In an opinion piece in Knack about the Olympic Games in Paris, Frederik Ceulemans (Open VLD) tries to find some inspiration for Brussels. This attempt is certainly well-intentioned and he clearly wants the best for Brussels, but he ignores a rather obvious reality: Brussels is not Paris, on many levels.
Brussels' penchant for Parisian megalomania is apparently still irresistible in the minds of many Brussels politicians. Unfortunately, the consequences can be pretty dire.
Decades ago, the Brussels North Quarter, for example, was completely bulldozed in order to build sterile office towers to give Brussels a bit of the cachet of the La Défense business center in Paris. Today, that neighborhood is terribly unattractive, unsafe and not at all a showcase for the city.
The more recent decision to proceed with the construction of Metro 3 was equally problematic. The self-mutilation just continues. The Brussels metro was too small, it was said, and so this new line absolutely had to be built.
However, the prestige project was never founded on solid figures. Moreover, the expected number of passengers was and is far too low to justify such a gigantic investment. Also, the line is much too short and the stations are located so deep under the surface that you can hardly gain any time.
To make matters worse, the budget exploded from 1 to 4 billion euros, especially since Brussels is built on a swamp which makes an underground metro far from obvious. Finally, there is also nothing sustainable about a line that is expected to reduce car traffic by only 0.5%. The project will emit more CO2 through construction than it will ever remove from the air.
Power centre
In addition, however, Ceulemans also painfully abstracts from the status of Brussels within Belgium. Whereas Paris is the absolute and undisputed power center of France, Brussels has actually become the little brother next to Flanders and Wallonia due to the formation of the regions in the 70s.
It is only de jure the capital and seat of various governments and parliaments, but de facto power in this country has moved elsewhere and is certainly not with the Brussels government. Indeed, the end of the unitary state in 1970s also heralded the end of Brussels as the center of Belgian political power.
Ceulemans advocates large, sustainable investments in Brussels, but unfortunately the question is never asked: with whose money?
Under Liberal Budget Minister Sven Gatz, a party colleague, Brussels' debt exploded above the internationally acceptable ceiling of 180% of revenue.
The budgetary fiasco of Belgian Beer World Experience was exemplary for the spending spree.
Without any policy changes, we will even reach 300% in 2029. The interest burden will be so great that Brussels will never be able to get out of this downward spiral on its own. Raising taxes would in turn reinforce the urban exodus and weaken the fiscal base even further.
Next Brussels government
The chance of a change in policy is very small, because it looks like we will have to make do with a kind of Vivaldi à la Bruxelloise for the next five years. A coalition of 6 or 7 parties with opposing interests and visions that can only be kept together by spending even more money. No one believes that such a government coalition will eliminate the deficit of 1.3 billion or 18.5% of revenue.
Meanwhile, the political discussions in Brussels are not about the budget at all, but increasingly about religious-Islamic themes such as headscarves and Islamic ritual slaughter without stunning, or frantic discussions about supporting Palestine.
On the French-speaking side, these themes are gaining the upper hand in parties such as the PS, Ecolo and PTB, and on the Dutch-speaking side, a new party has even emerged on this religious-identitarian fault line with Team Fouad Ahidar. Unfortunately, you cannot straighten out a budget with headscarves and ritual slaughter without stunning.
It is really more than ever time to face reality: even after several refinancing rounds, the Brussels Region is structurally unable to stand on its own feet financially. Moreover, it is governed by a political class that refuses to face that. They still want to continue with the megalomaniacal spending frenzy and decadent prestige projects.
Meanwhile, 30% of Brussels' population dangles below the poverty line. More than ever, therefore, the question arises: Bruocsela, quo vadis?
The Brussels Region can only continue to exist in its current form if it is willing to rebalance its budget by far-reaching rationalization and reduction of political and administrative overhead.
The longer the megalomaniac dreaming continues, the greater the chance that the other regions will have to decide on the future of Brussels. Whether this will mainly be the also structurally deficit Wallonia or the rich Flanders is an open door.
Ultimately, French-speaking Brussels residents may have to ask themselves the question: are we perhaps better off as 19 bilingual municipalities in Flanders with adequate financing and a solid administration?
The well-off Brussels bourgeoisie that has moved in recent years to the Flemish periphery of Brussels already seems to have answered that question.
