"I don't take anything back." With these words in parliament late Wednesday night, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende summed up his attitude toward the Davids Commission report.

The report, released on Tuesday morning, criticised various aspects of the Dutch decision to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The report itself, and the prime minister's defensive reaction, nearly brought down his cabinet.

A cabinet crisis has been avoided. But only after a day of crisis negotiations among leaders of the three coalition partners. And only after the prime minister was pressured to admit that the mandate under international law to invade Iraq was weak.

"I did a great job"

Why was the prime minister so defensive? Why couldn't he calm the crisis, rather than feed into it? Why didn't Mr Balkenende realize that the cover-up is always worse than the original transgression? Henk Dekker is Professor of Political Socialisation at the University of Leiden. He says the prime minister had to defend himself.

"He was defending his identity, his positive identity, saying 'I did a great job'. He was defending himself as the leader of the Netherlands."

Mr Balkenende has never been a statesman-like leader, and he was not about to become a statesman in response to such a sensitive topic as support for the Iraq invasion. He rose to power quickly in his own party through shrewd manoeuvring. He is not charismatic, and does not have an outwardly dominating personality. He is also known to be quite stubborn. Professor Dekker thinks "he is a typical Dutch leader, who doesn't show that he's a leader."

Hands-off approach

The Dutch prime minister is ambitious, and has been successful at holding together various coalitions during turbulent times. He does this through a hands-off approach to leadership, but at the same time he rarely rises above the fray.

His performance this week demonstrated his instinct to fight it out in the political trenches. Mr Balkenende was convinced in early 2003 that supporting the invasion was justified under international law, based on a series of UN resolutions. He was just as convinced during the six years that he blocked any kind of inquiry, even while the situation in Iraq deteriorated and questions were raised in other countries about the legality of the war.

Under duress

His admission that the mandate was weak came under duress, and does not appear to be heartfelt. In not taking a more distant, statesmanlike response to the Davids Commission, and instead defending his own reputation at the expense of his coalition partner the Labour Party, Mr Balkenende calculated that he could afford to do so. The Labour Party is so weak in the current opinion polls that they cannot afford to bring down the cabinet. But he nearly overplayed his hand.

Professer Dekker says, "That's a common phenomenon amongst politicians who have served many terms. They are inclined to take too many risks at the end and this is usually the beginning of the end of the political career."

The immediate cabinet crisis has been averted. But not as a result of Prime Minister Balkenende's leadership qualities. It was in spite of them.