Last week we reported that the Flemish government had published the text of a Charter for Flanders, a 41-page document that lays out “the democratic principles and basic social values” of the region. Since then there has been relatively little reaction – less, certainly, than greeted the publication of a handbook for new immigrants that attempted to do the same thing on a more simplified scale.

The lack of media attention would seem to indicate that the document is not particularly radical. But the history of the charter shows that it’s taken 20 years to achieve its final form and that setting out a list of “what we stand for” has not been an easy task. “

At different times, people have tried to draw up a constitution or a charter,” explains Kris Peeters from his office in Brussels. “I think it was in 1992 that the Flemish Association of Jurists asked for it, and since 1993 it’s been worked on in the Flemish parliament, thanks to several of my predecessors, beginning with Luc Van den Brande [minister-president from 1992 to 1999] and former speaker Norbert De Batselier [ from 1995 to 2006]. So there was a lot of work already done by various people, but there was one continuous thread running through it, and that was that there was never a majority in favour.”

Peeters re-opened the debate on the charter two years ago, on the eve of the annual Flemish holiday. The publication of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, completed in 2000 but only legally valid since the Treaty of Lisbon of December 2009, convinced him to look again at the Flemish charter.

Peeters “brought a number of professors around the table” to go over what had already been drafted. He told them that he wanted the European charter to act as a starting point to “create a document where we bring together the rights and the obligations and the political organisation in Flanders”.

By July of 2010, a draft was ready. “Behind the scenes, I had talks with the majority parties, and a definitive version came out of that.” The result is a preamble and 120 articles setting out a summary of the rules and regulations attached to living in Flanders, from the colours of the flag to foreign relations to the limits on taxation.

Why a charter?

“Now the question is: Do we really need such a document? My answer to that is ‘yes’,” says Peeters. “If I were to ask someone in Flanders: Do you know your rights and obligations? The average person would likely say yes, the Constitution. But, since the Treaty of Lisbon, there’s also now the European Charter on Fundamental Rights, and that also applies to you. And then there are also a number of exceptional laws and decrees that apply to you. You would have to read through all of those instruments to know what you, as a citizen of Flanders, have to adhere to or what you have the right to. So the value of this document is, I think, of enormous importance.”

Most of the document comes from sources such as the Belgian Constitution and the EU Charter, in addition to various laws and decrees that have already been long-approved. The day the charter was introduced, however, there were a few points of contention.

Flanders is a nation

The preamble states that Flanders “is a democratic and social state of laws and forms a nation with its own language and culture”. According to reports, the word “nation” was one of the main issues of disagreement within the government coalition, with the N-VA insisting on its inclusion.

“There’s been some discussion around the word ‘nation’,” says Peeters, “but I don’t think you have to investigate it too deeply. We have our culture, our language, our vision. The wording was approved by the majority. The opposition can look at it more closely and decide on their standpoint. As far as I’m concerned, the word ‘nation’ is in its proper place in the preamble, where the proper interpretation has been given, and I see no need for a great deal of further discussion.”

Brussels is the capital

Article 5, based on a 1984 decree, states that “the city of Brussels is the capital of Flanders”.

Peeters: “Brussels has regional competences, and for me it should remain that way – a city-region exercising those powers it has been granted – but Brussels is also the place where two communities meet. I always refer to the image of Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, where two oceans meet. It’s a beautiful place. That’s also what Brussels is – the place where two communities encounter each other. That’s the unique thing about the various state reforms that we’ve carried out up to now, and it’s something of huge value. Those who say we’re going to have three or four fully fledged regions in Belgium and give up the unique situation of the two communities coming together in Brussels … they’d be losing something that could never be won back.”

Peeters also points out that there are guarantees for the Flemish in Brussels built into the latest state reforms. “Those guarantees go hand-in-hand with the guarantees given to the French speakers at the federal level. So if you give away that stability and that unique place where two oceans meet, then you run the risk of that stability coming under heavy pressure, and I don’t know where we would end up.”

In other words, Peeters sees a quid pro quo: If the Flemish in Brussels were to lose the protections that counteract their minority status in the city, then that would jeopardise the protections enjoyed at a federal level by French speakers, who are a minority nationally.

The special status of Brussels is, Peeters says, “unique in its conception”. Around the world, he says, “people are very interested in – and even envious of – how we with our two language communities, two cultural communities, have found such creative solutions. Brussels as a place where those two communities come together means that Flanders has to assume its responsibilities. We invest €670 million a year in Flemish community responsibilities in Brussels. Sadly, I have to note that youth unemployment in Brussels stands at more than 30%. There’s an enormous challenge to be met. Brussels is and will remain the capital of Flanders, and, more than in the past, we will assume our responsibilities in partnership with Brussels.”

Opposition to the charter Open VLD, the main opposition party in the Flemish parliament, says it was not consulted in the drafting of the charter, which faction leader Sas Van Rouveroij argues requires “as broad a political and social basis as possible”. As Peeters sees it, open debate in the past led only to stalemate. Now there is a majority in favour, and the opposition is free to join it. “I say to the opposition: Give us your views, and we’ll talk about them. That I think is the normal parliamentary procedure.” Opposition party Groen, meanwhile, has demanded a referendum. “I find that really bizarre,” says Peeters. “You have to ask yourself: If the parliament can’t discuss and reach agreement on a Charter, what can it do? If you have to go back and consult the people, who elected the members of parliament to represent them, that’s a very odd position. What is the point of all those political factions in the Flemish parliament if they’re unable to discuss matters like this?”

On the French-speaking side of Belgium, Ecolo has claimed the charter is a sign of “a nationalist wind that’s blowing through the north of the country”. Peeters is insistent that the charter is not in any way a first step on the road to Flemish independence.

“Nothing to do with that,” he confirms. “We say clearly that we subscribe to the Belgian constitution, that we adhere to the European Charter; we make it clear we’re a part of the Belgian federal state. What does any of that have to do with nationalist winds?” The charter “is what it is,” he says. “We don’t have the constitutional autonomy to say that this is the ‘constitution’ for Flanders.”

Rudy Demotte, minister-president of the Walloon region, argues that the charter is an old idea, and the country has other priorities at this time. “I’m not saying that now, with a crisis in the Eurozone and with the re-launch of the economy that we have to get under way, that this is my most important dossier in the coming weeks,” says Peeters. “This is a dossier that has been open since 1992. And I’m intensely occupied with growth stimulation in Flanders, with security of employment and so on, but one thing doesn’t exclude the other. This dossier has been brought to a good conclusion, and that’s an important fact.”

It’s “high time”, says Peeters, that Flanders has a charter. “Now the parliament will work on a resolution through which the charter will be approved by the majority. And with this document, we’ll be able to say to people who don’t know Flanders: This is what we stand for.”

www.standaard.be/handvest