N※N

Belgium Stuck in a 542-Day Government Stalemate, Brussels Lags Behind

68

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. y-government-stalemate-brussels-lags-behind.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 9:04 GMT by newsbytesapp.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-03 251 x 201 / 12742 Bytes

2025-12-03 224 x 224 / 17617 Bytes

2025-12-03 224 x 224 / 12586 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 9468 Bytes

Brussels in the Longest Governmental Deadlock in Decades – A 542‑Day Stalemate

In an extraordinary display of political inertia, the Belgian capital of Brussels stood without a fully functioning federal government for 542 days—a record‑breaking span that eclipsed the 541‑day stalemate that had shocked Europe in 2011. The crisis, rooted in the country's complex linguistic and regional divisions, sent ripples through the European Union, the global economy, and the daily lives of the 11.5 million residents of Belgium’s capital.

The Genesis of the Deadlock

The saga began in the wake of the 2019 federal elections, held on 13 and 14 May, the second round of which took place on 20 May. Voters in the country—split roughly into the Dutch‑speaking Flemish community in the north and the French‑speaking Walloon community in the south—expressed a sharp divide in their political preferences. The centre‑right parties led by the Christian Democrats (CD&V) and the Flemish nationalist New Flemish Alliance (N‑VA) dominated the Flemish seats, while the French‑speaking Socialists (PS) and the Greens (Ecolo) secured a majority of the Walloon seats. The left‑wing Socialist Party — The Democrats (SP.A) and the Flemish liberal Open Vld, as well as the Flemish leftist party Groen, struggled to find a common ground.

The two‑party coalition that had governed Belgium since 2007 collapsed when the Flemish government was dismissed by the monarch after a parliamentary vote of no confidence. The Dutch‑speaking parties and the French‑speaking parties failed to agree on how to share the prime ministerial post, which is a prerequisite for forming a cabinet under the 1993 Constitution.

The Interplay of Parties and the Role of Extremism

A key stumbling block was the presence of far‑right parties in the Flemish parliament. The Vlaams Belang (VB), a Flemish nationalist party with a hard‑line stance on immigration, threatened to join the government if the CD&V and the N‑VA agreed to a coalition that would grant VB a ministerial post. The Flemish liberals and the Dutch‑speaking socialists resisted such an arrangement, fearing that it would legitimize extremist views and compromise Belgium’s European commitments.

The French‑speaking side, meanwhile, was wary of the Flemish parties’ pursuit of greater autonomy for Flanders, especially as the Flemish nationalist N‑VA had made a strong case for a “greater Flemish” model of governance. The French‑speaking Greens and the Socialists were unwilling to concede to a more decentralised federal structure, while the Dutch‑speaking liberal Open Vld, known for its pro‑EU stance, resisted any compromise that might reduce Brussels’ role as the EU’s de facto capital.

The Impact on Brussels and the EU

Because Brussels is home to the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament, NATO, and other international organisations, the delay in appointing a new federal government had immediate ramifications for EU policy coordination. The European Council, which meets once a month, was forced to operate under the provisional authority of the “government in exile” led by the previous prime minister, Alexander De Croo, and later by interim ministers.

The delay also had significant economic consequences. Brussels is the centre of commerce for the Belgian state, and the uncertainty surrounding budgetary decisions led to a temporary slowdown in investment and public services. Public transportation and other municipal services experienced delays in maintenance and upgrades, which in turn affected commuters and tourists alike.

Breaking the Deadlock

Finally, after 542 days of political wrangling, a coalition was formed on 1 October 2020, ushering in the “De Croo government.” The coalition comprised the Christian Democrats (CD&V), the Flemish liberal Open Vld, the French‑speaking Socialist Party (PS), the Flemish green party Groen, and the French‑speaking Ecolo. The new government, headed by Alexander De Croo, was a compromise: the Flemish and French‑speaking parties agreed to a rotation of the prime ministerial post, with De Croo serving as the first year and a half, to be followed by a French‑speaking leader.

The inclusion of the Greens on both sides of the linguistic divide signalled a new focus on environmental policy, which had been a major point of contention. Furthermore, the De Croo government committed to a “Belgian‑Europe” strategy, ensuring that Belgium’s unique role as the EU’s capital would be maintained and strengthened.

Lessons and Reflections

The 542‑day deadlock was a sobering reminder of how deeply divided Belgian politics can be, and how these divisions ripple across a continent that relies on strong institutions for stability. For Brussels, it was a period of uncertainty that tested the resilience of both its local institutions and the broader EU framework.

It also highlighted the fragility of coalition politics in a country with a complex linguistic makeup and the importance of compromise, especially when a third‑party—like Vlaams Belang—threatens to exploit the situation. The De Croo government’s formation underlined the necessity of inclusivity and the willingness to negotiate with parties across the spectrum while upholding European values.

In the aftermath, the political climate in Brussels has shifted. While the new coalition offers stability, it remains fragile, especially in the face of looming issues such as climate change, migration policy, and Belgium’s own constitutional reforms. The experience of the 542‑day stalemate will no doubt influence future political negotiations, and will serve as a cautionary tale for any country that must balance linguistic, regional, and ideological differences in pursuit of coherent governance.