The Influence of the Immigrant Vote on Belgian (and Dutch) Politics

Belgium has 10.5 million (legal) inhabitants. About 9 million of them are indigenous Belgians – of whom 6 million are Dutch-speaking Flemings and 3 million French-speaking Walloons. Belgium also has 900,000 legal aliens, and 650,000 so-called “new Belgians” – foreigners who acquired the Belgian nationality since 1980. About 0.5 million Belgian inhabitants are Muslims, of whom 265,000 Moroccans and 155,000 Turks. According to the security services, almost 2% of the Muslims (some 8,000 people) sympathize with Islamist extremists.

Since the acceptance of the so-called “Quick Citizenship” Act in May 2000, the Belgian nationality is notoriously easy to acquire. Belgian citizenship is a right for everyone who has lived in the country for 7 (but often only 3 or even 2) years. One does not need to speak the language or prove that one is willing to integrate in the host country. Obviously, the “new Belgians” are entitled to vote in all elections, while legal aliens have been given the right to vote in local elections.

The decisions to extend the local franchise to foreigners and to grant Belgian nationality virtually on demand were taken with the aim of countering the electoral surge of the Flemish-secessionist Vlaams Belang. As Leona Detiège, the Socialist Mayor of Antwerp, said in September 2000: “The VB is currently overrepresented as the immigrants are not allowed to vote.” In February 2001, Claude Eerdekens, the parliamentary leader of the governing Parti Socialiste, admitted that “99 % of the applications [for Belgian citizenship] made in Brussels are filed in French.” Indeed, in order to counter the demand for more autonomy on the part of the Flemings, the authorities have granted Belgian citizenship to as many French-speaking foreigners as possible. “We do more for the frenchification of Brussels than the Flemings can ever do to prevent it,” Eerdekens boasted.

Half of the 650,000 “new Belgians” were created since 2000, at an average of over 4,200 each month. Most of the “new Belgians” live in the major cities. Today only 29.5% of the population of Brussels are indigenous Belgians, 26.9% are legal aliens and 43.6% are “new Belgians” (the latter figure was 34.8% in 2003 – an increase of 8.8% in barely 4 years).

In Antwerp, the corresponding figures are 67.6%, 12.5% and 19.9% (15.6% in 2003). In Mechelen, 79.4%, 6.4% and 14.2% (10.9% in 2003). In Ghent, 79.0%, 7.8%, and 13.2% (10.7% in 2003). The figures were recently published by the leftist sociologist Jan Hertogen. Though Hertogen is an outspoken opponent of the Vlaams Belang he has been reprimanded for publishing the figures by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), a government organisation.

Since immigrants (or “new Belgians”) are not likely to vote VB, the growing share of the immigrant vote affected the VB results in last June’s general elections. While the VB’s popularity continues to rise amongst the indigenous urban population, it fell in Brussels by 2.8% compared to the 2003 general elections. In Antwerp it fell by 2.1%, in Mechelen by 1%, and in Ghent by 0.6%.

The party’s gains in rural Flanders, where there are fewer immigrants, compensated the loss in urban areas. Brussels, however, appears to be lost territory. In 2009, the “capital of Europe” will have a foreign (“new Belgian”) electorate of 50%. Most of these “new Belgians” are non-Europeans. European bureaucrats, lobbyists, businessmen and expats generally do not apply for Belgian citizenship.

The growing share of the immigrant vote has begun to affect the positions adopted by Belgian politicians on various issues, from the wearing of headscarves to the Armenian genocide. On June 3rd, during the past election campaign, Ergün Top, a Turkish born Belgian politician who is a local councillor in Antwerp, declared that if there were a war between Belgium and Turkey, he would join the Turkish army and fight Belgium.

Top holds the Belgian as well as the Turkish nationality. He is a Muslim but belongs to the Christian-Democrat Party. He was standing for a seat in the Belgian Senate. During his campaign among Belgian voters of Turkish origin, he indicated that he feels more loyalty towards Turkey than towards Belgium. The message was well received by his audience, who feel the same. Mr Top said that he approves of Cemal Cavdarli, a Socialist member of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives who went to serve in the Turkish army while he was a member of parliament in Belgium.

Ergün Top is a top advisor of Yves Leterme, the leader of the Belgian Christian-Democrats and Belgium’s likely next Prime Minister. Top prides himself on influencing Leterme’s position on the Armenian genocide. According to Top the 1915 killings of Armenians by the Turkish army do not constitute a genocide. Up to 1.5 million Armenian citizens perished in the killings, but Turkey refuses to take responsibility for what happened.

In an interview with the Turkish newspaper Zaman, Mr Leterme said that he refuses to use the word “genocide” to refer to the 1915 killings, because “international experts disagree on the historical facts.” To the Belgian newspaper De Morgen Leterme explained: “As a politician it is not wise to talk about a genocide until the experts agree on a pronouncement. I am not the only one to take this position. I have nothing more to add.” Two days later, however, indignant politicians pressed Leterme during a parliamentary debate to concede that he does “not doubt the Armenian genocide.”

Apart from the Turks, almost all international experts agree that a genocide of the Armenians took place in 1915. In France (where there are many citizens of Armenian origin) it is a criminal offence to publicly deny the 1915 Armenian genocide. Not so, however, in Belgium with its many “new Belgians” of Turkish origin. Like Mr Leterme, Johan Vande Lanotte, the leader of the Flemish Socialist Party, refuses to apply the word “genocide” to the 1915 mass killings. Vande Lanotte said the issue is “extremely sensitive.”

The same holds for Wouter Bos, the Labour leader in the Netherlands, who during the run up to the November 2006 Dutch general elections, spoke of the Armenian “issue” rather than genocide in order not to antagonize the electorate of “new Dutchmen” of Turkish origin.

Earlier this month, Bos’s Dutch Labour party (PvdA) tried to silence Ehsan Jami, a Muslim apostate who is a local PvdA councillor in Leidschendam-Voorburg. The 22 year old Jami intends to establish an international organization of ex-Muslims. An internal memo [pdf], sent to Labour parliamentarians and ministers, shows that the party fears that Jami’s campaign will cause it electoral damage and enrage Muslims. The party wants Jami to consider the fact that his initiative will go down badly with the PvdA’s immigrant following. The Dutch press revealed that Jami received hate mail from PvdA executives.

 
See also:

Belgian and Dutch Parties Try to Put Genie Back in the Bottle, 12 October 2006

The Flemish independence

From another post of Mr Bellien, we can read that he would like to

" allow new general
elections to be held in 2009, coinciding with the regional elections
for the Flemish and Walloon regional parliaments. Flemish secessionists
hope that, if at that moment the formation of a national government
becomes impossible, the Flemish Regional Parliament will unilaterally
declare Flemish independence."

I suppose that he would agree that in this case Brussels should not be the capital of the new independent flemish state, but Gent or Antwerpen would be more fitting.

Another thorny issue would be the one of the limits of the Brussels region: Would the Flemish accept the principle of fixing the limits according to the locals majorities? Many municipalities around Brussels are now in hands of French-speaking municipal majorities. Would Flanders accept to fix the borders of the new Flemish states where the dutch-speaking are still a majority, which means enlarging the area of the bilingual Brussels region?

I don't really believe that Mr Bellien will have the desire to answer these questions, however I like to ask them, because I see them as the most difficult issue on the road of a peaceful divorce between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking belgians.

 Now in case of Flemish independence, the  walloons and the french-speaking Brussels would have also to choose their own way. A independent French-speaking mini Belgian state or a narrower union with France? The question remains open.

But the Flemish cannot just ignore that not only in  Brussels but also in many areas around Brussels, they are now a minority. Many flemish says they want an independent Flanders, but aren't willing to accept that Brussels wouldn't be part of Flanders, and that's a problem.

As a Walloon, I owe nothing to the Flemish, I live on the American continent and I can state that many french-speaking belgians would be very happy to receive not a penny from the Flemish anymore and end this unpleasant myth of living at the expense of Flanders.

I am Belgian, as long as Belgium exist. If Belgium would cease to exist, I wouldn't be a belgian anymore. I don't think it would make a big difference to be the citizen of the "heir state". Maybe it would be an opportunity to belong to a more coherent political entity.

In 2007, Wallonia has put an end to the dominance of the socialist party - for the first time in 105 years! This change has been absolutely unnoticed by the Brussels Journal. But democracy exists in the south of Belgium and I am proud to say that we don't need any flemish "help" to survive...But in a partnership, the one who demands to divorce has generally to support the cost of it. An unilateral declaration of Flander's independence would create a new state and it would be difficult to ask for being at the same time the "heir belgian state" and the new state of Flanders...

 

 

 

@ spraynasal

"I suppose that he would agree that in this case Brussels should not be the capital of the new independent flemish state, but Gent or Antwerpen would be more fitting."

Right on. You can keep Brussels and drown with it.

"Would the Flemish accept the principle of fixing the limits according to the locals majorities? Many municipalities around Brussels are now in hands of French-speaking municipal majorities. Would Flanders accept to fix the borders of the new Flemish states where the dutch-speaking are still a majority, which means enlarging the area of the bilingual Brussels region?"

Would the US accept to fix borders where Mexicans are a majority? Hell no. The same counts for Flanders. Get real.

"Many flemish says they want an independent Flanders, but aren't willing to accept that Brussels wouldn't be part of Flanders, and that's a problem."

It's not a problem because many Flemish say they don't want Brussels. Point in case: Flanders are daily transferring French workers from 100 km to work in their factories in the Flemish region around Brussels while French speaking workers keep on sitting on their arses 20 km away in Brussels. By the way these French speaking 'workers' are living largely on flemish financial aid.

"As a Walloon, I owe nothing to the Flemish, I live on the American continent and I can state that many french-speaking belgians would be very happy to receive not a penny from the Flemish anymore and end this unpleasant myth of living at the expense of Flanders."

Good. I think we can do business! But why is it that French speaking keep on resisting any transfer of (financial) responsibility from the federal state to the Flemish or Walloon region. It is so f***ing easy to say that you you owe nothing to someone when you are protected by law to put your hands in the other person's pocket. Get real.

"this unpleasant myth of living at the expense of Flanders."

When I explain the above to anyone abroad they cannot believe it. Indeed it is a myth. It is high time for us all to get real.

"An unilateral declaration of Flander's independence would create a new state and it would be difficult to ask for being at the same time the "heir belgian state" and the new state of Flanders..."

You can keep the title of the 'heir belgian state' and the king too. And now join France, the sooner the better. And about supporting the cost of a divorce: don't forget to pay back all the billions the French speaking owe to Flanders, money that has been squandered away and which could have saved thousands of lives. GET REAL.

The Flemish independence

These are statistics about the present day population of Belgium:
"An estimated 59%[42] of the Belgian population speaks Dutch (often referred to as Flemish), and French is spoken by 40%. Total Dutch speakers are 6.23 million, concentrated in the northern Flanders region, while French speakers comprise 3.32 million in Wallonia and an estimated 0.87 million or 85% of the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region.[43][44] The German-speaking Community is made up of 73,000 people in the east of the Walloon Region; around 10,000 German and 60,000 Belgian nationals are speakers of German. Roughly 23,000 more of German speakers live in municipalities near the official Community.[4][45]"

Since the flemish are the majority AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE MAJORITY why are you accusing us of taking advantage of laws that your representatives have written and voted for?

Flanders speak about independence, but usually chooses to keep managing the Belgian state. It's very easy for you to pretend that the French-speaking and the walloon are taking advantage of this, when in fact we hate as much as you do the mismanagement and the corruption resulting from the permanent changes in the federal laws that the indecisiveness of the CDV is always bringing. Now Dehaene is coming back...and Martens says it's time for the CDV to stop playing the anti-Belgium stance. Are the Walloons responsible for the flip-floppings of Flanders? Get real yourselves!

In Response

"Ergün Top, a Turkish born Belgian politician who is a local councillor in Antwerp, declared that if there were a war between Belgium and Turkey, he would join the Turkish army and fight Belgium."

 

Well I am certain that many "international brigades" from all over the West would come to Belgium's assistance were this eventuality to occur.

 

"Top holds the Belgian as well as the Turkish nationality. He is a Muslim but belongs to the Christian-Democrat Party. He was standing for a seat in the Belgian Senate. During his campaign among Belgian voters of Turkish origin, he indicated that he feels more loyalty towards Turkey than towards Belgium. The message was well received by his audience, who feel the same. Mr Top said that he approves of Cemal Cavdarli, a Socialist member of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives who went to serve in the Turkish army while he was a member of parliament in Belgium."

 

I wonder whether the Wallonian socialist establishment would allow Vlaams Belang members of parliament to create their own paramilitary 'self-defense' force given the militancy of their political rivals?

 

If Western Europeans can approve more of China or Vladimir Putin than they do of the United States and George W. Bush, than certainly they can begin to perceive Slobodan Milosevic differently as "low level" violence and crime escalate.