The “Cordon Sanitaire”: A Belgian Exception in Need of Re-examination? (Alain Schenkels – 21News)

Cordon sanitaire incohérence carte blanche alain schenkels

Version française

The concept of the cordon sanitaire in Belgium allows for the exclusion of parties that are clearly hostile to the rule of law and individual freedoms. However, in some cases, this can open the door to arbitrariness, which undermines genuine democratic debate. An opinion by Alain Schenkels, business leader.

In Belgium, the cordon sanitaire is a political singularity aimed at isolating certain parties deemed incompatible with democratic values. Historically, it was established to prevent the far right, mainly the Vlaams Blok and later its successor Vlaams Belang, from gaining access to power or even participating in political and media life as other parties do. In my view, this practice raises many questions regarding its legitimacy, application, and contradictions.

The cordon sanitaire is expressed through a systematic refusal of any political alliance with the VB, but also—and only in the French-speaking part of the country—by the exclusion of its representatives from live television and radio broadcasts. However, the line between protecting democracy and political censorship remains thin, and it is regrettable that this cordon sanitaire is not applied to the far left.

There is no consensus to extend it to other parties, even when they are controversial. On the far left, alliances with the PTB or Team Fouad Ahidar barely raise any objections, despite accusations of antisemitism, positions opposed to liberal democracy—based on the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental freedoms—or even a rejection of the secular state and a desire to integrate religion into the public sphere. This situation creates a clear inconsistency: why are some parties excluded from democratic debate, while others, just as controversial, benefit from political and media indulgence?

I am convinced that political alliances must remain a sovereign choice for democratic parties. Refusing to govern with a party whose values are incompatible with democratic principles is a legitimate precaution. On the other hand, the media cordon sanitaire, which deprives certain parties of a voice, goes too far. It is up to the judiciary to determine whether a party is contrary to the Constitution, not for the media or political parties to judge the democratic legitimacy of a group.

If the cordon sanitaire aims to preserve democratic integrity by preventing any political alliance with extremist groups, it must not lead to a paralysis of parliamentary debate or a systematic refusal of any discussion.

Democratic parties must retain the capacity to examine, debate, and if necessary, vote on certain texts supported by extremist groups, as long as these proposals are in line with a shared vision of the common good or respond to legitimate expectations of citizens. The confrontation of ideas must be possible, even on issues championed by parties at the extremes, provided that the fundamental values of the rule of law and individual freedoms are respected.

Only the judiciary can rule on a party’s compatibility with the Constitution. Entrusting this power to the media or to political parties opens the door to arbitrariness and censorship. If a party is deemed unconstitutional, it must be officially banned. Otherwise, it must be allowed to express itself and participate in democratic debate, regardless of reservations or opposition.

Alain Schenkels, business leader
(Photo Belga Ward Vandael: Vlaams Belang posters vandalized in Ranst, the day after the municipal elections of October 13, 2024)