the curious case of Belgium

a divided society (problem)

divided society since independence (1830)

3 cleavages:

religion (catholic vs secular)

• oldest

• conflicts:

  • design new state 1830

  • separation Church - state

  • organization education system (secular wanted public vs catholic wanted private; education allows you to give next generations your beliefs)

• relevance today?

  • less important (secularization)

  • however: moral-ethical issues, integration

social class (capital vs labor)

• end 19th c; industrialization + emergence labor movement

• capital vs labor

  • right to vote

  • better wages and working conditions

  • welfare state: health insurance, pensions…

• relevance today: trade unions, employers’ organizations, social dialogue (influence trade unions and employers’ organizations in policy-making)

language (Dutch vs French)

• important after WWI (Flemish people felt inferior to French speaking majority

• conflicts

  • privileged position of the French

  • cultural-linguistic and economic autonomy

  • first state reform (unitary to federal state)

• relevance today: despite 6 state reforms, still important

cleavages institutionalized through processes of pilarization

pilarization: creation of dense networks of organizations that belong to the same subculture and that almost fully encapsulate its members

• population divided into pilars (catholic, socialist, liberal)

  • organizations in every pillar provide services so people can live from the cradle to the grave in their pillar, they don’t need to intervene with other pillars

• although: depilarization (organizations still visible today, but not the pilarization)

(pilarization in the netherlands, ~ similar to Belgian pilarization but instead of protestant Belgium had liberal and of course different organizations)

coinciding (overlap, reinforce each other, increase polarization) and cross-cutting (run across each other, internally divides segments, stabilizing factor because not always same opponent) cleavages

→ Belgium: cross-cutting cleavages (traditional pillars built on socio-economic and religious cleavage, linguistic cleavage runs through it and divides in degments), but also some coinciding cleavages

threats

• deep institutionalized divisions

  • leads to more vulnerable democracy

  • societal segregation

  • lack of cross-cleavage contacts

  • centrifugal logic

  • risk political immobilism and instability

a consociational democracy (solution)

consociational democracy: set of practices that allow divided societies to survive

basic principles:

1. power-sharing at elite level

   • spirit of accommodation (certain mindset needed to make this work; politicians believe in system, know the risk of majority system so listen to minorities etc.)

   • grand coalition (more than 50% votes but is needed to keep this system working), proportionality (all groups take share of cake in proportion with group size), mutual veto

2. segmental autonomy

   • allow segments to organize life according to own principles

   • no need for one-size-fits-all approach

Belgium textbook example of this system:

• since WWI, when political crisis arises:

  • leaders main socila segments try to reach an agreement

  • compromis à Belge (agreement that satisfies no one, but doesn’t unleash a civil war) (power-sharing) and more autonomy to segments for own policies and services (segmental autonomy)

• 1918: Pact of Loppem

  • aftermath WWI

  • King Albert I gathers party leaders to bridge divisions

  • avoid revolution: industry in ruins, unemployment, threat of communism

  • concessions for ‘radical’ demandssocialists:

    • electoral reform (1 man, 1 vote)

    • expansion right to strike

• 1944: social pact

  • great recession 1930, recovery WWII, role socialist movement, threat of communism

  • social pact

    • previously: already some separate social insurances, often on voluntary basis

    • now: integrated system of health insurance, pensions, unemployment benefits

    • for all employees

    • public and mandatory: financed by employees, employers, state

  • post-war: expansion social security system

    • important role pilar organizations = segmented autonomy

• 1970-2011: unitary to federal state

  • centrifugal federalism (unitary to federal)

  • no clear blueprint, gradual adaptions

  • system based on broad coalitions Francophone and Flemish parties (govern together or don’t govern at all)

  • attempt to de-fuse conflicts

    • granting linguistic-cultural (communities) and economic (regions) autonomy

    • quite succesfull but claims for reform remain

majoritarian experiments (disruptive and doomed to fail)

• royal question (1950)

  • King Leopold III return to throne?

  • WWII: government flees to London, king stays

  • he gets captured after capitulation, attempts to negotiate with Germany

  • even gets married during ‘imprisonment’

  • lack of gratitude after liberation

  • catholics (mainly Flemish) ‘yes’, seculars (mainly walloon) ‘no’; referendum yes wins → protest

  king may return, but due to protest party leaders compromise and advise king to give throne to son

  • concequences: realization that majoritarian tachniques don’t work and frustration Flemish and catholics

• school war (1950s)

  • conflict organization education system

    • 1950: catholic government - increase subsidies catholic school

    • 1954: socialist-liberal government - invest in state chools, cuts subsidies catholic schools

    • = massive protest catholic pillar AND majoritarian games not durable

  • 1958: school pact

    • recognition both state and catholic school networks

    • = pacification through consensus-seeking between 3 pillars and segmental autonomy

• 2003-2011: electoral constituency Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde

  • political candidates Brussels campaign for votes Francophone inhabitants province Flemish Brabant → unwanted situation Flemish politicians ‘Frenchification’

  • unable to compromise: Flemish try majoritarian way (splitting approved in parliamentary committee)

  • consequence: political deadlock

    • Francophone block decision-making through constitutional protection mechanisms, government falls in 2010

  • only resolved in 2011, after longest government formation ever using consociational techniques

Here is my explanation of district BHV to make it a little more clear:

so in Brussels, citizens could vote on Flemish AND Walloon poltiicians, because it’s bilingual.

In Flemish Brabant (Flanders), there were many towns where a lot of Walloon people lived and they could also vote for Flemish AND Walloon politicians.

Flemish politicians saw this as the Walloon politicians gaining votes on Flemish territory, which isn’t fair.

So after basically fighting and being difficult with each other, a decision was made that in certain towns around Brussels, citizens could choose to go to Brussels and vote on both Flemish and Walloon politicians, while all of flemish Brabant became a part of the votes of Flanders.

a democracy in trouble? (consequences)

consociationalism long-time provided stability

BUT

• transformation into cartel democracy

  • erosion traditionall cleavages (+ emergence new ones)

  • but old pillar parties: still strong grip on government, parliament and public administration

• transformation into partitocracy (=pol. parties dominant actors)

  • party leaders tight control policy-making

  • interference other actors minimized

• lack of political trust and emergence anti-establishment parties

conclusion

• consociationalism = way to bridge divisions

• but challenges

  • decline traditional pillar parties

  • emergence challenger parties

  • high party system fragmentation

  • different strength party families in North and South

  • continuing demands for regional autonomy

• politics of accommodation under threat

• potential deadlock? principles of proportionality and mutual veto