![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOver at Path of the Paddle, Ikram Saeed explores Conservative leader Stephen Harper's stated interest in the Belgian model of federalism. This is refreshing to come across, inasmuch as the general justified tendency in Canadian political life to mock the too-frequent inanities of the Conserrvative Party has descended into rude and insulting statements about Belgium.
Belgian federalism is unique inasmuch as power is devolved to two parallel sets of institutions, one of which relates to the classic territorial model of state formation, the other relating to cultural matters.
The Belgian model is definitely interesting. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be very portable, inasmuch as the territorial/political and the cultural institutions were formed after the Second World War, as part of the transformation of Belgium from a centralized unitary state towards a less centralized federal or even confederal regime. If Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels had been self-govering entities before the Second World War on the model of Canadian provinces or Swiss cantons, it would likely have been impossible to set up two parallel sets of institutions. That Flanders chose to merge its territorial/political and cultural institutions almost as soon as it was able suggests to me that the Belgian model would be impossible to implement outside of Belgium.
Apart from immigrants, Flanders and Wallonia are largely homogeneous; Brussels is mostly Francophone, a consequence of immigration and the assimilation of the Netherlandophones which once predominated in Brussel, but owing to the city's status at the heart of the European Union it's a cosmopolitan regime. In the Belgian model of federalism, there is no room for linguistic minorities like Franco-Ontarians or Anglo-Quebeckers, as the Francophones of Flanders have learned.
The most critical difference between Canada and Belgium is that the existence within Belgium of two ethnonational/linguistic identities (Netherlandophone Flemish and Francophone Walloon) isn't mirrored in Canada. ~90% of French Canadians may live within the province of Québec, but the Acadiens of the Maritimes have their own separate and non-Québécois identity, while the development of a Québécois identity increasingly detached from the various non-Québécois Francophones in the rest of Canada has left these minorities to develop their own identities as best they can. As for English Canada, a specifically English Canadian nationalism (as opposed to one pan-Canadian) doesn't exist; the two strains of Canadian political thought identified by Ikram (the Trudeau-Chretien stream of one-nation bilingualism and the Mulroney-Martin-Charest method of asymmetrical federalism/Quebec autonomy) remain dominant. English Canada remains substantially defines by what it is not (not Québécois, not American). Establishing specifically English Canadian institutions would be an immensely complicated set of unrewarding political maneuvers lacking any connection to what English Canadians would want.
Belgian federalism is unique inasmuch as power is devolved to two parallel sets of institutions, one of which relates to the classic territorial model of state formation, the other relating to cultural matters.
Belgium is majority Flemish speaking, minority French speaking, with a tiny German minority. Each linguistic "community" has its own institutions dealing with education, culture, etc (think CBC/SRC, Montreal school boards, etc). These communities are not geographical -- francophones everywhere belong to the French community, etc.
But Belgium also has three geographical divisions: Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels. In what would be familiar to Canadians, regionshave power over regional economic development, urban planning ... housing, public works, water, energy, transportation, the environment and job training.
Confusingly, the region of Flanders and the Flemish linguistic community merged their institutions in 1980 (giving rise to Belgian asymmetrical federalism).
The Belgian model is definitely interesting. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be very portable, inasmuch as the territorial/political and the cultural institutions were formed after the Second World War, as part of the transformation of Belgium from a centralized unitary state towards a less centralized federal or even confederal regime. If Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels had been self-govering entities before the Second World War on the model of Canadian provinces or Swiss cantons, it would likely have been impossible to set up two parallel sets of institutions. That Flanders chose to merge its territorial/political and cultural institutions almost as soon as it was able suggests to me that the Belgian model would be impossible to implement outside of Belgium.
Apart from immigrants, Flanders and Wallonia are largely homogeneous; Brussels is mostly Francophone, a consequence of immigration and the assimilation of the Netherlandophones which once predominated in Brussel, but owing to the city's status at the heart of the European Union it's a cosmopolitan regime. In the Belgian model of federalism, there is no room for linguistic minorities like Franco-Ontarians or Anglo-Quebeckers, as the Francophones of Flanders have learned.
The most critical difference between Canada and Belgium is that the existence within Belgium of two ethnonational/linguistic identities (Netherlandophone Flemish and Francophone Walloon) isn't mirrored in Canada. ~90% of French Canadians may live within the province of Québec, but the Acadiens of the Maritimes have their own separate and non-Québécois identity, while the development of a Québécois identity increasingly detached from the various non-Québécois Francophones in the rest of Canada has left these minorities to develop their own identities as best they can. As for English Canada, a specifically English Canadian nationalism (as opposed to one pan-Canadian) doesn't exist; the two strains of Canadian political thought identified by Ikram (the Trudeau-Chretien stream of one-nation bilingualism and the Mulroney-Martin-Charest method of asymmetrical federalism/Quebec autonomy) remain dominant. English Canada remains substantially defines by what it is not (not Québécois, not American). Establishing specifically English Canadian institutions would be an immensely complicated set of unrewarding political maneuvers lacking any connection to what English Canadians would want.
