Cockpit of Europe

Press, 9 November 1978, Page 16

Cockpit of Europe

From the •’Economist,” London

Brussels may be a place to run Europe through the headquarters of the E.E.C., but it is no place for running Belgium. The Belgians are not alone these days in disliking centralised government. But their country has a particularly strong reason for pursuing devolution: it is the only way of ending the struggle between its two tribes, the Flemings and the Walloons.

In June, 1977, after Belgium's last general election. Mr Leo Tindemans formed a coalition government designed to introduce devolution.

The four coalition parties (Social Christians — a brand of Christian Democrats — Socialists and two militant regionalist parties) signed an agreement to this end, the Egmont pact. The coalition had more than the required two-thirds majority in parliament; Mr Tindemans (a Flemish Social Christian) was popular in both halves of the country. All seemed set.

Now a petty dispute about the status of the Brussels region has broken up the Government and forced a new election. The consequences could be more serious than most Belgian politicians now care to imagine

Belgium has no natural frontiers, no language of its own (Wallogns in the south sneak French, Flemings in the north speak a sort of Yorkshire Dutch, and there are Gertpan-speakers in the

east), and few strong or long national traditions.

Its only common ground is in being uncommon: Walloons feel distinct from the French of France, Roman Catholic Flemings feel distinct from traditionally Protestant Holland. But, until recently, the Flemings resented the French-speakers’ disproportionate share of power and wealth. But the Flemings have grown richer and more populous. Today 56 per cent of Belgians are Flemish, and income per head is 18 per cent higher in Flanders than in Wallonia. Wallonia has seen its declining coal, steel and textile industries suffer agonies. This tilt in population and power has made the Walloons defend their privilege. The Egmont pact provided that power should be devolved to three regions, Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels, each with its own parliament The 236 regional members’ of parliament were together to form the new senate in the national Parliament.

Brussels had to be treated separately because, although it lies north of the linguistic line and is thus surrounded by Flanders, 80 per cent of its citizens speak a Lancashire French.

But many Flemings complained that it would be unfair for the French-speakers to control two regions out of three when they were a minoritv of the total population; and many were riled when French-speaking politi-

cians in Brussels boasted that they had outwitted the “stupid” Flemings. The Flemish Social Christians then found an excuse to rat. In July, Belgium’s advisory legal council said that parts of the arrangements for Brussels would require a change in the constitution. The Government had hoped to introduce the first stage of devolution before revising the constitution — which can be done only after an outgoing Government has declared that the next Parliament will be a constituent assembly and an election has been held. In fact, since the con* stitution can be overridden by a parliamentary vote, this was hardly an insuperable obstacle. But the Flemish Social Christians took their chance to break up the Government. Mr Tindemans dithered, half sympathising with his party even though it was trying to ditch his Government’s main objective, and was swept away.

The probable next Prime Minister, Mr Wilfred Martens, another Flemish Social Christian, will find it diffcult to become as popular as Mr Tindemans was.

Some of his party say they hope the election will give them and the Socialists the two-thirds majority needed to ram through the devolution plan over the heads of the militant regionalist parties. That would be foolish. A wide consensus is needed if any devolution is to be durable.