Search results

Since the creation of the Belgian state in 1830, the kings, head of state, always tried to expand their political influence. Part of this strategy was the treatment of the ministers as individuals, not as a council. The process of democratisation and the development of political parties pushed back this royal influence. In the meantime, as a result of the fact that coalitions were necessary to establish a government, the Council of Ministers was developping more and more as an institution. That was necessary to gain some governmental stability. Thispermanent Council was not stated in the constitution of 1830. King Leopold III did the same during the thirties as his predecessors and tried to block this evolution. The Second World War established the circumstances to expand his power. The Council ofM inisters choosed for the western democracies. Leopold III did not. Nevertheless the dynasty was not treathened but Leopold, who was not able to adapt, had to forsake the throne. After the war, the Council of Ministers was acknowledged as one of the most important institutions of the Belgian political system.

In 1991, the Belgian government demissioned because of a dispute about armstrade to the Middle East between the french-speaking and the flemish parties of the majority. This was the result oft he agitation of pressure groups since the beginning of the seventies. They belong to the 'New Social Movements', motivated by post-material values. They developped a succesfull strategy to involve the 'old', pilarised pressure groups and the press. It proved that it was possible for non-pilarised pressure groups to influence the parliament and the government. Nevertheless, these pressure groups were only powerfull in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium. This made it possible for the linguistic cleavage to intervene in a decisive way in this political process. It broke up the consensus necessary for the maintaining of the government. The differences in the configuration of the New Social Movements between north and south wilt also be a reason for further steps in the process of federalising the Belgian state.

Belgium is a rare example of a centralist state who federalized itself in a peacefull way by several steps since 1970. This process - still going on - is fundamentally provoked by the development of two subnations within the Belgian body: the flemish and the walloon. Within both of these nationalist movements there was a small elite who saw each other as allies in the struggle for federalization. They took contact during the sixties, a decade of heavy nationalistic agitation.Studying these contacts makes clear that the alliance had no fundaments in the broader base of the movements. But still they are necessary to understand the previous history of the federalization process.

Belgium is a rare example of a centralist state that achieved federalism via peaceful means. This process, which was initiated in 1970 & is ongoing, is fundamentally provoked by the development of two subnations within the Belgian body: the Flemish & the Walloons. Elites within both these nationalist movements identified each other as allies in the struggle for federalization. The role & interaction of this alliance in the federalization process in Belgium are described. Modified HA

During the eighties the 'peace movement' became an important actor in Belgian politics. It was able to promote aspects of international relations and defense policy as 'political issues'. The influence on public opinion and political parties was considerably higher in Flanders than in the french speaking part of the country.After the annexiation of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990, the Belgian government reacted more or less as these organisations desired: prudent, promoting UNO-initiatives and diplomatic solutions to the crisis. Therefore, these peace organisationswere attacked or infiltrated by extreme left wing parties, who wanted to support Saddam Hussein who was seen as a symbol of the third world. As a result of these left wing tactics, the peace movement could not act as it did during the eighties : as a broad force with a coherent programme, with organisations belonging to several ideological pillars and with influence on parties which traditionally belong to the government.