Mayors asked to respect the law
The Flemish home affairs minister Marino Keulen (Open VLD) last week again refused to appoint the three candidate mayors in the Flemish municipalities of Wezembeek-Oppem, Linkebeek and Kraainem. With the Council of Europe expected to speak out this week on the case, Keulen tells Flanders Today that he is ‘flabbergasted’ by the international attention the case has received. Anja Otte
Â
Could you first explain what exactly the three candidate mayors did wrong?
They have systematically broken the law. They did so in 2006 when they failed to organise the elections in compliance with the language laws. They also do so repeatedly when they allow council meetings to be held in French. They are systematically refusing to obey the laws and decrees of the Flemish government and have turned opposition to the Flemish authorities into a national sport. Their non-appointment is a result of this endless conflict.
If a majority of the residents in a commune speak French, why can’t the council meetings use that language?
Belgium is a complex country. We have an agreement that Dutch should be used as the official language in Flanders and French in Wallonia. In Brussels both languages can be used. This agreement is just a cog in the machine. These are the rules that were agreed long ago at the federal level.
So the non-appointment has nothing to do with the fact that these three mayors are French speaking?
Not at all. I have nothing against these people. All they have to do is comply with the law. I have already appointed three other French-speaking mayors in Wemmel, Sint-Genesius-Rode and Drogenbos. And – though not many people know this – I have also refused to appoint a Dutch-speaking mayor in Westerlo, Antwerp province, because he is involved in a judiciary procedure.
All the while, you claim to be giving the candidate-mayors of Wezembeek-Oppem, Kraainem and Linkebeek a second chance. In what sense, exactly?
I have asked them to organise the regional elections in June 2009 according to the law. This would create a new situation and imply a constructive attitude on the part of the candidate-mayors. I would then look at the case again.
You had the full support of the Flemish government when you refused to appoint the mayors a second time, but there was some debate. Why was that?
There was some discussion about the timing of my decision. Some people wanted it postponed, but I saw no reason to do that, as the procedure was finished. Minister-president Kris Peeters has stated time and time again that the appointment of the mayors stands apart from the current discussions on state reform.
Do you understand the angry reactions from the French-speaking parties?
Not really. I don’t see why this should put an end to institutional discussions, since state reform will benefit Wallonia and Brussels as well as Flanders.
Meanwhile, the Council of Europe is looking over your shoulder. How do you feel about that?
It is not correct. If the candidate mayors do not agree with my decision, they should take the case to the Council of State [the Belgian supreme court]. By refusing to do so, they are skipping an essential step in the procedure, since legally the Council of State is the only institution that can reverse my decision.
Are you happy with the way this situation has developed?
I regret that this incident has made it to the international stage, especially because the people responsible have failed to put it in the right context and never mention the option of the Council of State. They always say that the three people involved were elected as mayors. They were not; they were elected as council members. They also never mention that I have appointed three other French speakers as mayors.
What about the Council of Europe?
I provided the Council of Europe research mission with a report on the situation in three languages – English, French and Dutch – yet they seem to have not read it. One member of the mission told me that, no matter what, he personally believed that I should appoint the three candidate mayors. That is what you get if you isolate one fact and neglect to consider the agreements between Dutch and French speakers in Belgium.
Initially, you had planned to send a lawyer to the Council of Europe. Why?
Because this is essentially a legal case. In the end we have decided to send an elected representative, Fons Borginon, who is also judicially well-grounded. We have to make sure that, whatever the Council of Europe decides, it does not result in political interference in a legal procedure, should the three decide to take their case to the Council of State after all.
Does it bother you that this case may harm the image of Flanders abroad?
Yes, it does. Flanders is an open region, and international contacts are the oxygen of our economy. In addition, we are an exemplary region in Europe in many areas such as the integration of foreigners. Over 15,000 people of foreign origin are taking language and professional courses in Flanders. The image of Flanders that is being circulated does not square with its generosity or its culture of diversity. This is so unfair!
How can this be solved?
The image of Flanders is partly due to the fact that we have an extreme-right party with 20% of the votes. This has an impact on our international credibility. Another factor is the French- speaking media in Belgium, which is often the only source for foreign reporters. Some of the French-speaking newspapers are very militant; they insist on representing the Flemish periphery as a part of Brussels, which it is not. The third factor is our own attitude. We always believe that the rest of the world will understand us in the end. It does not work that way. Even a superpower like the United States has to invest in international communications.
