Bart De Wever: “A Flemish nationalist party must dare to govern, even without state reform”

During the presentation of the biography of Volksunie figurehead Hugo Schiltz, Prime Minister Bart De Wever offered a glimpse into his personal political philosophy and publicly explained for the first time the so-called “fortress doctrine”, a key strategic choice for his party.

“If — and only if — there is a chance to respond to the will of the Flemish people through the federal level, then it is our duty to assume responsibility there,” the Prime Minister said.

Flanders as a means, not an end

Bart De Wever stressed that the focus of a Flemish nationalist party should be on representing the will of the Flemish people.

“Flanders is a means, not an end in itself. It is a vehicle that allows us to pursue the course set by the will of the Flemish people. A Flemish nationalist party must capture and channel the mainstream of that popular will. Its ambition should be nothing less than to become the leading people’s party.”

According to the Prime Minister, that ambition naturally entails taking on governmental responsibility, even when the institutional framework is not ideal. Such a party must “have the courage to govern, even without state reform, as long as it pursues policies that sufficiently reflect what the broad current of Flemish society wants.”

Confederalism If we want to make structural changes, then we have to change the structures. Confederalism is the structural change that this country needs. The basic principle of confederalism is that Flanders and Wallonia are the owners of all powers. They exercise these themselves, but can also make decisions together and manage certain powers together at the confederal level, in both of their interests. This completely reverses the logic. Instead of transferring federal powers to Flanders and Wallonia, these powers can be transferred to the confederal level. Forced cooperation is replaced by voluntary cooperation. Must becomes will. Dismantling from above becomes building up from below. Confederalism is therefore deciding together on what we want to do together. Confederalism as a replacement for Belgian federalism

While Bart De Wever acknowledges that the successive state reforms since the 1970s have delivered significant gains, he remains sharply critical of the current federal structure.

He noted that “the Belgian state structure shaped between Egmont and Lambermont, at the initiative of, with the cooperation of, or with the support of the Volksunie, did lead to far-reaching cultural and economic emancipation for Flanders. But it also created a federal state that does not function properly: it lacks transparency, consumes enormous resources, and is inefficient.”

According to Bart De Wever, further strengthening Flemish autonomy within Europe is the only viable path forward.

“Meaningful economies of scale for supranational policy — by which I mean policies that go beyond our own Flemish democracy — will be found in Europe rather than in Belgium, in the world as it is evolving.”

“Those who think the system will eventually collapse on its own are fooling themselves. Grandma’s kitchen timer will not save us. What we need are politicians with the competence, the courage and the sense of responsibility to step down from the grandstand and enter the arena.”

The Prime Minister argues that the current federal system blocks real reform.

“All change is locked into a kind of ‘concrete policy’. Institutional reform in particular appears completely blocked. The sustainable answer to break out of this situation is confederalism, as a new paradigm to replace Belgian federalism. That remains my personal and ideological conviction.”

The “fortress doctrine”: governing federally in the service of the Flemish people

Bart De Wever defended the choice to assume responsibility within the existing framework as long as the path toward confederalism remains blocked. He described it as a duty.

“If confederalism is not possible, and if — and only if — there is an opportunity to serve the will of the Flemish people through the federal level, then it is our duty to take responsibility there.”

He referred to this strategic choice as the “fortress doctrine”.

“That is the choice I made last year. I sense that it is also supported within the Flemish Movement, even though it carries considerable risks.”

Although he acknowledged that this path is “particularly murky and delicate,” Bart De Wever sees no real alternative.

“There is no other reasonable option, except choosing self-imposed irrelevance,” he concluded.