returns to the spotlight. Under the banner of protest against “failing asylum policy”, initiator Els Rechts calls for a mass demonstration via social media, aiming to attract prominent political figures including Geert Wilders, Thierry Baudet, Wybren van Haga, Caroline van der Plas, Joost Eerdmans and Chris Stoffer.
Funding comes together quickly: an online crowdfunding campaign raises more than €17,000, demonstrating how effectively and rapidly online networks can mobilise and finance political action. Alternative news sites and social media accounts amplify the call widely, and organisations including Defend Netherlands deploy their channels to promote the demonstration.
The online responses make clear that mobilisations like these attract more than citizens who want to make their voices heard peacefully. Alongside messages of support, the organisers’ social media accounts fill with xenophobic, racist and openly violent commentary. Beneath the call for the demonstration, users post remarks like “Beat those lunatics” and “I’ll smash those left-wing rats to pieces”, directed at the announced counter-demonstration by Antifa Nederland. Others go further, posting explicit Nazi symbolism such as “Heil Hitler brother!!” The user in question received a mild reprimand.
The risk of political violence
This dynamic is not unique to the Netherlands. In the United States, political tensions have increasingly given rise to intimidation, street violence and an online ecosystem that amplifies extremist ideas. A recent example is Charlie Kirk, the conservative commentator and founder of Turning Point USA. Kirk has repeatedly been linked to incidents in which supporters were stirred toward aggressive action against political opponents. While he publicly disavows violence, the climate surrounding his appearances and social media posts normalises radical language and adversarial thinking. That trajectory reached a grim endpoint on 10 September, when Charlie was shot during an event at the University of Utah.
In the Netherlands too, protests and campaigns are drifting toward the fringes of public debate. As in the example above, “us versus them” rhetoric takes centre stage, with social media acting as an amplifier.
The risks of escalating rhetoric
Polarisation around Dutch elections is not an isolated phenomenon. The combination of online mobilisation, political parties deliberately aligning themselves with street protests, and extremist groups seizing the opportunity to spread hateful and violent rhetoric creates conditions in which escalation becomes more likely. Violence against counter-demonstrators or police, the importation of radical aesthetics from abroad, and the steady hardening of political language are turning political disagreements into a security concern.
Conclusion
The 2025 Dutch elections show that polarisation no longer stays within the boundaries of parliamentary debate. It takes shape on social media, in crowdfunding campaigns and ultimately on the street.
Politicians, media and civil society organisations all have a role to play. Democratic debate should be robust. It must not descend into adversarial thinking that paves the way for violence.
