Proposition 51K1809

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 14 janvier 1975 portant le règlement de discipline des Forces armées en vue de permettre l'accès à certains mandats politiques et portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Stef Goris, Ingrid Meeus, Hilde Vautmans

Submission date

May 26, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

local election armed forces representative of local or regional authority

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 ¶

May 4, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the debate on the political rights of military personnel is not new, as evidenced by the legislative texts deposited in the past in the various parliamentary assemblies. Last year, the Flemish Parliament decided to allow in certain cases the presence of military personnel on the municipal electoral lists. This decision was inapplicable due to the existence of a federal law of 1975 preventing any military from running for elections. This situation caused the filing, just a year ago, of the bill we are debating today, which aims to amend the 1975 federal law in order to allow military access to certain political mandates.

Since the filing of this bill, long parliamentary debates have enabled the majority parties — which have worked in collaboration with the Department of Defense — to smooth out the differences of views and find a compromise that meets the demands of each. The challenge was huge: it was about allowing the military to exercise its political rights like any citizen, while preserving the specificity and operationality of the Armed Forces. The consultation between different groups took the form of several amendments discussed in a committee and resulted in balanced solutions. We can also emphasize that this new legislation will be adopted before the local and provincial elections next October.

What is the content of this legislation? As adopted in a committee, the proposal allows all military personnel to apply for all existing mandates at the municipal and provincial levels. However, in order for the military to benefit from this provision, it must meet several conditions. He must inform the Minister of Defense of his intention to be a candidate, he must respect in his political engagement the military duties referred to in article 9 of the regulations of discipline. In its political commitment, it must respect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 approved by the Law of 13 May 1955 and by the Additional Protocols to that Convention in force in Belgium.

Let me return to these last two conditions, whose formulation was based on the opinion of the State Council, which constituted a valuable aid. In its political engagement, the military must comply with the duties referred to in Article 9 of the Rules of Discipline and respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto. In other words, even if he does not wear his military hat, the latter is obliged to respect in his political activities the specific duties related to the military function: to avoid compromising the honor and dignity of his state or office, for example, or to refrain from engaging in any activity contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people. Similarly, whether in the campaign or in the exercise of a mandate, the military is obliged to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. He must therefore refrain from militating for a party that would show its hostility towards these rights and freedoms. These last two conditions, which replace the provision that the candidate cannot represent a political party deprived of public allocation for a reason other than the loss of seats, respond to our widely shared group’s fear of seeing military candidates or becoming mandators of parties that, in general, do not respect our democracy.

Finally, another important provision of our legislation, the military who chooses to exercise an executive mandate will be put on political leave just as the military who performs certain particular functions – for example, a command function – who chooses to exercise any mandate – executive or legislative – unless his head of body allows him to do so. In other words, an elected military who wants to invest in the management of the City must not jeopardize the operation of the Armed Forces. He must make himself available and, during the exercise of his political mandate, put between parentheses his investment in the army.

This bill, as adopted in a committee, guarantees a subtle balance between, on the one hand, the political rights of the military and, on the other, the specificity and operationality of the Armed Forces. For, if the military is a full-fledged citizen, and therefore must enjoy all of his civil and political rights, it matters to the PS group that the cohesion, independence and effectiveness of the Armed Forces be ⁇ ined.

The military function is not a function like the others: the military must first of all serve the government and prepare for its essential mission, which is the defense of the nation. Like the police, the military body must be neutral. by

Finally, the military is not a simple civil servant; it is entrusted with a higher mission than that which consists in making the administration function. He must protect the territory and the nation.

The bill on which we are called to vote today takes into account all its aspects, just as it takes into account the need to allow the military to exercise its rights as a citizen. Without a doubt, it finds its place in the current modernization of our Armed Forces, which aims to make it an open, humanistic and civic institution.

Madame Belhouari, will you come back sooner to express yourself personally?

and no.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my group, I would like to briefly describe some of our motivations. We believe that it is important to safeguard the cohesion and independence of the military. A military must first of all prepare for its essential mission: to defend the nation and serve the government. Allowing military personnel to carry out political activity risks compromising the cohesion of the army and its effectiveness.

As for the argument developed in the bill on the limitation of the political rights of military personnel, we do not share the basis. It refers to respect for the constitutional principles, to which we are very attached, of equality and non-discrimination with respect to the military community. We believe that this is not a limitation or restriction of political rights towards the military community, nor is it a suspicion towards it, but the fact of belonging to the military is an objective fact that is the justification of the difference in treatment. Therefore, there is no violation of a fundamental right and the current article 15 of the law regulating the discipline of the Armed Forces does not violate the Constitution.

I would like to remind in this regard that, in its opinion of 20 March 2006, the Council of State recalls that, in the past, the Court of Arbitration has considered that the general prohibition made to members of the active staff of the gendarmerie to “publicly express their political opinions and engage in political activities” was justified, in the light of the objective of “guaranteeing an effective police service whose impartiality is undeniable to the benefit of authorities and citizens in order to protect the proper functioning of democracy.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

Please apologize to Mr. Sevenhans for having to speak in shirt molds. His jacket disappeared out of his will. I would like to note that so that you do not draw wrong conclusions, because normally I would hardly allow that.

Crime is falling! You notice it.

We thought, colleagues, that the military, like all other citizens, has political rights, but it turns out that they are heavily restricted. Through this legislative amendment, there will indeed be some space given to the military, even if it is not what we would have wanted.

I want to be clear: I will approve the bill. But I would have wanted to go further. I do not think that we should give soldiers less rights than ordinary civilians. Why not ? Because it is possible in all neighboring countries: in Germany, the Netherlands, France, one can even sit in the Parliament as a military. So I don’t understand why we should make an exception here in small Belgium for some reason.

So I can’t stand up for victory, but I’m down to it because indeed the first elections will be the municipal council elections and it is definitely a step in the right direction.

The bill has been delayed because it has been discussed in the committee quite in depth. We made some serious mistakes. I know that the Minister will be eternally grateful to us because we have prevented that it was in fact made impossible for soldiers to stand up for the Socialist Party.

Initially it was stipulated that party candidates who had lost their state subsidy would not be eligible. We found this unfair. The Socialist Party has already been punished, and we felt that this should not happen twice. We have said that this could not be done and that we did not want that to be written in the law.

Fortunately, the State Council has given us the right. We have not received a thank you letter, but I assume that we will receive some sympathy for us. That was definitely a good change.

Then came a second amendment — which apparently was also written on the kitchen table because it contained some detailed errors, but ultimately we now have an acceptable compromise to, as I said, colleagues, take this first step. I hope, colleagues, and especially you, Mrs. Vautmans, that you agree with me that this is only a first step.

Now followed by Mrs. Vautmans, followed by Mr. Monfils, Mrs. Douifi, Mr. De Groote and Mr. Muls. These are all short interventions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, in front of you stands a very happy woman. Finally here today we will approve what has been hanging in Parliament for years. The first draft law to confer political rights on military personnel dates — hold it — to 1996. Exactly ten years ago, the first bill was submitted to grant military personnel political rights. It took ten years, but soon we are finally here. Also colleague Goris has repeatedly submitted the necessary bills for this purpose, as well as other members, among others Mr. Van der Maelen. So I am very happy that we will take that step today.

Why is it that after ten years has finally come into motion? In Limburg, I dare to say: that is because of the Limburg stubbornness. Minister Marino Cologne has made the necessary changes to the municipal decree at the Flemish level, so that those functions were actually opened to the military. We amend today the discipline regulations, so that the Flemish military who wish to do so can still stand in the elections, soon, in October. It is a whole step forward. Colleague Sevenhans has already said that our neighbors have done it before us, and that’s where it works. Therefore, we do not understand why our country should be left behind.

Furthermore, we are evolving into a mixed-status military force, in which we want to encourage military personnel to serve in the military for a few years, and subsequently to stream more easily into the private services and to the public services. In fact, the abolition of this discrimination is fully in line with the equality between civilians and military personnel in the military force.

Mr. President, I want Mrs.

Your Vautmans thank you for the very kind words to the attention of Mr. Van der Maelen and myself. We have indeed been working on this project for years.

For this assembly, however, I would like to emphasize that it is mainly thanks to her, thanks to her commitment in the past months, that this was finally realized. In particular, I would like to congratulate her for her perseverance.

Congratulations to Hilde.

Thank you very much, Stef.

The President: Mr. Goris has always been a galanty man.

Colleagues, everyone in the hemisphere who has experienced the discussions knows that the discussions in the committee have not gone from a sleek roof. When the first discussions began, I think a lot of parties were against the proposal. Today we are here with a very important data.

We also followed a key point of the State Council, in particular that the military must always fulfill his rights and duties and that he must obey the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Colleagues, in October, which is not so far off, most of us are also on the list, military will finally be able to come to strengthen our lists. If I count the number of emails I have received about this over the past year, I think they will be with many. I also know them in my community, where they will rise. I would like to wish them a lot of success with their new challenge in the upcoming municipal elections. Their

Colleagues, we are fighting with many to give soldiers equal rights. There is another discrimination that needs to be abolished urgently. The Minister of National Defence, it is true that until today, soldiers still cannot be part of an assistant jury. Their

I have therefore taken the freedom to submit to Parliament a bill to eliminate this discrimination as well. This no longer belongs to home. A jury should be a reflection of our society. Therefore, I believe that military personnel should be invited to sit in an assistant jury. Mr. Minister of National Defence, I ask you what your view is about eliminating this discrimination. Their

Ladies and gentlemen, I will keep it here. I would like to thank everyone in the committee for the hard work on the amendment to the disciplinary rules. We will be very happy when it is finally approved.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I can obviously only be seduced in the face of Mrs. Vautmans’ cheerful smile. This case is indeed extremely difficult. It took us a lot of time not only in committee meetings but also in various caucus before reaching a solution.

There were two problems: the legal problem and the political problem. Fortunately, the legal problem was quickly settled by the State Council — honor to him — which made a very clear distinction between incompatibilities, on the one hand, and eligibility problems, on the other. Incompatibilities whose content and limits belonged to the federal state and issues of eligibility which, as such, were within the competence of the Communities and Regions.

Very quickly, we questioned ourselves about the possible limits of an incompatibility regime. It was then a political choice while waiting for the Regions themselves, on the basis of the decisions we have made, to make the necessary decrees. This has not yet been done, neither in Wallonia nor in Brussels.

Therefore, a question arises. Can the military, guardian of the safeguarding of the State and the integrity of the territory, be a man or a woman politician and at what level?

In 1975, as you know, the answer was negative. Today, the main reasons for being the army remained the same, namely the maintenance of national independence, etc. But the situation has changed in thirty years. The army has become professionalized; it is no longer made up of voluntary military personnel. Since 1978, military personnel have been allowed to join a trade union. These unions are not all politically neutral. These changes have also occurred in many neighboring countries. When you look at their situation and make a little comparative right, you see that the situation has advanced.

In France, subject to certain ineligibilities provided by law, military personnel may be candidates for any elected public office. The soldiers who are elected are then dispatched. In Germany, they can stand as candidates; once elected, they are placed in a particular statutory position. In Spain, they can be candidates in elections; if they are elected, they also enjoy a special statutory position that no longer submits them to military rights and obligations. In England, the system is slightly different. In this country, they must resign under certain circumstances. Recently, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe presented a highly searched document in which it insisted on the electoral rights of members of the Armed Forces: the right to vote and the right to be elected.

It seems to me that, like the evolution of societies, it was necessary to evolve in this matter. In so far as the right of eligibility is a general law which can only know limits of criminal or professional order, it was normal to consider opening this possibility to the military, provided that the elements of military operationality are ⁇ ined. It is clear that certain problems still arise — bacteriological, chemical, or what I still know — and that a number of military functions are not compatible with the possibility of being, for example, a municipal counselor.

I will take only one example: a seamen operating in the Gulf, on the fregate "Westdiep", which stays four months at sea, can hardly ask to go back and attend a municipal council of Nivelles to vote on the budget. Similarly for command functions, instructor functions, "special forces" or any military that are operational, it is impossible to attach activities to the municipal or provincial council and military activities.

The final text is very balanced. Anyone can be a candidate. Of course, political holidays are reserved for deputies, chefs, mayors, permanent deputies, and what I still know. If, being a member of the municipal council, one enters into one of the categories fixed, by virtue of the need for operationality of the army, one must choose between taking political leave or abandoning the municipal council. In my opinion, it is a good opening, which goes far beyond the British system that ultimately forces the person to resign. by

Therefore, I do not see any risk of questioning the army. Obviously, I agree with this text and I do not take any commitment for an extension, a grignotage, an opening such as, with her devastating smile, Mrs. Vautmans presented just recently. The rest is something else. by

Here and now, a overwhelming majority of the group, if not unanimously, will vote on this text. Beyond, this is another problem, such as proposals that tend to allow military dismissal while being a member of parliament, senator or otherwise. This creates other problems. Province and municipality, yes, under the conditions laid down in the law. by

The text is balanced. The objectives are met, namely the expansion of the political rights of the military, the right to participate in public life and the maintenance of a strong, operational army, capable of guaranteeing the integrity of the country, but also to hold its rank on the European and international planes, on the stage of operations in which our army and its components are engaged.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, it has already been said by previous speakers, the question of granting active political rights to military personnel is a question that has long been on the table. It is also a question of the trade unions, isn’t it colleague Vautmans? As already stated, in previous legislatures, colleagues who preceded us have already submitted legislative proposals with this question.

With the legislation proposed today, we will take a concrete action. We will finally concrete this question and thus grant active political rights to the military, with which we will make a step forward. In this way, we also stand on the line, colleagues, of other European countries that have been ahead of us. The SP Afraction is satisfied with this step. If one knows how long it has taken before one has reached consensus and a large majority to grant such active political rights to the military, then today one can speak of a great breakthrough in the equalization of political rights of civilians and soldiers.

It has also been cited by the colleagues that the concern has always been to bring the specificity, the peculiarity of the Department of Defense, its staff and its military as well as its integrity and above all its operationality in line with the active political rights. Other European countries that have been ahead of us to grant these rights have also had to do this balance exercise. A document has helped us to do this well, a study conducted by the department itself, by the Royal Higher Institute of Defense, on the trade union and political rights of the soldiers of the European NATO armies and their influence on operationality. Therefore, we believe that there is a good balance in this regard with the present bill.

It is intended to grant a maximum number of military personnel maximum political rights. Therefore, at some point during the work, the sp.a has also put on the table the extension of the mandates that soldiers could include, in particular also the executive mandates so that they can also be ships and mayor.

This bill will soon take away the approval of the sp.a. group because people with a special social task, the military, will soon also be able to take on a new special social task, namely the task of a politician.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the debate on the political rights of military personnel has indeed been held for a long time. The present bill provides military personnel with the opportunity to participate in political life. It has been different for a long time. In fact, earlier regulations stipulated that military personnel could become members of a political party, but in a party they could not exercise any other function than an expert, counselor or member of the study center. They were not allowed to run for elections.

In Flanders, consensus has grown for the broadest possible participation of citizens in democracy and the abolition of as many discriminations and restrictions of political rights as possible. This was reflected in the adoption of the new municipal decree. Therefore, it was expressly chosen for the abolition of the incompatibility of military personnel in active service.

Naturally, we are pleased that, compared to the original proposed bill, there is now an extension to the provincial councils and the executive mandates. That is a good thing.

Mr. Minister, I read in the report that you were initially concerned about the possible consequences for the proper functioning of your department. I can understand that, but also in other countries that right did not affect the operationality of the army, which yet is very important, even in the countries in Europe where the mandate list is even more extensive than we have conceived.

In my bill, I have pledged to give military personnel as much as possible equal political rights, like any other citizen, also in terms of taking up mandates. Expansions may still be possible in the future. I consider the text a very good intermediate step. The N-VA will therefore approve the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I belong to an extinct race of those who have yet to fulfill their military service. I am relatively young, but anyone who is younger than me has not done that anymore.

I remember that I was little enthusiastic when I had to begin my military service. I also remember that the same day in the same barracks another person was registered who was much less enthusiastic than I was. It was Marino Cullen who then became my roommate. So you can see how it went wrong with us both, but all the madness on a stick.

I had a distorted image of it. At that time, during my training and throughout my military service, I was surprised to find that the military stationed there respected democracy, the democratic institutions, and defended them, and that they were very neutral.

It is above all that last point, the ability to stand neutral, about which spirit is concerned. We naturally wondered whether the fact that we would give the military the opportunity to candidate would be a deepening of democracy or not. Does it benefit democracy that more people can run for candidates?

It is not unknown to you that soldiers who choose to pursue a military career, police officers and certain officials know in advance that they should not be a candidate. This is motivated, inter alia, by the fact that they should serve the general interest and not a specific interest. We may wonder whether we are not creating inequality here, since we are talking about soldiers and not about policemen or certain officials. In addition, we are only talking about a possibility that is created in Flanders and not in Brussels or Wallonia.

Another consideration is given that it is from 1996 that a first proposal was submitted. Colleague Vautmans also cited this. If we look at the broad history, it is surprising that only in 1996, in the twentieth century, a proposal is submitted. If we look at it historically, we see that in the early democracy of Rome it was even impossible for a soldier to take a step on the territory of the city.

The ratio legis of this was that the population and those who engage socially and politically should not have the impression that there would be some power, in this case an armed power, that could exert pressure.

There are examples from our neighbors. In France this has been approved very recently, in the Netherlands a little longer. The fact that such a thing is approved in other neighboring countries does not mean that we must take it without hesitation.

We also have doubts about the following. If the military gives up political neutrality...

Mr. Muls, you have already mentioned this in the committee.

What surprised me is the following. At the Flemish level, you approve the municipal decree that makes this possible. We did not hear Spirit there.

I thought that Spirit was a very progressive party with smooth ideas that wants to offer opportunities to all people. Here you deprive 40,000 soldiers of the opportunity to participate in local elections. I don’t understand that well of Spirit.

When you first spoke in the committee, I thought you did not understand it correctly. It is about the amendment of the disciplinary regulation. Why did it take so long? Previously, the National Guard was still there. Why can’t this be done for police officers? The answer is obvious. A police officer often lives in the same city and can issue parking fines. It is, in my opinion, logical that this is a very different task than most soldiers who are stationed in a barracks where they do not live or who very often perform foreign tasks. We are sending our boys out to establish democracy in foreign countries, but we are denying them the right to participate in local elections, while non-EU citizens are allowed to participate. In this regard, Spirit is quite conservative. I did not expect that from your party. You disappoint me in that.

On the contrary, Mrs Vautmans. Spirit is so progressive and broad-minded that we do not follow other countries.

The example you cite of the police officers who can write out parking fines in their own municipality is a very peculiar example. Police officers as well as military personnel can at certain times give civilian orders within the country. I am not talking about abroad. If the military police leave you outside here and stops traffic, the military police will give an order to the citizen who passes there. We agree on this.

At the moment when people, police or military, can give orders to civilians, the latter must be sure that he is dealing with someone who serves the public interest and guarantees neutrality. That is what it is about.

You also talked about humanitarian missions. Spirit holds his heart that in case something goes wrong on a humanitarian mission. Consider the problems that the Dutch army had in Bosnia. I don’t know if you’ve ever watched the discussion on Dutch television and heard the accusations that were flung over and over, about murders that took place there, always a political connotation with regard to the military.

We absolutely want to avoid the impression that the neutrality of the military force is questioned by anyone and that we find primordial for both the military and the civilian. Therefore, we will not approve the bill.