The Role of Languages and Language Policies in Belgian State and Politics with Emphasis on the Flemish-Walloon Conflict

Magisterarbeit von Manfred Kohler

Introduction:

Through history, Belgium and its predecessor states have been subject to language policy strategies trying to establish and spread the power of a particular linguistic group. But these measures and strategies have caused tensions between the two major population groups in Belgium. At times they guaranteed the unity of state, at other times they jeopardized the coherence of the Belgian state. This diploma thesis outlines the evolution of the Belgian state from a unitary state to a federal state. One of the goals here is to present the social, historical and political background and events that underlie this process and to show the concrete results of the latter. The latent conflict between the relatively homogenous populations of Flemings and Walloons at the time of the foundation of Belgium in 1830 and the future manifestation of this cultural and linguistic cleavage plays a crucial role in these developments. Which cultural-political and socioeconomic circumstances and policies have driven this change of the structure of the Belgian state (polity) and its political landscape is merely one of the questions resolved in this thesis. The central hypothesis here is the following.

The evolution of the Belgian state from a unitary to a federal state is (in)directly linked to linguistic-cultural claims and language laws, which are based on differences in the linguistic and cultural spheres and are only conceivable in a historical, social and political context, with endogenous and exogenous factors assuming a role in the latter.

In order to answer this central hypothesis, this thesis comprehensively examines scientific literature on the Flemish-Walloon conflict, on language legislation and strategies and on federalism in Belgium, with Witte/Van Velthoven (1999) pointing out the difficulty of analysing the complex linguistic legislation und its background, since there are only few specialists in this field and even less scientific literature available on this specific topic. Insofar as this is concerned, this thesis bears an inherently empirical character because it examines language policies and the respective legislation inventory. On the other hand, there are interesting empirical research results at hand which help examine the central hypothesis.

But there are certainly more questions that need to be answered here. Which political actors and social movements have contributed to these structural changes in Belgian polity? What were the concrete implications and causes of Belgian language policies with regard to the party landscape and federalism in general? What are the particularities in today’s Belgian federalism in terms of the relation between the central state and its subnational units? Where is Belgian federalism going? Who are the actors and pillars of Belgium’s political system? What are their competences and what are the features of the political culture under which these actors operate?

Please bear in mind that this thesis permanently sheds light on measures and policies that regulate the relation between Flemings and Walloons when answering the above mentioned questions.

Belgium has been and is still called a consensus democracy, where the traditional parties (Socialists, Christian Democrats and Liberals) have long been able to guarantee the unity of the state applying specific consensus-based negotiation patterns that include cultural and socio-linguistic differences in the population. For quite a long time, the classic cleavages (Lipset 1967) between capital and labour, clericalism and anti-clericalism and centre versus periphery have determined the lives of Belgians. The latter have overlapped a socio-linguistic cleavage in Belgium’s population for a significant period of time. This changed in the early 1960s, but why? And what kind of an impact did it have on state and politics?

In the annex of this diploma thesis, there are two narrative qualitative interviews carried out in Brussels on 28 November 2007 with the Minister-President of the German-speaking Community (GC) of Belgium, Karl-Heinz Lambertz, and the expert in international relations of the Ministry of the GC, Dr Stephan Förster. These interviews will give an insight into Belgian federalism and personal views on the future of Belgium and its Communities and Regions, with the questions and answers being particularly exciting in light of the currently lengthiest Belgian Government formation crisis from June 2007 to March 2008. The world news on the dissolution of Belgium makes the interviews even more fascinating.

The structure of this thesis is intentionally kept in a chronological historical framework, since the questions examined here can only be answered in a historical context. In substance, the goal is to resolve the afore-mentioned problems in this historical structure, with a special focus on (linguistic) legislation and solutions concerning the relation between Flemings and Walloons in most of the chapters to come. Hegel (1807) used to realize in his Phenomenology of Spirit that truth can only evolve in a historical context and that human knowledge is always dependent on the history mankind had undergone and grasped. It is therefore also the goal of this thesis to go back in time in order to understand the present situation in Belgium. Before starting to examine this historical process, it is important to underline the nexus between nation building and language politics.

Table of Contents:

1.	Introduction	4
2.	The Nexus between Nation-Building and Language Politics	7
3.	The historical Evolution of the Belgian State	9
3.1	The pre-Revolution Period	10
3.1.1	The Border between Flemings and Walloons	10
3.1.2	The Burgundy and Habsburg Reigns: Belgian Identity and Nation-Building.	11
3.1.3	The Brabant Revolution of 1789-1790	12
3.1.4	The Napoleonic Period and Francophonization	13
3.1.5	Reversing the Francophonization: Belgium under Dutch Rule	14
3.2	The Belgian Revolution	17
3.3	Conclusion	18
4.	French Unitarism and Centralism in Belgium (1830 - 1914)	19
4.1	French Consolidation of the Belgian State	19
4.2	The Flemish Movement	23
4.3	The Walloon Movement	27
4.4	Belgicism	30
4.5	Conclusion: Revisiting Language Legislation until 1914	30
5.	Belgium during World War I, the Interwar Period, World War II and its Aftermath.	33
5.1	Paving the Way for structural Change of the Belgian State- The Flemings are getting stronger	33
5.1.1	The Francophones Stand Up	37
5.1.2	Conclusion	38
5.4	Flemings and Walloons in World War II	39
5.5	The immediate Post-War Situation	41
6.	The traditional Parties as the Pillars of national Unity-The Flemish Movement regains Strength (1944-1958)	45
6.1	Introduction	45
6.2	The new Christian People's Party (CVP/PSC)	48
6.3	The new BSP/PSB	48
6.4	The Royal Question as a Unity crisis and Turning Point	50
6.4.1	The varying Responses by the different Parts of the Country	50
6.4.2	Conclusion	52
6.5	The Schools Pact of 1958	53
6.5.1	The Interest behind and Nature of Conflict Resolution regarding the Schools Pact and the Implications of the latter	55
6.6	Conclusion	57
7.	Taking Account of centrifugal Tendencies in Belgium (1958-1970)	58
7.1	The 1962/63 Language Laws - Establishing a definite linguistic Border	58
7.1.1	Conclusion	63
7.2	The Linguistic Cleavage takes a Toll on the traditional Parties - The party-political Power Balance finally changes	64
7.2.1	The Volksunie (VU)	66
7.2.2	The Front Démocratique des Bruxellois Francophones (FDF) and the Rassemblement Wallon (RW)	67
7.2.3	Electoral Effects	69
7.3	The Collapse of the CVP/PSC over the Catholic University of Leuven-Conflict in 1968	72
7.4	Conclusion	73
8.	The Constitutional Reform of 1970	75
9.	The Constitutional Reform of 1980	78
10.	The Constitutional Reform of 1988/89	80
10.1	Prelude to the State Reform	80
10.1.1	The Fourons-Conflict	81
10.2	The final Passage of the State Reform	82
10.3	Conclusion	82
11.	Belgium finally turns into a federal State in 1993	84
11.1	The Prehistory of the 1993 State Reform	84
11.2	The new federal Structure of Belgium after 1993 (including the Changes made after the last Reform in 2001)-Components, Features and Particularities	85
11.2.1	The subnational Entities: Communities and Regions-How to interpret these two Concepts?	87
11.2.1.1	The Competencies of Regions and Communities	88
11.2.1.2	The Structure and Design of the Communities and Regions	90
11.2.1.3	The Regions and Communities at level of the European Union and the Council of Ministers especially	94
11.2.1.4	The Asymmetry between the exclusive political Competencies and the financial Autonomy of Regions and Communities	98
11.2.2	Remnants of the Unitary State: The Provinces and Municipalities	101
11.2.3	The Federal Entities of Belgium	102
11.2.3.1	The legislative Branch-The Chamber of Representatives and the Senate	103
11.2.3.2	The executive Branch - The federal Government and the King	106
11.2.3.3	The Judicial Branch	108
11.3	The 2001 Lambermont Agreement	109
12.	Summarizing some Particularities of Belgian Federalism and revealing the Hardships inherent in the Latter	110
13.	The most recent Government Formation Crisis after the 10 June 2007 federal Elections-Belgian is undergoing a fundamental Crisis	115
14.	Final Conclusion and future Perspectives	119
	Bibliography	123
	List of Figures	132
	List of Tables	133
	Annex: Interviews	134

Text Sample:

Chapter 4.3, The Walloon Movement:

The Walloon Movement’s predecessor was also of linguistic nature. The Societé Liégeoise de Litterature Wallone was founded in Liege in 1856, the members of which were mainly writers who feared that the Walloon language would be marginalized by French. There were no political goals whatsoever, neither were there tendencies to fight the predominance of French in Belgium (Van Dam 1998: 75f).

It was not until the last two decades of the 19th century that a political Walloon Movement came into being. Ironically, this movement did not start in Wallonia or Brussels, but in Flanders. The founding members of this association of people were mainly high French officials who felt threatened by the impact of Flemish language legislation forcing them to become bilingual. The main goal of these Walloon associations was the free use of French in Flanders, and they were kept alive in their struggle against the Flemish Movement, in their commitment to Belgicism and to classify French superior to Flemish, which they thought was just an accumulation of rural dialects. The Flemings considered them a bunch of reactionaries with the goal of defending the privileges of the old elite (Kesteloot 1998: 140). And, indeed, the Walloons and French speaking residents of Brussel saw themselves under great risk of losing their positions in society. They were especially afraid of the implementation of universal suffrage, bringing to light their demographic minority status more than ever before (Wils 1996a: 60).

1888 is widely known as the year of birth of the politically organized Walloon Movement. Three anti-Flemish groups were founded in Liege, Charleroi and Brussels consisting of members of the social elite exclusively and, as opposed to the Flemish Movement, driven at first by liberalism and mainly anticlericalism. This group’s influence on society was rather weak in the beginning. Never were there more than 300 participants at the four initial congrès wallons between 1890 and 1893. This was not to change until the Walloon Movement included the Socialists after the turn of the century with the latter having their power base in the industrialized Walloon region. At this time, the Socialist, Jule Destrée, from Charleroi became the main speaker in favour of the movement, which further moved away from its initial Belgicism in favour of shaping a specific Walloon identity. First steps in this direction were made during a congress in Liege in 1905 when the participants recognized the uniqueness of a specific Walloon tradition, history, artistry and literature for the first time (Kesteloot 1998: 143). Walloon claims for autonomy became more and more radical as a result of the fear of being politically suppressed by the Flemish demographic majority. At the Walloon congress in Liege of 1912, the Walloon Socialists and Liberals formed the Assembly wallonne, a Walloon shadow parliament with the aim of pursuing the Walloons’ interests. The latter could only be guaranteed when administratively separating Belgium, for the official recognition of Flemish in Wallonia was to be averted under all circumstances. There was clear opposition against the further spread and use of Flemish in Flanders, and the congress members created a specific Walloon flag and a national holiday, the last Sunday of September in memory of the 1830 revolution (Clijsters and Timmermans 2007: 96f; Hecking 2001). Deprez (1992: 26) cites Destrée’s famous letter to King Albert I:

„Laissez-moi dire la vérité, la grande et horrifiante vérité : il n’y a pas de Belges. J’entends par là que la Belgique est un État politique, assez artificiellement composé, mais qu’elle n’a pas une nationalité. […] Vous régnez sur deux peuples. Il y a en Belgique, des Wallons et des Flamands ; il n’y a pas de Belges“.

Destrée suggested solving the problem by federalizing the Belgian state because he thought that a Belgium formed out of the union of two independent and free peoples was stronger than a dishonest unity, with one half being suppressed by the other (Ibid).

As was said before, the Walloon Movement was a counter reaction to the Flemish Movement right from its beginning. Its members did not really manage to form a specific Walloon identity. While the movement was very liberal and Belgicistic in its initial period, it changed its political course under the aegis of Jule Destrée and the Socialists. In the years leading up to World War I, the Walloons made federalist claims and thus wanted to increase their political competences and administratively separate Belgium. Albeit founded much later, the Walloon Movement was already far more radical in its views than the Flemings in 1914 (Destatte 1997: 408f).

Belgicism:

One was able to identify the evolution of a candid Belgian nationalism or Belgicism in Brussels at the turn of the century mainly supported by intellectuals such as the historian Henri Pirenne and the lawyer Edmond Picard as a result of regionalist tendencies in Flanders and Wallonia,. This Belgian nationalist movement was leftist and liberal, exclusively French and directed against the Flemish Movement especially. As was the case in 1830, the goal was to shape a distinct Belgian history and identity that tried to bind together the Flemings and Walloons. The Belgian nationalists strove for a greater Belgian nation, comprising Luxemburg and parts of the German Reich. Until the outbreak of Word War I, however, this movement remained politically insignificant (Belien 2005: 132).

Revisiting Language Legislation until 1914:

Concluding from what was said before, it should to be noted that the Flemish Movement was the driving force behind pro-Flemish language legislation, but only thanks to support of the Catholic Church and owing to the Meeting Partij’s and Catholic Bloc’s legislative initiatives in the Chamber. The Walloon Movement, however, did not manage to form a particular Walloon identity until then while still recognizing its radical claims.

Summarizing once again the decisive laws to end Flemish discrimination, one can highlight a number of major pieces of legislation. First of all, the recognition of the use of Dutch in trials against Flemings in 1873. The wrongful indictments of two Flemings mentioned under 4.2 led to heavy protest with ten thousands of Flemings taking part in a protest in Brussels that preceded the above mentioned law of 1873 (Witte and Van Velthoven 1999: 84).

Secondly, there is the public administration law of 1878 also recognizing the use of Flemish at all levels of public administration in Flanders. This meant that it was the right of individual Flemish people to be administrated in their native language, not in the language of public officials, which was still French mostly. However, municipalities and provinces were not taken into consideration in the substance of the law. So the law mainly applied to the relation between the central administration on the one hand and Flemish individuals and administrative bodies on the other hand. Still this fact could not avert the gradual Dutchification at the local level, with the implementation of census suffrage (4 votes at the maximum) at the communal level in 1895 further contributing to this development. It should be noted that the francophone ministries in Flanders permanently infringed upon this 1878 law. So equal treatment only existed on the paper (Ibid: 85).

Thirdly, there is the law of 1883 recognizing the use of Dutch in Flanders’ public secondary school system. The most important provision of this law stated that Dutch lessons (carried out in Flemish) and the use of Dutch in German and English lessons should be applied to two further subjects, namely history and physics. But the law also recognized the existence of bigger French speaking populations in Flanders giving them the right to form Walloon departments with exclusive French speaking education. So the French speaking people used the vague formulation of this law in order to undermine Flemish claims for equal treatment. However, this law led to the training of first Flemish speaking teachers in the secondary school system that would make more radical claims for Dutch speaking universities in the future (Ibid: 89). It should also be noted that Edward Coremans even tried to apply this law of 1883 to Catholic secondary schools, but failed in achieving this goal because the French speaking office of the bishopric considered this initiative a state intervention in Catholic matters. So the Flamingants hoped for further democratization of electoral law moving away from census suffrage to universal suffrage in order to press their claims effectively (Witte and Van Velthoven 1999: 92).

Fourthly, the Law of Equality of 1898 provided for the official recognition of Flemish or Dutch along with French. It should again be born in mind that the Socialists were the sole Walloon supporters of this law and that the main reason behind this piece of legislation was the presence of non-French speaking deputies in parliament as a result of democratization of electoral law. There was then a need for equal treatment of Dutch and French in official legal texts. The Chamber almost unanimously adopted the law whereas the Senate completely diluted the latter with the French text of the law remaining the only legal version. The Dutch translation was merely considered an official translation. This led to the famous Flemish march to Brussels (Schaarbeek) supported also by Socialists. This protest finally led to the adoption of the law in 1898 (Ibid: 98). With regard to the future implementation of universal suffrage in 1921 and the corresponding socialist threat, the Catholics and the episcopate then laid the foundation of the system of pillarisation (ideological apartheid owing to a network of organizations) with a division of society into various spheres of influence (Ibid: 92).

Finally, it should be mentioned that there were also claims to make the military bilingual, but in reality these initiatives all failed. The military officials remained French speaking for the most part. However, Flemish speaking military staff received fundamental rights at military tribunals as a result of the revision of the penal code in 1899 (Ibid: 98).

Having recapitulated and supplemented these pieces of legislation, there had already been tensions between Flemings and Walloons at the economic, political and cultural-linguistic level before World War I. The Flemish Movement was then of mainly agrarian and Catholic-Christian democratic nature and was pushing for the emancipation of its suppressed language while the initially liberal and later on socialist and permanently anticlerical Walloon Movement tried to avert this. These antagonisms were further nurtured by a system of majority voting that was in place until 1899. With the exception of one electoral circle in Brussels, there was not a single socialist or liberal deputy elected in Flanders and not a single Catholic deputy elected in Wallonia between 1886 and 1900 (Wils 1996b: 206; Mabille 1996: 41).

As a result of their demographic strength, the Flemings managed to assert their claims for bilingualism in Flanders and the official recognition of Dutch as a second national language until the end of the 19th century. This eliminated a democratic deficit in Belgium.

The Walloons were neither willing to abolish French in Flanders nor were they willing to allow the implementation of Dutch in their part of the country. They rather pressed for more protection by the central state in favour of the francophone minority in Flanders, administrative separation as well as regionalization of central government competencies (Rochtus 1998: 6).