As Flemish nationalist parties Vlaams Belang and N-VA – who both want to split Belgium in two, albeit in different ways – are gaining popularity with every election poll, the topic of what such a break-up would look like and what the consequences would be for its capital becomes unavoidable.
To many of the Capital Region's residents, the so-called 'Battle for Brussels' is an overblown concept that is not worth losing any sleep over. However, as Flemish nationalist parties are on track to (again) become the biggest winners in the upcoming elections, a Belgian divorce is, in theory, not out of the question.
"The big problem is that I have not actually seen a single credible proposal about the division of Belgium in practice. There simply isn't one," Dave Sinardet, professor of political science (VUB), told The Brussels Times. "There has been a lot of talk about splitting the country, but no credible solution has ever been offered for Brussels – which is one of the reasons why a division remains difficult."
Still, there are many roads to go down when considering a separation of the Flemish lion and the Walloon rooster.
Not letting go of Brussels
For Vlaams Belang, the Flemish far-right party, the way the split should go is simple: as it is geographically, so it should be politically. Brussels would be integrated into Flanders, as the capital of the Region.
"But it is of course completely unrealistic that in negotiations with French-speaking parties, they would say oh well, we will create an independent Wallonia then, and Brussels can just join Flanders. It's totally unrealistic," Sinardet said.
The reverse route will not be met with much enthusiasm on the Flemish side either. "That would mean an independent Flanders, and then the Francophone state of Wallonia-Brussels – which already exists as the Federation Wallonie-Bruxelles (FWB). But the Flemish will not be happy with that."
A large Belgian flag with the Flemish lion and the Walloon rooster embracing each other. Credit: Belga / Julien Warnand
For Sinardet, it is clear: neither the Flemish nor the French-speaking parties will accept a solution in which they completely lose Brussels. "They both have very strong ties to the city."
"Another option would be to create three independent new states: Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia. But Brussels as a city-state in itself does not seem financially sustainable to me," he said, stressing that the current Brussels-Capital Region as we know it with 19 municipalities is only part of the broader Brussels urban metropolitan region that also comprises parts of Flemish Brabant and Walloon Brabant.
"You would then have one urban region in three different independent countries. I do not even know where to begin with the practical issues," Sinardet said. "Just think of Brussels railways, which would also have to go into the states of Flanders and Wallonia. And that is only one example. It's just not a realistic scenario."
A lost cause
Historically, Vlaams Belang have been saying that 'Flanders will not let go of Brussels' as Brussels is part of their so-called Flemish State – something that has always been the vision of the Flemish Movement in the past. But that idea has become less popular now. "Vlaams Belang is still saying that, but they also realise that that is bullshit."
While N-VA's official standpoint is still that they will hold on to Brussels, two other movements have also emerged within the party: some are willing to sacrifice Brussels if that is the price they have to pay for Flemish autonomy, while others consider the capital a lost cause already and would be happy to be rid of it.
"But then again, that would be possible within a more de-federalised Belgium, but it would still be difficult," Sinardet said. "No matter how you look at it, the distance between Flanders and Brussels is becoming greater."
This is not only true for the Flemish nationalists who may want to let go of the capital, but also among the greens, socialists and liberals who now believe that Brussels has become more than the sum of two language communities. "It is actually a diverse multilingual region, complete with its own identity."
"Brussels is one of the elements – not the only one, but one of the important ones – that holds Belgium together."
(Con)federalism?
The term confederalism means something completely different in the rest of the world than in Belgium, Sinardet explained. "A confederation is a treaty between independent states, so for that to work here, you would first actually have to split up the country. But we have started to give different definitions to this term, and different parties have also started to give different – sometimes unclear – definitions as well."
Some ten years ago, however, N-VA did define what confederalism means for the party and presented a plan for what to do with Brussels – a position that they are still sticking to, namely that they are not letting go of Brussels.
"If Belgium still exists somewhere, then it is in Brussels. While Flanders and Wallonia continue to grow further apart, Brussels is increasingly considered the child of the looming divorce between Dutch and French speakers. Both parents must continue to care for that child," N-VA spokesperson Philippe Kerckaert told The Brussels Times.
A flag combining the Flemish lion and the Walloon rooster during the 'March for Unity' in 2007 in Brussels. Credit: Belga/ Dirk Waem
Still, as the unofficial capital of Europe and the home of many international institutions, Brussels remains an important economic factor for Flanders. "Historically, Brussels is a Flemish city and Brussels is geographically situated within Flanders. But over the years, Brussels has also become a French (and other foreign languages) speaking city, and a city in which social groups with totally different origins live."
As no single social group has a right to claim Brussels, a unique solution must be found, Kerckaert added. "In our model, the city would be governed by both Dutch and French speakers, with respect for all of the social groups that call the city home."
That model – worked out for its 2014 party congress about confederalism – explains that Brussels inhabitants would have a choice between operating within the Flemish or the Walloon community competences. Brussels would continue to hold certain regional competences autonomously.
They want to achieve this confederate model orderly, through negotiation between the Dutch- and French-speaking parties on the federal level – contrarily to Vlaams Belang, who are advocating a unilateral Flemish secession from Belgium.
Sinardet, however, pointed out that N-VA's model – which would see the states of Flanders and Wallonia playing a strong role in Brussels – is unrealistic. "What N-VA are proposing is essentially implementing two pension systems, two unemployment benefit systems... Basically implementing two social security systems on top of the powers as they exist within Brussels today."
Currently, Belgium's social security is organised federally, meaning that the same system applies throughout the entire country. The French-speaking parties will never agree to N-VA's proposal, as it would mean organising two social security systems on the same territory of Brussels. Neither will the non-separatist Flemish parties.
Meanwhile, Vlaams Belang's vision of Brussels in the case of an independent Flanders is very unclear: they call for integrating Brussels into Flanders but neglect to mention any means of achieving that goal. After the 2024 elections, Vlaams Belang have said they want to declare unilateral independence in the Flemish Parliament and pursue "a Czechoslovakia-style divorce" settlement with Wallonia. They would also make Brussels a Flemish city, but keep it bilingual.
Brussels D.C.?
Another option – albeit suggested a lot less frequently now than several years ago – would be giving Brussels to the European Union, considering many of the EU institutions are already located in the Belgian capital. That way, it would be neither Flemish nor Walloon.
"Some Flemish nationalists wanted to solve the issue by making a kind of 'Brussels D.C.' in analogy with Washington D.C. in the United States. Brussels would then be managed by Europe," Sinardet said. "But first of all, the EU is not interested in governing such a metropolitan region. And they do not immediately have the capacity or organisation for that either."
Credit: Belga / James Arthur Gekiere
Additionally, he emphasised that the Brussels D.C. solution would also be strange from an ideological point of view. "So as a nationalist, you think that everyone should be able to govern themselves. That applies to the Flemish, it applies to the Walloons, but the people of Brussels apparently have to be governed by some or other supranational institution."
"I also highly doubt that this would be accepted by the people of Brussels," he said. "The city and the region have increasingly developed a kind of Brussels identity."
The Brussels Times repeatedly contacted Vlaams Belang for their point of view on the matter, but received no reply.
