Large Numbers Podcasts

Since national elections fifteen months ago, Belgium has been in the grip of a profound political crisis, prompting speculation that the country might split. What has caused this political stalemate and what lies ahead for this deeply divided country? TRANSCRIPT: Keri Phillips: This is ABC Radio National. Keri Phillips here with Rear Vision. Philip Dewinter: We are not in favour of a multicultural society; we think that our society is having its own culture, our Flemish-European culture, and I think that should stay like that. Reporter: Philip Dewinter never stops. His message is defiantly extremist and he peddles it on the streets, in local halls and in bars all over Flanders, the smaller half of Belgium that borders Holland and is dominated by the Flemish-speaking population. His party, the Vlaams Blok, calls for the abolition of the Belgian State and the creation of the State of Flanders. Keri Phillips: The Kingdom of Belgium is a country of 10-1/2-million people, occupying an area about one third the size of Tasmania. Belgium´s two largest regions are the Flemish Dutch-speaking region of Flanders in the north and the French-speaking southern region of Wallonia. There´s also a tiny group of German speakers in eastern Wallonia. Belgium is divided into three geographically defined regions and also into three linguistically defined communities, each with its own parliament and government. In addition to these six parliaments, there´s a national parliament, which has been at an impasse since the most recent elections in June last year, prompting speculation about the very future of Belgium. Today, Rear Vision looks at the background to this political stalemate. The modern state of Belgium unites two groups of people who can trace their presence back to the time of the Roman Empire. Martine Van Berlo is a Belgian academic who until recently has been teaching languages at Trinity College, Dublin. Martine Van Berlo:It´s a long history. It started with the Roman Empire. Our regions were always a mix of Germanic and Romanesque cultures, and we were the northern border of the Roman Empire altogether four centuries. But in the 2nd century the Germanic tribes came and there was an invasion, and you can see that in that way we have a common culture that the whole area of Belgium was invaded by Romans and by Germanic tribes. The language border we have now is made more or less in the 8th century. Keri Phillips: More on the language border later, but in 1830 when revolution created the modern Kingdom of Belgium, French became effectively the official language. And the French-speaking political and economic elite treated those who spoke Dutch as second class citizens. Dr Martin Conway, a historian at Oxford University, says that this gave rise to a Flemish Nationalist movement. Martin Conway: It has a long heritage; it goes back to the late 19th century and put briefly, it was a Catholic movement. It was a movement of the Catholic Church wanting to rally working-class and rural Catholic people behind the Catholic Church, and in doing so, supporting a campaign for the emancipation of the Dutch-speaking Belgian people especially from the dominance of French-speaking political elites who were predominantly liberal and socialist and indeed from French-speaking employers, businessmen and factory owners. Keri Phillips: Dr Patrick Pasture is a historian from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. Patrick Pasture:You have to go back to the foundation of the Belgian State in 1830. That time French was the language of the elite everywhere, so French was adopted as the official language in all Belgium, though in the north, ordinary people spoke Dutch or a Flemish dialect. So in the 19th century there was a movement, a Flemish movement that arose that gradually argued for the recognition of Dutch besides French in Flanders. After the First World War, part of this Flemish movement strove for independence. Also the moderate wing radicalised to some extent, striving for autonomy. Keri Phillips: A series of language laws, the first of which was passed in 1873 gradually began to acknowledge the right of Dutch-speaking Belgians to use their own language. In 1921, the critical decision was made that Belgium would not become a bilingual state. The French didn´t want to learn Dutch. Instead, language would be bound to territory. World War II was a watershed in the relationship between the two cultures. Martin Conway: Yes, I mean historians always want to go back a long way, don´t they, but for me it is the Second World War that is the crucial moment. Up until then, or at least until the 1930s, Belgium had been a very successful state, created in 1830, celebrated its anniversary in 1930 and it seemed like almost the epitome of a modern European state. But the Second World War was incredibly disturbing of its patterns of government, because you had a large scale Flemish independence movement that allied itself with the Nazi regime in occupied Belgium, and also you had a kind of change of power between the two communities. After the Second World War, when there was quite rapid economic growth, there was a whole transfer of wealth from the traditional industrial south of the country, which had been very much the dominant force in the country and a sort of Francophone middle-class; the transfer away from them to new areas of the north of Flanders, where you for the first time, you had not Flemish independence, but you had the demand for Flemish assertiveness within Belgium. And in many ways what you get by the 1960s is a sort of in a rather exaggerated term, a Flemish take-over of the leadership of Belgium. At a political level it was Flemish Prime Ministers; it was the Flemish Christian Democrat party, the CDP, that was the dominant political party, and in economics too, it was a whole generation of Flemish businessmen who came to the fore. And that Flemish dominance then provoked a Francophone backlash, especially large industrial strikes in Wallonia, especially in the coal-mines, protesting against the mines being closed, but also protesting against the whole force of economic progress towards the north. And also for the first time, a Francophone middle class in Brussels, this besieged city in the middle of the Dutch-speaking Flanders, that suddenly felt itself under threat from Flanders, and that in turn provoked more Flemish demands. And since then, in many ways, you´ve had a continual circuit of Flemish and French demands for some sort of new deal within Belgium. Keri Phillips: At the beginning of the 1960s, Belgian elites still spoke a common language, French, and there were national political parties representing voters across Belgium. But in 1962, legislation was passed dividing all Belgian municipalities into one of the four language areas: Dutch, French, German and the bilingual area, Brussels-Capital, that includes the Belgian capital city and 18 surrounding municipalities. On this foundation of language difference grew a steady movement towards ever greater regional autonomy. Martin Conway: It´s very interesting in contemporary Europe how some languages become politicised and other languages don´t, and in Belgium many people spoke a mixture of Flemish and French for generations, without really thinking about those as important elements of their identity. But just as in other areas of Europe like the Basque country, or Catalonia, or Wales in the 1960s and `70s, so speaking your own language and the freedom to use your own language in every circumstance and not to use the other people´s language suddenly became a very important emotional element of Flemish identity. And many Flemish people, many Dutch-speaking Belgians, who do not necessarily think of themselves as in any way Flemish nationalists, which they still think of as a particular sort of heritage, almost of the Second World War. Many of them would nevertheless think that speaking Dutch in all circumstances, is the most important element of their identity, and they always resent what they perceive to be the inability of most Francophone French-speaking Belgians to speak Dutch. Now Dutch is not a massively difficult language, but you speak to most French-speaking Belgians and they portray the idea of learning Dutch to be almost impossible. At the moment, when Flemish and French-speaking Belgians get together in formal environments, in big political meetings, it´s increasingly a tendency of everybody to use English. And in some way, English becomes as it is in other parts of the world, the great compromise language. But it is true that language, this issue of language rights, is still at the centre of what a lot of people get agitated about, those in Flanders, but also say, in Brussels. Let´s remember that Brussels is a 85% or 90% Francophone city, French speaking city, the capital of Belgium, and yet it sits in the middle, or at least on the edge of Dutch-speaking Belgium. It´s surrounded by Dutch-speaking areas, and so you have this potentially rather dangerous element of Belgian politics which is a Francophone city that feels itself besieged in the language of French speakers by Flemish people, and a great deal of emotional excitement about how many Flemish speakers are coming into Brussels every day to work, or seeking to establish houses in Brussels and so on. Patrick Pasture:Since the regions become so autonomous, politicians are also elected only in their own constituency. They don´t need to be elected in the other region so they just follow the logic of their own community, of their own region. You have to know also as background that the economic conditions and the political cultures in the regions are totally different. In Wallonia it´s just an old industrial region. In the 19th century this was one of the most prosperous regions in the world, Flanders was a very poor agricultural area. That has changed in the course of the 20th century and particularly since the 1960s, which means that Flanders now is very prosperous and Wallonia especially the old industrial basins have declined. That´s the economic situation. Their political cultures are also very different. It´s different parties who dominate in Flanders, it´s traditionally the Christian Democrats, also to a certain extent liberals, and now also Flemish nationalists. In Wallonia it´s clearly traditionally social democracy that dominates strongly, now also liberals. If you combine those two elements, different political cultures, different economic conditions on the one hand, and on the other hand the fact that politicians have hardly any contact and empathy with the other and for the other, that is the main reason why you have now such a political stalemate. Keri Phillips: So what´s it like when people from Belgium´s two main cultural groups meet? Although poet Benno Barnard was born in Amsterdam, he´s lived in Belgium for 30 years. Benno Barnard: It is a small country, so you never like myself, I live on the language border, so I mean, I can see the hills of Wallonia from my window you know, and of course people cross borders and are mobile. And that is one of the reasons why there are problems, because traditionally the Flemish when they go to the French-speaking area or are among French speakers, tend to adapt, most Flemish speak French relatively well, sometimes fluently. The other way around is quite different; many French speakers will for example buy a house in the outskirts of Brussels or in the Flemish area, but some of them the what we call the `ancient regimes´, the old-fashioned French speakers, are then often too arrogant to bother to learn this little peasant language you know, because French after all is the traditional language of culture in Europe. Or has been so for 400 years, and that is where the core of the conflict is. Keri Phillips: Benno Barnard says that despite the differences there is an identifiable Belgian culture. Benno Barnard: What foreigners know about Belgium is usually limited, but many people all know Tin Tin for example, the name Magritte, the surrealist, what they all have in common is a certain askew look at reality, the way things are perceived here, the way people interpret reality is typical of a people, and now I mean both the Walloons and Flemish, who have learned over centuries, to live under occupying forces, and that creates a certain city type of humor, and mild distortion of reality, which I recognise as quintessentially Belgian. I´m Dutch myself, I was born in Amsterdam, and I´ve lived in Belgium for 30 years, but I can still see that as an outsider. So that is very typically Belgian culture, combined by the way, with probably the best cuisine in Western Europe. Nowadays I would say the Belgian cuisine is better than the French. And so this whole joie de vivre which is also very Belgian, you go out and you sit in a Brussels on a terrace and you eat moules frites and you enjoy life and you make jokes about politics. Some people claim that in fact the Walloons and the Flemish have everything in common with the exception of the language, whereas the Flemish and the Dutch only have the language in common, but they´re culturally very different. Like the Walloons and the French only have the language in common, but are very different because there is a Belgian way of life, a Belgian culture. Now that may be a somewhat romantic interpretation of facts. To an extent there are differences between the Walloons, regional differences, but then there are also regional differences inside Wallonia. This is Europe after all, and so there´s this patchwork. But ever since the Middle Ages these people have had the same powers governing them. They were part of Spain, they were part of Austria, they were a part of France, they were a part of Holland and power was always far away, it was in Madrid, it was in Vienna, it was in Amsterdam, but they were always governed by the same powers whether they were Walloons or Flemish so that created a bond. So I think all those arguments that Belgium is young, well, you know, it´s older than Germany as a state, or Belgium is artificial, I mean all states are artificial, they´re always a result of wars and bloodshed and people inheriting pieces of land and coincidence. There are no natural states. Maybe Iceland because it´s an island, but there are no natural states as such. Martine Van Berlo:I have the feeling that we have something in common; we have the same mentality, we have a common history, we have a common culture, we have even a common Belgian accent. The French-speaking people in Belgium have a Germanic accent in their French, that´s what the people from France say all the time, we have a French accent in our Dutch language, that´s so the Netherlands think about us. Even the German-speaking Belgian people have a kind of French accent in their German. We have, you can call it a Belgian accent. But are all these common things enough for a common future, that´s the question. But I feel for myself, I´m Belgian abroad but in Belgium I´m Flemish. I say my identity is Flemish. And when I´m in the Netherlands then I say I´m Belgian. In Flanders there is a kind of identity, but the Walloon people will say `I´m a French-speaking Belgian´, they will never say `I´m a Walloon, that´s my identity.´ But I think there is some, but it´s not so visible as in Flanders. Keri Phillips: Tensions over language divisions are at the heart of the current political impasse. Benno Barnard: There have been federalising the political system over the past 20 years, but the federalisation is not complete yet, and that creates certain difficulties because for example, there is one area in the immediate vicinity of Brussels where there is a significant number of French speakers, although it is Flemish territory. So you get these ethnic minorities and as always, you know, it causes some friction, particularly among those who refuse to accept reality and arrogantly behave in shops and just speak French everywhere. That is a decreasing number of people, but it still exists, and it is irritating of course. You know, you want to be respected in your cultural identity and linguistic identity. Anyway, that area is a constituency which is still bilingual; in other words, French speakers can still vote there. Now I personally don´t care, it has been the case forever, but the Flemish want it to be split up and they want to impede the option for the French speakers to vote in that constituency because it is inside the Flemish territory. That is the main cause for the current political problems, and then also the Flemish, more than the French speakers, want a large reform of the state, because they claim, and that is not untrue, the federalisation is not complete, which makes it hard. There will be elements that you know for example in traffic, certain roads for example, are taken care of by a Federal ministry so a Belgian ministry, but other elements like traffic lights, I know that the example is not concrete, but resort under a Flemish ministry or a Walloon ministry, see? And that complicates things. It is easier if you say OK, well traffic in general is two different ministries, a Flemish ministry and a Walloon ministry or it´s one Belgian ministry. Now what complicated things is that of course there are the hardliners, the separatists on the Flemish side, and the, well you would have to call them Belgiacists on the French-speaking side who are opposed to any, because they see it as, they interpret it as a loss of power so they are opposed to any reformation of the state. That´s also a minority. Also may 10%. Keri Phillips: The failure of negotiations over this electoral anomaly and how to proceed with further constitutional reform caused the Prime Minister, Yves Leterme to offer his resignation in July. This was rejected by the King, Albert II, who instead called on a small group of representatives from the three language groups to try to resolve the stalemate. Martin Conway: I think in many respects the monarchy is one of the key institutions for understanding the current crisis. Back in the period of the Second World War the King at the time, Leopold III, in many respects went along with the German occupation of the country, and after the war he did not return as King of Belgium, he was in exile. But there was a very great political crisis for roughly ten years about whether he should return as the King of Belgians. And that was resolved in 1950-1951 with a compromise, whereby his son, his eldest son Baudouin became King. Now Baudouin was then King for more than 40 years and although his beginnings were really rather unpromising, he became almost despite himself really, one of the symbols of Belgian national identity. And one of the rather astute political architects of solutions to crises. And then when he died suddenly in the early 1990s, there was a great outpouring of emotion about his death in the sense of Belgian identity being asserted through his death, but then he didn´t have any children and his brother Albert, who took over in the mid-1990s has been in many respects a very avuncular and kind of popular figure, but he clearly doesn´t carry the same sort of political weight as his brother. And there´s also the issue then of who will succeed because Albert has two sons, one daughter, and in many contemporary Belgians´ views, these figures don´t look as though they are destined the play the same role of being symbols of Belgian national identity. So just as there is a question mark over the state, there has to be a question mark over the future of the monarchy. Keri Phillips: How likely is it then that Belgium might have the kind of peaceful political divorce that Czechoslovakia had in 1992 becoming the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Martin Conway: It´s possible, it´s not likely. Whether it would ultimately lead to separation is I think the main issue that now preoccupies people in Belgium. People do not think that in the next two or three years Belgium is about to disappear off the map of Europe. The idea of what some people in Belgium called a divorce a la Czech, a Czech divorce, whereby Czechoslovakia fell apart very quickly. That never seems to be a possibility in Belgium, there are too many complex issues to resolve. There is the issue of Brussels and all the complexity of what you do with these French-speakers in the middle of Flanders; there´s the issue of the monarchy; there´s the issue of the national debt which is huge; there´s all sorts of problems which would take an enormous amount of problem-solving to resolve. So Belgium is not going to disappear. But I think what is more interesting and more interesting in a way as a model of contemporary Europe is the way in which not just Belgium but other nation state units in the 21st century Europe, are not working very well, are not satisfying their citizens in the same way, and we seem to be moving in 21st century Europe towards a sense that we´re going to have a lot of residual nation-states; nation-states that have not formally disappeared but have been rather emptied of a lot of their emotional power and a lot of their decision-making power, and that instead I would imagine in Belgium what we will see over in the next ten years is some more radical con-federal solution whereby we end up with a Belgium that still exists on the map, but where you might begin to colour the different bits of the country on the map in different colours, because they indicate the way in which the real power is in Flanders or in Wallonia. And they´re not that small either. Flanders would have under such a situation something like 6-million people, and Wallonia would have something like 3-million, and we have the problem then of Brussels somewhere in the middle. But look at the map of Europe currently, and of course there are places like Slovenia and so on that are members of the European Union, the Baltic States, which are not much larger than these political units and so in many respects Belgium is not breaking up into some sort of tiny little stone pebbles across the map of Europe. It´s probably engaged in some process of evolution towards becoming two or three smaller units, but as I say, that would probably be without formally abolishing Belgium, getting rid of the highly popular football team, getting rid of the in many respects highly popular monarchy. Those are things that I suspect will remain when the political power has moved much more emphatically towards regional government. Keri Phillips: Dr Martin Conway. We also heard from Belgian academics Martine Van Berlo and Patrick Pasture as well as the poet, Benno Barnard. Timothy Nicastri is the sound engineer for today´s Rear Vision. I´m Keri Phillips. read less