November 12, 2007
It takes two to make a pact, but only one to break it
It is 2028. The ice caps are dwindling, Chelsea Clinton continues her parents’ presidential legacy in the White House…and Belgium still awaits a new federal government after elections in June 2007.
Yes, I’m joking. Belgium faces a very difficult situation right now, and many people hope it will get out of its impasse in the coming weeks. But how?
A quick recap: The linguistically-divided country has been without a new government since an election more than five months ago.
The francophone parties and the Flemish groups expected to make up a centre-right coalition just can’t agree on state reform, prompting concerns that the country could break up along its linguistic fault lines.
So, what next?
Either these parties get it together, or they go through the messy process of trying to form a grand coalition with the socialists.
The lengthy negotiations have exposed once again the tensions between wealthy Flanders (the Dutch-speaking, northern region, where calls for independence have grown) and the poorer Francophone south (where support for the federal state is stronger).
I’ve put below the views of one of the FT’s Flemish readers. Here’s the disclaimer: They are not representative of Flemings as a whole, because many in Flanders back the idea of continuing with the federal state and don’t share these opinions. But the comments at least help to illustrate some of the tensions here.
From a reader called Geert:
- As a (democratic) separatist I am of the opinion that any region or people in the world can separate from the state to which the accidents of history has made them belong; hence, it takes 2 to make a pact but only 1 to break it (as in a unhappy marriage - Flemish being fed up now with the apparently eternal inefficiencies and injustices of the Belgian state)
- The francophone minority in Belgium is the best protected in the world; as a democrat I think it is fundamentally undemocratic that almost nothing can be decided in Belgium by simple majority (for minor reforms, double majorities or even double majorities with 2/3 in each of the 2 main language groups in parliament are required, leading to inefficient and unfair stalemate all over)
- Furthermore I do not see a strong link between nationalism surging in Flanders and its prosperity compared to the rest of Belgium: Flemish are not so much proud of Flanders than that they are fed up with lingering poor governance at the central level; requests for devolution and recognition of Dutch as an official language have been a key theme in Flemish politics throughout the 20th century
To offer some responses to Geert’s points:
- yes, but what is the extent of the region that is separating? Does it include bilingual Brussels? does it include areas that are officially Flanders but where sentiments are more pro-Belgium (and francophones make up a sizable minority)?
- simple majority is not necessarily democracy. Minorities must be protected and Belgium’s complex constitution is a direct result of linguistic politics and separatist demands
- I agree that one factor driving separatism is the complacency and stalemate of endless coalition governments and an over-complex federal structure. Despite many historical injustices, however, Dutch IS now an official language and I can’t help feeling that the current proposals for dealing with french-speaking voters in B-H-V region are overly defensive…
Posted by: Dave | November 13th, 2007 at 10:05 am | Report this commentStill no answer to the question of what will happen to Brussels if Belgium splits in two.
Would Wallonie join France in the vent of a split or would they aspire to be independant?
She be interesting to see, especially as I will move to Belgium next year!
Posted by: Bill Law | November 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am | Report this commentThanks to Bill and Dave for your reaction. Some comments by the Flemish democratic separatist himself, who has kindly been quoted by Ms Laitner:
Posted by: Geert | November 14th, 2007 at 3:14 pm | Report this comment- Brussels, yeah right, it remains a problem, but it in my view does not suffice as an excuse not to abolish Belgium; it would be unfair to hold hostage Flanders because of Brussels; admittedly we need to do more thinking and we need to get together creative minds to work out a solution; anyway, an independent Flanders would clearly also be viable without Brussels
- of course the boundaries of Flanders in the case of separation would remain those of the language frontier established in 1962; Francophones living in Flanders would be granted the status of a minority, including language rights
- minorities must be protected but not at the expense of the complete burial of simple majority; there is a tradeoff to be made between the rights of the minority and the feasibility of social and economic reform in view of good governance and the challenges posed by globalisation
- the Flemish vote on BHV is unfortunately misrepresented by foreign newspapers as “robbing francophones living in Flanders of the right to vote for francophone parties”, which is clearly not true: the francophone people in case can and will continue to vote for francophone parties in the future, ONLY THEIR VOTES WILL NOT ANYMORE BE ADDED UP TO FRANCOPHONE VOTES IN BRUSSELS
- linguistic injustices (or at least lack of courtesy concerned) continue in Belgium: the quality of Dutch spoken by francophone politicians and civil servants dealing with the entire country is often still poor, hampering efficiency and effectiveness; injustice of the Belgian system moreover is by no means limited to language: irrespective of language, in a EU perspective, Belgium is all too often a laggard, be it in energy prices, road deaths, delays of cases treated by courts, complexity of the tax code, and so on and so forth
Over to you again. Geert
There’s a case to be made that the reason the Belgian state is such a mess is BECAUSE of federalism. It certainly is an incredibly complex government for such a tiny country - I have yet to meet a Belgian who can actually understand it.
Seen in this light, separatists are on the winning side of a self-fulfilling prophecy:
- first, insist on a ridiculously complex federal structure
- and then, when it fails to deliver, demand the end of the affair.
Clever, no?
Posted by: Matt | December 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm | Report this comment