Divisions

Kim du Toit
January 4, 2008
11:41 AM CDT

There are really only three things which have the power to divide people irreparably from each other: religion, politics and language.

Religion, of course, is one of the most insoluble issues of all—competing belief systems, no matter how passionately rationalized, are unquestionably a strong, perhaps even the most divisive issue, because compromise is pretty much impossible. One person’s Great Pumpkin can never be reconciled with another’s Sun God, after all.

Politics is an interesting one, because unlike with religion, compromise is possible, even if only as a short-term solution. However, where the philosophies are not only opposite, but inimical, even short-term compromise will become, eventually, anathema. As an example: property or capital as the possessions of the individual cannot ever be reconciled with property and capital as the possession of the State.

Language is the third primary divisive issue—if you can’t understand what the other person is saying, you can’t communicate with him, and hostility is the inevitable result—but at least you can allay that hostility by adopting a policy of either bilingualism or multilingualism. Unless there is an influx of people who refuse to assimilate and/or become bilingual, the issue is more one of irritation and inefficiency (everything has to be done twice, especially by government). Make no mistake, however, that the resolution of the language issue by multilinguilism will only last until one or the other of the first two issues comes to the fore: and then it will simply re-ignite passions.

Unless you are ignorant, all the above have been amply proved by history ancient and modern, and the exceptions are, well, non-existent. This is why the Founding Fathers at least took religion out of the polity, allowed for popular will to decide on political systems, but inexplicably left language untouched in the Constitution. Perhaps they figured that if the laws and customs were in one language, then the issue would become moot. Clearly, they erred, even if the philosophy and activities of the modern-day multiculti crowd were so far removed from their experience or understanding that they simply missed the thing altogether.

All of which is what has made the opening paragraphs of this article (sent by several Readers) so interesting.

The crisis arose out of the government coalition talks following the June 10th Belgian general election. According to the Belgian Constitution, the two largest linguistic groups, i.e. the Dutch-speaking Flemings (ca. 60% of the population) and the French-speaking Walloons (ca. 40% of the population), the third being the Germanophones (less than 1% of the population), are to be equally represented in the Belgian government. Since the Flemish centre-right cartel list of Christian democrats and Flemish nationalists (member of the European People�s Party) polled 18.51% and the Walloon Reformist Movement (member of the European Liberals, Democrats and Reformists), an electoral alliance of liberals, liberal conservatives and Belgian unity advocates, polled 12.52%, both becoming by far the largest factions in their linguistic groups, they were doomed to form a government coalition together.

Because both parties did not yet dispose of a parliamentary majority together, they brought the Flemish Liberal-Democratic Party (ELDR, polled 11.83%) and the Walloon Humanist Democrats (EPP, polled 6.06%) around the negotiation table in order to form a centre-right government coalition, consisting of liberals, Christian democrats, Flemish nationalists and Belgian unionists, with Yves Leterme, party leader of the Flemish Christian democrats and former head of the Flemish regional government, as new Belgian prime minister, replacing the Flemish liberal Guy Verhofstadt. In spite of these four parties not having polled over 50% of the Belgian vote, combined they only represent 48.92% of the Belgian electorate, this coalition in the making would have 81 out of 150 seats in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, or a parliamentary majority of 54%. This is due to the unbalanced Belgian electoral system and the huge over-representation of the Walloon minority in the federal parliament.

But the formation talks were overshadowed by what the Walloon law professor and notorious Belgian unionist Fran�ois Delp�r�e called �a perfume of crisis�. The Flemish parties not only demanded more power being transferred from the Belgian federation to the regional level, but also big fiscal and social reforms, while the Walloons wanted to maintain the current Belgian artificial construct, or even strengthen it further by reducing the autonomy of the regional entities, and to counter every Flemish proposition of in-depth economic reform. Both sides were also under very heavy pressure from their linguistic groups.

Note that only two of the Big 3 Dividers are in play, here: political incompatibility and language difference.

Language continues to be divisive, incidentally, even though Belgium has some of the most stringent bilingualism laws anywhere in the world—elected officials have to deliver their speeches twice, once in one language, and again in the other, for example—but even that has not resolved the issue.

Religion has pretty much disappeared as an issue in the Flemish-Wallonian split. Even though there’s a small factor of Protestant majority in Flanders and Catholic majority in Wallonia, it’s been pretty much a non-issue, politically speaking—but just wait until Belgian’s Muslim minority starts to gain power through demographics.

In other words, Belgium, nominally the heart of the European Union even though not the biggest player, is facing a serious problem. And contrary to what many think, partition is not an option. Here’s the rough provincial division between the two provinces:

(I drew the border line mainly from memory, but it’s reasonably accurate, I think.)

As you can see, under partition, Flanders would be a trading powerhouse (especially as it would control all the ports and embrace a more capitalistic economic model), whereas Wallonia would become a little more than a province of France, linguistically, politically and economically.

That’s not to say that Flanders would have it easy, though: the major Flemish port cities and commercial centers have large, disaffected Muslim communities, which, by the way, is why the “Foreigners Out!” message of the Flemish conservative parties have such resonance, and such a following.

And I haven’t even looked at the post-partition fate of Brussels (a French enclave in Flanders).

Bringing it all home: this is why I support so strongly legislation that would make English the official language of the United States. Not only did I grow up and suffer under a bilingual system in South Africa, I’ve also seen how bilingualism has failed, almost everywhere it has been implemented.

We are already a nation divided by incompatible political systems—the capitalist, small-government devolutionist model of the Constitution and the neo-Socialist model imported from Europe and Russia—and there’s simply no point in unnecessarily adding another ancient flashpoint to the mix.

As for religion: we seem to have figured it out, even though, as with most compromises, everyone’s fairly unhappy with the result. And I don’t think that’s going to change. No matter how hard the push, or even the support, we’ll never see the implementation of a non-Western system of law in this country, and most especially not one based on another religion.

Canada’s already tried to make the Judeo-Christian principle and Shari’a coexist, and failed horribly. Britain is no doubt going to try it as well—why not? they’ve screwed up almost everything else—and it too is going to fail Over There.

Of course, to the multicultis and other people who subscribe to the Great Satan view of America, the evidence of universal failure will prove no barrier to their wish to try it here. But on this point alone, I’m confident that the status quo will remain such.

Let’s hope that a lot of Americans learn a lesson from the unhappy Belgians. Allowing, say, California to become officially bilingual (and, eventually, Spanish-dominant—read the statistics) would never be in the interests of the United States. Ditto any of the other border states.

The language issue may seem like small potatoes compared with such issues as religion or political philosophy. It isn’t. As a social divider, it’s as big, or maybe even greater than the other two.

One language, one country. Remember that always.