Crossing the Rubicon: Strategies and Motivations behind Cross-ethnolinguistic Vote-seeking in the Brussels Capital Region

Abstract

How and why do political parties seek cross-ethnolinguistic support within a consociation? This article constitutes a thematic analysis of 30 interviews undertaken with MPs from the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium). It shows how both strategic and principled considerations underpin the logic of parties appealing to the other language group. I identify six strategies: employing customized communication, cultivating visibility, fostering cross-ethnolinguistic interactions, presenting alternative party offerings, establishing a ‘Brussels’ image, and navigating voters. However, in adopting these, they encounter (in)formal and practical obstacles. These findings are significant, as seeking cross-ethnolinguistic support is expected to mitigate tendencies toward outbidding and extremism.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the interviewees for their time and valuable contributions to this article. I would also like to thank Didier Caluwaerts, Silvia Erzeel, Gaëlle Claeys, and Katrin Praprotnik, as well as the participants of the 2023 ECPR General Conference in Prague for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. Many thanks to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on this article.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

1 These include the Volksunie in Flanders, Rassemblement Wallon in Wallonia, and Front Démocratique des Francophones in Brussels.

2 In Brussels, each community has established its own commission to oversee community matters (Dalle Mulle, 2016). The Flemish Community Commission (VGC) and the French Community Commission (COCOF) act as subordinate entities, executing decisions made at the broader Flemish and French community levels regarding unilingual institutions in Brussels. However, some matters have been formally transferred from the French Community to the COCOF. The Common Community Commission (COCOM) is responsible for person-related community matters common to the two communities, such as child allowances and welfare organizations that do not have a clear unilingual status (Deschouwer, 2012).

3 In the six municipalities with language facilities surrounding Brussels, voters have the option to vote for candidates either in the province of Flemish Brabant or in Brussels. Moreover, PVDA/PTB, organized as a state-wide party, consistently presents lists in both Flanders and Wallonia. In the past, some parties have occasionally presented lists in the other language community, such as l’Union des Francophones in the province of Flemish Brabant and Vlaams Belang in several Walloon provinces.

4 The group of registered voters eligible for the BCR elections, comprising 588,203 individuals in May 2019 (FPS Home Affairs), can reasonably be anticipated to be somewhat less ethnolinguistically diverse compared to the broader Brussels population, which exceeded 1.22 million inhabitants in 2022 (Statbel, 2022).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) under grant 1113324N.

Notes on contributors

Benjamin Blanckaert

Benjamin Blanckaert is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium) and Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen). His research deals with consociational democracy, representation, identity, voting behaviour, and Belgian federalism. E-mail: [email protected]