History makes comeback to bite back…

Belgium had national elections more than a 100 days ago, yet it still has no government. Pundits from across Europe, not to mention further afield, are both speculating on the break-up of the kingdom over the crisis and at the same time are becoming increasingly fascinated by the prospect.

But the people who seem least agitated by the inability of their political parties to create a government are the Belgians themselves. As ever, they are going about their business with the indifference of those who know life tends to proceed despite politicians, not because of them - especially at the federal level.

Having devolved both authority and responsibility for the average citizen down to the regional and, in many cases, the commune level, the national government has become something of an abstraction to the people of Belgium. Indeed, it is deemed to be there in order to ensure that Belgium exists rather than functions - which is why the pundits are probably wrong and the kingdom will stay intact for the present, though not necessarily in the future. The reasons for this should be an object lesson for the EU at large.

The idea of the incoherence of Belgium has been around for as long as the state has existed - which is precisely the problem. The unfolding reality of the nation has always been undermined by its history, from the very act of creation. While most commentators focus on the incompatibility of the Flemish- and French-speaking communities in Flanders and Wallonia - little attention is given to the German-speaking minority - few refer to the cynical fact of Belgium being created by the Great Powers more or less on condition of neutrality. A nation was not forged so much as a state created, for the convenience of others and then grotesquely violated in two world wars. That state also had a royal family foisted upon it. One monarch developed Congo for himself as a private entity of cruelty, which he then sold to the state, while another capitulated to the Nazis with breathtaking speed and had his own government in exile turn against him.

This is not a chronicle to be proud of, to put it mildly - which may help explain why life has two-tiers of reality in Belgium. While on a daily basis the people who live in the land have created an identity for themselves, at the higher, collective level there is a reluctance to admit the validity of this identity. In other words, history has made the Belgian identity a doubtful creation rather than the factual success experienced daily.

That is not the only effect of history. The chronicle of Belgium is not only unpleasant, it is also one of persistent helplessness in the face of stronger forces. It quickly became obvious that there was little utility in raising external opposition - which is why the job of the government is mainly to emphasise that the state exists. The flip side of international powerlessness is that railing internally is the only viable means of venting frustrations. As a result, every issue within the kingdom ends up assuming gargantuan proportions, threatening the coherence of the state.

It is this double impact of history on Belgium that should be of the greatest interest to the EU - though the prospect of one of its founding states splitting should not be shrugged off lightly. As a project the Union is an historical novelty, not least because it is in its essence a-historical: it was created in order both to suppress and ignore history. This was the implicit pact of the founding six nations, which was accepted by all the states that joined up to and including 1995, because by and large they had a vaguely similar view of the past.

But since the enlargement of 2004 history has emerged as a massive issue. The new states had been helpless and powerless under Soviet rule - and often for centuries before. For the first time many of them are free to express their frustrations and are doing so externally - most notably Poland, although Poland is not alone. But as noted, history and its ills are not acceptable in the EU - which means either that the new states will change the rules, or else they will learn to internalise their historical frustrations. In other words, become Belgium.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Belgium had national elections more than a 100 days ago, yet it still has no government. Pundits from across Europe, not to mention further afield, are both speculating on the break-up of the kingdom over the crisis and at the same time are becoming increasingly fascinated by the prospect.

• Primary Source