After three months of corona-management, negotiations to form a new Belgian government have started again. They take place in an informal way, although not completely hidden to the media and the public. The purpose is to replace the present government of Sophie Wilmès, that was sworn in on 17 March. That cabinet did its best to cope with the corona-crisis, but has lost all authority along the way. The difficulties to form a new government are gigantic, as corona has shaken the economy and will radicalise even more the political landscape than what came out of the elections of 26 May 2019. The last and small hope is that the deep crisis has convinced the real leaders of this country to take up the highest challenge of conquering general acclaim (at least before history) while overcoming extremely difficult times.
Sophie Wilmès, 45 years old and since 27 October 2019 the first female prime minister of this country, has since 17 March proven that she can be a good prime minister in normal times. But she came short of the leadership needed in a crisis like the one of the corona-virus. Her main handicap was the government she led: caretaking and only representing a tiny minority in parliament (one third of the seats) since the end of 2018, it was sworn in faute de mieux on 17 March. This was because the real leaders of the country – Bart De Wever, of the Flemish nationalist N-VA, in Flanders, and Paul Magnette, the leader of the socialists, in French-speaking Belgium – were not able to form an alternative, based on the extremely complicated result of the last elections (see The mathematics of instability ).
As long as the consensus held on the urgency of the lockdown, Wilmès and the experts that advised her, including Health Minister Maggie De Block, seemed to do what the country expected. But then, after Easter, when the exit had to be planned, things started to fall apart. The prime minister added to the institutional confusion that was already created by her predecessor during the breakdown of the last genuine government at the end of 2018, by deciding one time via the National Security Council – which is in fact an institution to deal with police and military matters – the other time via the so-called Concertation Committee of the federal and regional governments where, unlike for most of the decisions of the EU, unanimity is required.
Besides, as a product of the chaotic circumstances in which her caretaking government was promoted to real power in early March, she had – in a vague institutional legitimacy - to consult on government policies with all representatives of all parties each Saturday morning in sessions that were rapidly felt to be useless. She had obtained special powers, which in the end were not necessary as parliamentary approval for the measures taken was often as swift. One thing for which she also was not responsible is the fact that previous institutional reforms towards devolution, combined with an overblown tendency to split up competences among too many ministers – especially in French-speaking Belgium – have left the country with nine ministers responsible for Health and ten for Education, without formal hierarchy in their relations.
The result of all this institutional confusion was that at the latest in early May government communication broke down. It started with an extremely long, boring and delayed press conference with obsolete powerpoint-slides on a late Friday evening live on tv (24 April). Most recently it produced contradictory statements on the reopening of schools between 22 and 27 May, sowing confusion and dismay in schools and with the local authorities. In between the consulted leading experts on corona, all very present in news and talk shows on tv, added to the growing chaos with contradictory advises and personal stances. It all began to look too much like fin de régime, just when strong and clear decisions are needed. The outcry in the media was deafening.
It is in this context that about the 8th of May the two socialist party-presidents – besides Magnette also Conner Rousseau (left on the picture, with Magnette), the president of the Flemish socialists, only 27, clearly a political talent, but maybe too fast becoming a hype – started to invite their colleagues for ‘informal encounters’. They did so claiming to be the ‘largest political family (of French- and Flemish speaking parties taken together) in the parliament’. And they acted without any mandate from the King, who is normally the initiator of government negotiations, but cannot intervene as long as there is a functioning government with a parliamentary majority. This created another institutional situation without precedent in Belgian political history.
The talks leaked into the press after less than one week and have been covered ever since without images and with much gossip which up to now however seems not to have been really destructive. Magnette and Rousseau have also seen, and probably more than once in the meantime, Bart De Wever, thus creating the impression that the president of the French-speaking socialists might be willing to lift his veto against the Flemish nationalist that he was obliged to put up early March under pressure from his party barons. The main message that comes out of the talks is that everything is still very tentative, nothing concrete.
Deadlines are however approaching. In her inauguration statement on 17 March Wilmès announced that she would ask for the confidence of the Parliament after six months again, so on 17 September. She also asked special powers for the same period, but proposed that these be evaluated after three months, so on 17 June at the latest. Given the present image of her government, it is obvious that the sooner a new team can be installed, the better.
But after the negotiations to form a new government based on the last election results have now taken more than a year without any result, the stakes have been raised to an even higher level than before. The corona-crisis has created a huge economic slump, which will, as always, be followed by political radicalization among the voters. Big decisions have to be taken: how to invest in the health sector, so that there will be no bottlenecks anymore in six months time when corona is likely to surge again; what to do with the lessons learned about reducing the huge traffic jams, while public transport should remain limited as long as there is no vaccine; how to treat the most devastated economic sectors like airlines, tourism and café and restaurants; how to apply teleworking as much as possible in the future; how to deal with the rapidly rising budget deficit and global government debt; how to clean up the institutional mess that has been exposed more than ever during corona; how to negotiate with the European Commission to obtain the money promised in the Recovery Fund (and how to avoid a Flemish-Walloon confrontation on the amounts and on the EC-policies on grants and loans, as the Flemish nationalists side with the ‘frugal four’).
Two things seem logic. Given the disapproval of recent policies – or the absence of it – by public opinion, as reflected in all kind of polls, new elections are considered a recipe for suicide among the parties interested in taking up power, including the Flemish nationalists of N-VA. And secondly, given the challenges ahead, probably only Bart De Wever or Paul Magnette – or both in a succession of two half mandates – are to be considered capable of leading a strong and decisive government. It will take time, it may not happen, it seems indeed a mission impossible. Except that corona has also wiped out most of the vetoes and dogmas that paralysed talks and perceptions before. The pitch has been cleaned of all debris and is shaven to the millimeter for a new match, which might deliver a good player and gambler a place in the history books.
No comments:
Post a Comment