The new buzz word: 'confederalism'

With eighteen days to go until the elections of June 13th, a very odd thing is happening: the Flemish nationalist party N-VA is heading for a big victory, but is promising not to declare the independence of Flanders. The new buzz word is 'confederalism'.

After three years of inaction everyone seems to understand that Belgium can't afford another period of it. Splitting the country is considered being too difficult, especially with nervous financial markets looking at this national debt that is nearing 100 percent of GDP. Therefore, a confederal state in which more power goes to the regions should be the best option. N-VA can live with it (as a temporary stepping stone to the real thing) and so can the other parties in Flanders.

In the French speaking part of the country, the situation isn't that clear, but an odd thing has happened as well. While the N-VA is described in the French speaking press as an extremist almost far right party (which it is not, in my opinion) no one of the three biggest parties (socialists, liberals and greens) excluded the N-VA from a future government coalition. Probably they fear the N-VA will win by such a landslide that they will become what is called 'incontournable', a must.

And then there is this other signal: N-VA president Bart De Wever, a witty conservative with a knack for Roman history and Edmund Burke, didn't even rule out the scenario that Elio Di Rupo, the president of the French speaking socialists, could be the next  prime minister. As long at least as De Wever gets a state reform in return from the prime minister. Of course this too is pragmatism, as the PS of Di Rupo is heading for the victory in the French speaking part of the country. But as the N-VA traditionally claims that the party of Di Rupo is loaded with all the sins of Belgium, this is quite a change.

There is something else which is very weird too. In the Flemish electoral campaign, not a single party is clearly defending the achievements of the outgoing government of prime minister Yves Leterme. Leterme himself doesn't participate at the elections as the leader of his party. And the other government party, the liberals of Open VLD, has a new political leader, Alexander De Croo, who wants his party to regain its liberal credibility.

So there it is: no one wants a sequel of what happened after the elections of 2007, but most of the parties don't want the country to split up either. Somewhere in the middle is this very new buzz: confederalism. If it can work, is a big question. But a lot of people seem very eager to find out.

Bart Haeck

Elections, chaos and opportunities

So elections it will be. In June, the Belgian people will elect a new federal parliament and will reshape the political landscape and in that way make a solution for the BHV crisis either more easy or difficult.

Three questions emerge. Why were elections the only option? How disastrous will the organization of the vote be? And does even this cloud a silver lining?

As we explained in our previous post, there were some scenarios to find a way out of the crisis.

• The first one was that a solution for the electoral district was found after all. This appeared to be wishful thinking. The Flemish Christian Democrats of prime minister Yves Leterme and the French speaking parties said that a compromise was in reach – and blamed Open VLD for giving up too soon. But it appeared that even the distance between CD&V and the French speaking parties was to wide to find a compromise in the last week.

• The second option was a new government without elections. In that scenario the only realistic option was that the Flemish socialists of sp.a would join the government. They refused. In the words of president Caroline Gennez you can’t repair a car that is a total loss. Replacing Open VLD in the federal government with other political parties was even more difficult, given the differences in political views.

• The third option was that a law on BHV would be voted in parliament, but that didn’t happen. The Flemish parties tried to do so last Thursday, but the French speaking parties used their constitutional tools to prevent a vote. The Belgian constitution states that when MP’s of one community want to vote a law that is considered harmful by the other community, that last community can start a alarm procedure. Voting is suspended for 30 days, time that can be used to find a new compromise (which is not expected).

• So the option that was left, was the one of elections. Which leads us to the second question:

How disastrous will the organization of elections be?

Quite a bit, it is expected. How can you organize elections in Brussels Halle Vilvoorde if the constitutional court has declared the electoral district is unconstitutional? In fact, it is a catch 22. You could say that you can’t organize elections because the organization will be unconstitutional. But then again, the constitution states that elections have to be held if a government loses the support of parliament. You can’t suspend elections for years and years.

What will happen are elections that maybe will be boycotted by some, and that will be contested by many. Then the new chosen parliament probably will validate the election result, because in its first session, it always has to validate the election of every single MP.

Well, if elections are held and a new government comes to power, it will enjoy a rare thing in Belgian politics: some quiet years. Next federal elections will be held in 2014. The same is true for regional elections. Only the local elections in 2012 could create some nervousness, but the impact of those elections is normally not so big.

So maybe, just maybe, after chaotic elections, finally a solution can be found.

Bart Haeck