“If young people don’t engage with politics, politics will engage with them”

How do we breathe new life into our ailing political system? What reforms can help bridge the gap between citizens and government? With the elections on 9 June and 13 October approaching, VUB political science professor Dave Sinardet speaks out. “As an academic, I believe it is my right and even my duty to advocate for reforms.”

The final sprint to Sunday 9 June has begun, and Dave Sinardet’s days are getting busier. The first part of this interview takes place at his home, the second while he rushes to the metro and train station, and the third on the platform of a cancelled train. “I could talk at length about public transport as well...”

Next time, we will! First, can you explain why you believe in political reform?

Dave Sinardet: “I believe it’s important for academics to use their scientific expertise to engage in debates about how we can improve society. Just as economists advocate for economic reforms, I think political scientists have the right and even the duty to advocate for democratic and constitutional reforms. I have been doing this for about 20 years through research, reports, hearings, interviews, lectures and more. The debate on democracy is monopolised by political parties and their affiliates. I think it’s important that other voices are heard, voices that don’t come from a partisan perspective.”

A well-known economist said before the 2014 elections that he would cast a blank vote to maintain his independence. What do you think of that?

“With all due respect, I think that’s a foolish statement. I want to make it clear to people during elections that politics impacts their daily lives and that they can shape that impact through elections. For young people, this may seem distant. My message to them is: if you don’t engage with politics, politics will engage with you.”

Is separating federal and regional elections not a priority for you?

“In theory, it makes perfect sense to assess these levels separately in a federal state because they do different things. But we tried this between 2003 and 2014. There was no separate dynamic. The elections were held on different dates, but the parties put the same figureheads on the lists, and the regional and federal themes were constantly mixed. For instance, Guy Verhofstadt became prime minister again after the 2003 federal elections but also ran in the 2004 regional elections. The main issues in those regional elections were the splitting of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde and the continuation of the purple coalition – both of which are federal matters. The hoped-for distinct regional and federal electoral dynamics did not materialise, but the country entered a state of permanent campaigning. Holding the elections together again seemed the lesser of two evils.”

Is this confusion between levels typical for every federal state?

“The problem with the Belgian federal system is that, except for the PVDA, we no longer have federal parties. The same parties and faces appear in every election. In Canada, another federal state, it’s completely different. There you have national parties running federally and entirely different parties running in the provinces with different candidates. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party is separate from the Liberal Party that runs in Quebec. This obviously results in distinct elections. In our case, it will never work due to the organisation of our party system.”

“The federal electoral district addresses a democratic deficit, namely that Flemings cannot vote for French-speaking parties and vice versa”

You want to establish not only a European but also a federal electoral district with the same lists throughout the country. Should people in Flanders be able to vote for Walloon politicians?

“Political scientists have long debated which political institutions and electoral systems are best suited for divided countries, based on language, religion, culture and so on. There are two schools of thought. The first argues for limiting contact between different population groups to avoid conflict. The country should then be led by political elites who represent their own groups but are cautious and responsible enough to reach agreements with each other. These are called ‘prudent leaders’. This approach ensures pacification. The Belgian federalisation process is an example of this approach. The different population groups have been increasingly separated while politicians had to forge community compromises. This has not led to much pacification, but rather to radicalisation. Not so much among the population – most citizens do not want to split the country and few care about state reform and autonomy – but among politicians, who broke the world record for government formation due to conflicts over these issues.”

What is the alternative?

“A system that provides political elites with incentives to represent different population groups and build bridges between them. This school of thought has become more dominant among political scientists, and I endorse it. And this brings us to the federal electoral district, which fits perfectly: politicians would be encouraged to seek support on both sides of the language border. More importantly, such a district would address a democratic deficit, namely that Flemings cannot vote for French-speaking parties and vice versa. For instance, after the Swedish coalition, Flemings could not approve or disapprove of the then-prime minister Charles Michel’s policies because his party was not on the ballot. And on 9 June, a Walloon cannot express an opinion on Alexander De Croo’s premiership. This is also inconvenient for the people themselves, as Michel was more popular in Flanders and De Croo is more popular in Wallonia.” (laughs)

Doesn’t the federal electoral district sound like a utopia?

“I have been advocating for it for more than two decades. Along with many colleagues, we even developed a detailed proposal. Initially, it seemed very utopian: we were seen as ivory tower academics. But that’s precisely the role of academics: to introduce ideas into public debate, detached from the whims of the day, political feasibility and partisan interests. And we have succeeded to an extent: many other intellectuals have since advocated for a federal electoral district, it has become a staple of the state reform debate, and it is included in several party programmes. Actual approval is still far off, but it will certainly be on the table again in negotiations for a seventh state reform. Unfortunately, proposals to reform elections always face the same issue: parties base their support on whether they stand to gain votes.”

For the European elections, mandatory voting applies from the age of 16. You often visit schools. What do the students think about this?

“Reactions are mixed. Some young people think they don’t know enough to participate in elections, while others find it important that their voices are heard. I would also introduce mandatory voting from the age of 16 for other levels. It would then be up to schools, youth organisations and cultural youth groups to inform and encourage young people about these elections. Research shows that the earlier young people are encouraged to think about politics, the more likely they are to feel engaged later in life. Ideally, you get citizens who are committed to democracy for life.”

“Without being too dramatic, the animosity among politicians does have an impact”

You mentioned cautious and responsible leaders who reach agreements with each other. The TV programme Het Conclaaf showed leaders who often cannot stand each other. What do you think of that?

“In the past, I thought structures mainly influenced politicians’ behaviour – all the fuss about personal relationships and squabbles seemed more like fodder for the press than for serious scholars. The longer I spend in the political arena, the more I realise that personal trust and good relationships are indeed crucial. Without being too dramatic, that animosity does have an impact. It doesn’t bode well for government formation.”

You have made some original proposals to speed up government formation. Can you explain them?

“The House of Representatives invited me to a hearing on this topic as an expert. My approach is that more pressure should be applied if government formation drags on too long. Belgian politics suffers from procrastination, and I say that as an expert in both matters! Hence the idea of holding new elections after six months – hoping that this would be such a daunting prospect for the negotiating parties that everyone would want to speed things up a bit. A second way to increase pressure is to progressively reduce party funding the longer the negotiations overrun. Some MPs found this a bit populist. However, we are merely applying the logic of reducing unemployment benefits, which enjoys political consensus: the unemployed are financially penalised if they do not find work quickly enough because we see it as their duty. Well, it is also the duty of parties to govern the country within a reasonable timeframe.”

Sometimes it might take time to reach a strong agreement. Then what?

“During the 2020 government formation, 15 months were lost to strategic games. The coalition agreement was ultimately written in a few weeks at most. One of the longest government formations produced one of the vaguest coalition agreements. It included a tax reform, but how or what exactly? That wasn’t written down, and so it didn’t happen. If only those 15 months had been used to thoroughly work everything out…”