Historical Context and Summary of Recent Belgian Parliamentary Crises

Historical Context and Summary of Recent Belgian Parliamentary Crises

Belgium may be relatively small compared to most European countries, but, at least currently, its government is one of the most turbulent. After several long periods without a government, the problem basically boils down to a lack of agreement and cooperation between the Flemish (Dutch) speaking north, the Region of Flanders, and the French speaking south of the country, the Region of Wallonia.
This is a problem with very old roots. Historically, the language difference between the north and the south exists due to opposing influences from France and the Netherlands. It was from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands that, in 1830, following the Belgian Revolution, Belgium broke off as an independent nation. Due to Dutch having been imposed by the sovereign of the Netherlands upon a largely Francophone ruling class in the region, French was declared the country’s only official language.
However, as today, in the north the Flemish variant of Dutch was predominantly spoken. This created a sentiment of antipathy, and it wasn’t until 1898 that Dutch was recognised as an official languages. It was even later on, in 1921 that Dutch was recognised as the only official language of the Flemish Region.
But why does the problem continue today? Flemish Nationalist Parties agree that Flanders should be given more autonomy. Some claim that the people of Flanders are over-taxed, when compared to Walloons. This means that the more entwined Flemish and Walloon politics are, the more the Walloon will hold back the Flemish Region’s economy and development. There are several solutions to this. For instance, a move being taken towards removing any tax unbalances, but this does not solve the problem of Flanders being economically stronger than Wallonia. Alternatively, each region could be given more autonomy, which is a far less attractive outcome for Wallonia than for Flanders, which is one of the main reasons that this has not already occurred. Another solution, which has its strongest support from the Flemish Nationalist Party Vlaams Belang, is the independence of Flanders’s, and therefore the division of Belgium.
In the event of Flanders breaking off from Belgium, it is widely believed that Wallonia would be unable to support itself, and it is likely that it would be ceded to France. In recent surveys taken, it was discovered that the populations of both France and Wallonia were not averse to this happening in the event of a split (as with Flanders, there are also Walloon Movements [called Wallingatisms] such as the Mouvement Populaire Walloon, which had much influence in the early sixties. However, they are not nearly as large or influential as those in Flanders). The Flemish, on the other hand, claim that they would be able to maintain autonomy (if not, then it is most likely that they would rejoin the Netherlands). However, the Flemish base this statement on one very convenient assumption: that in the event of a split, they would gain Brussels.
To understand the importance of Brussels in the debate, one must understand the political infrastructure of Belgium. Belgium is split into three regions: Flanders, the largest, in the north holds 58% of the population. Wallonia, which is slightly smaller and in the southern half of the country, holds 32% of the population. The third and the smallest by far, is the Brussels-Capital, which consists only of the city of Brussels, the nation’s capital city. However, despite its reduced size, Brussels-Capital holds 10% of the Belgian population. The country is also divided into three linguistic communities. The smallest is the German Community, which encompasses an area within Wallonia that was acquired by Belgium in 1920, as a result of the First World War. The rest of the Walloon Region belongs to the French community, and the whole of Flanders is part of the Flemish community. But the region of Brussels-Capital is technically shared by both the French and Flemish communities.
However, one does not have to live long in Brussels long to realise that French is far more widely spoken in the capital (91% francophone, is perhaps the highest estimate, as conducted by the Flemish academic E. Corijn). And yet, when Belgium achieved independence, the majority still spoke the Flemish dialect of Dutch, and the region was part of Flanders until as recently as 1989. The Flemish Region completely land locks that of Brussels-Capital. There are several causes for the Frenchification of Brussels: immigration from francophone countries such as the Congo, a former Belgian colony, and various North African states formerly under French rule has contributed significantly to the 91%. Also, following Belgium’s independence, because Dutch was not given the same recognition as French, many of the Flemish living in the administrative centre that is Brussels adopted French simply because at the time it was a more advantageous language to be able to speak. Finally, Brussels become more of an international city over the last century, with institutions such as NATO and the EU basing their headquarters within the city. French is a more international language than Dutch, so this has also given the language an advantage in the city. Some even say that it is easier to get by with English in Brussels than with Dutch, due to the city’s internationalism.
So why do the Flemish believe that they should receive Brussels in the event of a split? The city is predominantly French, and administratively it has no more allegiance to the Flemish Community than to the Walloon. It’s because that’s not strictly true. Before Brussels was made a separate region in 1989, Wallonia had as its capital the city of Namur, and Flanders had Brussels. The amount of Dutch speakers in the city compared to French speakers was changing rapidly, but the city was still legally a part of Flanders. As Brussels has become more and more predominantly French speaking, and made a region in its own right, separate from Flanders, pressure has been put on the Flemish government to change its capital. However, the Flemish continues to adamantly refuse, believing that historically the city should belong to them. As long as Brussels remains the capital of Flanders, as well as Belgium, the Flemish will always believe that they have more right to the city than Wallonia.
So how has this problem manifested itself over the past several years or so? In 1995, the central province, and only to border an outside nation, of Belgium, Brabant, which until then had been part of Flanders, split into Flemish Brabant and Walloon Brabant, the latter of which joined the Walloon Region due to a francophone majority. Due to the Frenchification of Brussels beginning to spread outside the capital, it has been proposed that the Brussels-Capital region expand its borders to include outlying Flemish municipalities.
More recently, great troubles have arisen from the general election of June 2008. Three Flemish and three Walloon parties attempted to form a coalition government. However, disagreements occurred regarding constitutional reforms, and the division was made according to the parties’ regions. A poll at the time showed that 45.8% of Flemings believed that Flanders should be an independent state. The country remained without a government, with potential Prime Minister Yves Leterme repeatedly refusing to form a government while problems persisted, until December 23rd, when an interim government headed by former Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt was formed. On the 23 of March this year, Yves Leterme finally took up the role as Prime Minister, after the country had been ten months without a permanent government other than Belgium’s head of state, King Albert II, whose power is only limited.
Despite this, tensions still exist, having recently flared up during the governmental crisis. The main cause of the problems is that the ambitions of the Flemish Regional government do not always coincide with those of Wallonia or Belgium. The Brussels-Capital region’s hoping to extend its borders is still a problem for the Flemish Region, and negations continue. Will Belgium ever split? It is a hard question to answer, and it all depends upon the ability of the two regions to cooperate for the good of the nation as a whole, despite age old differences. One element that has kept Belgium together is Brussels’ apparent neutrality. Flanders may be able to survive as an independent state without it, but it is unlikely that it will willingly partition if it does not receive the city. In the event of Wallonia being incorporated into France, the French also wish to obtain the city. The city itself is currently the region most averse to a split, and as it is autonomous of Flanders, it is almost impossible for the Flemish Region to separate without the Brussels-Capital Region’s consent. This has resulted in a stalemate, which will likely result in more autonomy for Flanders, and consequently Wallonia as well, but never to the extent of a complete split.

Harry Cross