The
year that was: As an enlarged EU searched for a raison d’etre,
Belgium
spent much of this year struggling with its own identity crisis.
January 2008
This year has been a busy and
volatile one for the European Union. The union started the year by welcoming two new members, Romania and Bulgaria,
and the euro area grew to embrace Slovenia, while
the single currency has grown from strength to strength.
EU leaders ended the year by sealing a deal on a controversial reform
treaty. But divisions remain as deep as ever regarding Europe’s
raison d’etre, with Europhiles in favour of greater
political integration to enable the union to punch its weight internationally,
while Eurosceptics want little more than a glorified
trading bloc. Personally, I’m all for closer integration.
Belgium, a founding member of the
EU project and home to most of its institutions, has also been experiencing a
serious identity crisis ever since elections
in June brought to the fore the demands for a new round of federal reform to
devolve more power to the regions – a move strongly advocated by Flemish
parties and equally strongly resisted by Walloon parties.
Ironically, Belgium may currently be falling victim to its
own and the EU’s understated success, and this could
be an early sign of a trend towards a post-national Europe
of regions. The economic stability brought by the single market and the euro
has meant that, although the political crisis has raised eyebrows around the
world, unlike previous impasses, it has not come with a serious economic price
tag.
Wilfried Martens, who was
premier in the 1980s during an earlier period of national crisis, said as much
in an interview. “The euro did not
exist [back then], and there was enormous pressure on politicians ... if we did
not find a solution, if we did not manage to set up a cabinet, the pressure
became intolerable.”
In addition, while the art of
Belgian compromise has prevented costly violence and conflict, the price has
been a process of reforms and ‘federalisation’ that has made Flemings and
Walloons relative strangers in their own land.
Now, after six months of post-election
deadlock, Belgians have finally got a government of sorts. Following
months of bungling and the anointed premier-in-waiting Yves Leterme’s
failure to strike a classic Belgian compromise between the country’s diverse
and polarised political factions, outgoing prime minister and Belgium’s de
facto caretaker leader Guy Verhofstadt has been called in to work his mediating magic and
cobble together an interim coalition.
But the country is certainly not
out of the woods quite yet. Even with the emergency government, there is still
no guarantee that negotiations to form an enduring coalition will succeed by
the Easter deadline.
By then Belgium will
have been left rudderless for almost a year, this means, in my view, that the
current coalition-to-be partners have effectively lost their mandate and new
elections should be called.
The danger here is that the far
right could make gains on the back of disaffection at the deadlock. Alternatively,
the socialists, who lost ground in the previous elections, could regain it. Whatever
the risks, I think new elections would be the most democratic way out of the
deadlock. And a friend believes that the way to solve the territorial pitch
battle over the electoral area of Brussels
and its environs would be to reinstate national parties.
What about the Belgians
themselves? What do they think of the unfolding situation?
Well, the ongoing crisis is
denting confidence in national unity and more and more people I meet are
voicing pessimism for the future. Flemish and Walloon friends have expressed
the view that they were born Belgian but they probably would not die Belgian.
This is reflected in public opinion polls. A survey conducted by the
Dutch-language De Standaard and the Francophone Le Soir before the election in March found that nine out of 10
Belgians expected Belgium to still exist a decade from now but half didn’t give
the country much of a chance beyond 2050. In August, another survey was held and
this time 38% of the Flemings said that Flanders
had to become independent.
“If you asked me a few years ago
whether Belgium
could break up, I would have laughed at your naivety,” admits Beatrice Delvaux of Le Soir. “In just a
few months, the unimaginable has become a possibility.”
In a previous article, I explored the
possibility and potential consequences for Belgians and Europe
of the country splitting up. I am personally in favour of the continued
existence of this complex and colourful land and, having only recently become a
citizen, I’m just getting comfortable
with this new aspect of my identity.
However, this is with the proviso
that Belgium
functions as an effective country and not as two de facto states. This would
require a broad change of directions and attitudes. Major efforts would need to
be made to construct national cultural and political institutions. This would
require the establishment (or re-establishment) of a bilingual media, national
political parties and a bilingual education system.
It would also require Flemings to
abandon their obsession with regionalism and Walloons will have to give on
being monolingual and monocultural – Belgium is more
than an economic space. If not, much as I dislike to say
it, a divorce may be the only viable solution, despite the ‘Gordian Knot’ of Brussels.
To decide the best way forward
requires a massive soul-searching exercise involving all segments of society. Since
the political elite is unlikely to start such a profound national conversation,
perhaps we need to look elsewhere to set things in motion - and the media could
potentially hold the spark.
Last December, the Francophone
public broadcaster ran a spoof broadcast claiming that the
Flemish part of the country had unilaterally declared independence. Instead of
such a contentious and controversial stunt, it is time for Flemish and Walloon
broadcasters to join forces and launch the great Belgian conversation.
They can adapt the format of the 100 Greatest Britons, of which there has
been a Belgian version, and other such television voting shows and recruit
prominent spokespeople to argue the case for and against splitting the country
and propose feasible alternatives for the future. Then, after considering all
the evidence, viewers could vote. This would provide politicians and citizens
alike with a gauge of the popular mood and would pave the way to a considered
debate on the country's future.
