July 18, 2008
The sorrow of Belgium
In most countries there is no shortage of ambitious politicians clamouring to be prime minister. But Belgium seems to be an exception. Poor old Yves Leterme has tried to resign - but the king has just ordered him to soldier on.
When I lived in Brussels, Brits used routinely to make two observations about Belgian politics that were guaranteed to irritate the locals. The first point was that Belgium was bound, eventually, to break up. The second was that if even the Belgians couldn’t stand each other, what hope was there for “ever closer union” in Europe?
The Belgian retort was usually that the Brits were being sensationalist - and that Belgian politics is far more complicated and co-operative than a casual observer might realise. I tend to agree that the long anticipated break-up of Belgium is still a long way off. But I also think that the sanguine interpretation of Belgian politics is becoming harder and harder to maintain.
As for the implications of Belgium’s plight for the European Union, I have had some thoughts on that.
In some ways, the situations are obviously very different. First, Europe is still haltingly moving towards closer union. The Belgian state has been moving in the opposite direction for at least 30 years.
Second, one of the big differences - and a warning to the EU - is that Belgium is run on much more democratic lines than the European Union. Left to their own devices, I’m sure the Belgian political elite could probably work out a compromise that they could all happily live with. The forces of division in the country are stoked by regular elections that reward politicians who take radical stances on the national question - and punish those that are too consensual. The EU - with its growing taste for referendums - might take note.
Finally - and depressingly for both Belgium, the EU and humanity in general - the sorrow of Belgium is a standing reproach to those optimists who believe that communities and peoples will get on better, if only they got to know each other.
The fate of Belgium suggests the opposite. Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Walloons have lived cheek-by-jowl for centuries. If anything, they seem to know each other rather too well.
In fact, many of the world’s bitterest inter-communal disputes are between groups that know each other very well. Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland; Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims; Tamils and Sinhalese. By these standards, of course, Belgium’s dispute is still reassuringly civilised.
So is there any moral here for the European Union? Perhaps, it is to abandon the easy assumption that mutual knowledge and understanding will encourage political co-operation. So cancel all town-twinning exercises and educational exchanges henceforth. Mutual ignorance is bliss.
One of the reasons for the ill-feeling is that the political parties in Belgium are all contained within one or other of the language communities - making it easy for them to garner support by stoking up resentment against the other lot.
Not wishing to make a political point, but we see something similar with the UK Conservative Party and Scotland.
Nation-wide political parties would have an incentive to look for other solutions than Fleming- or Walloon-bashing. In a similar vein, if political parties in Europe stood on a Europe-wide platform (so as PES rather than Labour) people might think that the Parliament had more legitimacy, and not just that it was a national referendum on the Government in power.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | July 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm | Report this commentGR: “So is there any moral here for the European Union?”
Not being a European, I couldn’t give a fig but it seems to me that a more integrated European Union is the very answer to the regional conflicts like Basque / Catalan / Castillian in Spain and Flemish / Walloon in Belgium.
In such a continent-wide union, nation states become less important and the regions would not feel oppressed by their immediate neighbours or the “Auld Enemy” as the Scots are wont to call the English.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Report this commentInteresting thoughts. Maybe pure democracy in not so good, just as too much of anything is never a good thing. Take countries like Singapore, China (?), even The Hashemite of Kingdom of Jordan. Singapore and Jordan especially signal a political model in which some amount of democracy is tempered by stable elite rule.
However it probably is not possible to reach simple conclusions. Politics, like economics and the weather hinges on too many variables. One difference you overlooked: the EU is not a state; it does not wield a monopoly on the use of violence, in fact does not have any military or police force of its own. Maybe a possible solution for Belgium is to beome MORE like the EU. Flandria and Wallonia could become full-fledged independent states with their own police and military while retaining co-operation on an EU-like level in matters of trade, business etc. Or maybe that already exists, and in any case wouldn’t remove the bone of contention which is the holy city of Brussels. So I say there is no theory that could fit every situation; pragmatism and experience should lead to different solutions in different contexts.
As for communities getting on with each other. I do not think it is a question of how much they know or do not know of each other. What is more important is the politico-economic relations between the communities: is one community exploiting the other economically, as the Flems claim is the case with the Walloons? Scots versus English? Is one of the communities being expolited politically, as is the claim of independence movements throughout the world? I think that if there were an equitable relation between the communities, such a union could work. It seems to me that on balance, the EU is such an equitable union (although economically backwards countries are supported with huge handouts from Brussels, it is understood that this is temporary, until they attain European-level prosperity — an achievement with benefits for all).
Finally, an idea already raised on this blog (and in one of your columns): why have federal countries which do not work, when much smaller national entities are made plausible by the existence of the EU? Scotland could become independent, Catalonia, Bavaria etc. Let the institutions work at the lowest possible level, as close to the people as possible (principle of subsidiarity) and retain cooperation in matters like trade, visas and monetary union for which there are economies of scale. These economies of scale are strongest at the EU level, so why have any federal entities, like Spain, that are sandwiched between the regions and the EU?
Posted by: RCS | July 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm | Report this commentI agree that this is sad for humanity. It seems that humans from different tribes (language being everything here) will only live together happily if there is an outside threat.
Then again, why does Switzerland seem to work? Explanations please, I’m confused.
Posted by: Rollo | July 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentHi Rollo. Read my explanation above (the third paragraph).
Posted by: RCS | July 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Report this commentAlas for poor Belgium. And have we forgotten so soon about Zimbabwe and Burma?
Posted by: algasema | July 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Report this commentGR:The forces of division in the country are stoked by regular elections that reward politicians who take radical stances on the national question - and punish those that are too consensual.
This is interesting …is it the traditional radical right and left or just radical positions?
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 18th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentSo where’s the political voting block usually known as the”center” …Is there little to none, which would be unusual in voting patterns or are they just not voting? and if there are centralists and they are not voting…one should ask why?
Ah, yes, Hugo Claus is sorely missed…
Posted by: martinned | July 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Report this comment@Lisa-Helene Lawson: Part of the “problem”, if you will, is in the media. There are no Belgian media. There are Flemish newspapers, and Walloon. There is VRT and VTM in Flanders, TV-wise, and RTBF in the Walloon region. And so on and so forth. So the middle of, say, the Flemish popular opinion is the CD&V of Leterme, with the more radical N-VA with which he has a permanent alliance, and the more radical still Vlaams Belang that, for the time being, no one will go near. On the other side of Flemish popular opinion there are the more moderate liberals (Verhofstadt’s VLD) and socialists (the Greens, S.PA and particularly Spirit).
There is not one middle, but two, and they are in fact quite a bit apart, and increasingly so…
Posted by: martinned | July 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Report this commentI have lived in Belgium for 34 years and watched it split in two in slow motion over that period. As two culturally (language) and ethnically (Germanic versus Latin) very different communities have moved apart economically (the Flanders becoming relatively richer and Wallonia becoming relatively poorer), the cement that held them together has progressively withered away. It is very sad but this is the cruel reality. What worries me most is the the ardent Flemish nationalists will not admit that Brussels is no longer a part of their territory. This is now a fact because around 90 per cent of its population is French-speaking. I fear that we will see some degree of physical violence here as these extremists deny the Brussels majority the right to determine its own future.
Posted by: Alan | July 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this commentA few comments:
Though political parties in Belgium are divided along linguistic lines, there are also important national institutions. Business and employers’ associations are organised at the national as well as at the regional level, and though the trade union movement is divided, it is along ideological, not primarily linguistic lines. That is important because in Belgium these socio-economic institutions are powerful (60% unionisation), and their nation-wide organisation and partnership probably helps to keep the country together.
The success of inter-ethnic, inter-linguistic countries ultimately depends on the willingness of the most powerful group to show self-restraint. In Switzerland, the German-speaking majority exercises such self-restraint by accepting a consensus, proportional approach to government. A cynic might say that it is the price they have been willing to pay for not being a part of Germany.
Gideon Rachman observes that Belgian divisions are stoked up by elections, and fears that referendums might have the same effect in the EU. Switzerland is a referendum-based democracy, and some referendums do indeed underline differences between linguistic regions (those on relations with the EU, for example). But most underline cross-linguistic divisions (ideological, rural-urban, central and peripheral (moutainous) regions). So pan-European referendums on EU directives, etc, could, if properly designed, help to reduce alienation from EU institutions and bring EU citizens together around pan-EU coalitions.
As already suggested in previous comments, the growing sense of regional-ethnic identity across Europe, not only in Belgium, is partly a result of the success of the EU’s supranationalism and even of globalisation and the much-despised international institutions. The nation state is being undermined by other factors too; for example, the privatisation of utilities, etc; the erosion of conscription and national military service.
Posted by: Edward S | July 18th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentThe lessons from Belgium’s failure (or almost failure) must be analysed in depth since they have implications not only for the EU experiment, but for states all over the world. In my opinion, Switzerland is the most successful union of diverse communities. The Swiss have achieved their remarkable confederation by allowing the French, German and Italian constituents to retain their own customs and heritage. Economic co-operation and benefits alone will not be sufficient to maintain an union. It is so very important to ensure that no community feels its culture or traditions are being swamped.
Posted by: Vinod Joseph(www.winnowed.blogspot.com) | July 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentWhat is happening in Belgium is very sad but entirely predictable. With the major exception of the mess that was made of the Irish question, the only country in the EU with a successful track record in running a political union containing several nations over a number of centuries is the UK.
I suppose it’s too much to ask that Europe’s leaders might look at that model - which tolerates a lot of messy difference and incorporates much institutional variable geometry - when looking for models of future European development, rather than listening to failed Belgian integrationists like Verhofstadt.
Posted by: David Wilkins | July 18th, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this commentMy understanding (from France) is that the central question of devolution to the regions hits against the fact that many policy decisions are taken at a more local level. How to resolve this has, so far, proved insoluble (or unacceptable?).
As for lessons for the EU, I’m not sure there are any. The EU was established, by the founders, as a deliberately non-democratic institution. Maybe they were aware of Churchill’s comment ” Five minutes with an elector is enough to convince that democracy has failed”.
The founders were looking into the far future. These wise men knew that politicians were/are too closely focussed on the “here and now” (or the latest opinion poll), whereas they too should focus on the distant future in taking EU decisions. However, as Pascal Lamy (?) once said to assembled EU leaders “Gentlemen, we all know what we should do. What we don’t know is how to get ourselves re-elected if we do it”.
That’s the EU problem!
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | July 18th, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Report this commentEdward is right. What the separatist of those regions (Scotland, Basque Country, Flanders…) want is to separate from (the UK, Spain, Belgium) but being part of the European Union and the Eurozone…something that remembers me the Indian Union which is more divided from an ethnic, religious and linguistic pooint of view than the European Union.
They want to be inside the European Union at the SAME level as other member states (Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia…) not outside of the Union. A question of prestige and rights according to them: Scotland and England, Basque Country and Castile, Flanders and Beligium…
But in the European Union a Macro-regional approach is necessary (Scandinavia, Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Germany, France, British Islands, Balkans, Benelux, Central Europe…) for a more efficient management of resources the same way of the American, Brasilian or Russian Macro-regions (federal districts)
Posted by: Enrique | July 19th, 2008 at 5:15 am | Report this commentEnrique,
What macro-regions in Brazil and America?
Give up on trying to defend Spain, which is a Castillian dominance of the other regions. You supply no arguments. If you are a strongly European federalist, you should welcome a break-up into regions. The less the power of the nations, the greater that of the Union.
Posted by: RCS | July 19th, 2008 at 6:57 am | Report this commentDear RCS:
Please look up some information about federalism before you condemn too earnestly those who recommend it for the EU. You might begin with the loose federalism of bi-lingual Canada where authority rests closest to the people, with the provinces, and only residual power is ceded to the central government. You may even consider that Canada is one of the most favoured of nations - according to UN (and The Economist) surveys - and that it democratically and peacefully overcame a separatist threat. And all in spite of the lousy weather and the relentless boredom of safe, predictable and prosperous lives.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am | Report this commentDear Paskalis,
You mistaken my position (for some reason you seem to perceive cynicism in what I say). I am not against European federalism (with caveats), and that is why I raise the question of the relevancy of sandwiched federalist constructs like Belgium and Spain.
Posted by: RCS | July 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am | Report this commentIn retrospect, RCS, I should have realized you are much too wise to be against something as sensible as European federalism. I apologise for my misreading. At this age, I am low on testosterone but high in indignation.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am | Report this commentGideon. Good points. You mention the Belgian elite. This point needs more development. Belgium’s elite are a uniquely tight circle. The King demanded Leferme remain as the only contender is a wannabe named Didier Reynders, “l’homme qui parle à l’oreille des riches”. Reynders’ blood simply isn’t masonic enough.
I caution on how much one should impute about Europe in this story. I have youthful recall of governments changing in Belgium on a bi-weekly basis when the EEC was contained to the Berlaymont building and small quarters for the Courts of Justice and Parliament in Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
Belgium’s ruling families–Albert Fréres, Boël, Janssen, Solvay and the royals control up to 80 percent of the economy–are responsible for the current imbalances. Flanders today bears much of the new success and a disproportionate part of the new problems. Antwerp is less and less a suitable place for a family weekend, yet it is home to the country’s most thriving enterprises.
The Netherlands’ weekly, HP De Tijd featured the following words on its 4 July cover:
“Brutale observaties van een Nederbelg” and “Vlaanderen bij Nederland? Liever niet”
Translated: “Brutal observations from a Flem” and “Flanders in the Netherlands? Would rather not.”
Flanders’ is not Dutch enough to be Dutch–within Belgium or attached to its sister nation. Few corners in Europe are enough of what they think they are to be what they think they want to be.
Then there is Wallonia, which is hardly as French as it would like to be. Has anyone counted the number of Brits and Americans who live there? Then count the number of such who pay their fair share of Belgian taxes.
This debate should be about viable tax jurisdictions and not nationalities.
Posted by: wcm | July 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm | Report this commentSome further thoughts on the Belgian question and what the EU can learn.
I think Belgium might learn, both from what’s happened elsewhere in Europe, and from a hard look at the foundations of the EU.
In Europe one could take the example of Czechoslovakia, where two nation states were created, more or less by mutual consent. But then one could look at Serbia, where there may now be two states - or maybe not, according to where one lives (no mutual agrrement there).
In the EU, with the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the signatory countries willingly (and knowingly) gave up part of their sovereignty for the better good of the whole. This sentiment should have been passed on in the signing of new treaties and in the addition of new countries. Implicit in the original treaty was, too, the assumption of the need for greater political integration as the EU developed.
What we are seeing throughout the EU, and especially in Belgium, is a rise in radical nationalism with an explicit denial of political integration. The greater good of the whole has been forgotten, I fear.
What lessons should Belgium draw from the above, then ? I can’t help.
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | July 19th, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentIt is interesting to see that Nationalism & the Nation State (where that nation is defined by a single homogeneous ethnicity) is alive & well in the EU.
The failure of these “federal Nations” has been the perception that one member dominates the rest (Flems in Belgium, Castilians in Spain, English in UK, etc..)
This is the problem that the EU will face. If in some future where each language/ethnicity has it’s own state in Europe that the Brussels elite will continue to be seen as distant, remote and worse dominated by some larger ethnicity (German or French) then nationalism rather than finding it’s place in the EU sun — will turn on the EU.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am | Report this commentA further comment: be careful about exprapolating from Belgium’s problems to the prospects of the European Union as a whole.
The media naturally tend to focus on difficulties rather than on functioning solutions.
Millions of European speak a language that is not the their country’s majority language. And in many cases, this works at least tolerably well and often enriches the societies concerned.
Luxembourg, one of Belgium’s neighbours, has three official languages. Likewise, Finland has two nation-wide official languages: Finnish and Swedish. Then there are countries with official regional languages: for example, Welsh in Wales; German in Italy’s Alto Adige/Südtirol; Croatian and Slovene in parts of Austria.
In addition, there is a host of recognised minority languages, with varying prerogatives.
Linguistic tensions may increase in the future, as people seek refuge in ethnic identity from the impersonal forces of economic supranationalism, both European and global.
But such tensions will not necessarily lead to headline-grabbing crises considered worthy of consideration by newspaper columnists.
Posted by: Edward S | July 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am | Report this commentDear GR,
Surely, when you say that “depressingly for Belgium, the EU and humanity in general” you are, indeed, sensationalising.
It should surely be obvious that the structure of a successful state at any one time will have to reflect the relative positions: demographic, political, cultural, economic… of the various groups within it. As these change, the structure of the state should adapt: look at how the Americans have seen their country evolve.
If the Belgian state (cobbled together in 1830 as a buffer between French and Dutch) is no longer capable of adapting then so be it. The point is surely that both Flemings and Walloons will surely continue to coexist much as they have always done as citizens of the EU, sharing institutions such as the €. Quite how they will deal with the Bruxelles problem (referendum?) and the various taxation/government spending difficulties, I have no idea but the Czechs and the Slovaks managed to divorce amicably – surely the ‘Belgiens’ (as Jacques Brel once called them) will too.
You might be interested to know that even little Switzerland has been through this. There have been 4 partitions within the Confederation. During the 19c. the Cantons of Basel, Appenzell and Unterwald were divided into half-Cantons because of insurmountable differences (town/country, religion and different mountain valleys respectively). In 1976, a new Canton of Jura was created to accommodate the French-speaking and Catholic minority who split from German-speaking, Protestant Bern.
Switzerland regards itself as a ‘Willenstaat’, that is, a state that exists not because it is either a ‘natural’ or ‘God-given’ entity (the Swiss very very rarely use the word ‘Nation’ and the word ‘national’ is mostly reserved for the football team) but because the people want it to continue. This concentrates the mind of government who understand that unless they manage to do a good enough job for the various groups within the country, the disappearance of the Confederation would become possible - as a result, French and Italian speakers are slightly over-represented politically, as Scots have been in the UK.
The point is surely that there ought to be a permanent debate as to the appropriate constitutional arrangements at every level. In the case of Switzerland, the merger of different cantons (e.g.: Geneva and Vaud) to create greater administrative economies of scale has been suggested, but will only happen if popular majorities can be created.
In the case of the EU, am I the only one who remembers the debate some 20 years ago about ‘l’Europe des régions’? The idea that the nation state would wither away as its powers would either devolve downwards or upwards towards ‘Brussels’. The idea was obviously more popular in Barcelona that in Madrid and Jacques Chirac killed it off. But it must be worth considering the idea that the Belgians are ahead of the curve, that they are showing the way forward by putting abstract principles like ‘subsidiarity’ into practice and that they are creating a model that other Europeans will want to follow (not only the Scots).
This will be depressing for national elites in Whitehall and elsewhere, not for the EU or for humanity.
Posted by: Charles Bruggmann | July 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Report this commentI am intrigued, Jalipa, by your definition of a nation as a “single homogeneous ethnicity.” Would you please tell us which country that is, aside from the United States, of course.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Report this commentHi Paskalis
“single homogeneous ethnicity.”
What I mean is that Nationalists normally define their nation in ethnic terms. Thus the extreme Flemming or Wallon have tended to reject the multi-ethnic/heterogeneous “Belgium” in favour of ethnically homogeneous Nation States: Flandia or Wallonia.
Being ethnically & culturally diverse I would not describe the US as homogeneous.
I consider it ironic that the EU, which was intended to foster pan-Europeanism and defuse nationalism has actually had the reverse effect. Small nationalities that were previously satisfied in their respective multi-ethnic states are now seeking “independence” under the auspices of the EU. My suspicion is that once these small “nations” have achieved their “local” goals they will turn on the EU itself. Particularly as I believe EU’s leadership has become increasingly remote and out of touch.
It is only ethnically diverse states such the UK, Spain, Belgium that are in danger of breaking up. Ethnically homogeneous states such as Sweden, Norway, Germany do not have constituent parts of their states, seeking independence.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Report this commentI was kidding about the US, of course, which you rightly say is ethnically diverse, but to say it is “culturally diverse” is rather a stretch since it is probably the most culturally identical state on earth.
In fact all nations, including Japan, Sweden, Greece, Turkey, France Germany, China etc X 180 are ethnically diverse. There is no such thing as a nation that is a “single homogeneous ethnicity (or there might be one lurking as an exception that proves the fact- Andorra? San Marino?).”
If you look at European history, the Europeans are as much “Ein Volk” as anyone else.
Repeat “The United States of Europe” six times. Notice how natural it sounds, how right and proper?
Posted by: Paskalis | July 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentSome thoughts on the success of the Swiss model, inspired by Charles Bruggman’s post:
Switzerland operates at a sub-national level. There is no formal tri-partite division along ethnic/linguistic lines. The cantons, although each linguistically homogenous (putting aside the question of the plethora of dialects of Schwiizertüütsch) are not a maximal partition according to ethnic/linguistic divisions. The cantons are localised constructs.
The focus in Switzerland has been on community/local/valley/regional affiliations. Nationalism was not fanned, in fact did not evolve. Had that happened, the cantons would have united along linguistic lines and the unity of Switzerland would have been possibly shattered, swept away in a maelstrom akin to that which engulfed similarly thrice divided Bosnia.
So it has been Switzerland’s evasion of the nationalist issue, which has underpinned the confederation’s success. Herein lies indeed a lesson for Europe.
Posted by: RCS | July 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Report this commentCorrection: Confoederatio Helvetica has of course 4 linguistic communities.
Posted by: RCS | July 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentIn reply to RCS:
I cannot agree with you.
1. 4 Cantons are officially multi-lingual: Bern (German majority, French minority); Graubünden (German, Romansch + some Italian); Valais and Fribourg (French majorities, German minorities) - all can be problematical, but not unmanageably so.
2. It is misleading to say that the Swiss evaded the nationalist issue. The Swiss (unlike the Austrians) avoided being absorbed by German nationalism - Swiss nationalism is alive and kicking (especially in the Swiss People’s Party SVP/UDC) but this has to be multi-lingual and is based on dislike of Brussels/fear of cultural and political absorption by a greater whole rather than on any claim of racial/ethnic exceptionalism –English, Welsh and Scots may or may not be part of some sort of ‘island race’ – the Swiss do not claim any kind of ‘mountain race equivalent.
3. The creation of a political ‘European’ identity by the EU will be based , inter alia, on common political institutions that bend over backwards to give every group as much control over their own affairs as possible (subsidiarity); on an ideology of respect for minority cultural identities; on a perception that being a part of the ‘whole’ is economically at least as advantageous as not (think of Quebec) and a common shared dislike of foreign interference – if only George W Bush and the neo-cons could remain in power for another generation, the USE would be a done deal!
Posted by: Charles Bruggmann | July 21st, 2008 at 5:38 pm | Report this commentSwitzerland’s constitutional structure is, as RCS implies, determined by the elements of its composition. It is one nation with one flag, one currency, one national government and many languages and dialects in a common trading area. A lesson for Europe indeed.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 21st, 2008 at 5:38 pm | Report this commentNB Belgium has three language groups, not two. We’ve all forgotten the two german-speaking regions. Apparently, they see themselves as “Belgian” and wish to remain so. I’m grateful for this info to a Belgian visitor that ran into - literally - here in France (but we got talking afterwards, with his French-speaking wife as translator!).
I imagine this population is small - but, I was told (forcefully) they wouldn’t want to become part of Germany.
As for Jalipa’s note about the EU leading to more nationlism, I fear this has more to do with the actions/inactions of the Presidents/PMs of Europe than it has with the institution itself.
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | July 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm | Report this commentCharles Bruggman,
You do not contradict me. I said Switzerland had not evolved ethno-linguistic centred nationalisms. The Swiss operate at a cantonal sub-national level or — whatever Swiss nationalism has evolved is pan-Swiss and inclusive.
You correct me as regards intra-cantonal lingual diversity — a point which only strengthens my argument. The foci for group loyalty are the cantons, the valleys if you wish, not ethno-linguistic affinity. This is a state of affairs akin to what was common throughout the world before the rise of 19th century European nationalism.
If Belgium operated similarly, people would not view themselves as being either Flems or Waloons, rather as belonging to a particular local community.
Posted by: RCS | July 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this comment>>RCS–Your concatenated linguistic-status adjectives fail to make a point. I am clueless as to where you want to go with your argument, but agree with Bruggman that you do not understand Switzerland. Visit on the upcoming Confederation Day to gain some insights to Swiss nationalism, although you will see it is more fervently observed in the original 13 cantons. (I suggest you review a bit of Swiss history and check the dates of accession/admission for each of the 26 cantons together with concurrent/contiguous histories.)
The lessons for the EU from Switzerland key, as Mr Bruggman suggests, on respect–for ethnic groups, shared geographies and individuals (with some rigorous conditions on the latter).
Linguistic nationalism in Belgium and Europe is a form of opportunism that is finding fodder in the current geopolitical discord. As I’ve suggested before, Belgium’s crisis keys on the gap between its regional political structure and the distortions–economic and fiscal–created at the national level by a handful of Walloon-centred corporate families. Language or ethnicity are issues for a nean-spirited minority; fiscal/economic imbalances concern nearly everyone. The King’s statement implicitly recognised this and gives reason to think there will be a more level debate going forward.
You seem to like Switzerland, and you live in Israel. Previously, you have promoted a federal Europe and Neocon-aligned global hegemony. What non-financial lessons could Switzerland offer your Israel?
FYI–The Congress in France today authorised constitutional changes that will allow for recognition and development of regional languages. The other reforms are regarded as progressive across the political spectrum. They are none really Sarko’s ideas, but let him enjoy the kudos for setting the stage. There is little reason to expect separationism to rise. France’s “logic”–raison d’être–is reinforced by agreement on today’s reforms.
Posted by: wcm | July 21st, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Report this commentwcm,
I apologise for my amateurish intrusions into your own field of specialty. I should have realised that without at least a PhD in political science I have no right to comment on the matter.
I also apologise for theorising on Switzerland, and Europe in general, while living in Israel. A grave error on my part.
Posted by: RCS | July 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Report this commentRCS,
Spain a sandwiched construct? Multiple ethnicities in Spain? Castillian dominance? Please elaborate on it, I cannot follow. If you live in Catalonia, where Spanish has been the official language for 800 years (almost since Spanish language was born), your children cannot get educated in Spanish, but only in Catalan, despite the fact that not even their highest-ranked politicians can talk Catalan properly. And Basque language just doesn’t exist; each town has its own Basque language, talked only by the elder, and unintelligible with each other. By the way, France has Catalans, Basques (proficiency is much higher there), Bretons and Alsacians. Is France a sandwiched construct? Please explain.
Posted by: Diego | July 21st, 2008 at 9:08 pm | Report this commentAs I see it, the difference between Spain and Belgium is: every Spaniard speaks Spanish in their daily routine, although some people speak regional languages with their family and friends. This is not much different from a Bavarian/Breton man talking to their family and friends in Bavarian/Breton, and using standard German/French at work/school.
Posted by: Diego | July 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm | Report this commentDear Diego,
You should recognise the insecurities of a minority for what they are; it is similar in Quebec vis-a-vis the rest of Canada or Scotland versus England (in each of these regions to a differing extent, depending on the level of collective insecurity and local traditions of chauvinism).
The fact that the Catalans are (possibly aggressively) promoting and asserting their national identity does not negate the basic equation of Spain. They are left with only cultural nationalism to assert, they cannot leave Spain. Furthermore, this limited freedom is a relatively recent phenomenon. Of course there is a Castillian dominance: where does the capital reside? Where are the levers of power centred?
France has a very strong tradition of centralised rule, which over the ages has straightened out the wrinkles in what was once a much more heterogenous country. Even more so than the United States, the French state has acted as a melting-pot for different nationalities. What remain today are the survivors, on the outskirts, of France before France. Therefore, France is not a sandwiched federal construct, France is mostly a unified cultural-political sphere.
You say a Basque language does not exist. This is not a different situation from that which ensued in many parts of Europe before the advent of modern nationalism. German was broken into many dialects (Switzerland still maintains such dialect diversity, mainly because it opted to adopt standard German instead of developing its own national language), the same can be said for Italian etc. The national languages of Europe were forged out of the dialect of the capital. So the Basque country must still be at an early stage. That does not negate its aspirations to define itself.
Posted by: RCS | July 21st, 2008 at 9:58 pm | Report this commentRCS,
as you may know, the Basque Country is fiscally independent. They have their own taxes and there is no fiscal transfer from the Basque Country to the rest of the country. They have their own laws concerning almost everything. Only Defense and Foreign Affairs are shared matters.
Catalonia transfers some money to the rest of the Spain, but it also makes its own laws. Spanish-speakers (not speaking Catalan), who make up 30% of the Catalan population, are discrimated against in Catalonia, as their children cannot get lessons in Spanish, they must speak Catalan to the Catalan Administration, etc. Is this a sign of Castillian dominance?
Italian and German were families of languages, as much as Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese may be classified into the “Iberian family of languages”. But Bavarian and Plattdeutsch are as different languages as Catalan and Spanish may be (and probably even more so).
Once again, I must ask you for an instance of Castillian dominance, in a sense that makes Spain a different country among the European nations.
Regards,
Posted by: Diego | July 21st, 2008 at 10:31 pm | Report this commentRCS,
as a way of farewell, let me explain you something: the former Kingdom of Castille was exploited for centuries for the benefit of Basques and Catalans. Most Basques (some 70%) were noble; they didn’t pay taxes and they didn’t have to go to war (Bilbao was the only Spanish port city where no forced conscription was made, as they were virtually all noble; in times of war, families from outside the Basque country came there to avoid conscription).
War was paid for exclusively by the Kingdom of Castille (but for Basques); Catalonia was also exempt. The result: Castille went bankruptt for two centuries, while industry blossomed in the Basque country (ironworks originated by the military shipbuilding paid for by Castille) and Catalonia (textiles for the Spanish America, although they didn’t pay nor did they send soldiers for the Conquest).
So much for Castillian dominance.
Regards,
Diego
Posted by: Diego | July 21st, 2008 at 11:51 pm | Report this commentIn fact Basques were the only Spaniards considered pure blood (Old Christians) by the Inquisition as it was admitted that they didn´t have semitic (Arab or Jewish) ancestors becasue the Basque region was never conquered by the Moors while the rest of Spaniards had to demonstrate it to be considered Old Christians and have full rights, hehe.
Posted by: Enrique | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 am | Report this commentHi Paskalis,
In absolute terms you’re right, no state is entirely ethnically homogeneous, but some are closer to this state of being than others. For all the differences of dialect, there is no serious movement by Bavarians to secede (or for that matter join Austria — Salzburg has the same dialect).
As for there being some sort of “European Ein Volk” being formed in the (near) future — nice as that would be, I think we are quite a distance from it. Look at Western Europe’s reaction (restrictions) to economic migrants from Eastern Europe (particularly gypsies) they are treated as foreigners, not as fellow citizens.
The USE is not born yet.
As for the USA being “the most culturally identical state on earth” — is, I would strongly suggest, simply not true. Yankee, Gullah, Hispanic, Cajun, to name a few, are all distinctly American sub-cultures.
Comparisons to the Canadian & Swiss multi-lingual/federal models ignore that these states have unique historical & geographical aspects that lead to their formation.
Canada exists only because past colonial conquests - Quebec’s separatist movement is strong as ever - the most recent referendum (1995) was only 51% to 49% in favour of “Canada”. This is hardly a strong federal union.
Reading some of the comments re Spain & it;’s minorities — Nationalism & patriotic prejudice is as strong as ever.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am | Report this commentJalipa–Much-needed clarification. A federal/ein-Volk Europe was never the intent of the EU’s founders, but too often the expectation of Americans and deluded Globalists. The EU is founded on the belief that shared economic balance will foster political harmony amongst countries of differing characteristics, attributes/advantages, peoples and languages. Shared values result from shared/mutual respect for differences. It is the hope then that new imbalances are better–not necessarily perfectly–handled. The EU founders were humanists, not corporatists.
Linguistic separatism, however, has become a device for lesser minds. Belgium’s debate seems more likely to expose some uncool agendas–in Flanders, Walloon and Brussels–than to produce a new EU state. Let us hope so. Barroso’s Commission is not sitting quiet on the subject. Nor are the countless US corporations with well-hidden tax “incentives” that call Belgium home.
Observing the US Presidential campaign, one can see that geography of 300 million people is quite far from “Ein Volk”. Its founders’ fabric–far from perfectly reasoned–still permits human folly and goes far to protect them and us from political evils. Recent decades suggest it may need to be pruned back to something closer to what formed the basis of discussion in the Federalist Papers.
Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am | Report this commentJalipa,
please explain your reference to “patriotic prejudice”. All we have said is historical fact (and I am pretty sure you didn’t know anything about it beforehand). Please counter by exposing your ideas/data. Maybe prejudice is on the unexpected side.
Regards,
Posted by: Diego | July 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am | Report this commentThe sorrow of Belgium
G R Wrote: When I lived in Brussels, Brits used routinely to make two observations about Belgian politics that were guaranteed to irritate the locals. The first point was that Belgium was bound, eventually, to break up. The second was that if even the Belgians couldn’t stand each other, what hope was there for “ever closer union” in Europe?
This is just a microcosm of what will happen when the political elite force the constitution creating the federal state of europe on to us without any mandate from the people to do so. Just look at the breakup of Yugoslavia to see the obvious outcome of this action.
GR wrote: As for the implications of Belgium’s plight for the European Union, I have had some thoughts on that.
In some ways, the situations are obviously very different. First, Europe is still haltingly moving towards closer union. The Belgian state has been moving in the opposite direction for at least 30 years.
Europe is not moving towards ever closer union, a handful of politicians are, the real people are not happy with the direction the political elite are taking us.
GR wrote: Second, one of the big differences - and a warning to the EU - is that Belgium is run on much more democratic lines than the European Union.
Mugabe’s Zimbabwe works on more democratic lines than the eu, its major problem is the democratic deficit, followed closely by institutional corruption.
GR wrote: Left to their own devices, I’m sure the Belgian political elite could probably work out a compromise that they could all happily live with. The forces of division in the country are stoked by regular elections that reward politicians who take radical stances on the national question - and punish those that are too consensual. The EU - with its growing taste for referendums - might take note.
The eu hates referendums, particularly when the Dutch French and Irish people vote against what they want, that is why they are trying to abolish them, so that they can march on relentlessly with their private hopes for themselves.
GR wrote: Finally - and depressingly for both Belgium, the EU and humanity in general - the sorrow of Belgium is a standing reproach to those optimists who believe that communities and peoples will get on better, if only they got to know each other.
The fate of Belgium suggests the opposite. Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Walloons have lived cheek-by-jowl for centuries. If anything, they seem to know each other rather too well.
In fact, many of the world’s bitterest inter-communal disputes are between groups that know each other very well. Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland; Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims; Tamils and Sinhalese. By these standards, of course, Belgium’s dispute is still reassuringly civilised.
So is there any moral here for the European Union? Perhaps, it is to abandon the easy assumption that mutual knowledge and understanding will encourage political co-operation. So cancel all town-twinning exercises and educational exchanges henceforth. Mutual ignorance is bliss.
Better still abandon the whole project save for trade agreements
Posted by: Barry Davies | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentHi WCM
“European Ein Volk” was in reference to a remark by Paskalis. I made no statement regarding the EU founders intent.
Expanding further — whatever the founders intended is now irrelevant, it is how current Europeans perceive the EU to be that is the concern. Many (most?) believe that objective of EU is united European State. Anathema to some, nirvana to others.
The details of this future state are vague. Strong centralization or loose confederation?
Given the contempt shown by Brussels for local dissent (Ireland’s referendum etc) leads one to fear that the beareaucrats at least favour Strong centralization.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am | Report this commentHi Diego,
From your posts you appear to deny Basques claims.
A patriotic Brit I could (should I choose) construct an argument that denies Scotland’s claim at separate nationhood. I could point out that has always been linguistically divided between the speakers of “Scots” (An English dialect with totally different grammar) in the lowlands and the speakers of Gaelic in highlands. That Scottish kings drew their strength from this “English” zone and rarely exerted more than nominal control over the highlands. That the “English” army that defeated the highlanders at Cullodon was largely made up of Lowlanders & Ulster Scots. Then I could go on about Scotland’s advantage in parliamentary representation. All to Ad nauseam.
But in the end the Scots will ignore me and still claim to be a seperate nation .
Posted by: Jalipa | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am | Report this commentI agree. The best of plans have the least chance of realisation.
Do you see Sarkozy’s “reign” as just an entertaining six months, or is he fundamentally reshaping the EU’s mandate and how it is perceived?
This is not a man known for intellect or vision, but cunning and opportunism. He is a sly realist, though.
When he hands off the baton at yearend, will the consensus be that the time for a strong, federal leader has arrived? Will Lisbon evolve into a federal charter–even if only for the eurozone–with a US-style presidency?
Suppose Sarko is perceived to have been a success and continues to be a voice to be reckoned with within the EU. What forces exist to comprise a serious challenge to the formation of a federal treaty (even if applied only in a two-tier construct)?
Surely the Swiss can open some of their investigations into his affairs and let some air out of his balloon.
Posted by: wcm | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm | Report this commentJalipa,
I won’t take a stance regarding Scotland as I just don’t really know about it. All I can say is the moment the English-speakers in Scotland won’t be able to get their education in English, won’t have the right to speak English to their administration, etc. (as it happens in Catalonia), that will be a clear instance of discrimation.
If you want to talk about Spain and its history, here I am. The Basque Country and Catalonia have been the richest regions in Spain until democratic rule began in 1979, and for good reason. This has nothing to do with (historically) poor Scotland and Ireland and the very rich England. I explained this above.
Regards,
Diego
Posted by: Diego | July 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Report this commentThe problem of Brussels would be one of a free vote to decide which ‘community’ to join,
The Walloons will lose it. Why?
Simple - the tax rates in any future independent Vlaanderen will be vastly less than in any future Wallonie.
The good citizens of Brussels are not going to hand over 300 or more euro extra a month for the pleasure of belonging to a declining economy.
La Patrie is one thing - money is quite another.
Posted by: Brussels Resident | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Report this commentHi Diego,
Nor I Spain.
My point is that since the advent of the EU these regions have developed popular secessionist movements, where as previously the majority of their populations were content to be part their respective Kingdoms (UK, Spain, Belgium etc).
A substantial part of the selling point made by the respective nationalist parties is, that the EU renders local “federal” states unnecessary. This pro-EU stance gives these parties a sense of respectability & seriousness that they previously lacked*. Giving them appeal to “moderate” voters who would otherwise look to UK/Spainishwide political parties.
*up until the 1970s the few Scottish Nationalists about were considered cranks.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm | Report this commentHi WCM,
Most holders of the presidency achieve little more than rhetoric — I don’t see Sarkozy achieving more.
Whatever he does will be ignored by most of Europe’s citizens. They will more concerned about their “local” political affairs (if interested in politics at all).
It’s the hidden “men” meeting in Brussels’ dark halls of power that will push out yet another treaty/constitution/whatever. It is their consensus in opinion that is driving the EU not that of “the people”. Which will remain the problem. A lack of openness, a lack of democracy, a lack of honesty.
If Sakozy could address this disconnect — then he would move things on.
The Lisbon Treaty should be dropped. It was rejected in its previous form, and has been rejected again now. To press ahead regardless would be a long term disaster for the EU.
Rather than large scale structural changes, the EU should concentrate in getting its existing house in order and then (if must) carry out small incremental changes.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Report this commentJalipa,
at least for the time being, the majority of Catalans and Basques feel Spaniards.
Catalan nationalism has more to do with money matters than culture/ethnicity, but the great force behind Basque nationalism is the advantage of having your political opponents killed. If a Basque journalist/politician makes critical comments on Basque nationalism, he/she becomes an ETA objective. This means their neighbours will stop talking to him out of fear, their business (shops, restaurants…) and their houses will be put on fire, their children persecuted at school and, if they persist, they will be eventually killed. That’s why every non-nationalist politician, even in the most remote town, is always accompanied by a bodyguard.
This is fascism, and it is really sad to read foreigners writing lightly about it, forgings expressions such as “Castillian dominance” and “Basque oppresion”. The only oppresed people there are those not being able to go the cinema with their wives for fear of being shot in the head before his wife and children.
I don´t mean you, Jalipa, but you know this happens. And just to finish: EU-membership is not an option for an independent Catalonia, Basque country or Scotland, as this would require their former country to accept them into the European Union, which is difficult to imagine. I mean, Catalonia may get independent someday, but they cannot force us to trade with them.
Regards,
Diego
Posted by: Diego | July 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm | Report this comment