Proposition 51K0217

Projet de loi modifiant les lois sur le Conseil d'Etat, coordonnées le 12 janvier 1973 et la loi du 4 juillet 1989 relative à la limitation et au contrôle des dépenses électorales engagées pour les élections des chambres fédérales, ainsi qu'au financement et à la comptabilité des partis politiques.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
PS | SP Claude Eerdekens

Submission date

Sept. 24, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative court party financing election campaign publicity

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA

Abstained from voting

FN

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 ¶

Feb. 12, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister - dear friend - dear colleagues, ⁇ five years have still not been enough for the liberal-socialist majority to implement the law of 12 February 1999 which allows to deprive of financing parties that, by their own deed or by the deed of their components, their candidates or their elected representatives, manifestly and through several concordant indications, demonstrate their hostility to the rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. And it is not a mistake, for the PSC first and for the CDH then, to have encouraged by questions, by interpellations and by proposals of laws, the government first, the parliament then.

Despite our encouragement, the text submitted to us today will still not allow the implementation of the law. Since the government will still have to adopt implementing decrees, the agreement reached on the subject within the government last October was therefore a deal of fools, some finally obtaining the adoption of a law, others obtaining that this law still involves the adoption of implementing decrees before it can be implemented.

The CDH deeply regrets that the majority has, for reasons ⁇ unconfirmable, made the choice of a law that, unlike the bill proposed by our group, cannot be implemented without a new intervention of the government. On this point, Madam Minister, I really ask that the Government tell me within what time, after the adoption of the law, it intends to adopt the decrees for the implementation of it. I would like to ask for this reply, Mr. Minister.

Only on the basis of this answer can we judge the sincerity of the intentions of the parties of the majority. Is this once again, as you are used to, an ad effect that will not be followed by facts, precisely due to the absence of application stops? Or is it still a real desire to protect democracy from its enemies? That is the whole question, that is the essence of the question.

But two things make me doubt the sincerity of the intentions of this majority. The first is the first article of the draft law which leaves the King the responsibility to determine the date of entry into force of the law. This provision was not included in the original text but was added following government deliberations. Clearly, Mr. Minister, the Government reserves the possibility not to bring this law into force.

The second element that makes me doubt is the Vlaams Blok vote on electoral reform. At first very opposed to the reform, the Blok brutally softened, to the point of allowing the project to go unchanged. Two important articles were passed despite the opposition of the CDH and thanks to the abstinence of the Vlaams Blok. From that to say that the Vlaams Blok vote was exchanged for a commitment of the majority parties not to allow the enforcement of the law that we must vote today, there is a step that I will not take today but tomorrow if necessary, dear colleague Van den Eynde, if the enforcement decrees and the decree determining its entry into force are not adopted within the month following the adoption of the law by Parliament, which seems logical to me.

I see that the financing of political parties is of little interest. You might be interested in the matter that concerns us today. You can count on us, Mrs. Minister, to show the utmost vigilance in this regard. If the CDH has supported the proposal that is submitted to us, it is that it is convinced that the situation that prevails since the entry into force of the law of 12 February 1999 is the worst. Indeed, by leaving inapplicable the law of 12 February 1999 which allows to eliminate public financing of parties hostile to human rights, the parties of the majority in some way confer a patent of legitimacy on the parties that benefit from this public financing. If these parties are financed by the state, it is that they have not been deprived of this financing. And if these parties have not been deprived of this funding, it is that they are not hostile to human rights.

The law of 12 February 1999 was thus a double-edged weapon: a weapon to defend democracy if it was used intelligently, but also a weapon to weaken it when it is not used. When we passed this law in 1999, we did not imagine that it could remain a dead letter, due to the lack of willingness to apply it in the head of the majority. It is in order to put an end to this situation which is benefited by the enemies of democracy and human rights, and because our proposal was not likely to gather the necessary consensus that we resolved to support the proposal Eerdekens et consorts — and this, dear colleague Eerdekens, despite the risk of seeing this remains a dead letter, in the absence of intention of the government. This is our problem and that was the difference between our proposal and yours. We support it because we believe that opponents of democracy should be punished. And as I said, we will be vigilant and we will be vigilant.

I hope you too!

It is in order to put an end to this situation of which the enemies of democracy and human rights take advantage, because our proposal was not likely to gather the necessary consensus, that we are determined to support your proposal, colleague Eerdekens.

If the government assumes its duty to implement this law quickly and demonstrates thus that the Vlaams Blok vote on the electoral reform was nothing due to the weaknesses of this proposal, the adoption of this law will constitute a real progress for democracy, a real progress for human rights, because for the CDH, it is unacceptable that citizens finance through their taxes political parties that demonstrate their hostility to human rights, as they are enshrined in particular by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

Our humanism does not tolerate any violation of these fundamental rights and demands that all those who attack them be prosecuted and punished.

We will therefore vote in favour of this proposal, ensuring that the government undertakes to adopt its implementation decisions promptly. I may repeat myself, but I would like to emphasize this aspect of rapid adoption of application decisions. We will remain vigilant on compliance with this commitment.

But let us beware of any triumphalism in this matter. Extremist parties do not fight each other first on the legal or financial ground. They fight each other above all by managing the State honestly and effectively, by having political practices that correspond to discourses – we still have a magnificent example these days – by delivering answers to the demands of citizens, by showing political courage when circumstances are difficult, by not denying the reality of problems, by not postponing to the future the difficult choices that must be made today, by respecting after elections the commitments undertaken before them.

However, it cannot be said that in all these areas I have just defined, the majority does what it takes to push back the extremist parties; on the contrary. The management of the state’s real estate, the party appointments or the debauching of representatives – we live it every day! The management of public finances, which consists of selling family jewelry rather than saving, the report sine die of advances to be granted by the food credit fund makes the bed of the extreme right, as indicated unanimously by the various polls of opinion.

Despite our reluctance, our concerns and our skepticism, we will vote for the proposal, because it puts an end to the long inertia that the majority parties have shown, and thus offers – finally – a chance to see the law of 12 February 1999 implemented.

You know the rule. Thirty minutes is the maximum time of speech. However, you are, if necessary, numerous enough to make me feel that.

In the meantime, it is clear to me. Here is Mr. Arens of CDH. It is, of course, a crash that such a person comes to give lessons on the floor as a member of a party that a few weeks ago went through the knees for the current majority because of its seat in Europe.

Colleagues, what is it about? In 1989, the law on party financing was introduced. Election campaigns cost too much. In addition, as is widely known, the traditional parties were very much shuffled. Mr. Van der Maelen, I refer here, with pleasure even, to the 130 million Belgian francs that the socialists received from Agusta. That was the period from which you took your inspiration to make the law in 1989.

Thus, from 1989 onwards, each party received a parliamentary donation through a system — which is important — that fully meets the requirements of representative democracy: you have so many voters, you get so much money. At that time, the Flemish Block was a small party and no one was concerned about the alms we received.

It is now a bit different. The phenomenal growth of our party since 1989 makes the traditional parties nervous. In two ways they are now trying to wreck the Flemish Block. First, they do so by conducting endless trials before the criminal judge. I refer to the process that is going on in Gent. Secondly, they do so by introducing a law amendment, which will prevent a so-called racist party from getting a penny more. (Les membres du Vlaams Blok se passent une corde autour du cou.) (Les membres du Vlaams Blok se passent une corde autour du cou.

Sir, can I interrupt you?

It is not the tradition to do so. It has happened. Can I ask you to take that away?

Mr. Speaker, we would like to make it clear that the law of Mr. Eerdekens, as he said in the French-speaking press, is intended to financially wreck the Flemish Bloc.

Mr. De Man, I have nothing against the Stropkes. I don’t want to have that on my conscience.

That is not the intention.

Colleagues, I would like to ask you to remove the straps. All signs of any kind are prohibited in the Room. I was questioned about this by your party for other outward signs. I would like to ask you to want to remove the straps. Can I ask you to do that?

The [...]

I answered a question on this. I think it was a question from Mr. De Man. He asked me to act for other external signs. If you walk around it every day, it may be a new thing. However, I ask you not to do that now.

I have indeed asked you a question about the Islamic headband, but ...

Mr Annemans, it has happened. Can I ask you to remove the strap?

This is not a Islamic headdress.