BRUSSELS -- Five years ago, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt
challenged voters to measure his success by his ability to curtail the
growth of the right-wing Flemish Blok party. By that measure, his term in
office has been a disaster. Last weekend, Mr. Verhofstadt's party, the
Flemish Liberal Democrats, or VLD, suffered its first ever Flanders-wide
defeat at the hands of the Blok. Normally, Verhofstadt would have no
choice but to resign. That would then clear the way for a lifting of the
so-called "cordon sanitaire" that bans all other parties from even talking
to the Blok. Normally, gaining a 24% percent share of the vote and
becoming the second largest party in Flanders (after the Christian
Democrats) should be enough to earn the Blok a place at the table.
But this is Belgium, a country where nothing is ever normal. Mr.
Verhofstadt will probably stay in place, as will the cordon sanitaire. To
understand this, it's important to understand why the cordon was imposed
in the first place. The formal case for the cordon sanitaire is that the
Blok is an extreme right-wing party with outrageous political views. A
recent conviction of one of its supporting organizations for violating
anti-racism laws (a politically motivated judgment, according to the Blok
leadership) is presented as evidence in support of the claim that it is
unworthy of normal political dialogue, let alone government.
Maybe so, but then so are the Austrian Freedom Party of Joerg Haider and
Pia Kjersgaard's Danish People's Party. And Mr. Haider's party has been in
government for four years now, while Ms. Kjersgaard's party managed to
wring significant policy concessions from Prime Minister Anders Fogh
Rasmussen in exchange for support for his minority center-right government.
Pim Fortuyn may not have been extreme, but was he certainly outrageous.
That didn't stop the other Dutch center-right parties from co-opting his
List Pim Fortuyn into government.
The Blok's message of closed borders, forced assimilation and
confrontation with Islamic culture may be an affront to the political
sensibilities of the other Belgian parties. But it places them squarely in
the new European political mainstream, where governments left, right and
center are now proposing the same policies the Blok has been advocating
for the past 20 years.
The reason the cordon is there to stay has less to do with principle than
with profit. Political profit, that is. The main proponents of the cordon
sanitaire are the Socialists, the Greens and Verhofstadt's left-wing
faction within the Liberal Democrat Party. These groups have little to
gain and everything to lose by a lifting of the ban.
To start with the Socialists and the Greens: they find themselves in the
unenviable position of having to contest elections in a region (Flanders)
that has always been predominantly center-right. Under normal
circumstances, that fact would have condemned them to eternal opposition.
But the cordon sanitaire helps to maintain the abnormal circumstances that
make the formation of a center-right majority government impossible. As
long as it stays in place, no coalition can be formed without left-wing
participation. Needless to say, the Greens and the Socialists have been
enthusiastic supporters of the cordon from the start. It's no surprise
that it was the party chairman of the Greens, Jos Geysels, who first
suggested the imposition of the cordon sanitaire back in 1989.
Support for the cordon from Prime Minister Verhofstadt's liberal faction
with the VLD is based on a different political calculation. By
criminalizing the Blok and its positions, it has become virtually
impossible for any group inside his party to challenge him from the right.
Any attempt to do so is swiftly condemned by him as "playing the Blok's
game." As long as this ban on right-wing positions stays in place, his
center-left faction is guaranteed to remain in power within the VLD.
Until recently, the real losers of the cordon were not the Blok but the
Christian Democrats, squeezed on the left by the VLD and on the right by
the Blok. A merger with the right-wing Flemish nationalist People's Union
has given them a new lease on life. But for how long? True, last weekend's
Flemish election results saw them coming in first, beating the Blok by a
mere 2%. But that success seemed to have more to do with midterm blues for
Mr. Verhofstadt than with the strength of their own positions. If they
persist in their refusal to negotiate with the Blok, they will probably
pay the price at the next elections. The vagaries of the Belgian
constitutional setup would effectively force them to join Verhofstadt's
government as junior partners. Any successes will be his alone. And he
will try his hardest to make sure any blame will be shared by everyone but
himself.
In the meantime, the Blok will continue to reap the electoral rewards of
its enforced isolation. Over the past 15 years, it has become an extremely
effective opposition party, gaining ground on the big three parties at
every election. Its strategy of taking its appeal against the conviction
not to the courts but directly to the people has been an overwhelming
success. In the Flemish-speaking part of Brussels, it's now almost as big
as all the other Flemish parties put together. In Antwerp, only a
coalition of all the other parties is large enough to keep the Blok in
opposition. And even this coalition of all against one may not be enough
to stop the Blok's charismatic leader, Filip Dewinter, from winning the
Antwerp mayoral elections two years from now.
* * *
The cordon sanitaire is turning into an electoral disaster for its
supporters. The time has come to scrap it. This may be the last time the
Christian Democrats can negotiate with the Blok from a position of
strength. It should use this final opportunity to force the Blok to accept
some serious concessions. Because next time, there may not be a next time.
Mr. Livestro is columnist with the Benelux edition of Reader's Digest
Magazine.