Advocacy in an unusual formation

Where in the usual formation process serious substantive talks often start only at a later stage, this time they are already happening early on. Scout Wouter Koolmees is having D66 and the CDA spend three weeks working on a “positive agenda”: not to test whether there is enough common ground, but to actually sketch the contours of what should later become a coalition agreement. According to Koolmees, it is too early to elaborate any majority options, because they could “immediately stall” due to existing blockages. First, a guiding framework must be created; only afterwards will it become clear whether a majority cabinet, minority cabinet, or a construction with external support is the most feasible.

This choice creates political tension. VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz believes more effective steps were possible, JA21 calls the approach “not doing justice to the election results,” and PVV leader Geert Wilders argues that time is being “wasted” as long as the blockade against his party remains. But for advocates, this early substantive step actually creates an important opportunity: a moment when key decisions have not yet been made, the content is still open, and societal input can genuinely carry weight.

Putting substance on the table early

Koolmees emphasized during the debate on the election results that these three weeks are not meant to buy time, but to “make serious choices” and “test each other’s positions.” This means the phase is more than a refined exploration: it is the beginning of real direction setting. D66 and the CDA must draft an agenda attractive enough to the VVD, GroenLinks–PvdA, JA21, and possibly smaller parties. The text therefore must not be too sharp or explicit, but should invite broad alignment — on themes such as migration, housing, nitrogen, the economy, and defense.

That makes the coming weeks a political–substantive sketching phase in which problem definitions, principles, and priorities are laid down but not yet cemented. The “positive agenda” will not be a fully negotiated blueprint but a guiding framework. Precisely that makes this phase especially relevant for advocates: it is rare that the content lies on the table in such an open form this early, and that societal input can still genuinely influence the direction.

Competition at the drafting table

The sharp reactions from the VVD and JA21 mainly reveal that they see D66 and the CDA now holding the pen for the first document that will later serve as the starting point for coalition talks. Whoever is not included in it begins December at a disadvantage — a sentiment expressed explicitly in the parliamentary debate, where parties feared they might later only “join in” on lines already drawn. At the same time, this approach carries risks for D66 and the CDA themselves: by writing down first where they see room for movement, Jetten and Bontenbal risk widening their negotiating space for others to use. This awareness was visible: both party leaders nodded in agreement when Koolmees emphasized during the debate that the agenda must be guiding but not a “draft coalition agreement.”

This very tension creates opportunities for advocates. D66 and the CDA must be concrete enough to sketch a credible agenda but open enough not to reveal their full hand too early. As a result, they are particularly receptive to input that helps frame themes sharply without forcing them into detailed policy measures. The challenge for organizations is to contribute problem definitions and solution directions that align with the narrative of D66 and the CDA.

Work on recognition, not wish lists

Even though this formation enters the substantive phase early, this is not yet the time for specific policy packages or sectoral wish lists. What matters is recognition. Organizations that can clearly articulate why their issue is urgent, how it relates to societal concerns, and why it fits within the landscape of multiple parties will position themselves early.

This was underscored during the debate by several party leaders — from Klaver to Bontenbal and from Bikker to Ouwehand — who called for an agenda that starts from a clear problem analysis. That is where influence arises: by thinking along about which problem the new cabinet must solve and why, not by dictating the solution already.

Influence demands flexibility and scenarios

That this formation will not be a linear process is clear from the reactions of parties around the D66–CDA “engine block.” The irritation from the VVD and JA21 shows that multiple scenarios remain possible, that various combinations are still open, and that the political space can shift rapidly. In such a hybrid process, plans that look unpromising in December may be back on the table in January — or vice versa.

For advocates, this means their positioning cannot be static. A narrative that only works in a combination with the VVD or only in cooperation with GroenLinks–PvdA is vulnerable. A narrative that can serve multiple directions remains relevant regardless of which coalition formula ultimately survives. Scenario planning is therefore essential.

Advocacy in an unusual formation

The D66–CDA agenda must be finished by 9 December. The coming three weeks will not determine the full policy of a future cabinet, but they will set the first sketch lines that later negotiators will likely have to take into account. The debate showed that there is broad support for Koolmees’ approach, but also major differences in what parties expect from the agenda. This makes the phase politically tense and substantively open.

For advocates, this is not just a politically interesting moment but a strategically promising phase in which thinking along early can truly make a difference. Those who are visible now with a convincing, broadly applicable narrative increase their influence at a moment when the contours are still flexible. This phase offers an opportunity to help shape the direction of a new coalition agreement early on, and thereby gain more leverage later.