BRUSSELS — Politics is at a standstill.
Ahead of local elections in Brussels on Sunday, discord between the capital’s French- and Dutch-speaking parties is threatening to unravel the delicate political compromises needed to govern the city.
At the center is a conflict over plans to reduce car pollution. The turning point came earlier this month when local lawmakers voted to postpone stricter pollution limits for cars driving into the congested Belgian capital that were originally scheduled to take effect in January.
The French-speaking majority passed the decision, setting aside the Dutch-speaking minority and triggering a deadlock in ongoing talks to build a regional coalition that would govern the wider Brussels region.
“There have been no clashes of that scale in Brussels in the last 20 years,” said Elke Van den Brandt, Brussels’ outgoing mobility minister and member of the Dutch-speaking Green party. She said the French-speaking majority “could mathematically eliminate the Dutch-speaking minority.”
This is a very Belgian problem.
Belgium is divided into two main language groups. French speakers in southern Wallonia make up about 30% of the population. Dutch speakers in Northern Flanders make up about 60%. About 10% of Belgians live in the Brussels region.
Brussels is predominantly French-speaking. Dutch speakers are a minority, making up only about 8% of the region’s population. However, due to the principle that both communities should have equal representation, Dutch-speakers get more seats in the Brussels-regional parliament than their numbers suggest. That means they hold 17 of the 89 seats in parliament and half of the ministerial positions in local government. Any Brussels government needs a majority from both language groups.
This month’s vote to delay plans for low-emission zones upset that balance.
“What is really at stake is the protection of Dutch speakers in Brussels,” said Dave Sinardet, professor of political science at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. “This puts the whole of Brussels at risk and even Belgium’s institutional balance,” he warned.
‘Elected by action’
Last June, Belgians voted to elect new federal and regional parliaments and representatives to the European Parliament. The French-speaking liberal Reform Movement (MR) has become the largest party in Brussels, with 21 seats in parliament. The liberals quickly struck a coalition deal with the centrist Les Engagés and the French-speaking Socialist Party, but talks on the Dutch-speaking side repeatedly failed.
As the talks stalled, the frustrated MR ran out of patience. There is no prospect of a full government, but the French-speaking party, which has a majority in parliament, has put forward a plan to delay new emissions limits without negotiating the text with the Dutch-speaking party.
David Leisterh, MR’s regional leader, said in an interview: “I wasn’t chosen to wait. Chosen to act.
“Despite the lack of a majority on the Dutch-speaking side, we voted on two texts that will change the future of Brussels.” He also hailed the vote as “historic” in a video message to his followers.
For the Dutch-speaking parties, this is exactly the problem.
The Green Party, which has become the largest party in the Dutch-speaking world with 22% of the vote and four seats in parliament, has firmly opposed the postponement, arguing that restrictions are necessary to reduce harmful air pollution.
But even some Dutch-speaking political parties withheld their support, supporting the delay and angered by the lack of coordination. Van den Brandt warned of a “dangerous precedent”.
Despite winning the vote, Leisterh understands the tension he has sparked.
“We need to avoid similar decisions being made in the future that could be considered French-language legislation rather than Dutch-language legislation,” he told POLITICO. But he added that Brussels’ Dutch-speaking minority had been trying for months to form a coalition but had failed, and that the need to delay the pollution law was too urgent to wait any longer.
Moreover, he said, “It is not illegal to pass Congress….” “It’s actually quite democratic,” he claimed.
good movement vs. bad move
Belgium’s June elections have many feared they will lead to deep divisions between the country’s linguistic groups and its highly fragmented political landscape.
But “all the problems expected in the rest of the country are all concentrated within the borders of the Brussels region,” Sinardet said.
As the feud between Brussels’ largest Dutch- and French-speaking parties continues, both parties are expected to strengthen their positions this Sunday in elections for mayors and local councils in the capital’s 19 communes.
!function(){“strict use”;window.addEventListener(“message”,(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data(“datawrapper-height”)){var e=document.querySelectorAll( “iframe”);for(var t in a.data(“datawrapper-height”))for(var r=0;r"data wrapper height")(T)+"px";e(r).style.height=i}}}))}();
A plan called Good Move, a collection of measures to reduce car traffic in residential areas and build new cycle lanes, is at the heart of the Brussels impasse.
Implementation problems and heated protests have made Good Move politically damaging. “This is a bit like Voldemort in Harry Potter,” Brussels Mayor Philippe Close told Flemish newspaper De Morgen this week. In fact, you are no longer allowed to say the words ‘Good Move’.”
During the June election campaign, liberals in the French-speaking MR promised to halt the plan, responding to complaints that its ruthless implementation had provoked hostility from citizens.
But in the previous government, when Van den Brandt of the Dutch-speaking Green Party was in charge of mobility, the party focused its campaign on conservation.
Many of the criticisms of Good Move are “hot air,” Van den Brandt said. “If you ask (critics) what they want to change, it often comes down to methods and names.” She said goals such as clean air, safe transportation, public transit and more space for pedestrians and cyclists are controversial, but they are not.
This confrontation was further escalated when Georges-Louis Bouchez, MR’s national leader and a key power in Belgian politics, also joined the conflict, highlighting the scale of the Dutch-speaking Greens in Brussels compared to his own party. I emphasized how small it is. Van den Brandt stormed off the negotiating table after threatening to “end the Good Move” as well as delay new car pollution limits through regional councils.
“That’s not how democracy works,” she complained.
election fever
Sunday’s municipal polls could prove pivotal.
Despite this election being for a lower level of power, many of the same political players will emerge in Brussels as in the local elections in June. In many cases, they even use the same campaign platform.
Good Move “has become a political stake in local elections,” said Sinardet, the political scientist.
Van den Brandt is hoping a strong result on Sunday will save the Good Move target.
Leisterh said he hoped the local elections would “back up the results in June and confirm that there is a demand for change”.
If anything, the deadlock has also led to calls for changes to Brussels’ electoral system.
Both Leisterh and Van den Brandt agreed that allowing lists for Dutch- and French-speaking parties and candidates would be a good idea.
Forced choice between Dutch and French groups “is completely at odds with the sociological and socio-demographic realities of a multilingual region like Brussels,” Sinardet said.
