Will the Kingdom of Belgium celebrate its bicentenary in ten years? It’s no longer a safe bet.
A small State that was given its name by major powers, but was born out of revolutionary insurrection, then given a constitution that was highly progressive at the time, Belgium was an industrial champion in the middle of the 19th century; it acquired a colony in Africa, on contested grounds. Weakened by two world wars and then by the matter of the Royal family, it would take a very active part in the genesis of the European communities, as it perceived that this would give it political influence over the continent and the rest of the world.
The venture was a success: Brussels became the principal seat of the institutions and bodies of the EU, attracting countless diplomats, professional associations, consultants, lobbyists, journalists, cultural players and tourists, which contribute to its influence and, in part, its prosperity. A country with an open economy, Belgium derives unquestionable benefits from the single market, common policies and the adoption of the euro. In exchange, it has provided Europe with top-flight political figures.
But at the same time, from the 1960s onwards, centrifugal forces began to gather pace. Its structure as a provincial decentralised unitary state was called into question. The move towards a federal regime became inevitable. However, this was based not on the optimum efficiency of public services, but on language. The linguistic boundary between the north and south of the country became an actual line on the map.
Belgium was split into communities, with Flanders keen to manage its own affairs and achieve a greater cultural renaissance. This would bring about the creation of a French-speaking community, then of a German-speaking community, with their own competencies. At the same time, the French-speaking Walloons wanted to create their own regional entity, an instrument they felt was vital to tackle their industrial decline. The only problem was the fate of Brussels itself: the vast majority of its inhabitants are French speakers, making it a kind of enclave within the Dutch-speaking region and it had to wait until 1989 to become a Region in its own right, albeit artificially limited to its 19 communes.
For the last 50 years, the principal purpose of Belgian politics has been to manage community conflicts, which dominate all other matters and undermine the stability of the central executive powers. The problems were resolved through changes to the constitution: every time, the MPs carve up the State a bit more; then, every time, they proclaim that peace has been restored; and then, every time, fresh demands are forthcoming almost immediately afterwards, mostly from the Flemish. Belgium is currently overseeing its sixth State reform!
As a political doctrine of great value, federalism has proven its worth in many countries of the world, as long as it is balanced and efficient. Sadly, it has to be said that Belgium has made a mess of the model. The surrealism that has made the country’s art and literature great doesn’t transfer well to constitutional law and becomes downright destructive when applied to public economy.
Flanders has merged its community and regional competencies, with a parliament and a government, located in… Brussels. The Walloon regional institutions have their seat at Namur, whilst the French Community, which has been renamed the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, is established in the federal capital. The bilingual Brussels-Capital Region has complex institutions, which have been acquired at the cost of considerable distortions of the principles of equality of votes and representative democracy. There are already some bold elements of confederalism, through the equipollency of standards generated by powers at different levels, as well as Community competencies in the field of external relations. At the Council of the EU competent for culture and education, Belgium is represented by a French-speaking and a Flemish-speaking minister, turn and turn about.
The system produces inequalities between Belgians over inheritance rights, family allowance, compulsory voting at communal level and many, many more. It does nothing to improve citizens’ participation. The unfair fragmentation of competencies makes it impossible for the federal state to put together a coherent climate and energy policy, which is, again, surreal. Regions increase their public deficits, deaf to the budgetary recommendations of the EU. Their cooperation between the Regions doesn’t work, on any issue from the major infrastructure around Brussels to the noise pollution generated by the national airport.
The current federal government is a caretaker government that has not had a majority for a year and one month. The Flemish nationalist party (NVA) left the coalition, on the grounds that its own migration policy was incompatible with the ‘Marrakesh Migration Pact’. This did not stop it from losing seats in the general elections of 26 May 2019 to the far-right Vlaams Belang, which is even more nationalistic and xenophobic. In total, the traditional parties (Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals) now represent just 36.6% of the Flemish electorate, although they are still managing around 59% in Wallonia. The French-speaking voters turned away from the Socialists, Liberals (MR) and Christian Democrats (CDH), to the net benefit of the Greens and far left (PTB).
This situation supports the theory of ‘two democracies’, an idea that is something of a hobby horse for the NVA, but has, in particular, been rubber-stamped by academics. It makes it harder than ever put together a federal government – which remains the natural interlocutor of the European Commission and representatives of the other member states. (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit