Proposition 50K0666

Projet de loi visant à réduire de moitié l'effet dévolutif des votes exprimés en case de tête et à supprimer la distinction entre candidats titulaires et candidats suppléants pour l'élection des conseils provinciaux et communaux et du Parlement européen.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

May 23, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European election municipality local election organisation of elections province election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

LE FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Francis Van den Eynde (VB) voted to adopt.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Annemie Van de Casteele (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 15, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, I have the honor of being a reporter of a draft that reduces the devolutionary power of the list votes for the municipal council and the provincial council, as well as for the European Parliament by half. It is clear that this measure is the first in a series of measures that will still need to follow to simplify our electoral system on the one hand and democratize it on the other. The committee urged, among other things, the democratization of the list composition, the equal representation of men and women and the application of the D'hondt system in the municipal council elections. Some members have their doubts about the effect that this halving will have and wish to move forward by advocating a full abolition. Others want to maintain the current situation. However, the majority, including my group, considers the proposed measure a fair compromise. Colleagues, the committee expressed concerns that the proposed measure would lead, among other things, to personal glorification, excessive competition between candidates, reducing the number of elected women and complicating opportunities for newcomers. Other members also argued that the number of elected women would increase. Most groups have questions about the delay of the design. Nevertheless, it can be expected that the swift introduction of this measure is a first step towards reforming our electoral system. The Government is therefore urged to work swiftly, in cooperation with the Committee for Political Innovation, on the other proposals aimed at this goal. The Internal Affairs Committee approved the draft with 10 votes in favor and 2 abstentions. Following this report, on behalf of my group, I would like to say the following. The full neutralization of a list vote was already advocated in October 1993 by the VLD in their congresses around more civil democracy. That is now almost 7 years ago. It is with great pleasure that we can conclude that this draft of this new government is a first step towards its realization. Reducing the devolutionary force by half is, as we have already said, an honorable compromise. However, I did not exclude that the VLD would have preferred a complete abolition. It is of interest to my group that a number of other initiatives that further democratize our electoral system, which have been requested by the VLD for years, are promptly undertaken. I am referring to the pursuit of the equal presence of men and women on the lists, the easing of the procedures for allowing Belgians residing abroad to vote, and the direct election of mayors. In addition, it is necessary to conduct a broader discussion in the Committee on Political Renewal. Any proposal for democratization, of any kind, must be negotiable. It is therefore also regrettable that, given the high urgency of the measure presented today, the Committee for Political Renewal has not been able to comment on this draft. This is the result of the late submission of this draft, as already noted by colleague Cortois in the committee. Nevertheless, it seems to me important that the citizen already at the upcoming elections in October receives the signal that something has changed in this country and that an operation is underway which in the future will give him more grip on politics and therefore also on his deputies. The halving of the devolutionary function of the lists of municipal and provincial councillors is, of course, not the end point, but only the beginning. After all, this signal will have to be followed by a number of other signals that will show their effect in the next elections. Of course, this proposal does not express the VLD’s position on this subject. However, it is the implementation of the government agreement, which in itself is already a compromise in which each of the majority parties can find itself. This is also the case with this measure. However, the VLD hopes that in the future a complete neutralization of lists will be among the possibilities. My group will approve this proposal.

There are seven speakers registered. I ask you to be concise.

Mr. Speaker, I give others a chance to be concise, but nothing will stop me from expressing my opinion on some aspects of this topic, including on behalf of my group. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, last week I had the opportunity to formulate a number of concerns in the Committee on Home Affairs, together with other colleagues from my group. I will not repeat them here, but I would like to bring some main lines to your attention. First of all, there is the assertion – which has already been formulated here – that the government, when it took office, made the great declaration that everything had to be done quickly and efficiently. On this subject, a bill has already been announced in the government statement. However, it took three weeks for this design to be submitted to the Chamber. Not only is this time-flow regrettable, but also the fact that the lists are being prepared for, among other things, the municipal council elections. You cannot lie that it is good to capture the rules of the game as early as possible. It is almost logical, though not understandable for those who know that a year was numbered, that eventually the high urgency was asked. In this regard, Mr. Tavernier, I have to say the following from my heart. In my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Home Affairs I had made preparations to conduct the debate last week Wednesday and to make the questions and interpellations take place on Tuesday. However, this did not fit the minister, because on Tuesday he had to, together with Minister Vande Lanotte, raise a number in Oostende following the commissioning of a new local - today that is the way to involve the population closer to the policy - and on Wednesday morning he had to participate in the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the Minister had little or no time for Parliament. On Wednesday afternoon an attempt was made that is the new political culture; on that I will return later – to postpone the oral questions that were on the agenda. I, however, resisted this, and with success, though thanks to the fact that the majority was not in number at that time. Otherwise, the questions and interpellations were postponed and all involved – both the committee members and others – could wait until midnight before the questions and interpellations were formulated. Thank God it was different. The debate began in the course of the evening, but soon it turned out to be a worthless debate that was only fed by the opposition. I deeply regret that. That day I had to leave my chair early, but then I learned, Mrs. Grauwels, that you held a pro forma brief speech until the moment when the article-based discussion began, with 27 articles being handled in just seven minutes. Do not claim that it was different. This is how legislative work is carried out in this institution. Yesterday, Mrs. Grauwels, a similar draft was discussed in the committee. I was absent because I was performing an assignment abroad, but I learned that you wanted to contribute to the debate and used the opportunity to draw attention to the specific position of ladies who show the courage to participate in elections. You were ⁇ ly able to speak freely about this until the moment Mr. Tavernier appeared on the stage. Per ⁇ it is pure coincidence, but I myself have already noticed that Mr. Tavernier plays very well the new role of servant that was assigned to him.

Since my name has been dropped several times, I think I can now defend myself. I think, Mr. Tante, you are confusing. You confuse two different discussions of different bills. Per ⁇ a detail, but still worth mentioning if it is so often commented on.

Mrs. Grauwels, did I say anything else? I said clearly that you, after your interruption, reminded me of the course of a debate that took place yesterday, though on a different topic, in which you tried to make a contribution by pointing out the position of the ladies in this matter. Per ⁇ it will be coincidence that when your group leader entered the committee room, the debate on that topic immediately turned out to be exhausted. Of course, I may have been misinformed about this, but I recognize at least a fixed pattern of behavior. I may have been misinformed, of course, but I at least acknowledge a fixed pattern of behavior. Mr. Tavernier, for many years you have fulfilled a certain missionary mission. Previously, you preached with verve about the new political culture. It sounded almost credible, if we had not experienced the continuation of the story. Now you try to do it even better than Paul Tant in his old role. Then, Mr. Tavernier, the debate was still held. Then there were still Christian Democrats who were given the opportunity and seized to intervene in terms of content. I note that today in the committees this is less so than ever before. I need something special from my heart. I have heard in this house in the last few months a lot of advocacy for democracy, especially from the need to profil themselves, depicting a particular party as the bohemian out of the society. That was often right, but one actually wanted only to position themselves. Mr. Speaker, there has never been so much talk about democracy in this House in recent years as in the last few months, but there has never been so little of it. I have seen very few real debates since this legislature, neither in the committees nor in the plenary session. When one looks at the agenda of the committees, one sees nothing but questions and occasionally an interpellation. True legislative work is hardly done. No matter how you turn it or turn it, the debate here is being held less and less, colleagues. The debate is an essential element in all democratic events and it must take place here. I’m not saying that the situation was ideal before, far from. I have just said this quite clearly, in a relative tone, but that does not exclude the fact that the debate is almost no longer held today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tant, you are starting in your analysis from a very limited observation, probably from the committee in which you are chairman. I look at other committees and events. A few minutes ago Mr. Ansoms came here as a happy man from the tribune. I have also seen Mr. Leterme happily coming from the tribune several times. The CVP has already received more bills in this legislature than it has approved in the previous term. Around a number of very sensitive files I think of regularization or the security plan – there is a very serious debate going on, both in the committees and at the plenary session. I don’t want to argue that it happens in every committee for the same time and with the same amount of fire, but one cannot say that there is no discussion here or that the majority automatically silences. This is a very colorful observation.

Mr. President, I would like to join Mr. Tant, ⁇ with regard to the work of the Justice Committee. With regard to the safety plan, we strongly insisted that the committee could conduct a discussion before the plan was drafted. However, the Commission was charged with accomplished facts. The plan is submitted. Nothing can be changed anymore.

I ask the word for a personal fact.

You have the word, Mr. Yves Leterme.

Mr. Tavernier estimates my happiness differently than I estimate myself. To nuance his statements, I refer to the Finance Committee of which he is a permanent member. In recent weeks, the meetings had to be suspended because the majority was not in number. The majority is silent. She is physically absent. Mr. Tavernier, stop proposing parliament as an example of new political culture! The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to Mr. Tavernier’s remarks. If we have listened carefully, Mr. Tavernier deduces the proper functioning of this Parliament from the active legislative work of the CVP! That is the top point! Mr. Tavernier, I was talking about the absence of the majority in the debates! Of course, the CVP is proud to do what it can, despite the difficult circumstances with a majority that, by the way, never wants to listen! That is the reality. There are enough examples. Consider the discussion on the High Council for Justice and the High Court. Everyone thought Mr. Van Parys’s proposal was a good thing. No one, however, had the intellectual honesty to make this also clear in voting behavior. You are very strong in democracy, Mr. Tavernier. This, however, is also roughly the case! Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Pierre Chevalier, Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, we could hear yesterday in a Flemish weekly newspaper that in a past life as chairman of the Social Affairs Committee, he has often felt humiliated by, I quote, the way ministers, including Jean-Luc Dehaene, dealt with us. For them, the parliament was just a voting machine. As the ministers are surrounded more than ever by employees from various cabinets, they are at risk of no longer seeing reality. The cabinet members consider that a somewhat charming picture of reality must be hanged. This leads to the fact that ministers are less aware of exactly what the reality looks like. Mr. Chevalier spends so much time abroad — that is also his job — that he may be less aware of the situation in his own country. I advise him to come to the parliament a little more and determine how the issues he is challenging have evolved. He will have to conclude that the Social Affairs Committee has never been treated so unfairly as it is now. This also applies to a number of other committees, including those that have bowed over this draft. The government sees the parliament as a voting machine. Topics that deserve a thorough debate are resolved in a formalist manner and within the shortest possible time. Amendments are no chance. The attitude of the members of the majority can be compared to that of F1 pilots: looking at infinity, keeping the mind at zero, and holding the steering well. And especially here timely press the green button. Mr. Speaker, the contempt of this government for parliament was again revealed last week in the Committee on Political Renewal. Some colleagues can discuss this. After many pressures, the Prime Minister came to explain his new proposal on political renewal. We made him aware that the design we discuss today is a weakened version of the pre-design. He denied this in all the shows. He said, “There is no such thing, read the draft. We read it and re-read it. The Minister of Internal Affairs will not deny that the draft is indeed weakened compared to the original preliminary draft. It stated that there would be no pot for the distribution of the list votes to the successors. We note that the present text has abolished this rule. The design has also been weakened on this point.

Mr. President, Mr. Tant puts words in the mouth of the Prime Minister that he has not used. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that the bill that is now presented is not a weakening of the government agreement. There is a difference between a weakening of the government agreement or the discussion on the pre-design and the current pre-design. If you say that the Prime Minister has said a lie, then I must fight it. He compared the current government agreement and the current draft. In this regard, there is no derogation because the present draft is a perfect implementation of what was agreed in the government agreement.

I don’t know if you noticed it, Mr. Somers, but the preliminary draft was then apparently a wrong translation of the government statement. The government statement is a bit vague and general. I can give understanding to that. However, I am not talking about the conflict with the government statement. If, by the way, I would seriously want to brush it in a way that everyone should look at, then you should not make the comparison with the government statement. Then you need to make the comparison with the VLD blue prints that have been placed on the table in this regard. These blueprints have served to convince the voters. You will say that the voter has given his confidence, but that seems to stop for you. Once an argument is used, let it out of the table.

Mr. Tante, my colleague Smets has just said it. We would have liked to neutralize the entire list. We have reached halfway and we hope to go further in the future. We are already much further than your party has hit, Mr. Tant. This proposal and this government agreement have one great merit for the CVP: there is now finally one position within the CVP on the list vote. In the past, we have always heard CVPs who were for the abolition, others were against the abolition and a lot of CVPs did not know it. The CVP now finally has a position on the list vote.

That is true. However, there is still a big difference, Mr. Somers. There has been a free exchange of opinions on this issue. I will not deny that this debate has indeed taken some time. We have tried, as is the case with a democratic party, to come as far as possible to a unity of opinion. Mr. Somers, I didn’t talk about that. I talked about the fact that in your program you are presenting arguments that should persuade the voters, but once you sit on the legislative seat, you have almost completely forgotten this. However, once you sat on the legislative seat, you have completely forgotten that. The present design is nothing but windowdressing. It came because something had to happen. A minimum legislation would be sufficient. It is only possible to raise the flag. What it covers has no importance. I can only conclude that when the Prime Minister in the Committee for Political Renewal – I have come to listen in particular – contradicts our observation, that for the successors again the list vote is taken into account, referring to the legislative text, he actually denies the sunlight. This is a dangerous pathway for a democratic debate. In this house, more than ever, we have the task of monitoring the functioning of the government. It is essential that the government deals with the Parliament in a serious and fair manner. In this way, we can play the role that is expected of us in a democratic country. When it becomes a rule, or at least occasionally prevents the government spokesman, especially the Prime Minister, from taking a walk with the truth, it represents a serious threat to our institution. (Protest of Mr. Lode Vanoost) Mr. Vanoost, your only legitimation tries to find you in a number of prejudices that you can not even harden on the basis of concrete facts, but stumbles by referring to the past. You speak in general terms, without becoming concrete, and use a weak argument. It would be more useful if you would leave them behind and engage with us in the content of the conversation where the opportunity is given, in particular the Parliament. Mr. Speaker, the bill already has one advantage: it brings clarity, finally. The parties involved in listing for municipal and provincial council elections have heard in the last weeks and months successive versions of the story of the so-called halving of the weight of the list vote. The government agreement was only about halving the weight of the list vote for the parliamentary elections. Something else will not be found in it. Then Mr Verhofstadt stated in interviews that the halving will also apply to the list vote for the municipal and provincial council elections and this is confirmed in the policy letter of the Minister of Interior. At that time, it is still unclear whether the halving of the weight of the list vote relates only to the election of the holders or to the holders and successors. Also in this regard, things are imagined differently than they were originally. Finally, it becomes even more ambiguous when the Minister of Interior announces that there can be more candidates on the list than there are seats to be distributed. He is talking about 30 percent more candidates. That provision was subsequently deleted. You understand that it is time for those who have to build democracy on the ground and prepare the lists to know where they are going. The uncertainty about the announced drafts and the slow decision-making in the government are not examples of good governance, on the contrary. Moreover, at a time when these drafts were not yet submitted to the House, let alone discussed and approved, the Prime Minister already announces a new series of proposals for political renewal. Either the Minister of Home Affairs cannot keep pace, or the Prime Minister - on the advice of Mr Slangen - in his urge to announce every week a so-called fundamental reform to management by speech. This is confirmed by a newspaper that is unmistakable in this regard. Those who read The Last News yesterday could read on page 2 in the article of Van der Kelen that this government has already brought this great change that it communicates and that this is ⁇ the most essential. The essence is indeed in communication. If this becomes the essential teststone for decision-making in this country, I wish you good luck. It is Mr. Van der Kelen who writes this, the man who has written the commentary in the VLD-Pravda since the last elections. (Rumor on several banks) I do not like that. I hear it from journalists from other newspapers.

Mr. Tante, I ask you to conclude your argument. You exceed the time of speech permitted to you.

I have been interrupted so many times.

I have already counted the injury time.

It is good that we have someone who oversees the formal framework. However, when one finally comes to a debate in parliament, one must make sure that it is concluded on time. That is the only thing that counts in this. Mr. Speaker, allow me to present in bird flight the essence of my presentation. (Rumor on several banks) Mr. Speaker, I can assume that one needs some relaxation after all that one has already had to collect. The design aims, I quote, to reduce the impact of the list vote by half, so that the devolution of seats within the same list will take place by taking more into account the number of preferred votes obtained by the different candidates on the list. This will result in greater equality of opportunities among the candidates and it will contribute to revitalizing the debate of ideas that the citizens so desire. The government agreement stated that reducing the weight of the list vote to half of it will result in the voter being able to determine who will represent him in parliament more than now. Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that this is not at all demonstrated by the figures available to us on the basis of the calculation based on the last elections. The Department of Political Science of the Catholic University of Leuven points out that in the 1994 municipal council elections 84% of voters in Flanders gave a preferred vote. In the provincial council elections, which were held at the same time, it was 58%. In the parliamentary elections last year, the percentage of preferred votes was 59.8 for the House and 63.8 for the Senate. The more preferential votes are issued, the less important the order of the candidates on the list becomes. In the municipal council elections, the majority of the candidates are identified by preferential votes. In parliamentary elections, this is more an exception than a rule. If it was the ambition to give the voter a greater impact on the outcome of the elections, the distribution of seats and the designation of the political person, then one should think carefully about what one plans in relation to the classification of the electoral districts. As the distance between the voter and the elected territory grows, the preferred votes will play a smaller role. In other words, the already marginal effect that could possibly be achieved through this text on the distribution of seats is essentially overturned by the fact that one would later wish to increase the electoral districts in an unnuanced way – in any case different from what we would do. If you are interested in further expanding the voter’s voice, then you should also think about the rest of the story. Therefore, you should not blindly look at the minimalist aspect presented here. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. This bill is not what it claims to be. The effect of it will be minimal. It is a minimalist design.

You have the word to conclude.

I can imagine that there is some impatience. However, it is good to not necessarily reduce some issues to a case of yes or no. If the Parliament has to do legislative work, good texts must first be provided. This is not done by simply being for or against. Mr. Speaker, this design was recently described by a political scientist as pruts in the margin. However, it had to come because the liberals wanted it, because Verhofstadt in his civil manifests advocated for the abolition and complete neutralization of the list vote, and because the other coalition partners did not want to know about the abolition of the list vote, nor even of its complete neutralization. During the government negotiations, the node was cut through and it was agreed to halve the weight of the list vote. There is no question, however, whether this measure will sort out real effect. You can read the memory of explanation on it in which there is no consideration about it. One can only qualify this bill as much ado about nothing. The mountain gave birth to a mouse. This bill should only serve as windowdressing. Colleagues, this is the only reason why 25 articles of the Electoral Code have been amended and unwaveringly create legal uncertainty without having any serious effects. I regret the way legislative work is carried out with so-called seriousness. Mr. Speaker, as the bill goes in the direction that we also support, we will support it despite its unbearable lightness.

Mr. Paque, you have the word, with the concisions that are expected of you.

I also propose to reduce by half the deployment of speech time in the House.

That would be a great idea, but I like the debate. I have no objection to this, but the time limit must be kept.

The electoral system is an instrument of democracy. The exercise of power by the citizen passes through representation, that is, by the election of a man or woman who will be responsible for the management of this mandate. At present, this individual relationship has disappeared in favor of collective responsibility. Particular oligarchy replaced democracy. The devolving effect of the head box has taken away from the citizen his faculty of choice and his power of control. On the other hand, by denying that it is the individual who carries his ideas, the technique of voicing delay denies the freedom of opinion and expression. The belonging to a party becomes, for the political man, a carcass that leaves less and less room for imagination and debate of ideas. In addition, unlike the equal opportunity that allows excellence, this system is a bonus to routine, leveling of thought and submission to the party. It does not allow the renewal required by political responsibility or the accession of young people, women or civil society actors. That is why we propose the modification of the various electoral laws in order to eliminate the effect of the head box and the designation of the alternates. The candidates will be elected on the basis of only the number of preferential votes they will have obtained personally. I would like to say this to myself. In fact, this is the position of the Liberal Reform Party, already in 1997. So what is being offered to us today? A project that is unfortunately only the reflection of a paradoxical arbitration that will nevertheless take eleven months, between the will of some to maintain the devolving effect and that of others to eliminate it. This project returns the image of a soft belly policy that fears to lose some electoral comfort. This is a rather strange example of political renewal. The PSC considers that removing this devolving effect is the best way to respect the choices made by the voter.

Mr Paque, Mr Can Michael interrupt you for a moment?

I would be happy, Mr. President.

Very briefly, Mr President. I look forward to Mr. Speech. Paque and the extraordinary evolution of his political party’s attitude on this issue. But what would really interest me, and which, in my opinion, would interest the whole of this assembly, is to understand the path that results in that today, or in any case since the eve of the last June election, you have declared yourself in favour of the removal of the head box after you have opposed it for very long years. So it would be interesting to know what justified, suddenly, a few days before the June 13 election, this turn of attitude.

Mr. President, I give the floor to Mr. President. by Raymond Langendries.

I think Mr. Michel must revise his classics because it is not true that the PSC simply, on the eve of the June 13 election, decided to propose the removal of the devolution effect of the head box. This was decided a few years ago at a congress we held in Liège. This has long been our position. I also remember, Mr. Michel, that with your honorable father, on the occasion of the assemblies of democracy, we were on exactly the same wavelength since 1996, in the right line of the decisions we made at our congress. I think the truth should come back on the table when it’s a little cut, even in a parliamentary debate. I thought it was useful.

I take good note of this. I will remember, Mr. Langendries, that since 1996, some votes have been raised in the PSC to follow the trend that had been initiated, for several years, by the Liberal Party, and I am happy with this. But I am ⁇ pleased that you have succeeded in convincing, in two years, the whole party to adopt this excellent political position.

I am pleased that Mr. Charles Michel has admitted that he was wrong in his very first speech.

The PSC considers that removing the devolving effect is the best way to respect the choices made by the voter. There is no question of respect for the democratic expression of the citizens. Remember, dear colleagues, that the right to vote is an acquired right for which courageous men and women have fought. To want to remove the devolving effect of the votes expressed in case of head, is to register in the continuity of respect for the democratic and acquired right that is the right to vote. The two cannot be dissociated, and it is in this perspective that the PSC supports the complete removal of the devolving effect. To completely remove the devolving effect of the head box is to give a real weight to the vote of the citizen. It gives all candidates equal chances. It motivates and motivates them. This is to diminish the role of political parties in the selection of future elected, and it is above all to strengthen democracy, make it transparent, more understandable and closer to the citizens. These are the reasons why the PSC has submitted amendments that lead to the complete removal of the devolving effect of the headbox. Everyone must take responsibility for their beliefs. The project presented to us today is ⁇ a very timid first step towards a democracy closer to the citizen. However, the PSC, unlike others, believes that it needs to go further. That is why we will abstain, unless, of course, dear colleagues, our venerable assembly approves the submitted amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to regret this method. Before the municipal council elections, one single aspect, one small change of the electoral system with a relatively limited impact, must now be settled quickly. This change is also made without having a thorough reflection on the depth of our democracy; both representative and direct democracy. In my opinion, however, this was the main task of the Committee for Political Renewal, which, by the way, is assisted by a host of eminent scientists. In this way, we should come to a balanced and thoughtful modernization of our democratic system. Together with the recently launched proposals, this bill crosses through this process by which we as parliament – at the request of the Prime Minister – had declared agreement. You know that we are asking party in the search for more tools to give the population a greater impact on political decision-making and thus also a greater influence on the designation of those who get the responsibilities assigned in political decision-making. This bill that halves the devolution effect of the list vote for the municipal, provincial and European elections is a step in the right direction. However, the government should not overlook the effect of this halving, as it does today. Simulations show that the shifts resulting from this legislative change remain limited. This is partly due to the fact that the preferred vote in the municipal council elections already has a considerable importance and also because it is ultimately only a halving. Nevertheless, we find it a step in the right direction because the municipality is the level of excellence where the distance between voter and politician or candidate-politician is the smallest. It is also the place where one can best directly, without interference, judge the qualities of a candidate board member and make a conscious voice. The fact that it is a halving of the list vote has the advantage that it also indicates that the choice for a party and the content project of a party is still important. We find this a good thing. A healthy balance between program and interpreter seems to us to be the best for democracy. For this reason, we did not support the amendments of Mr. Detremmerie and Mr. Paque. However, we would have liked to see a number of more fundamental matters settled before the municipal council elections. For example, we think of the replacement of the Imperiali system by the D'Hondt system, which makes the seat distribution more compatible with the voting ratio. Finally, as a woman, I would like to warn of the abuse in argumentation that can be made of this modification of the law. It is sometimes said that by this bill the female representative will spontaneously increase. Simulations, however, also show that this will ⁇ not be the case. In this regard, other legislative initiatives will be needed and it should ⁇ not be an excuse to suspend initiatives. After weighing the pros and cons, our group has decided to approve this bill, but not without any reservation.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not going to take our pleasure today. Indeed, with the vote that is proposed to us, we enter the path of deepening democracy. Not only has it always been one of the major themes of the PRL FDF MCC Liberal Program, but it was also included in the government statement of our current leaders. While it is true that we would obviously have preferred the total removal of the devolving effect of the head box, we think that in matters of deepening democracy, when there is something to take, it must be taken. What seems to differentiate the CVP and PSC from the current majority parties is that the first two are for democracy when they are in the opposition. When they are in the majority, they feel that deepening democracy is not important.

You may not have heard the response of Mr. and Langendries. When we were in the majority, we voted in the Senate in this direction and you probably also forgot about it. By the way, we had voted together against certain partners of the time – an alternative majority, this happens from time to time when one can respect the rules of the parliament – to encourage precisely proposals that removed the general devolving effect of the headroom. So we were in the majority at the time, and I would like history to regain its rights from time to time.

If I understand right, when you are in the majority, you are not followed by it!

You are obliged to make a 50% compromise, so don’t give us a lesson about this!

Right now, we are advancing on the path of removing the devolving effect of the headroom. In other words, we are eliminating half of the deflation. This is important, and that’s what we’ll keep from today’s vote: we’re steadily deepening the voter’s ability to influence and choose the mandates for whom he is called to vote. This is what we need to understand from today’s vote. Of course, we are in favor of increasing the influence of the voter, not only at the time of the election but also right after it and between the elections. Today’s vote cannot be taken out of the whole of a programme that has been put forward by the Liberals for many years, at the time of the various electoral scrutiny that followed. We have always recalled the importance we attach to the choice and influence of the voter. That is why the opportunity to participate more effectively in the appointment of political representatives proposed today is important. But again, we endorse the possibility, for the voter, to designate, for example, the mayor, in a two-round majority vote that seems to us a way to strengthen the citizen’s choice of the first representative of his municipality. In the same way, we are in favour of majority voting in general because we believe that the voter should be able to influence the constitution of governments much more than he can currently do in proportional voting. We have repeatedly reiterated our desire to see the possibility of a referendum, of a popular consultation, be created, because between two polls it is important that the voter can continue to influence the course of events by participating in the management of his country, his region, his province or his municipality. In our view, this bill is part of a coherent, determined set that aims to increase democracy by giving the citizen, the voter, the opportunity to participate in it. Democracy is never a complete concept. Of course, the mechanism will still need to be improved. The next step, we hope, will be the complete elimination of the devolving effect of the head box as well as the election of the mayor by majority vote, the establishment of the referendum to allow the citizen to give his opinion on the major projects that characterize the political life of a country or region. That is why, Mr. President, Mr. Ministers, we will participate with enthusiasm in the vote proposed today and support this bill.

Mr. President, Mr. Bacquelaine, I take note of your wish to see the devolving effect of the head box soon be removed. So I ask you the question: why not take advantage of it and do it right now?

But, because we come back from far away! For 40 years, we have known a majority within which the CVP and the PSC largely dominated, and it has never been possible to move forward in this matter. We have been in this government for less than a year and today, we propose to remove at the competition of 50% a matter for which you suddenly plead with a lot of affair, but little determination. The fact of advancing in this area as we propose today allows us to increase new developments in which we also invite you to participate.

Mr Paque, Mr I am very pleased with the debate that is taking place.

Mr. President, Mr. Bacquelaine, I see that in less than a year, you have lost 50% of your claims.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated in the committee, my group considers that this bill to halve the weight of the list vote completely outweighs its objective and will lead to an increase in the spectacle policy. It is a half-satisfactory compromise. The Greens and the Socialists did not see any reason to change anything, but the liberals must have their toy: hence the halving of the list vote. We believe that a party must first put a program in the forefront, Mr. Coveliers, and not be a vedette parade as the VLD is becoming more and more one. Anyone who wants to choose a program and agree to the order of the candidates must be able to do so as it is now. Anyone who wants to choose one candidate now and prefers this candidate over the other can already do so. Consequently, ladies and gentlemen, everything remains better with the old. There are a number of negative effects associated with this bill. First, the confusion among voters is only increased by repeatedly pressing on the electoral legislation. Secondly, it is irresponsible to change the rules of the game at a time when voting lists are already fully compiled. Thirdly, and much worse, the spectacle policy will increase even more and even more parties will put even more stars on their lists. Then, and not insignificantly, individual candidates will have to conduct much more personal campaigns than they do now, and election spending will swing out the pan even more. Even worse, I think as a socially motivated person, is that immediate candidates who cannot make large spending will be disadvantaged against their capitalist party counterparts. Through the internal party democracy, the parties will have much less chance than now to push forward ⁇ unknown, but yet very valuable figures, because the already known candidates will heavyly overwhelm the unknown. Next, and not insignificant to women, the current legislation provides the possibility of pushing more women forward by placing them at the top of the list and thus facilitating their election. The often unknown women who can now be elected will in the future be driven away by the violence of the local or non-local Known Flames now that the weight of the list vote decreases. Finally this consideration. (Interruption by Mr Jef Tavernier) Alexandra Colen is a good example, indeed, Mr Tavernier. Four years ago, she was placed by our party as a total unknown at the top of the list. She was elected and has since done very good parliamentary work. It has become known and can now be elected on its own. With your proposals, it will be less and less possible to push forward new and unknown candidates and women to give them the opportunity to participate in political work. Finally this consideration. The Committee for Political Renewal is apparently just a sandbox that is completely ignored by the majority. (Interruption by Mr. Dirk Van der Maelen) I am also not a member of this committee, Mr. Van der Maelen. I have no business there. By the way, I would only waste my time there. In the Committee on Internal Affairs, I proposed that the Committee on Political Renewal be consulted first and that this amendment be discussed thoroughly. This proposal was rejected in the committee, including by your group. It was in the euphoria to want to change something. You have not changed anything, on the contrary, you have made everything much worse. Therefore, we see no reason to support this legislative amendment and we will therefore vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the project that is subject to the Chamber’s assessment is part of the strengthening of civil democracy stated in the Government Declaration. This project aims to bring citizens and the political world closer together and to try to fill a divide that everyone agrees to say poses a danger to democracy. If we willingly subscribe to the principle that gave rise to this project, we can unfortunately only regret its lack of consistency. In terms of reconciliation between the political world and the citizen, there are more courageous and more binding measures than the weighting of the vote in the headquarters. These measures include a drastic limitation of the cumulative number of mandates and more binding measures to ensure equal representation of men and women on electoral lists and in assemblies. Unfortunately, although these potential measures are well on the agenda of the Political Renewal Committee, they are not currently subject to parliamentary assessment. This is regrettable because they would have given a clear message about the real will of this government to see old political practices change. Today we have to decide on a project that we are told that it will finally give an equal chance to all candidates, but especially to the candidates. This project should also enhance the transparency of the voter’s vote. Again, if I can subscribe to the transparency option without much difficulty, I am much more reserved as to the expected effects in terms of equal opportunities. On the contrary, I think they risk increasing inequalities. When we speak of preferential voting, we obviously speak of popularity; which implies that the candidate likely to attract the most preferential votes is already known, so probably in place for a long time. This leads me to say that there is little chance of seeing a first-candidate actually benefit from the headline weighting. Interruption of Mr. Guido Tastenhoye) Mr. Tastenhoye, I didn’t interrupt you when you were on the tribune. I ask you to have the correctness to allow me to finish my speech. I said therefore that there was little chance of seeing a first-candidate actually benefit from the weighting of the head box, unless the candidate benefits from a known name: that of his mother, or more likely that of his father, given the little representation of women in assemblies. If this is the case, the election of this first-candidate is more of a selection by electoral nepotism than of a greater equality linked to the system of deprivation. Furthermore, one can fear a reinforcement of the starring, as well as an unwavering race to mediatisation by some candidates wishing to secure a certain popularity. Dear colleagues, this system risks damaging less well-known candidates of value and who will benefit less from the positioning determined by the parties. Obviously, this positioning must be done in the most democratic way possible within the parties. As to the positive effect of this project on the emergence of female candidates, I would like to make some serious reservations. The starting postulate is based on the finding that in general, women benefit from a large number of preferential votes. This is indeed a reality, but only if they occupy interesting places on the list. Otherwise, it is found that preferential votes benefit mainly male candidates. When analysing the results of recent legislative elections, it can be noticed that under the SmetTobback Act, women represented 39% of the candidates on all the lists. But in general, it must be noted that they occupied battlefields: those that you win when everything goes well, but also those that you lose in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, there is little female representation in the assemblies, since they now represent only 22% of the elected. In order to have a better female representation, there is obviously a voluntary policy of the parties, so that women occupy effectively eligible positions. This is the policy that AGALEV-ECOLO has been pursuing for many years. The majority representation of women in our group. In conclusion, I strongly doubt that without additional measures, this project will have a real impact on one of the objectives pursued, namely allowing equal opportunities for all candidates and better representation of young people and women in assemblies. I therefore plead that the government submit to us promptly the projects that are announced and which should allow real progress in this area. I will conclude, dear colleagues, by inviting you to vote on this bill despite all the reservations I have been able to express, because it responds to the wish for political renewal issued by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I note that Mrs. Pelzer has expressed a lot of criticism that I myself have also formulated on this bill. In particular, it is not at all certain that inequality will improve now, on the contrary, it will worsen with this bill. I conclude that Ms. Pelzer does not do what she says, because she will later vote for this bill, while we will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister can push a buzz of relief at the end of Mrs. Salandra’s speech since we just learned that she would vote for the project despite all the reservations she has made.

Mr. President, Mr. Paque, the justification of this vote has been clearly stated, this being in fact part of a line of other elements.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we can support the present bill on the halving of the value of the list vote. We do not want to go so far as some colleagues in the committee want to completely abolish the value of the list vote. I would like to make a few concerns to illustrate my position. First, as mentioned earlier, this draft is indeed not the great revolutionary political renewal, but rather an adjustment in the good sense. Second, this design will not cause major earth shifts. This is also not desirable. Preferential votes play a greater role, especially at the local level and less in the election of parliaments. The question we can ask ourselves is whether the population will actually notice something about the halving of the value of the list vote. I think this is something that concerns politicians. Most politicians seem convinced that the new system will give more opportunities. The question of abolishing the list vote seems to somehow contain a criticism of the way parties compile their lists. Per ⁇ there is still work in the store for some parties in that area. The complete abolition of the list vote would require more candidates who are media genius and who have already gained a certain notoriety.

Mrs Grauwels, you are asking about the link between some advocacy for the total abolition of the list vote and how the parties make up their lists. Please note that in a not insignificant city in Flanders, especially in Mechelen, Agalev approved her list for the municipal elections with 23 people, and that for a city with 75 000 inhabitants. So you can indeed question the democratic content of such decisions.

Mr. Somers, I have not said within which party that comment is made. It was a general comment, as you might have understood. Neither in the halving of the list vote, nor in the complete abolition of it, which some colleagues insisted on, it was, in my opinion, the intention to give the well-known Flamings, and only them, the most chances. One gets more and more the impression that especially the well-known Flammings come to the forefront.

My colleagues, this is not a celebrity defilé. I ask you not to interrupt the speaker and I address in particular to you, Mr. Wauters, since Mrs. Grauwels speaks on behalf of your political party.

Sometimes it seems like some well-known Flamings step into politics to make a second career step: the first step is to become a well-known Flaming and the next step leads to politics. Another consideration about this evolution is that still unlimited preferential votes — to which great importance is attached — can be issued. Through preference votes, one or two people who enjoy the preference are pushed forward. Well, it would not be appropriate in the future to limit the number of preferential votes cast to three or four and to assign a value to them, in a proportional manner. The modernization of the electoral system and the automatic voting make this practically possible. One puts more weight on the scale if one preferred vote is indicated on a list of twenty-one candidates instead of twenty preferred votes on the same list. I think this suggestion is worth investigating. Mr. Speaker, some argue that this bill represents a progress on women’s participation in politics. I wish it was so, but I fear that this design is not the appropriate tool for this. We are convinced that the best way to see this hemisphere populated by more women is to place them in eligible places. However, that is not enough. After all, it is also important to issue a quota in which one-third of the executive mandates must be exercised by women. Only when these proposals are adopted will I speak of political renewal. I hope I can still see that these bills are voted on and that they are adopted and implemented.

Mr. Somers does not, however, challenge the objective conclusion that if this assembly were to be composed without taking into account list votes, the percentage of female members would be significantly higher than is currently the case. This also applies to the Flemish Parliament and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I made the calculation in this regard and you can say with precision that, subject to the approval of the present bill and based on the results of the previous parliamentary elections, two more ladies would have been elected to the House and one less to the Senate.

Then you agree with us, Mr. Tant, that a system must be put on foot that guarantees that the women appear in eligible places.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies, Ladies and Gentlemen, there are important words that must be avoided and democracy is one of those. The project that is presented to you today does not pretend to revolutionize things but to contribute to the functioning of the institutions that, in democratic countries, are the channel of the expression of the population. Democracy is something much more important, much more ambitious. It is the citizens more than the institutions who exercise their critical spirit. It is the advancement of intelligence, it is serious, not demagogical information that allows to make informed choices. This is also the subject of the debate, Mr. Tant. I wonder what those who, in an important debate like this, will have the courage to read your speech in the parliamentary annals until the end. I have the impression that you have unfortunately confused tribune and estrade, argumentation and redundancies, political courage and pirouettes. The debate, Mr Tant, is not a number, it is not a caricature. This is respect for the opposition, but also respect for the ministers. I invite all those who are interested in the matter to come to see in the committee of the Interior how things are going because democracy is also the mutual respect of those who can sometimes have divergent ideas.

It is quite normal that Mr. It interrupts you.

I did not interrupt Mr. That is Mr. President! To allow him to summarize his answer, Mr. Speaker, let me serve him my last comment. Democracy is also the seriousness, Mr. Tant, and you have to have a shit to blame me for considering increasing the electoral lists by 30% while a member of your group,

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the essence of what I have said is: much to do about nothing. First, you are implementing a major reform taking into account the amount of articles – to do nothing, Mr. Minister. Second, if you refer to me when I speak of the method of working in the committee, then it is high time that you realize the following: if you want a committee to work properly, then you must also be present from time to time, with the willingness to listen. You may not escape a debate about a major reform if it is by starting the debate only on the eve of the day on which it is voted. It is a shame to read the lesson on that point. We also talked about visa this afternoon. In the past few weeks we have also talked about police reform. Your most extraordinary quality consists in having the necessary broadness - in that area we are equal to each other - problems that you are facing first to complex and then to decomplex. In this way, you think you have solved things. That is your strategy. Mr. Minister, if you think you need to make the process of a member of parliament, then you will encounter us on the same path. At that point, we will be able to regularly cross the ones with each other. Think about it well. You start with the police reform. You declare that you will again overcome the classification of the police zones. Then strategically organize the way back to return to the starting point and say that it has been resolved.

In the style of Old France, it reminds me of all those who defended the census suffrage in the 19th century. The reason is him, the intelligence is him.

Mr. President, you have the word.

Thank you Mr. President. You will notice that, so far, I am not the longest.

We don’t know anything, we’ll see.

Mr. Tint, I was the chairman of the committee. I am honored to have helped CVP ministers advance projects that were important to citizens. And with regard to what I do as Minister of the Interior, I always answer, you know, precisely to all the requests of parliamentarians. Kilograms of parliamentary documents also testify to the efforts I do every week. But the debate is not only in parliament, it is also in the government. And, indeed, things decide on what was done in the past. We argue and we don’t hide – we want things to be clear – to look for coherent formulas. This changes, indeed, and I understand that some have regrets with the resonance boxes of a recent past that resulted in dubious compromises, without imagination, and ⁇ in any case, always terribly conservative. You are right, I don’t need to be too long to say the most important thing. With regard to the argument in favour of the principle of the reduction of the devolving effect of the head box, the argument of Mr. Paque is excellent. I have nothing to add. I do not know if mr. Paque is a convert. He is a new member of parliament, so I will not blame him for anything. But I was happy to learn from his mouth and from that of mr. Langendries that, for a long time, the PSC was convinced of the need to do this. This allows me to see that probably he did not have the strength to have such a project approved by the government because this is a bill and not a bill. Therefore, consensus was reached among all partners of the majority. So, what are, at the level of the debate, the three essential things? First the facts. No one can argue that there is an improvement in the ability to choose by the voter. It could be said that the possibility could have been wider. Personally, I am one of those. But, in any case, the effect is undeniable, it is a fact that cannot be denied by anyone. The second thing: the debate is not only tolerance but also being attentive to what the other says. And we, within the government, have been attentive to a number of objections which were made by some saying that the removal of the devolving effect of the head box will favor the effect of notoriety at the expense, for example, of young people, or, in any case, of quality men and women as we have known in our assemblies and who, ⁇ , would not have been called to sit there because they did not have the notoriety they deserved. These are objections that cannot be swept from one side of the hand. This is ultimately what is found in the formula that was both to strengthen the possibility of choice of the voter, but also to take into account the arguments, serious by the way, which had been invoked by others. The third element is that it has or may have – depending on the context – a beneficial effect on the election of women in our assemblies. But it was never claimed that it was the miracle solution. I would say that the most important thing else is a cultural evolution that measures the need to have more talented women in our assemblies. But the government, on the technical level, has taken the necessary measures. Indeed, I will also have the honor to submit soon a project that I co-signed, which will ensure the parity of women on our lists, according to a distribution in time, an alternation in any case in the first places, which should have an undeniable effect on a better representation of women. Today I have a reason for satisfaction. Indeed, even though some claim that we have lost time, if the House votes today this project, I have the certainty that it will be applied in the next municipal and provincial elections. I will present myself before you, in the coming weeks, to submit to you projects that have had to be separated for technical reasons, but which, after being voted, will enable the application of the same system in the elections of all other assemblies. Finally, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the abolition of the devolving effect of the headquarters, the parity of women, the vote of Belgians abroad, the improvement of automated voting procedures, the direct election of mayors, the revision of electoral districts, the proposal to improve voting systems to ensure better representation at all levels, but avoiding the scattering that prevents political cohesion are only the beginning. It is, Mr. Speaker, as a modest craftsman, because I recognize that this project is not revolutionary, that I have had the honor of defending this project that will make a small contribution to the better functioning of our democracy.