International Conference on Federalism

Mont-Tremblant, October 1999

Session 6B) CSD Roundtable: "National Groups" FEDERALISM AND NATIONAL GROUPS A discussion paper presented by Ms. Brigitte Grouwels Member of the Flemish Parliament Member of the Council of the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium

The subject of this roundtable discussion is the relationship between federalism and what Ferran Requejo has called "national pluralism". What are the particular challenges faced by federal systems encompassing distinct national groups? I would like to take this opportunity to set out the case-study of Belgium as a plurinational federation. In doing so I will also try to answer some of the punctual questions posed by Professor Requejo. INTRODUCTION: BELGIUM AS A BI-NATIONAL STATE "Your Majesty, there are no Belgians." This famous line, addressed by a prominent Belgian politician to his King, sums up the Belgian institutional dilemma. The modern, centralized Belgian state, created in 1830, tried, but failed, to forge a single Belgian nation. Instead Belgium saw the gradual emergence and growing self-identification of two distinct national groups, largely along linguistic lines. Actually Belgium has three linguistic groups: a Dutch-speaking population, commonly referred to as Flemings, who live in the North and in Brussels; a French-speaking population, consisting of the Walloons in the South and the French-speaking part of the population of Brussels; and a German-speaking population, inhabiting a small area in the East. The German-speaking population is, however, very small in size (less than 1% of the total population). Furthermore, the main dynamic of the evolution in the Belgian institutional framework derives from the dichotomy between Flemings (who make up about 60% of the total population) and French-speakers (who make up almost 40% of the total population). It is therefore fair to describe Belgium as a bi-national state. BELGIUM AS A FEDERAL STATE The growing rift between the Flemings and the French-speaking population rendered the maintenance of a centralized, unitary form of government impossible. Indeed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s all the major Belgian national political parties split, giving rise to a fairly unique political party system with two Christian-democratic parties, two socialist parties, two liberal parties, two green parties, and so forth, all of them constituted along linguistic lines. Increasingly, the Belgian institutional decision-making process, in different areas of public policy, became deadlocked by divisions along linguistic, rather than ideological lines. The response to this institutional crisis was a gradual process of federalization, with major constitutional revisions in 1970, 1980, 1988 and 1993. Since 1993, the Constitution formally and explicitly identifies Belgium as a federal state. It should be pointed out, however, that institutional reform is ongoing. Indeed, later this month a new Intergovernmental and Interparliamentary Conference to discuss further refinements of Belgium's federal structure will open. The current Belgian federal system is, as Professor Requejo points out, an asymmetrical one, consisting of "Communities" and "Regions". This is largely the result of geographic factors, combined with differences in the internal dynamic of the two major language groups. There are three Communities, based on the different language groups. The Flemish Community consists of all inhabitants of the northern, Dutch-speaking area and the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Brussels. The French Community similarly consists of all inhabitants of the southern French-speaking area and the French-speaking inhabitants of Brussels. The German-speaking Community consists, as the name suggests, of all inhabitants of the eastern German-speaking area. Communities have exclusive competence for cultural affairs and education and extensive autonomy in the areas of public health and social affairs. Next to the three Communities there are also three Regions. The Flemish Region consists of the Dutch-speaking area in the North. The Walloon Region comprises the French-speaking area in the South and the German-speaking area in the East. The Brussels Capital Region consists of the bilingual area of the federal capital Brussels. Regions have exclusive competencies in the areas of environment, public works and land management, the economy, agriculture and employment. Communities and Regions have elected Parliaments and Governments. Their decrees and governmental decisions have equal status with federal laws and governmental decisions. Furthermore, they also have international treaty-making power within their respective fields of competence. On the other hand, the fiscal autonomy of the Regions is very restricted, and that of the Communities is non-existent. Communities and Regions are financed through a federal system, which allocates them funds drawn from the federal treasury on the basis of a range of complex criteria. Because all Flemings tend to identify themselves as a single national group, the institutions of the Flemish Region and of the Flemish Community were merged into a single entity which exercises regional and community powers within the Flemish Region, but only community powers within Brussels. Within the French-speaking population, on the other hand, inhabitants of Brussels and Wallonia tend to identify more strongly with their respective Region. Consequently, the Walloon Region and the French Community remain distinct and separate entities. To make the picture complete, the German-speaking Community has managed to take over, within its own language area, some of the powers of the Walloon Region. The end result is a patchwork of 5 federal entities (Flemish Community; French Community; German-speaking Community; Walloon Region; and Brussels Capital Region), all of which have a different set of competencies. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NATIONAL GROUPS AND THE FEDERAL STATE It is sometimes argued that Belgium is not really a federation, but rather a confederal federation or, if you will, a federal confederation. Because of the essentially bi-national character of Belgium, even the federal institutional level is organized along the lines of the two main language groups. Thus the federal Chambers of Parliament are themselves divided in language groups, and the Constitution prescribes that many laws of a fundamental nature must be approved by a two-thirds majority and by a simple majority within both language groups. The federal Government is itself composed of an equal number of ministers from each language group, not counting the Prime Minister. Similar safeguards are found in the higher reaches of the federal administration and the judiciary. The net result is that, even at the federal level, ministers and members of parliament have the tendency to behave as representatives of their respective language groups, rather than as representatives of the federation as a whole. The bi-national character of Belgian federalism is also reflected in the federal capital Region of Brussels. The Brussels regional government is composed of an equal number of ministers from both language groups, excepting the minister-president. Like the federal Parliament, the Brussels Regional Council is divided in two language groups, although in Brussels the equilibrium between both is more precarious. And the Brussels regional administration is staffed by civil servants classified as Dutch-speaking or French-speaking. This balance at the federal and Brussels level implies the rejection of the notion of "national minorities" within the Belgian federal system. French-speakers are not considered a "national minority" at the federal level, just as Dutch-speakers are not considered a "national minority" within the Brussels Capital Region. Instead the Belgian federal system is based on the notion of institutionalized equality among the two main language groups, irrespective of their size. CONCLUSION: COMPLEXITY AND ADAPTABILITY The Belgian federal system outlined above is of course very complex. Its complexity derives from its ambition to allow for the different internal dynamics of its constituent national groups. The case-study of Belgium seems to indicate that such a difference in internal dynamics can be an important feature of a plurinational federation and that it requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability of the federal institutional framework. The difficulties experienced by Canada, another plurinational federation, in finding a "definitive" constitutional settlement seem to indicate a similar situation. Thus, Belgian federalism too remains a "work in progress", facing new challenges every decade. Some of these challenges are related to the questions Professor Requejo formulated in his background paper. 1) The first and most basic question is: Will Belgium survive? Will the continuing process of devolution of power and competencies to the Communities and Regions strip the Belgian federation of all content and reduce it to an empty shell? Certainly the process of devolution has not come to an end. And in view of the continuing divergence in political, social and economic developments within both language groups, it is unlikely to do so soon. The challenge thus remains to accommodate the legitimate desire of each language group to develop its own policies, designed specifically to match its internal development, while at the same time providing an added value at the federal level in dealing with common interests. In the Belgian context this implies not only further constitutional reform and devolution of power and responsibility to the Communities and Regions, but also the internal reform of the federal governmental level in order to enhance its performance as the guarantor of the common interests of all its citizens. 2) The institutional development of the Belgian federation cannot be seen outside the context of the development of the European Union. Only a few years ago certain constitutional reforms were considered taboo because they would affect the Belgian monetary and economic union. With the advent of the Euro, this Belgian factor has simply ceased to exist. Some fear that the further "deepening" of the European Union (something which all Belgians favor) will create a European framework that will supplant the Belgian federal framework. So far the response to this fear has been to try to downplay the independent role of the Communities and Regions in international affairs, and to insist on the fact that the EU recognizes only Belgium as a partner in the European framework. In the long run, this is a self-defeating strategy. By insisting that only the so-called "nation-states" can participate fully in the development of the EU, one only ensures that all national groups will also strive to become nation-states. A better long-term policy is to develop the Belgian federation in such a way that it strengthens, rather than blocks, the impact of its constituent national groups at the European level. 3) Belgium not only lacks federally organized political parties. Flemings and French-speakers also read different newspapers; watch separate TV-stations; go to different schools and universities, which follow a different curriculum; and so forth. There are, in other words, relatively few unifying elements tying both language groups together. Clearly the most important unifying element is, or should be, the Brussels Capital Region: the only bilingual area, shared by Flemings and French-speakers. Indeed, Brussels is not only the capital of Belgium, but also of both the Flemish and French Communities. Clearly the development of stronger institutional ties between Flanders and Wallonia on the one hand, and Brussels on the other, could be a major factor in strengthening the Belgian federation. 4) As explained above, the Belgian federal system is not based on "national minorities" but on a partnership between the two major language groups. It remains a challenge, however, to integrate "new" minorities of foreign extraction into this bi-national system. This problem is especially acute in Brussels, where the number of inhabitants of foreign extraction is very high (well over 30%) and where they find themselves faced with not one, but two "native" national groups.

To return to the first question: will Belgium survive? I believe it can. But only if it can adapt and provide a framework suited to the internal development of each language group; if it can support the development of its constituent national groups within the European context; if it can provide all its citizens with a unifying capital; and if it can further the integration of new immigrants into the Flemish and French Communities.

Belgium, like any plurinational federation, can survive, but only by embracing its diversity.

Forum of Federations / Forum des fédérations

forum@forumfed.org