Congratulations to Belgium, which holds since midnight the world record cabinet formation after the elections now exactly 250 days ago. Being the founders of surrealism, the Belgian people decided to celebrate this with people’s parties in open air, especially a big one Gent. The poster says ‘steun onze helden’, that is, ‘support our hero’s’, but this should be interpreted as ironically as possible. The people organising and attending these parties are fed up with the Belgian politicians who are unable (or unwilling?) to form a coalition and govern the country. If you want to see another piece of Belgian surrealism, watch the Flemish comedian Geert Hoste giving an interview to CNN in which he comments on the situation and the festivities.
It’s been absolutely impossible to keep up with all the twists and turns in the many different stages of the many attempts to form a government, but basically the upshot is that the biggest francophone party (the PS, a socialist party), is diametrically opposed to the biggest Flemish party (NVA, a democratic flemish-nationalist party). They are diametrically opposed in ideology (NVA is not only a nationalist, but also a conservative party), ideas on how to reform (or not reform) the country, and in political culture too.
On twitter, the key word to follow commentaries on the Belgian political situation has become #nogov, and it’s interesting to follow the comments by Belgian politicians and political scientists. But since the Belgian professors are less likely to use surrealism in their statements, it’s also become quite depressing to read their commentaries: many of them are increasingly desperate about how the hell we are going to escape this mess. Plenty of ideas around, but none of them that has, so far, been able to attract the approval of a political majority.
{ 39 comments }
x. trapnel 02.18.11 at 10:14 am
I take it that you don’t find the silver-lining interpretation–hey, if it’s been 250 days without a government, maybe even the worst-case scenario (dissolution) isn’t that bad?–particularly comforting?
John Quiggin 02.18.11 at 10:49 am
Two diametrically opposed parties is not, in itself, a problem; in fact, it’s more or less the norm. So the big question is why the PS can’t ally with a Flemish left party, or, less appealingly with a Francophone conservative/nationalist party. Is there some party that is considered “out of bounds”, like Sinn Fein or Die Linke, thereby making a majority coalition impossible?
Ingrid Robeyns 02.18.11 at 11:03 am
John, NVA is the biggest party in the country, and the party demanding the most radical reforms of the structures of the state. I don’t think they are considered ‘out of bounds’. They stand for a political program that many people don’t like (very rationalistic, and with much weaker financial solidarity between the different geographical parts of the country), but they are not undemocratic. So to ignore them would not solve anything.
There is an unwritten rule in Belgium that each coalition must consist of parties of the two big linguistic groups. Having only a coalition of francophone parties could, I think, nummericlaly not led to majority,and having only a coalition of only flemish parties would be seen as a great insult (perhaps even provocation) to the francophone people (and rightly so, in my view).
The other theoretical alternative, for PS to form a coalition with leftist parties in Flanders, doesn’t get a majority either. The majority of the Flemish voters vote right-wing (or center-right).
All parties by now agree that some structural reform of the country is needed, so they are all committed to that vague general goal: but the disagreements are about how to fill in this vague general commitment to a state reform.
mealworm 02.18.11 at 11:08 am
Why can’t NVA form a coalition with Francophone right-wing parties?
vasi 02.18.11 at 1:55 pm
@John, the party outside the cordon sanitaire is Vlaams Belang, which apparently wants to deport all the immigrants or some such. Lovely.
@Ingrid, is there some reason a centre-right coalition wouldn’t work? NVA + both Flemish and Wallonian Christian Democrats + Mouvement Réformateur + Flemish Liberals would seem to make a majority. Would the Wallonian parties refuse to support the NVA?
Randy McDonald 02.18.11 at 2:06 pm
If it’s impossible to form a Belgian national government, why bother keeping Belgium around?
Steve LaBonne 02.18.11 at 2:08 pm
As long as they keep the beer coming I don’t care what they call the successor states it comes from. ;)
Randy McDonald 02.18.11 at 2:27 pm
Walloon waffles is alliterative, too!
But seriously. If the Belgian political scene has become so profoundly divided on ethnolinguistic lines that it’s impossible to form a viable national government, and the main things keeping the country together are the problems associated with coming apart as opposed to any positive sentiment …
salazar 02.18.11 at 3:00 pm
@6: If you split Belgium, who gets to keep Brussels?
BJN 02.18.11 at 3:29 pm
@9
The Israelis of course.
piglet 02.18.11 at 4:12 pm
Hektor Bim 02.18.11 at 5:19 pm
I think the reason people keep Belgium around is that they fear the consequences of the breakup. The big prize is Brussels, geographically within Flanders but culturally largely Francophone (among its Belgian citizens).
Neither party wants to give up Brussels, and the stronger party (Flanders both demographically and financially) wants to keep hold of Brussels. The weaker party is more invested in the state of Belgium for historical and current balance-of-transfer reasons, so it doesn’t want to split.
roac 02.18.11 at 5:41 pm
Assuming a split, is there measurable sentiment in either of the presumptive rump states in favor of enosis with France/the Netherlands?
salazar 02.18.11 at 7:00 pm
@13: I haven’t heard of Flanders re-uniting with the Netherlands (keep in mind the split from the Netherlands is what created Belgium in the first place). But there’s minority sentiment in the Walloon lands for union with France. How strong that “rattachiste” movement is, I can’t tell.
roac 02.18.11 at 7:05 pm
Thanks.
My understanding is that the 1830 revolution was largely about religion (the border between Belgium and the Netherlands pretty much marking the limit of what the Duke of Parma was able to take back from the United Provinces). Am I wrong? and if I’m right, is the religious issue still important?
sean 02.18.11 at 7:33 pm
@Ingrid, is there some reason a centre-right coalition wouldn’t work? NVA + both Flemish and Wallonian Christian Democrats + Mouvement Réformateur + Flemish Liberals would seem to make a majority. Would the Wallonian parties refuse to support the NVA?
a cross-linguistic group won’t work, because one of the NVA’s basic demand is some form of devolution/ division, on the premise that (these days, not always historically) the Flemish part of the country is a net payer of taxes and the Francophone part a net consumer. and no politician, no matter how right wing – especially a right wing one – is going to enter into a coalition that necessarily involves higher taxes and lower spending for their own electorate.
the PS, being notionally leftist, and thus willing to contemplate unpleasant realities, is willing to discuss with the NVA, but the basic premise of the Flemish nationalists – that they’d rather be Netherlanders, thank you very much (i’ll add here that there’s a significant minority of Netherlands citizens living in northern Belgium, because the costs are lower and the commute to work in the populous southern NL cities is easier) – is anathema to any Francophone politician, because, well, the Francophone part of the country can only lose by any devolution or partition.
and no deal can be done, or unilateral split done, until the status of Brussels-Hal-Vilvooorde can be sorted (they’re Fraconphone – and internationalist/ EU – districts in the middle of the Flemish part). it’s a bit hard for the Flemish nationalists to unilaterally secede when they have the de facto EU capital in their territory, but there’s absolutely no benefit to them to moderate their demands; thus the stalemate persists.
praisegod barebones 02.18.11 at 8:25 pm
Clearly making a bid for the H.D.Thoreau Good Government Prize
chris 02.18.11 at 8:38 pm
There is an unwritten rule in Belgium that each coalition must consist of parties of the two big linguistic groups.
Aren’t there any parties that have substantial support in both linguistic groups? That seems rather odd.
Norwegian Guy 02.18.11 at 9:05 pm
My understanding is that the 1830 revolution was largely about religion (the border between Belgium and the Netherlands pretty much marking the limit of what the Duke of Parma was able to take back from the United Provinces). Am I wrong? and if I’m right, is the religious issue still important?
Could it be that a shared Catholicism was one of the things that kept Belgium together? 1830 was before nationalism became really important, and religion was still a primary concern. But after society became more secularised, religion is no longer able to trump the ethnolinguistic divisions.
Andrew Edwards 02.18.11 at 10:26 pm
My immediate reaction to that poster was “this is EXACTLY how Canadians would react too”.
I wonder if there is something about binational countries and being willing to take political humour just a shade too seriously…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/11/16/bc_dorisday001116.html
Colin Reid 02.18.11 at 10:35 pm
@15: The Catholic/Protestant border in the Low Countries lies much further north – indeed, Catholics are now the largest religious group in the Netherlands. Few Flemings want to become Dutch, but in terms of religion, culture and dialect, they have a lot in common with the southern Dutch (less so with Hollanders and people in the eastern Netherlands).
piglet 02.18.11 at 11:36 pm
“If you split Belgium, who gets to keep Brussels?”
this crisis may require an American solution: declare Brussels a Federal European enclave. Let’s be generous though and give them a voting member in the EU Parliament.
Myles 02.19.11 at 1:58 am
I wonder if there is something about binational countries and being willing to take political humour just a shade too seriously…
As a Canadian, I say: you can never take political humour too far. Canadian politics needs more harmless random surrealism. Heck, it’s more interesting than whatever the Canadian government is doing right now.
tomslee 02.19.11 at 2:19 am
@Myles. Heck, it’s NOT more interesting than whatever the Canadian government is doing right now. (http://bcblue.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/oda-doc.jpg)
Chaz 02.19.11 at 2:27 am
If the Flemish want to secede they should stop crying and get on with it already. The question of what to do with Brussels could be easily answered by having a referendum in Brussels. I am guessing they would choose Wallonia, which means the Flemish nationalists really have no excuse for being so demanding. There is not very much Flanders in between the borders of Brussels and Wallonia. Brussels could function as an exclave perfectly well. Or, if the Flemish nationalists want to insist on perfectly contiguous states anyway, then the solution is simple: give the bit of land between Brussels and Wallonia over to Wallonia. There are a hell of a lot less Dutch speakers in that bit of land (and Brussels too) than there are French speakers in Brussels.
You say that no one would ever make a Flemish-only coalition, because it would offend and disenfranchise the Walloons. It seems to me that a party which has based its whole existence on resentment of Walloons would not be bothered by that; in fact it seems like a Flemish-only government is the only way they could get their demands. But I guess maybe the leftist Flemish parties won’t play ball? If the NVA are basically unwilling to work with anyone, then it seems like the only answer is a broad coalition of the Flemish left plus Walloon parties from both the left and the right. Which I guess explains all the arguing.
piglet 02.19.11 at 2:34 am
“take political humour just a shade too seriously”
I don’t know what that would mean. Btw it’s Carnival time! Is Carnival big in Belgium? You’d think it is since it’s Catholic. A world record in anarchy sounds like a heaven-sent Carnival theme. And I really like the Volksfeest poster. It doesn’t look to me like the sky is falling in Gallia Belgica.
Myles 02.19.11 at 3:00 am
@Myles. Heck, it’s NOT more interesting than whatever the Canadian government is doing right now. (http://bcblue.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/oda-doc.jpg)
I haven’t been following l’affaire Oda too closely, but this seems more pathetic and sad than anything else. Certainly it is a rather poor competitor to Berlusconi.
Where the hell do the (Cdn.) Tories find these losers? I wish if they are going to do scandal, at least do scandal, instead of this numbing tedium. I want to see Ministers of Finance caught on the same yacht as shady Russian oligarchs, Foreign Ministers caught in the lap of Moroccan exotic dancers, Defence Ministers found entertaining himself by gratuitously firing bazookas up in the forests by his cabin, Prime Ministers choking on pretzels and calling people bigots, Heritage Ministers disbursing arts funding to favoured pornography studios, Bilingualism Ministers caught on the mic mercilessly stereotyping Quebeckers and Newfies, International Trade Ministers running rum into Saudi Arabia, and if they are going to confine themselves to lying, at least lie with flair; instead of numbing denials, say that you were “economical with the actualité.”
Bev Oda, I have seen scandalous politicians, I knew scandalous politicians, scandalous politicians were constant amusement for me. Bev Oda, you’re no scandalous politician.
jacob 02.19.11 at 5:03 am
Well, there was Maxime Bernier and his crime moll girlfriend, but, yes, compared to Burlusconi, that’s small potatoes.
Myles 02.19.11 at 5:35 am
Is there a political version of Wife Swap? You know, Berlusconi can get a two-week respite from Italian newspapers, while Stephen Harper can work on his tan for a bit. Or to be truer to the plot, Berlusconi can swap with Sarkozy, so he gets to deal with his compatriot Carla Bruni for two weeks, while Sarkozy could merrily carouse with various exotic dancers for a bit; entirely up his alley.
I would definitely watch that. The Saudis would be disqualified, of course, given that with up to four wives they can hardly be expected to play by the rules. I seriously think that Berlusconi-in-Ottawa has genuine surrealist artistic value; someone could write a bad opera about it. And while Harper is enjoying his vacation, he can get a half-decent suit made, and find someone to give him a half-good haircut.
Given how unlikeable Harper basically is, the least he can do, if he can’t get the country to laugh with him, is to get the country to laugh at him.
Ingrid Robeyns 02.19.11 at 6:59 pm
Chris @18: it may seem odd from a comparative international perspective, but the answer is ‘no, there are no such parties’, because all parties have either an entirely francophone identity, or an entire Dutch-speaking identity. Citizens vote on parties of their own ‘voting district’, and those are divided (roughly) along linguistic lines (there are tiny exceptions, e.g. their is one francophone member of the Flemish Parliament). So political parties and political representation more generally are entirely ordered according to linguistic divides, which means that there does indeed not exist any party that has the support by voters of all linguistic groups.
Randy McDonald 02.20.11 at 12:08 am
@Ingrid: This is where Canada’s quite different from Belgium, not only because of institutions which cut across provincial and ethnic boundaries but because of the relatively blurred nature of the boundaries and the bonds between the two solitudes. Half of English Canadians belong to the Roman Catholic confession like the near-totality of French Canadians, the two major language groups don’t fit neatly into two hermetically sealed political divisions (though much more than a century ago), the Liberals and Conservatives depend heavily on support from Francophones, “English Canada” isn’t a single monolithic political entity, neither English Canada nor Quebec is a clear economic loser, etc.
On a separate note, why do Flemish nationalists want to keep Brussels as their capital? Apart from the apart lack of interest in the Bruxellois in being citizens of a non, non-Francophile, Flemish state, wouldn’t the incorporation of a large restive language minority risk creating independent Flanders a sort of mini-Belgium still caught up with language struggles?
Myles 02.20.11 at 12:10 am
On a separate note, why do Flemish nationalists want to keep Brussels as their capital?
That’s simple: money.
Randy McDonald 02.20.11 at 2:13 am
So, because of money and history, Flemish nationalists would like to keep the language conflicts going, just in a more localized form. Grand.
hix 02.20.11 at 2:42 am
To reinforce myles point, the difference is extreme, just look at the Eurostat regional gdp map.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/mapToolClosed.do;jsessionid=9ea7974b30e8578759e6762942158dd988aecaddf246.e34SbxiOchiKc40LbNmLahiKb3uQe0?tab=map&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tgs00006&toolbox=types#
Brussels 221, the next richest region 136.
Myles 02.20.11 at 4:37 am
It’s the third richest NUTS-2 region, behind Inner London (No.1) and Luxembourg (No.2).
However, Wallonia is poor enough that it is actually below the EU-27 average (it’s 83% thereof), while Flanders is reasonably above that average (it’s 116.2%). Something’s pretty obviously wrong with the Walloon economy.
On the depressed economy front, I just found out that there’s a good-sized Walloon diaspora in the (now also economically hopeless) state of Wisconsin. Funny how that works.
Ingrid Robeyns 02.20.11 at 12:30 pm
You have to be careful when interpreting these regional GDPs. A lot of the Belgian economy is concentrated in Brussels, especailly the headquarters of big companies, which means that regional GDP goes up. But to the best of my knowledge the population is much poorer than the population in Flanders (not sure how it compares with the Walloon region). Most people working in Brussels do not live in Brussels – and I think (but would like someone to confirm/rectify this) that many more high-skilled workers in Brussels live in Flanders/are flemish rather than that they are walloon people.
So if Belgium were to be split and Brussels were to become a separate nation, either there would be huge flow of immigrant-workers (living in Flanders/Walloon region but working in Brussels). But it may well be that some/many companies would move from Brussels to Flanders, since it is generally perceived as having a much more company& innovation-friendly policy, and more skilled workers, than the Walloon region.
So I think the ‘money’ argument doesn’t get us very far. My hunch is that the real reasons are a mixture of history and nationalism: Brussels was really regarded as part of Flanders until not that many decades ago, and it seems that most people (across the globe, really) don’t like to give up territory. As we know from history, giving up territory is seen by many nationalist as a huge blow. So the Flemish nationalists attach great historical/ideological value to Brussels.
Not that I personally support those sentiments. I’m with those who argue that if it were to come to a split, the people from Brussels should decide themselves what they want.
Alex 02.20.11 at 3:17 pm
Also, isn’t part of the problem that defining Brussels is itself problematic – if you count the suburbs, it gets a lot more Flemish, and the question then becomes one of where the city’s administrative boundary should be set.
Akshay 02.20.11 at 6:40 pm
Can we assume that people are negiotiating in good faith? Or is this part of a verelendungsstrategy by the NVA to end Belgium with a whimper, if not now, then at the next crisis foretold, in ten to fifteen years?
As for Brussels, IIRC it is by income the poorest region(!) in spite of the artificially inflated GDP figures. White flight will gradually turn the inner city into an immigrant ghetto. Unemployment is very high. The rich live in the nominally Flemish (for now, ad. #BHV) suburbs surrounding the enclave. I don’t know if&how current federal arrangements are causing this weird result for a potentially wealthy city, but I have to wonder whether the Bruxellois themselves won’t revolt at some point against them.
hix 02.20.11 at 6:45 pm
The Brussels nuts region has arround 1 million inhabitants just like the surrounding nuts region. Since the surrounding region is quite rich, im not buying that theres that much commuter distortion. At least its not nearly enough to make the median Brussel inhabitantion poorer than the median in the Flamish regions. Besides, control over the high paid jobs and corporate headoffices is valuable independent of higher inequality or commuters from outside.
Comments on this entry are closed.