Proposition 53K2093

Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 14 janvier 1975 portant le règlement de discipline des Forces armées en vue de permettre aux militaires d'exercer des mandats politiques.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Karolien Grosemans, Jan Jambon, Bert Maertens

Submission date

March 2, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Member of Parliament armed forces organisation of elections leave for political activities election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Ronny Balcaen (Ecolo) voted to adopt.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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. 7, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The Bill No. 2093/001 allows military personnel to exercise a political mandate. For the applicant, Bert Maertens, the current arrangement for the staff of the federal public services was the basis for the arrangement he proposes for the military.

The bill was discussed in the Committee on Land Defense of 17 December and consists of two parts.

Military may not be a candidate on a list for parliamentary elections. The first part of the bill allows the participation in parliamentary elections and subsequent recovery of the mandate.

The second part is about local elections. In theory, military personnel can now be candidate for a municipal or provincial mandate, but in practice it is difficult to take that step, as a military person wishing to take up the executive mandate is obligatory to be sent unpaid and full-time with political leave. Certainly in a small or medium-sized municipality, the bet attached to the mandate is not high enough to compensate for the lost military bet.

The bill aims to give military personnel the opportunity to participate in parliamentary elections and take up mandates. In some cases they are entitled to an optional leave and in other cases they are sent out of office with political leave.

I will briefly summarize the discussion. For Mr. Christophe Lacroix of the PS group, the bill raises a lot of ethical and deontological questions. He cannot support the proposal, because he believes that the military should be strictly neutral.

Mr. Ducarme of the MR group cannot support the proposal, as the military are not the only ones experiencing restrictions. He wants to approach the debate globally.

Mr Dallemagne of the CDH group can not support the bill either, because the army must be in the service of politicians. He also upholds strict neutrality.

Finally, Mr. Wouter De Vriendt of the Ecolo-Groen Group considers that there are few serious counterarguments. He says that we should not lose sight of the fact that participating in elections and possibly taking a mandate are basic rights. The applicant, Bert Maertens of the N-VA group, will defend the bill in his presentation.

The Commission rejects the proposal.

It is not every week that a rejected bill is put on the table again. I think this time it is right and right. Rejecting a bill coldly and without valid arguments by rejecting Article 1, I find it far away and actually just ridiculous. Therefore, I would like to discuss this proposal again.

Colleagues, I think it is clear to everyone that participating in elections and taking a mandate are fundamental rights in a democracy. However, it turns out that does not apply to everyone. Military candidates are not allowed to be on a list for parliamentary elections, while this is possible in many other European countries. I think of the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Italy.

However, there are no valid reasons for preventing military access to parliamentary mandates. On the contrary, the presence of military personnel could be an enrichment for the functioning of the Parliament and a value added for politics in general, as is the case with the presence of lawyers, business managers, doctors and so on.

In addition, the presence of military personnel in the Parliament can ⁇ contribute to fostering mutual understanding, knowledge and exchange of experience between the political and military worlds. My bill would make it possible, if you want something later, that soldiers can still participate in parliamentary elections.

In theory, military personnel can run for a local political mandate, municipal or provincial, but a whole series of exceptions and additional rules make it almost impossible for military personnel de facto to take up a local mandate. A military officer who takes up an executive local mandate, as ships or mayor, in any municipality – it does not matter whether it is a large city such as Antwerp, Gent or Bruges, or a very small municipality such as Mesen – is obliged to be sent with full-time and unpaid political leave. In larger cities and municipalities, the betting associated with this may compensate for more and more, or be high enough to compensate for the complete loss of military income. In a smaller municipality like Mesen of my good colleague Sandy – liberal by the way, so I also expect support from that side – the mayor has a gross annual bet of around 30 000 euros. That is far from a full-fledged bet. Suppose that person is a military, then he must deal with that amount.

In addition, there is also a washlist of military positions for which the military who aspires to a position in politics must take full-time unpaid political leave. For example, a military officer who teaches young soldiers to drive a tank during his service period, or a chef who accompanies a naval ship and becomes a municipality or OCMW council member in his spare time, may have to be seen coming around with the monthly gift fee. There are many more experienced local politicians here than I am, who can testify that this is nothing more than a volunteer compensation.

Mr. Maertens, you talked about experiences. In our municipal council sits a major who was with the first elected military, six years ago. He does his job as a counselor very well. However, he cannot become ships, although he had the right to do so in our hierarchy.

I understand what it means to be a military council member, but if he gets an assignment that prevents him from being present in the municipal council or in the committees, does he not lose his military bet? I do not understand that.

Mr. De Croo, for a whole range of functions, a military who fulfils a political mandate, even if it is a non-executive mandate, must take political leave. In case you sketch, it will not be so. A professor at the KMS, for example, would have to take full-time political leave and would then not get his bet as a military.

Colleagues, you all know that the attendance fee for a municipal council member or an OCMW council member is a volunteer fee that is impossible to get around. The conclusion is, in our opinion, that Defence imposes such strict conditions that it is actually completely impossible for those soldiers to become active in municipal politics, even if it is for those persons no more than a hobby after working hours.

This is also evidenced by the figures. I interviewed Minister De Crem about this last year. In the previous policy period, there was no military who exercised an executive political mandate, nor was there any military who was sent with full-time political leave to exercise a non-executive local political mandate.

My proposed legislation aims to change this. I want to do that simply by taking over the existing scheme for federal government staff. It is a little more flexible and gives officials the opportunity to participate in elections and then take up a mandate, either locally or as a member of parliament.

I adopted that scheme because it is a very transparent and operable scheme. In the committee there was a debate about the bill, which one believes that there can be no reasonable argument against, until the MR suddenly says that the issue should be considered in a larger whole.

I would therefore like to refer to a bill prepared by colleagues Ben Weyts and Vanvelthoven, which allows police officers to exercise a local mandate under certain circumstances. Colleague Lacroix of the PS and colleague Dallemagne of the CDH made it a little better by saying that a military should be neutral at all times. Of course, a military must be a hundred percent neutral during the exercise of his position, just as it is for a civil servant, colleagues. Then I wonder why it is not possible to simply transpose the regulation of the civil servants into the military. Should officials in your country not be neutral? In our country, a civil servant, like a military, must be a hundred percent neutral.

The minister, of whom I expected an opinion, did not have an opinion. That is unique: Pieter De Crem without opinion. I expected a lot of cameras. Until the day in December 2012 when the Minister did not have an opinion. It was a unicum in history. I hope I have challenged him in this way to express his opinion. It is a very obvious and simple proposal. This gives military members fundamental political rights, as we all have, as all civil servants have. Therefore, it seems very strange to vote this way, unless you are afraid that there might be too many soldiers with some political colour active. I don’t know if that explains your fear; I really hope not.

Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Maertens claims that I would not have an opinion on this proposal, I would like to say something more.

It is not my attitude, colleague Maertens, mayor Maertens, to fail to fulfill my commitments. You know that I fully respect the work of the Parliament. Today, too, I will take the decision that the Parliament will make, but you asked for a response. I have prepared it and I want to tell you something.

In 2006, we in this Parliament sought a balance between the exercise of political mandates and the preservation of the cohesion, neutrality and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Furthermore, continuity in policy-making and command-making was a crucial element of discussion. Then, in 2006, it was decided to make only local and provincial mandates accessible to military personnel.

Chairman De Croo pointed out that a military’s core task is to serve the head of state and the government and to protect the territory. That military, though on political leave, would then be able to sit in Parliament himself to perform some constitutionally prescribed tasks under a different title. However, I believe that the necessary neutrality and independence would disappear and that would ⁇ complicate the reintegration after his political mandate.

In 2006, the general principle was also that the exercise of a political mandate should not have any negative impact on military employability. This was also mentioned by Mr. De Croo. The practical implementation of this principle also took into account the function performed by the military, as well as the mandate. This disappears in your proposal.

Executive political mandates are of such a nature that they involve responsibilities and also a degree of availability that are actually incompatible with the full-time exercise of the military profession, even if it is a smaller municipality. I don’t think Mr. De Croo considers Brakel as a smaller municipality.

In addition, conflicts of interest may arise. We should really avoid making political decisions by the person concerned that may conflict with the function as a military. I am not going to list this now, but that is of course not excluded. The military function, even in the case of a non-executive mandate, has the effect that one may sometimes be sent with political leave due to the impact of operationality on the continuity of command and on the neutrality of the Armed Forces and a number of international organizations.

That is why I wanted to express my concerns here. You know them. That is also the position that I have welcomed with regard to your very valuable proposal.

Your view on the bill does not convince me at all.

A military must indeed be 100 percent neutral, but is that different for a civil servant? The same applies to a civil servant, as in the exercise of his duties he must also stand absolutely neutral. There is no difference. You also know that the list of exceptions included in the law is very extensive. For example, it involves a teacher, waiting staff and people who work on board a fleet. Why would they not be able to exercise local political mandate? For me, this is completely unclear. Hence this ultimate call to approve the re-examination of this proposal.