Class 1: Introduction
The Problem: A Divided Society
The central problem of the Belgian political system is that it is a society fundamentally
divided along three historical fault lines, or cleavages. These divisions are deep,
institutionalized, and create significant threats to the country's stability.
1. The Three Traditional Cleavages
These are the core conflicts that have shaped Belgium's history.
● A. The Religious Cleavage (Catholic vs. Secular)
○ Core Conflict: The opposition between Catholicism and secularism.
○ Historical Context: It is the oldest cleavage and was central to conflicts
over:
■ The design of the new state in 1830.
■ The formal separation between Church and State.
■ The organization of the national education system.
○ Modern Relevance: While its importance has diminished due to
secularization, it remains visible in debates on moral-ethical issues and
integration. The slide deck uses the debate around a strict migration policy
as a contemporary example of this theme.
● B. The Socio-Economic Cleavage (Capital vs. Labor)
○ Core Conflict: The opposition between capital (owners, employers) and labor
(workers).
○ Historical Context: It emerged at the end of the 19th century with
industrialization and the rise of the labor movement. This led to major
struggles for:
■ The right to vote.
■ Better wages and working conditions.
■ The creation of the welfare state (health insurance, pensions).
○ Modern Relevance: This cleavage remains highly active today, visible in the
roles of powerful trade unions and employers' organizations and the
system of social dialogue. The slides use images of union protests as a
clear example of its modern power.
● C. The Linguistic Cleavage (Dutch vs. French)
○ Core Conflict: The opposition between Dutch-speakers and
French-speakers.
○ Historical Context: This conflict became particularly important after WWI. It
was fought over:
■ The privileged position of the French language in the state
administration.
■ Flemish demands for cultural, linguistic, and economic autonomy.
, ■ The continuous process of state reform to accommodate these
demands.
○ Modern Relevance: The slides emphasize that despite six major state
reforms, this cleavage is still important, with ongoing political goals to create
a "new state structure".
2. The Institutionalization of Divisions
Belgium didn't just have divisions; it formally organized them.
● Pillarization: This is the key concept, defined as the "creation of dense networks of
organizations that belong to the same subculture and that almost fully encapsulate its
members".
○ The population was divided into three main ideological pillars: Catholic,
Socialist, and Liberal.
○ Each pillar provided a complete social ecosystem for its members, with its
own political parties, health funds, unions, schools, and newspapers, offering
services "from cradle to the grave".
○ Though this system has weakened ("de-pillarization"), its structures are still
visible today.
● Cross-Cutting vs. Coinciding Cleavages: This explains how the cleavages
interact.
○ Cross-Cutting Cleavages (Historically Stabilizing): Belgium was
historically characterized by cleavages that ran across each other. For
example, the linguistic cleavage cuts through the socio-economic one (there
are both Dutch- and French-speaking socialists). This acts as a stabilizing
factor, because adversaries on one issue are allies on another.
○ Coinciding Cleavages (Currently Polarizing): There is a clear modern
trend towards cleavages that overlap and reinforce each other, which
increases polarization. This has created the image of "two opposing
blocks" (Flanders vs. Wallonia) , a view exemplified by nationalist discourse
that frames Belgium as "the sum of two democracies" with opposing views on
all major issues.
3. The Consequence: A System Under Threat
These deep, institutionalized divisions create a series of threats to the democratic system:
● Societal segregation and a lack of contact between the different groups.
● A "centrifugal logic," where power and identity are constantly pushed away from the
center.
● A high risk of political immobilism and instability.
,The Solution – Consociational Democracy
Faced with the deep divisions outlined in Part 1, Belgium's survival required a specific
political model. The lecture presents this solution as Consociational Democracy.
1. Defining Consociational Democracy
● Core Concept: Based on the work of political scientist Arend Lijphart, it is defined as
a "set of practices that allow divided societies to survive". It is not about eliminating
divisions, but managing them.
● Two Basic Principles: The model operates on two main principles:
1. Power-Sharing at the Elite Level: The leaders of the different societal
groups (or "segments") cooperate to govern. This includes:
■ Software: A "spirit of accommodation" and willingness to compromise
among party leaders.
■ Hardware: Formal mechanisms like forming grand coalitions
(including more parties than mathematically necessary), ensuring
proportionality in appointments, and granting each group a mutual
veto on vital issues.
2. Segmental Autonomy: While elites cooperate at the top, the different
segments of society are allowed to organize their own affairs according to
their own principles.
■ This means there is "no need for a one-size-fits-all approach".
■ Key examples include separate systems for education (Catholic vs.
public schools), health care (run by the pillars), and the autonomy of
the linguistic communities.
2. Consociationalism in Practice: Key Historical Pacts
The slides present several historical moments where this model was explicitly used to
resolve major crises. These are textbook examples of the famous ‘compromis à la Belge’
(Belgian-style compromise).
● A. The ‘Pact of Loppem’ (1918)
○ Context: The aftermath of WWI, with industry in ruins and the threat of a
communist revolution.
○ Action: King Albert I gathered party leaders to bridge divisions.
○ Solution: Concessions were made to the Socialists' radical demands,
including major electoral reform (one man, one vote) and the expansion of
the right to strike.
○ Result: This pact created temporary stability and made coalition
governments the new norm.
● B. The ‘Social Pact’ (1944)
○ Context: The end of WWII, following the Great Depression and facing the
threat of communism, with the socialist movement having gained prestige in
the resistance.
, ○ Action: A pact was forged to create a new social security system.
○ Solution: This created an integrated, mandatory system of health
insurance, pensions, and unemployment benefits for all employees,
financed by employees, employers, and the state. This marked a major
expansion of the welfare state, with a crucial role given to the pillar
organizations (unions, health funds) in its management (an example of
segmental autonomy).
● C. The Federalization Process (1970-2011)
○ Problem: Growing frustrations, linguistic discrimination, and calls for
autonomy from both sides.
○ Solution: A gradual and pragmatic process of centrifugal federalism,
transferring power to the communities and regions. This process relied on
power-sharing (broad coalitions, mutual vetoes) at the federal level and
granting segmental autonomy at the sub-state levels. The graph on slide 43
shows that this process significantly reduced the number and intensity of
linguistic conflicts.
3. The Failure of Majoritarianism (Proof of the Consociational Model)
The lecture argues that abandoning this consensus model for a "winner-takes-all"
majoritarian approach is "disruptive and doomed to fail" in Belgium.
● A. The ‘Royal Question’ (1950)
○ The Conflict: A deep divide over whether King Leopold III should return to
the throne after his controversial conduct during WWII. Catholics supported
his return; Socialists and liberals were opposed.
○ The Majoritarian Attempt: A national referendum was held, and 57% voted
'yes'.
○ The Failure: The result split the country geographically (Flanders voted 'yes',
Wallonia 'no'), leading to violent riots and a revolutionary atmosphere.
○ The Consociational Resolution: Faced with potential civil war, party leaders
compromised: Leopold III was forced to abdicate in favor of his son,
Baudouin. This proved majoritarianism was unsuitable for Belgium.
● B. The ‘School War’ (1950s)
○ The Conflict: A battle over the funding of Catholic vs. state schools.
○ The Majoritarian "Games": Successive governments used their slim
majorities to either increase or cut subsidies, leading to massive protests.
○ The Consociational Resolution: The conflict was ended by the ‘School
Pact’ of 1958, a classic consensus-seeking agreement between the three
pillars that recognized and funded both school systems, an example of
pacification through segmental autonomy.
● C. Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV) (2003-2011)
○ The Conflict: A dispute over a bilingual electoral district that Francophones
wanted to keep and Flemings wanted to split.
The Problem: A Divided Society
The central problem of the Belgian political system is that it is a society fundamentally
divided along three historical fault lines, or cleavages. These divisions are deep,
institutionalized, and create significant threats to the country's stability.
1. The Three Traditional Cleavages
These are the core conflicts that have shaped Belgium's history.
● A. The Religious Cleavage (Catholic vs. Secular)
○ Core Conflict: The opposition between Catholicism and secularism.
○ Historical Context: It is the oldest cleavage and was central to conflicts
over:
■ The design of the new state in 1830.
■ The formal separation between Church and State.
■ The organization of the national education system.
○ Modern Relevance: While its importance has diminished due to
secularization, it remains visible in debates on moral-ethical issues and
integration. The slide deck uses the debate around a strict migration policy
as a contemporary example of this theme.
● B. The Socio-Economic Cleavage (Capital vs. Labor)
○ Core Conflict: The opposition between capital (owners, employers) and labor
(workers).
○ Historical Context: It emerged at the end of the 19th century with
industrialization and the rise of the labor movement. This led to major
struggles for:
■ The right to vote.
■ Better wages and working conditions.
■ The creation of the welfare state (health insurance, pensions).
○ Modern Relevance: This cleavage remains highly active today, visible in the
roles of powerful trade unions and employers' organizations and the
system of social dialogue. The slides use images of union protests as a
clear example of its modern power.
● C. The Linguistic Cleavage (Dutch vs. French)
○ Core Conflict: The opposition between Dutch-speakers and
French-speakers.
○ Historical Context: This conflict became particularly important after WWI. It
was fought over:
■ The privileged position of the French language in the state
administration.
■ Flemish demands for cultural, linguistic, and economic autonomy.
, ■ The continuous process of state reform to accommodate these
demands.
○ Modern Relevance: The slides emphasize that despite six major state
reforms, this cleavage is still important, with ongoing political goals to create
a "new state structure".
2. The Institutionalization of Divisions
Belgium didn't just have divisions; it formally organized them.
● Pillarization: This is the key concept, defined as the "creation of dense networks of
organizations that belong to the same subculture and that almost fully encapsulate its
members".
○ The population was divided into three main ideological pillars: Catholic,
Socialist, and Liberal.
○ Each pillar provided a complete social ecosystem for its members, with its
own political parties, health funds, unions, schools, and newspapers, offering
services "from cradle to the grave".
○ Though this system has weakened ("de-pillarization"), its structures are still
visible today.
● Cross-Cutting vs. Coinciding Cleavages: This explains how the cleavages
interact.
○ Cross-Cutting Cleavages (Historically Stabilizing): Belgium was
historically characterized by cleavages that ran across each other. For
example, the linguistic cleavage cuts through the socio-economic one (there
are both Dutch- and French-speaking socialists). This acts as a stabilizing
factor, because adversaries on one issue are allies on another.
○ Coinciding Cleavages (Currently Polarizing): There is a clear modern
trend towards cleavages that overlap and reinforce each other, which
increases polarization. This has created the image of "two opposing
blocks" (Flanders vs. Wallonia) , a view exemplified by nationalist discourse
that frames Belgium as "the sum of two democracies" with opposing views on
all major issues.
3. The Consequence: A System Under Threat
These deep, institutionalized divisions create a series of threats to the democratic system:
● Societal segregation and a lack of contact between the different groups.
● A "centrifugal logic," where power and identity are constantly pushed away from the
center.
● A high risk of political immobilism and instability.
,The Solution – Consociational Democracy
Faced with the deep divisions outlined in Part 1, Belgium's survival required a specific
political model. The lecture presents this solution as Consociational Democracy.
1. Defining Consociational Democracy
● Core Concept: Based on the work of political scientist Arend Lijphart, it is defined as
a "set of practices that allow divided societies to survive". It is not about eliminating
divisions, but managing them.
● Two Basic Principles: The model operates on two main principles:
1. Power-Sharing at the Elite Level: The leaders of the different societal
groups (or "segments") cooperate to govern. This includes:
■ Software: A "spirit of accommodation" and willingness to compromise
among party leaders.
■ Hardware: Formal mechanisms like forming grand coalitions
(including more parties than mathematically necessary), ensuring
proportionality in appointments, and granting each group a mutual
veto on vital issues.
2. Segmental Autonomy: While elites cooperate at the top, the different
segments of society are allowed to organize their own affairs according to
their own principles.
■ This means there is "no need for a one-size-fits-all approach".
■ Key examples include separate systems for education (Catholic vs.
public schools), health care (run by the pillars), and the autonomy of
the linguistic communities.
2. Consociationalism in Practice: Key Historical Pacts
The slides present several historical moments where this model was explicitly used to
resolve major crises. These are textbook examples of the famous ‘compromis à la Belge’
(Belgian-style compromise).
● A. The ‘Pact of Loppem’ (1918)
○ Context: The aftermath of WWI, with industry in ruins and the threat of a
communist revolution.
○ Action: King Albert I gathered party leaders to bridge divisions.
○ Solution: Concessions were made to the Socialists' radical demands,
including major electoral reform (one man, one vote) and the expansion of
the right to strike.
○ Result: This pact created temporary stability and made coalition
governments the new norm.
● B. The ‘Social Pact’ (1944)
○ Context: The end of WWII, following the Great Depression and facing the
threat of communism, with the socialist movement having gained prestige in
the resistance.
, ○ Action: A pact was forged to create a new social security system.
○ Solution: This created an integrated, mandatory system of health
insurance, pensions, and unemployment benefits for all employees,
financed by employees, employers, and the state. This marked a major
expansion of the welfare state, with a crucial role given to the pillar
organizations (unions, health funds) in its management (an example of
segmental autonomy).
● C. The Federalization Process (1970-2011)
○ Problem: Growing frustrations, linguistic discrimination, and calls for
autonomy from both sides.
○ Solution: A gradual and pragmatic process of centrifugal federalism,
transferring power to the communities and regions. This process relied on
power-sharing (broad coalitions, mutual vetoes) at the federal level and
granting segmental autonomy at the sub-state levels. The graph on slide 43
shows that this process significantly reduced the number and intensity of
linguistic conflicts.
3. The Failure of Majoritarianism (Proof of the Consociational Model)
The lecture argues that abandoning this consensus model for a "winner-takes-all"
majoritarian approach is "disruptive and doomed to fail" in Belgium.
● A. The ‘Royal Question’ (1950)
○ The Conflict: A deep divide over whether King Leopold III should return to
the throne after his controversial conduct during WWII. Catholics supported
his return; Socialists and liberals were opposed.
○ The Majoritarian Attempt: A national referendum was held, and 57% voted
'yes'.
○ The Failure: The result split the country geographically (Flanders voted 'yes',
Wallonia 'no'), leading to violent riots and a revolutionary atmosphere.
○ The Consociational Resolution: Faced with potential civil war, party leaders
compromised: Leopold III was forced to abdicate in favor of his son,
Baudouin. This proved majoritarianism was unsuitable for Belgium.
● B. The ‘School War’ (1950s)
○ The Conflict: A battle over the funding of Catholic vs. state schools.
○ The Majoritarian "Games": Successive governments used their slim
majorities to either increase or cut subsidies, leading to massive protests.
○ The Consociational Resolution: The conflict was ended by the ‘School
Pact’ of 1958, a classic consensus-seeking agreement between the three
pillars that recognized and funded both school systems, an example of
pacification through segmental autonomy.
● C. Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV) (2003-2011)
○ The Conflict: A dispute over a bilingual electoral district that Francophones
wanted to keep and Flemings wanted to split.
