| Knuppel |
9 oktober 2007 19:44 |
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 03, 2007
ePaper
Even the most fervent partisans of a united Belgium feel that if the latest crisis born out of the June 10 legislative polls drags on for much longer, it could lead to a split in the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since June 10, 2007, when legislative elections were held, Belgium has been in the hands of a caretaker administration and the spectre of the country splitting into two has been looming larger with each passing day.
Will the wealthy, right-leaning, Dutch-speaking Flemings in the north who make up 60 per cent of Belgium’s population of 10.5 million people succeed in splitting the country along linguistic and economic lines? And if they do, what will happen to the monarchy, the French-speaking Walloons in the south, the German-speakers in the east and the cosmopolitan, mainly French-speaking capital Brussels, also the seat of the European Union and NATO, which finds itself inside Flemish territory?
Belgium today is a tangled web of questions and tensions with no answers or solutions in sight. The possible separation of Dutch-speaking Flanders from French-speaking Wallonia and the uncertain future of Brussels are no longer taboo subjects. Even the most fervent partisans of a united Belgium feel that if the latest crisis born out of the June 10 legislative polls drags on for much longer, it could lead to a split in the country.
The immediate cause of the present impasse was the victory of Yves Leterme and his Flemish Christian Democratic Party. They want more autonomy for the wealthy Flemish northern region. But they have been unable to find coalition partners willing to agree to their terms. The Flemish Liberal Party of the outgoing (now caretaker) Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt was soundly beaten in the polls. The other parties from the south, the Liberals and the Walloon Christian Democrats, are deeply suspicious of Mr. Leterme who would in fact like nothing better than having his own, rich, Dutch-speaking fief. King Albert II has once again called upon Mr. Leterme to start negotiations to form a government. But they could be an extremely protracted process.
Separation and strife have been a constant leitmotif in Belgium’s 170-year-old history. The north and the south have been divided along social, philosophical and political lines. But the language question has forever been moot. And the Flemings even today continue to decry the “arrogance” of the Francophones when calling for greater autonomy, if not outright separation.
The origin of this opposition goes back to 1815, some 15 years before the formal creation of Belgium when the victor nations who defeated Napoleon Bonaparte decided to re-fashion Europe in order to create a buffer zone between France and its enemies further north. They put together the principality of Liege, the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the Austrian Low Countries to create The United Kingdom of Netherlands. The new kingdom was placed under the reign of William I of Orange. But although economically coherent, the project was flawed because of severe linguistic and religious differences. And William I turned out to be a short-sighted leader, imposing Dutch as the official language and coming down hard on the French-speaking Catholic south.
The revolution of July 1830 in France when the Bourbon monarch Charles X was overthrown to be replaced by his cousin Louis-Philippe, the Duke of Orleans, inspired Catholic and liberal revolutionaries in Belgium. Riots broke out in Brussels and quickly spread elsewhere. The King tried to crush the revolt but was unable to re-take Brussels and a provisional Belgian government was set up in the city on September 26, 1830, with a declaration of independence on October 4. But it was not until 1939 under the Treaty of London signed by the major European powers (including The Netherlands), that Belgium was recognised as an independent and neutral country. The new nation comprised the provinces of East and West Flanders, Brabant, Antwerp, Hainaut, Liege, Namur as well as that of Luxemburg and Limburg.
But Paul Belien, a specialist on Belgian affairs, argues that Belgium was “established as an independent state after a historical accident that only in retrospect came to be known as the Belgian Revolution.” The new state was unwanted, he argues, by both the Dutch-speaking majority and the French-speaking minority. The latter in fact wanted to join France. But it was forced into a compromise by the Great Powers who turned Belgium into a neutral independent kingdom with a non-indigenous prince, the German Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who became the first King of the Belgians. The initial triumph of the Francophones led to a reversal of the earlier situation and as French took ascendancy over Flemish and the famous “Francophone arrogance” grew, a feeling of discrimination and discontent simultaneously took root in Flanders.
Because of the artificial nature of Belgium, says Paul Belien, its King has more power than any other constitutional monarch. Power is vested not in the country’s Constitution but in the monarchy. The King, because he is neither Fleming nor Walloon but German, is the only truly Belgian institution in the land. Because of the fragile nature of the state, Belgian Kings over the past century-and-a-half have used various methods to impart a sense of “nationhood” to this totally artificial creation.
Leopold I tried to bind the people together through religion. His son, Leopold II, used outside conquest — especially the colonies in Africa — as a means to fan nationalist feelings. Albert I who reigned from 1909 to 1934 tried to unify his people by creating entrenched vested interests through a system of division of the spoils. In fact, he laid the foundations of a welfare state. Belgium’s last three kings however have been less effectual and the reigning monarch Albert II’s popularity has suffered a major blow because of his inability to broker some kind of compromise.
Over the years, the French-speaking regions (which once boasted heavy industries such as steel and coal) have lost out economically and it is now the Flemings who deride the Walloons as “lazy socialists.” Presently, Belgium has an extremely complicated system of governance called “double federalism”. Each of the three regions (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels) has a “government” while there are three language “communities” (Dutch, French and German) along with a federal government which represents the nation as a whole on the world stage but which is often at loggerheads with this or that regional or communal government at any given time.
The question that now lies at the heart of the Belgian and European debate (for, has not the so-called success of Belgium been touted as the model par excellence for a federalist Europe?) is the pertinence of this model. Flanders — wealthy, right wing (extremist parties such as Vlaams Belang have a considerable following here), enterprising and business-headed — has nothing in common with Wallonia which is left-leaning, slow to modernise and whose politics is dominated by the discredited and scandal-ridden Socialist party. The federative model was once a seductive solution but appears less efficient and rational in the face of the divergent political and economic destinies of the constituent parts. Unemployment in Flanders is 9 per cent compared to the 17 per cent in Wallonia and over 15 per cent of the receipts of the French-speaking south come from the wealthier north. “Why should we pay for these lazy left-wingers” is an oft repeated complaint in Flanders.
The extreme right wing Vlaams Belang party has been calling for a unilateral declaration of independence by the Flandres regional parliament. Such a scenario could not be immediately envisaged. But what would happen if the Brussels-Hal Vilvorde area were to declare, by a simple majority as stipulated by the law, that it was breaking free and taking away the “special rights and privileges” graciously given to the 150,000 francophone persons living in the Flemish periphery of Brussels? Could “linguistic cleansing” be contemplated or resorted to?
Most politicians say that although the present crisis is serious, they will eventually find a way out. And although 43 per cent of the population said in a recent poll that a break-up was imminent, 70 per cent of the country remains opposed to a split. Some economic good news might be around the corner and could ease the situation somewhat — economic predictions for Wallonia have improved and should take the wind out of the sails of the most virulent separatists.
The First World War was fought to preserve Belgium’s neutrality and independence. A break-up now for purely petty nationalistic and economic reasons would be a betrayal of all those who fought and died in the killing fields of Flanders, says the former Flemish Christian Democrat Prime Minister, Rudy Eyskens. For him a split will be “a terrible amputation” with an independent Flanders becoming “a small insignificant state” whereas a “Little Belgium will continue with Wallonia, Brussles and its periphery.”
Never has mutual suspicion appeared so strong. The Walloons suspect that the Flemings have made up their mind to break apart and await their next moves with trepidation. The Flemings are convinced that the Walloons are cynically hoping to take advantage of Flemish wealth and industry for as long as possible. Economist Rudy Aernoudt, who is ardently opposed to a split, says: “We must first define common objectives to make the state more efficient. The decentralisation of certain powers and the recentralisation of others is the sensible way of going about this business.”
|
