Search results

The Belgian Socialist Party (BSP) has since 1919 been the 2nd largest in the country. Its % of the general vote has been fairly constant in the period 1919-1961 at about 34%; since 1965 it decreased to about 28%. Its predecessor, the Belgian Workers Party, was a minority opposition party which became viable in 1919. New opposition parties have now appeared, mainly because of the conflicts between Flemings, Walloons, & the Francophiles of Brussels. The BSP is anticlerical & leftist. The socialist 'pillar' is built on 4 large organizations overarched by the so-called Common Action: a political party, a trade union, mutual health funds, & cooperatives; there are also certain affiliated groups, & a socialist press. The socialist 'pillar' shares culture, cumulative membership, history, & structural ties. It is hypothesized that the 'pillar' stabilizes the electoral support of the party, & that the unions, health funds, & cooperatives provide financial support to the party. 1 Table. D. Burkenroad.

According to the standards of public law, municipal polls have only a local scope : the election of a common council. Do politicians make deductions concerning the formal political power-constellation on national level either from the approach of municipal elections or from their results ? Can these elections lead to changes in or of the government and eventually to anticipated legislative elections ?After the first world-war, the electorate was called eight times to vote for new common councillors. Half of these elections (1921, 1926, 1938 and 1958) had no influence on the national power-constellation :they hardly stirred the national political life. In 1958 any possible influence of the municipal elections was even a priori ruled out. A remarkable point is that all municipal elections which took place undergovernments of national union (1921, 1926 and 19 38) , were only of local importance.Since the first world-war not a single municipal election has led to changes within the government : there was never a redistribution of ministerial portfolios amongst the coalitionpartners, nor did any electioncause the dismissal of an individual minister.It is traditional in Belgian politics that the national opposition, when the results of municipal elections are in its favour and prejudicial to the party (parties) in office (1946, 1952 and 1964), tries to call in question the legitimacy of the government in the opinion of the public by the way of motions or interpellations in parliament, claiming dismissal of the government or anticipated legislative elections. At these occasions it appeared unimportant whether the parliamental majority were confortable or not. But never did the governments give in to these attempts.The elections of 1857, 1884 and 1932 constitute an element of power - although of subsidiary importance - in the discharge of the then governments. The governmental crisis of 1884 however can only be explained if the constitutional position of Leopold II is taken into account. With all other factors alike, such a crisis wouldn't arise any more in the context of to-day. The municipal elections of 1932 have moreover led to anticipated legislative elections whose date was an element of power in the election-process. At that time, these elections played the part of an indicator of the electorial condition, comparable to that of the by elections in Great-Britain. And an unreliable indicator too, in view of the difference between national and local electionstatures.

Questions re whether politicians make deductions re the formal pol'al power constellation on the nat'l level from the approach or results of municipal elections are raised. Data from the elections in Belgium over the past 100 yrs are examined in this context. The elections of 1921, 1926, 1938, & 1958 had no influence on the nat'l power constellation. Since WWI not a single municipal election has led to changes within the nat'l gov. It is traditional in Belgian pol that the nat'l opposition, when the results of municipal elections are in its favor & prejudicial to the party in office (as in 1946, 1952, & 1964), tries to question the legitimacy of the gov by way of motions & appeals in parliament. Gov's have never given in to these attempts. The elections of 1857, 1884, & 1932 show an element of power in the dissolution of the then gov's. The gov'al crisis of 1884, however, can only be explained through the constitutional position of King Leopold II. The municipal elections of 1932 anticipated the legislative elections of that yr & served as an indicator of the electoral condition. But in view of the diff between nat'l & local positions, it was an unreliable indicator. Modified HA.