With the Dutch general elections approaching on 29 October 2025, online debates are more
intense than ever. Emotional and polarising messaging is shaping how citizens understand key
election issues, sometimes threatening the stability of democratic processes.
The Dutch context mirrors broader European and global trends. The fusion of populist
nationalism with religious traditionalism, the transnational circulation of anti-gender rhetoric,
and the use of alternative media ecosystems are consistent with developments elsewhere. Yet,
the Netherlands exhibits distinctive characteristics that magnify these dynamics.
− The country’s strong tradition of pluralism and open debate creates opportunities for
manipulative actors to operate under the guise of free expression.
− The fragmented media landscape and high digital literacy make the public sphere
vulnerable to rapid narrative diffusion.
− Limited regulatory oversight allows fringe outlets to gain legitimacy by occupying
perceived “anti-establishment” space.
− The intersection between libertarian populism and confessional conservatism produces
hybrid narratives that resonate across ideological boundaries.
These features position the Netherlands as both a microcosm of wider European polarization
and a testing ground for narrative innovation within transnational anti-rights movements.
Justice for Prosperity developed our WhoDis 2 project to closely monitor these trends and track
the rise of polarising election narratives across the political spectrum. Far-right terms like
“remigration”, for example, are gaining traction as purported solutions to immigration and
security concerns, while left-wing phrases tied to climate justice and decolonisation spark strong
reactions from opposing communities. These narratives influence voter perceptions long before
election day, shaping public debate and trust in democratic institutions.
The platform uses AI analytics, network mapping, and investigative research to detect
manipulative content, from coordinated bot networks to AI-generated misinformation. It
identifies the original sources of divisive narratives, the networks that amplify them, and the
communities that sustain them. This comprehensive view allows WhoDis 2 to see the full picture
of online polarisation.
Acting as an early-warning system, WhoDis 2 flags emerging risks and presents them in
dashboards, case briefs, and reports. This enables electoral commissions, journalists, civil
society, and law enforcement to respond rapidly, whether through fact verification, transparency
measures, or targeted communication campaigns.
By making these networks and narratives visible, WhoDis 2 empowers democratic actors to act
decisively. It reveals the firestarters introducing divisive terms, the amplifiers that spread them,
and the ideological clusters that sustain them. In doing so, it ensures that elections remain
transparent, fair, and resilient to manipulation, giving citizens the information they need to
engage in informed debate.