Belgium no longer exists

That's probably not the sort of thing you want to hear from a Belgian political leader, even one of a small nationalist party. Ingrid Robeyns reports on Crooked Timber that even though Belgium finally has a government again, things aren't exactly going swimmingly:

Whether or not that is true, the latest news is that Yves Leterme managed to reach an agreement on a new government yesterday. But what a government, and what an agreement! The coalition includes the three major parties (liberals, social democrats, and Christian democrats) and is asymmetrical, since the francophone social democrats are taking part, whereas the Flemish social democrats are not. This is highly notable, since until now federal governments have, to the best of my knowledge, never been asymmetrical in this way. But more worrisome, the agreement they reached is regarded by commentators from across the spectrum as extremely vague and weak. There are no details on the budget, yet there is an agreement on taxcuts (a demand from the liberals) and on an increase of the social benefits (a demand from the social-democrats), in addition to a commitment not to create a budget deficit. Perhaps they do believe in manna from heaven after all. Nothing is said about the Flemish demands to regionalise the social security system, employment policies and other responsibilities they wanted to transfer from the national to the regional levels. Nothing is said about how they will solve the problem with Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, without which future elections will be unconstitutional.

So no surprise that most media commentators ask: how long will this government last? De Standaard summarizes the situation aptly: “No team, no programme, no budget, no leader.”

The states of convenience cobbled together by nineteenth century European imperialism are still falling apart. In the long run, in the modern world it seems hard to have a state without a nation. I'm curious to see whether the process has some natural resting point.

Comments

Damn! I will miss those waffles.

Posted by Yancey Ward | March 19, 2008 11:47 AM

The states of convenience cobbled together by nineteenth century European imperialism are still falling apart. In the long run, in the modern world it seems hard to have a state without a nation. I'm curious to see whether the process has some natural resting point.

Belgium was not an artifact of European imperialism. The Congress of Vienna created a kingdom for the House of Orange that encompassed all of what is today the Netherlands and Belgium. Belgium (whose boundaries approximate those of the old Hapsburg Netherlands) was the product of a revolt in the predominantly Catholic cantons in the southern part of that Kingdom of the Netherlands. The 'falling apart' [Act I] occurred in 1830.

Posted by Art Deco | March 19, 2008 12:25 PM

The only sticking point to a Belgian velvet divorce, as I see it, is Brussels itself, which is a pretty mixed city. Maybe it could be like interwar Danzig, or post-Congress of Vienna Krakow. Then again, that didn't work out too well for either of them.

Posted by Kyle | March 19, 2008 1:16 PM

Well, the problem is that in Belgium there is cultural/linguistic nationalism (similar to the kind found in Quebec) but no civic nationalism. Civic nationalism, with its attachments to a territory and institutions, is why Americans see themselves as "americans" and not "english" or "dutch" or "irish-americans" They might identify with and take pride in their ancestry, but they generally see themselves as americans, first and foremost. The same is true for most of English Canada. In Belgium, there are few "Belgians" but there are plenty of Flemish or French ones.

Posted by TheCurseofLono | March 19, 2008 1:46 PM

I'm not sure there is a "natural" resting place for the process of national formation. Name me a country that doesn't face some kind of incipient challenge to its sense of discrete identity. Belgium faces a problem now because back in 1830 it decided religious coherence was more important than linguistic coherence, and split off from the Netherlands. But the Netherlands picked religious pluralism and linguistic coherence, and is now convulsing itself over whether it can really incorporate Islam. The world's earliest and most coherent nation-state was surely Britain, which now has 3 parliaments and is busily resurrecting Welsh and Scots. The US had an engine of immigrant assimilation that worked beautifully for immigrants who came permanently from across oceans; it now has to decide what to do about tens of millions of Hispanic Americans who would like to move fluidly back and forth in a NAFTA that looks more like the EU. Other classic, clear nation-states: Russia, China, Spain, Israel...need we say more?...

Posted by brooksfoe | March 19, 2008 1:58 PM

As we've seen, this situation is far from uncommon in Europe. Czechs and Slovaks went their separate ways, as did all the pieces of the USSR, as did, finally, all the pieces of Yugoslavia. Such balkanization is and has been a primary force in Europe for quite some time (millenia). Who knows what could be next. Will Catalan or the Basque region become independent? Perhaps Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales. Perhaps Brittany or Provence.

Many people have looked to the "European Union" as a new era for Europe, and have seen it as a move toward greater unity in Europe and something capable, in time, of rivaling the US as a single coherent union of modern, industrialized states. This view is a fantasy, Europe as we know it will never attain the unity of the US because far too many Europeans do not value or understand the things that Europeans hold in common and, especially, the things that have led to European success. Europeans devalue individual liberty and free markets and they increasingly believe that no elements of Western culture (including individual liberty and free markets) have any value greater than the elements of any other culture.

The unifying forces of Europe continue to be tribalism, nationalism, and economic convenience. It's easy to imagine that America is not special, that any nation can be founded on ideals and can fuse together an amalgam of different states, cultures, and ethnicities into unity. But the reality is that this is far from common and indeed quite exceptional.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow | March 19, 2008 2:18 PM

This is actually spooky. First Belgium takes on a position in the EU central government that mimics D.C.'s, now it takes on the character: neither a recognized state nor a properly functional city.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 19, 2008 2:21 PM

"There are no details on the budget, yet there is an agreement on taxcuts (a demand from the liberals) and on an increase of the social benefits (a demand from the social-democrats), in addition to a commitment not to create a budget deficit. Perhaps they do believe in manna from heaven after all."

Why pick on the Belgians? Maybe they just believe that lower taxes generate more revenue and hence an ability to increase social benefits *and* balance the budget. If they believe that, they are no more deluded than numerous Republican presidents and presidential candidates in the US...

Posted by David T | March 19, 2008 10:29 PM

Make Flemish Belgium part of the Netherlands, French Belgium part of France, German Belgium part of Germany, Brussels the EU Federal District, and King Albert II and Queen Donna the monarchs of Canada.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | March 20, 2008 12:12 AM

Oildrilling Lunatic: The Belgian Queen is called Paola. Oddly enough, that was the least stupid part of your comment.

Most Flemish don't want to be part of the Netherlands. Most Walloons don't want to be a part of France. Most Bruxellois don't want to be an EU federal district. The King and Queen definitely don't want to move to anywhere cold (they spend most of their holidays in the south of France and Italy).

If anything, some Flemish (maybe more than half, probably less) want independence; the rest want to stay in Belgium (albeit a Belgium with more powers for the regions). Almost all Walloons and Bruxellois want Belgium to remain in existence.

Posted by Laurens | March 20, 2008 12:47 AM

If the supply of Duvel, Chimay, St. Bernardus, Affligem, Orval et al are ever threatened, then no military option is off the table.

Posted by Jason | March 20, 2008 10:37 AM

...In the Belgian Army, the feud
Between the Flemings and Walloons grew vicious,

So out of hand the army could barely function.
Finally one commander assembled his men
In one great room, to deal with things directly.

They stood before him at attention. “All Flemings,”
He ordered, “to the left wall.” Half the men
Clustered to the left. “Now all Walloons,” he ordered,

“Move to the right.” An equal number crowded
Against the right wall. Only one man remained
At attention in the middle: “What are you, soldier?”

Saluting, the man said, “Sir, I am a Belgian.”
“Why, that’s astonishing, Corporal—what’s your name?”
Saluting again, “Rabinowitz,” he answered....

--The Belgian Army joke, as told by Robert Pinsky in "Impossible to Tell"

Posted by ScottM | March 20, 2008 10:53 AM

You know, Laurens, maybe if you're really virtuous in this life, just maybe, you'll get reincarnated as someone with enough intelligence to recognize when a comment is being made firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, who am I kidding? There's clearly no hope for you.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | March 20, 2008 11:00 AM

One critical basis for the establishment of most nations is the collective security of the citizens against foreign aggresion. I would guess that this motivation is, today, largely absent from the Belgian thinking, making civic unity less important than ethnic/liguistic unity. In many ways we can see this same dynamic at work in the US, where selective allegiance to demographic (African-American, Latino-American, Gay-American, etc.) or language (English/Spanish) threatens to trump civic identity as Americans.

Posted by submandave | March 20, 2008 11:10 AM

In America once the Bush tax cuts were voted in government revenue began to rise after falling for quite a while.

They have continued rising.

No one doubts the Laffer curve is correct. What is not known with certainty is the inflection point. Many economist these days think that the government gets maximum tax revenue at a 20% tax rate.

Posted by M. Simon | March 20, 2008 11:11 AM

I suspect that the outspoken and rapidly procreating Muslim immigrants will have a great deal to say about how Belgium is divided. Ignoring the Islamic tsunami soon to overflow Belgium cities, is like discussing the US Civil War without mentioning Robert E. Lee.

Make way, Belgians. Make way for the true language of Belgium, Arabic!

Posted by Al Fin | March 20, 2008 11:29 AM

If Walloonish contratemps desire their nationality be one of Flemish rather than French, then perhaps they should take greater pains to divest themselves of the spurious tokens of Walloon uber-theory.

Belgium has long been a residual bastion of irrational and platitudinous rancor for not only the descendants of Frankish heritage but also those who would cleverly identify as (for lack of a more plausible term) "Northumbrian".

Perhaps the best and most functional course of action would be to dissuade from dissembling those members of society whose only desire is to blatantly flaunt the auspices of Walloon hierarchy. To perform otherwise would only create a massively unwieldy definition of substantive fakery and illogical buffoonism.

Posted by Thomas Churlington III | March 20, 2008 11:32 AM

"No one doubts the Laffer curve is correct."

Is this really really true? I think lots of people doubt its correct. They may not be very educated on it, but you have to admit that the empirical data is pretty noisey with a whole lot of covariates.

My question is this, did governement increase during the Regan years?

Posted by Chris | March 20, 2008 11:45 AM

I meant to say, did government 'revenue' increase during the Reagan (spelled right this time) administration.

Posted by Chris | March 20, 2008 11:47 AM

"...yet there is an agreement on taxcuts (a demand from the liberals)"

Now THAT'S my idea of a liberal! Must be due to daily consumption of lambic...

Posted by bw | March 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Subman Dave stole my thunder, sort of. We are IMO sliding toward what Teddy Roosevelt warned against, "a tangle of squabbling nationalities." Just look at the May Day protest marches 2 years ago.

Posted by c.o. jones | March 20, 2008 12:08 PM

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm indicates a revenue increase of about 11% during and after tax cuts of 5% in 1981 and 10% each in 1982 and 1983.

What typically is not mentioned, however, is the Social Security bailout of 1982, which was a very large tax increase.

I happen to think that a reduction in tax rates usually does produce more revenue, and a reduction in the complexity of the tax code would produce even more. But the record of the 1980s is not unambiguous, especially in light of the deregulation and capital-gains tax cut occuring late in the Carter Administration.

Posted by Jay Manifold | March 20, 2008 12:18 PM

In the long run, in the modern world it seems hard to have a state without a nation.

America is a state without a nation. Ideology and not innate identity unit Americans.

The fatal flaw in Belgium and many other countries in the world is a parliamentary system which assigns power directly to parties instead of individuals. In diverse societies, parliamentary parties inevitable evolve around group identities. People cannot move beyond their identity loyalties without losing political power. Soon all political battles become conflicts between identity groups and the natural fissures are exacerbated to the point of failure.

America would have never survived if we had a such a system. Numerous parties would have evolved, each attached to a specific ethnic or religious group. We survived because the constitution grants power to individual office holders, not groups. (Winner takes all also helps drive the formation of broad coalitions.)

Parliamentary governments only work for nation (unitary ethnic) states. For most of the multiethnic countries of the world, they are a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by Shannon Love | March 20, 2008 12:27 PM

All Laffer stated was: imagine a curve where X is tax rate and Y is tax revenue. If X = 0 then Y = 0, if X = 100% then Y = 0 (or very close to 0). At X = 50%, then Y is well above 0. Since we know (not suspect but know) that revenue is higher at X = 50% than at X = 100%, then we know (not suspect but know) that at some point an increase in tax rates leads to a decrease in tax revenue. What value of X maximizes Y (the inflection point) is all that is seriously at issue.

Chris writes "I think lots of people doubt its [the Laffer curve] correct. ... the empirical data is pretty noisey [sp?] with a whole lot of covariates.[sp?]"

No one who has seen the curve and doesn't shut things out due to emotional issues doubts it. If the curve is smooth, it follows directly from the Mean Value Theorem (for those who can only think of things when important sounding words are attached). If the curve isn't smooth (i.e. there are major discontinuities) the case for lowering taxes to ultimately raise revenues becomes stronger, and Laffer's basic point remains mathematically proveable (i.e. clearly true).

Folks like Chris are why Reagan won the debate so easily in the early 1980's. To someone who has never seen the curve, or who has overwhelming emotional issues that prevent him from thinking about it for a millisecond, throwing around words like covariants (which is the word I think he was attempting to throw around) might make you sound smart. To anyone who has seen the curve and thought about it, it makes you look foolish. This is true even if you don't like Reagan and even if you think tax revenues maximize at a higher tax rate than today (or 1980). Reagan never had to debate where the optimal X is, because idiots like Chris insisted on losing the debate before they even got to that point with foolish and obviously false pronouncements.

FYI, under Reagan tax rates fell and tax revenues increased.

Posted by Lewis | March 20, 2008 12:41 PM

Chris is a typical liberal Debbie-downer.

He knows that that revenue increased significantly during the Reagan years; tax revenue increased the first time the tax cuts were used in the Kennedy administration. They are working now under the Bush tax cuts.

I'm sure Chris will reply back with some sort of "straw man" when confronted with the actual data of the success of the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by ronalddog | March 20, 2008 12:56 PM

In 1939, the cry was heard "Who will die for Danzig?"

In 2009, I think it'll be "Who will pay for Brussels?"

Posted by MarkJ | March 20, 2008 1:07 PM

This is what will happen with Nuevo Aztlan.

Posted by George Smith | March 20, 2008 1:26 PM

FYI
Belgium is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world at 50%.

Posted by Roxus Maximus | March 20, 2008 1:37 PM

Oildrilling Lunatic: I apologize for missing that. It's just that many people actually believe what you suggested (except for the king & queen part of course).

For everyone else: no one in Belgium believes that taxes are at the far end of the Laffer curve. Tax cuts and benefit increases are reconciled by other spending cuts (it is unclear what would be cut precisely). While it is true that Belgian taxes are very high, the previous round of tax cuts has not led to an increase in government revenue.

Posted by Laurens | March 20, 2008 2:07 PM

Read Paul Belien's "A Throne in Brussels", for the whole sordid story. His concern is that the EU, another example of "a state without a nation", is being constructed on the failed model of Belgium. It's a highly interesting and entertaining read.

Posted by dan | March 20, 2008 2:21 PM

The rise of the EU may end up leading to the breaking apart of the old nation states. With the EU assuming more and more power and responsibility from the nations thereing, regions have little to loose by breaking apart from the various nation states.

Posted by MadHatChemist | March 20, 2008 2:48 PM

The rise of the EU may end up leading to the breaking apart of the old nation states. With the EU assuming more and more power and responsibility from the nations thereing, regions have little to loose by breaking apart from the various nation states.

Posted by MadHatChemist | March 20, 2008 2:49 PM

If Belgium disintegrates, let us not forget to reward the world's only Grand Duchy with the Luxembourg province of Belgium!

Posted by Nathan P. Origer | March 20, 2008 5:56 PM

America is a state without a nation. Ideology and not innate identity unite Americans.

Precisely. In the European sense, America is not a nation. This, however, is not a flaw of America per se -- on the contrary, it is why America demonstrates that there is no fundamental fact about human beings that leads to this issue of "nationhood" that dominates the European mind.

The real issue here is that in America (and Britain to a lesser extent) the Enlightenment view of individual political sovereignty came to its full fruition (though the moral concept invovled did not, alas). Not only is this clear in American writings of the time, but in the many criticism of the Revolution that came out of Europe; a common theme underlying them was the notion that the American form of government would fail because it had made kings or "sovereigns" out of each and every man.

This criticism is correct on many levels; it is why America, for a century and a half, showed the world how *irrelevant* the old tribal identies are in a society where the individual is free to define himself. America's "melting pot" proved how irrelevant such things are when the right ideas are prevalent. In the American sense, America is a nation -- the only one of its kind: a nation defined not by tribal ties, by an idea -- an idea that anyone is free to choose, and in doing so define himself as "an American".

On the Continent, however, the Enlightenment was deflected away from that goal; individualism never "took" there. Instead of individualism in America, the old kings were deposed in favor of the *nation*. The ancient chauvinisms and racisms, therefore, were never scorned and rejected as they were (mostly) in America; they merely transferred from the king to the nation as defined by race, culture etc. -- i.e. the ancient tribal collectivisms remains alive and well. This is what separates 1793 from 1776, and explains the results of each.

Nationalism is the new tribalism; it is Europe's substitute for individualism and freedom. These are the results. What we are being shown is not any deep truth about nations or states, but a demonstration of the power of ideas, both good and bad.

Posted by Seerak | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM