Clearing the Smoke, Part I: Confederwhat?

Belgian political life is currently embroiled in a debate on the concept of confederalism, which the Flemish nationalists pose as a solution to the ‘Belgian problem’ – which seems to me as as merely a badly disguised step towards full-blown independence.

Similarly, at the European level there is today an on-going debate on the role of federalism in the future integration project. In both cases, however, federalism and confederalism are vaguely defined and are used by practically all politicians and media to express a variety of diverging, sometimes even contradictory views. Indeed, these debates include several more ambiguous terms, such as ‘integration’, ‘nationalism’, ‘independence’, but also ‘Belgium’, ‘Flanders’ and ‘Europe’. Even the definition of the word ‘debate’ is debateable. Obviously, for politicians the general vagueness and lack of clarity surrounding these concepts is rather useful, as it allows them to redefine and rearticulate their own positions each time they face difficult questions. Therefore, for the sake of transparency – a word that sadly terrifies some politicians to death – I will attempt to clarify these concepts and briefly assess their usage in today’s political discourse.

About (con)federalism, I can honestly no longer stand the empty debates on these topics, both in Belgium and the EU, where the total absence of conceptual clarity renders the whole discussion useless, inappropriate and plainly pathetic. In Belgium, the Flemish nationalist party NVA has proposed confederalism as a solution to what they call the Belgian problem – i.e. the false premise that Flanders is being culturally and economically suppressed by a Walloon-dominated Belgian government. But, leaving aside the blatant incorrectness and inappropriateness of this discourse, how exactly would confederalism solve this “problem”? Nationalists explain confederalism as the further undoing of the federal government, transferring ever more power and competences to the regions. Now, as most political scientists can tell you, confederalism is in fact the cooperation between independent states that set up a transnational authority to govern certain policy areas, traditionally in areas such as foreign policy or defence. What the NVA and other parties are proposing is actually the continuation of the decentralisation of the Belgian federal state – i.e. federalism, not confederalism. That’s settled then.

However, again leaving aside the blatantly incorrect use of confederalism in the nationalist discourse, it is still not clear to me how ‘their’ confederalism would solve the problem. Indeed, further empowering the regions does not magically dissolve the issues of (common!) federal debt, trans-regional solidarity, or the deteriorating social security system. Not to mention the political institutional crisis it would bring along, and the endless debates on the controversial borders of Flanders and Wallonia and the position of Brussels. In a recent open letter to the NVA, the Flemish Vooruitgroep, a group of progressive academics, artists and journalists, asked them ten pressing question for which they have not provided any answer so far, such as a working definition of confederalism and the practicalities of assigning more power to the regions. Moreover, the group accuses the NVA of having a very effective electoral strategy for winning the elections – as I mentioned in previous contributions, this strategy involves populism based on vague promises – but lacks any kind of strategy to act upon their promises and execute their vision of confederalism or an independent Flanders.

Even more shocking than this unconcealed deliberate vagueness is the ease with which the Flemish media and other Flemish parties copied the discourse. The general lack of critical questions aimed at the NVA is remarkable, even alarming. The Vooruitgroep’s open letter is one of the few real charges against their incoherent discourse – question a critical media should have asked from the very beginning. Of course, a popular politician who loves being on TV, occasionally throws in a good joke, happens to be a rather good orator and is always good for viewer ratings is rarely challenged by the media that adore – if not his political programme – his commercial personality. Likewise, the liberal and Christian-democrat parties without second thought jumped on the bandwagon and are now claiming that they have always supported the NVA’s confederalism, they have just been using a different language. As such, instead of critically questioning the nationalist discourse, they try to adapt themselves, playing the game on the NVA’s terms instead of their own.

This brings me to a definition of ‘debate’. According to the Oxford dictionary, a debate is “a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.” Contrarily, a debate is NOT a situation where one or two parties get all the say and the rest just trails behind them trying to keep up. This is not only a reproach to many political parties who fail to assert their own
positions, but also to the Flemish media who seem more and more to adhere to viewer ratings rather than to the ideals of honest reporting and authentic political debate. Not only are they giving popular politicians more ‘seconds of fame’, they are also gagging minor players. For example the extreme-right party Vlaams Belang; who whilst I am absolutely not a fan of their politics,  I was nonetheless dismayed at the way they were ignored during the last elections. Even though invited to debates, their representatives were quenched each time they tried to make a point. However feeble and obnoxious that point might have been, in a true democracy they have every right to make it.

To prove that I am advocating here conceptual clarity and am not writing ‘against’ nationalism as such, I must say that essentially I am not opposed to their confederalism, however wrongly defined. I think everyone can agree that Belgium knows a number of institutional weaknesses, and forming a federal government between several communities and no less than nine relevant parties is becoming ever more difficult. On top of that, I must admit also that, like most Belgians, I have no emotional bond with the Belgian nation as such. Therefore, whether Belgium’s institutional weaknesses are overcome either by further decentralisation or a reverse process of recentralisation is equally acceptable for me. However, I am truly and fiercely opposed to the nationalist populist discourse, which makes strategic use of conceptual vagueness and unclear promises, thereby intentionally blocking federal politics without delivering meaningful solutions to the problems they – if not create – exacerbate. I hope that the Flemish electorate will see this in time and realise that populist nationalism generates more problems than it can
possibly hope to solve.

So much for Belgium’s problems with confederalism and political debate. In the following parts of this article more ambiguous concepts will be dealt with, next up: Europe, integration and federalism. Stay tuned!