Pandemic law: The N-VA submits a bill to guarantee democratic decision-making in the event of a crisis

Today, N-VA party chairman Peter De Roover is submitting a bill to determine a crisis situation during which measures to deal with that crisis will be tackled at an accelerated pace by parliament. This is intended to prevent parliament from being excluded from decision-making by the government in crisis situations, such as a pandemic. The N-VA fears that the pandemic law that the federal government is working on will roll back the rights of parliament by law, which amounts to a proxy law.

“Since October, shortly after the start of the De Croo government, I have been questioning the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Interior and Justice with the regularity of clockwork about the lack of proper legal regulations when issuing measures to combat the coronavirus. As experts pretty much unanimously confirm, it is unacceptable for the government to continue to grant itself de facto proxies based on a widely contested interpretation of the Civil Security law. This course of action leads to legal uncertainty, substantive sloppiness and a serious democratic deficit,” Peter De Roover says.

Parliament must keep decision-making in its hands

For months now, the government has been announcing a so-called pandemic law, but we have to conclude that no concrete texts have been produced. The N-VA group is thus putting its own proposal on the table because the practice of taking far-reaching measures by Ministerial Decree must be brought to an end as a matter of urgency. The chairman of the N-VA parliamentary group hopes to urge the government to act with speed by submitting this proposal. “We want to bring the debate into focus with our bill,” Peter De Roover says. “Does parliament constitute an obstacle to effective action in the event of a serious crisis, or should parliament also, and perhaps in such a crisis even especially, retain control of decision-making? That is the key question now on the table, and one to which an unequivocal answer must follow.”

Fast and sound democratic decision-making

With the bill to determine the crisis situation, the N-VA explicitly chooses to keep it in the hands of parliament. When a special emergency occurs, a crisis situation is determined by law for a limited period of time. During that period, all measures proposed by the government to deal with that emergency, particularly when they affect the rights and freedoms of citizens, must be regulated by law. In this way, parliament is explicitly involved in the decision-making process. “In theory, one sound argument can be made, which is covered by the Civil Security law, for not involving parliament after the acute phase in the enactment of measures that have a major impact on everyone’s daily life,” Peter De Roover believes, “and that is slowness of action. We provide a solution to this in our bill. When there is a crisis situation, parliament must organise itself in such a way that it reaches a decision within seven days. The public can also expect that from the representative body, which thus guarantees that all measures are taken democratically, correctly and after an open debate. Our proposal links speed of action to sound democratic decision-making.”

Parliament retains the final say

The bill also provides for the possibility for the government to intervene immediately if necessary. But even then, the last word remains with parliament, which will rule within seven days, among other things as to the proportionality of the measures implemented.

Democratic control and other advantages of the N-VA proposal

The way of working laid out in the bill therefore offers a series of advantages:

• Even in a crisis, parliament’s normal democratic control over the adoption of measures remains fully in place;
• Parliamentary scrutiny can improve the quality of decision-making, as any ambiguities come to light during the debate, before the measures are adopted;
• All arguments, for and against proposed drastic measures, unless in absolutely acute circumstances, are discussed in advance in all openness, which can strengthen support;
• Once adopted, the measures will have the status of law, so that citizens will also be able to turn to the Constitutional Court if they see grounds to do so;
• All opinions, such as those of the Council of State or the Data Protection Authority, which have not been sought in recent months, are given and help to arrive at well-considered decision-making;
• The bill offers the flexibility to be used in all emergency situations once the acute phase is over and there is no longer any reason to delegate decision-making to the executive, particularly when it comes to citizens’ rights and freedoms;
• Finally, this proposal offers an alternative to the regime of proxies, of which the pandemic law threatens to become a version.

From pandemic law to democracy law

“We want to have an open exchange of views on our texts with experts outside parliament and colleagues within the House who are allies in ensuring the full role of the representation of the people,” explains Peter De Roover, “and are open to any improvements to the text, as long as the full role of parliament in decision-making is respected as an objective. However, anyone who wants to eliminate parliament as a decision-maker in a crisis situation must not count on our cooperation. In that sense, our proposal could also simply be called a democracy law versus a disguised proxy scheme given the name of a pandemic law.”