Proposition 54K1254

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 28 février 2007 fixant le statut des militaires et candidats militaires du cadre actif des Forces armées en ce qui concerne l'exercice d'activités et de mandats politiques par des militaires.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Veli Yüksel
MR Richard Miller
N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Karolien Grosemans, Renate Hufkens, Johan Klaps
Open Vld Dirk Van Mechelen, Vincent Van Quickenborne, Tim Vandenput

Submission date

July 13, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electoral law elective office military personnel

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE DéFI Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

Abstained from voting

PS | SP

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 ¶

Nov. 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mr Vandenput and Mr Bogaert. They refer to their written report.

Until 2006, military personnel were not allowed to stand as candidates for elections, nor to engage in political activities. There was reasonable restraint at the time. The arguments for this were the neutrality that would be compromised and the risk that the effectiveness and activities of the military would be undermined.

In 2006, there was already some political pressure and passive voting rights at local and provincial levels, passive voting rights because in practice it was impossible. Military soldiers who wanted to exercise a local political mandate were obliged to take unpaid leave, thus no betting, no build-up of old age or pension rights during that political leave. That strict regulation meant such a major financial downturn that it became impossible to engage in politics.

Very few soldiers take the step. The military is obliged to disclose their intention to be a candidate, so we have numbers. In the previous local elections, there were 141 candidates among the military, 20 of whom were elected. Only five of them eventually took the step and were immediately placed in unpaid political leave. In 2014, there was another soldier. Today, in 2017, the spirits are fortunately already a little more mature.

The present legislative proposal facilitates participation in local and provincial elections and facilitates the incorporation of the mandates resulting from them. The political leave is aligned with that of federal officials. It is a big step forward and a substantial change. Political rights do not give free guidance to do what one wants. We should not fear the disappearance of military neutrality. We should not be afraid of role confusion. Military must abstain from any political activity during service hours. In other words, no electoral signs, no flyers, no posters inside the walls of the quarters, just like that, by the way, is taboo in schools, for example.

The bill is finally a solid step forward, but I do not stand under chairs or benches that it could go even further for me. In France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Denmark, military personnel can be eligible at all levels, including national and European. I think it is my own goodness that this cannot be done with us. At this moment, I receive a convincing argument for this from the defence staff, nor from the trade unions, nor from political groups. So I hope that the spirits will continue to mature.

We are less than a year away from the municipal elections. It is high time for progress. I hope everyone will support this bill because it is a sign of respect. Those who support this proposal clearly show that they have confidence in the military as possibly elected. Moreover, it is an added value and an enrichment for politics, if people of all backgrounds can not only participate in politics, but also fully practice it.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the objective of the text proposed today was simple in the head of the N-VA: to offer the military the possibility to present themselves from now on also in the legislative elections (federal, regional and European) and not only in the provincial and municipal elections, as is already the case.

This debate had already taken place in the previous legislature, it had been rejected by several parties who are, however, co-signators of the present text.

In the text amended by the majority itself, there is no more. The N-VA submitted amendments in committee limiting the application of this bill to local and provincial levels. In conclusion, we return to the current situation if it is only this text, as my colleague said, now aligns for these levels of power, the military and the rules in force for members of the staff of public services.

It is true that during the hearings, both the trade unions and the staff were very critical of this text. I agree with the position that has always been defended by my group on this subject. For us, it is about respecting the strict neutrality of the National Defense and the military, but also to ensure the inherent availability of their function. They already enjoy the opportunity to exercise their local and provincial mandates. Extending this possibility to other levels of power can potentially undermine this neutrality.

My analysis and the position of opposition to the original text, which I defended in committee with my colleague Julie Fernandez, have, at no time, questioned the skills and aptitudes of our military. All our positions on other proposals or projects can testify if there is still need for them.

Beyond the need for neutrality and to avoid any conflict of interest, the will of the authors also raises the question of an unexplained difference of treatment towards police officers in particular.

“The members of the operational framework shall in all circumstances refrain from publicly expressing their political opinions and from publicly engaging in political activities. In the exercise of their duties, all staff members shall observe strict neutrality in their relations with political representatives." It is therefore fully justified to provide for a uniform approach to political rights in special bodies such as the judiciary, the police and the army.

These different bodies are essential parts of the public force and the royal missions of a rule of law like ours. We speak of regalial and highly symbolic functions of the state's action.

This text also raises the question of the meaning of the priorities of the majority when it comes to our army and the working conditions of the military at a time when the attraction is very high. Was this really a priority in the human and material context experienced by our Defense following the budget cuts decided by this government?

Amendments to the text also refer to the fundamental right to be eligible in a democratic society. But then, why not change the law that prohibits the military from striking? The right to strike is also a fundamental right in a democratic society. However, it is not granted to them.

Mr. Thiébaut, just for the sake of understanding, you have already repeatedly argued that you do not want to grant political rights to the military because of its strict neutrality. There is no military on the PS lists. Can you confirm that?

At the federal level, no. Do you know?

Strict neutrality is strict neutrality.

We don’t have military, we don’t have police, we don’t have magistrates, no!

These are royal functions and we believe that when these are exercised by citizens, they are not compatible with political functions.

Our position is clear. Do you know a member of the PS who is military?

( ... ) : ( ... )

I invite you to continue your speech, Mr. Thiébaut.

At the disciplinary level, she may be quite military, but I don’t think she has performed any functions in the army. (The Hilarity)

Before being interrupted by my colleague, I said that we could consider, as long as we are there, granting the right to strike to the military. Why not, in the end? But on this point, I think the N-VA would not agree entirely. Indeed, if they were granted the right to strike, given the rhythms, the rough budget, the working conditions that this majority imposes on them with their vision of the military "good to do everything", I am sure that many military personnel would be happy to be able to strike. They, in any case, demonstrated this in November 2016, on the occasion of their demonstration against the decisions of this government, in particular on pensions, which unilaterally extend their careers, as you know, by seven years.

I will conclude my speech by announcing that we will abstain from the text as amended by the majority that is submitted to us today. In fact, it no longer aims but to align the regime of political leave applicable to military personnel with the regime applicable to civil servants.

While we are far from the old-fashioned in the original text, we continue to think that it is not, even in this reduced version of the text, to maintain differences in the matter between military and police officers, for example.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the MR did not immediately associate with the initiative of our colleagues in the Defence Committee, while being very attentive to compliance with the government agreement which stipulates: “The Minister of Defence will examine the need for a legislative initiative aimed at aligning the political rights of military personnel with those of other officials.”

We have therefore been attentive to the continuation of the work in the committee, in particular through various hearings, and to a reflection initiated on the basis of Mrs. Grosemans’ bill to facilitate the exercise of their functions arising from local and provincial elections and the mandates resulting from them.

It was necessary in our eyes to ease the very reductive conditions established during the first extension of political rights, and this is now accomplished with this text. On this basis, we have joined the parliamentary approach and will, of course, vote on the proposed text.

Finally, I would like to point out to my colleague Mr. Thiébaut said that the military who are currently actively involved in the fight against terrorism will appreciate that his group considers them treated as "good at doing everything".

Fait personnel

Personal Fact

I would like to point out a personal fact.

You have the word, Mr. Thiébaut.

Mr. Speaker, I said that they were viewed by this government as “good to do everything.” Not by our group.

The incident is closed.

The incident is closed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our group supports this bill. It serves as a recommendation to finally give the military who serve our country more participation and participation in our policies.

In the discussion in the committee, we actually wanted to go further and get into the original proposal. However, the proposers themselves weakened the proposal with an amendment at the last minute. The result is, to say it with a proverb, that the elephant gave birth to a mouse.

The present proposal does not change much. At the local level, of course, there is more opportunity for the military to participate in the political debate and to exercise political mandates, but at the higher level, nothing changes. We will therefore still not be able to have military colleagues here in the Halfrond.

In fact, one must ask why they are not entitled to participate at this level as well. We wanted to start the discussion to extend their rights to a higher level. I note that, if not in this Parliament, then still in the newspapers, the Open Vld also asked that question. European Parliament member Hilde Vautmans pointed out that until two weeks ago, people were blowing high from the tower as if something would change substantially, then scratching back at the last nippet. A missed opportunity, according to Ms. Vautmans.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Grosemans has already said this and I would like to emphasize that the N-VA is and remains in favour of granting political rights to military personnel for parliamentary elections. Surely there should be no misunderstanding about it. That was indeed our initial proposal. Subsequently, we held hearings and enriching debates on the matter, and we must conclude that there is currently no majority to extend the legislation to parliaments.

As a candidate, there are two possibilities. The whole proposal will be voted out and it will be rejected. Then there is nothing. Either the proposal is amended to a narrowed but feasible version, whereby the rights are extended, or the thresholds that currently exist for local elections are eliminated.

In view of the upcoming local elections, it should come to light quite quickly. We could continue to turn around for weeks, months, or maybe years, but then the result was zero. Now there is a solution for the local elections that are on the doorstep. With regard to the parliamentary elections, we will see what we are doing.

A member of the European Parliament from any party that has apparently not followed the file closely in the last few weeks can claim what it wants, the N-VA remains in favour of extending political rights, including to the parliaments.

I am not speaking on behalf of the member of the European Parliament, his group will do so.

I would like to reiterate that we are constructive and will approve this proposal.

To be clear, it is a first step forward, but a small step. In our view, it is a pity that the debate could not be further advanced to further extend it in its amended form. I hope we can take further initiatives in the future. You referred to the 2018 municipal elections. In 2019 there will be other elections. I hope that a further initiative can then be taken to further extend the political rights of soldiers by 2019.

I would like to join some of the previous speakers. We will also approve this proposal. It is a step in the right direction.

Everyone knows that Vlaams Belang has been a party asking for years to make the political rights of non-service soldiers as widespread as possible. I have read the reports of the hearings and I have seen that the army chief is not in favour of extending to the parliaments. However, I also read that most defense trade unions are. This was clearly demonstrated in those hearings. If we read the arguments cited by the army chief, my group still finds that they are very lightweight. They ⁇ do not weigh against the democratic right to aspire to such mandates as citizens. I have read reactions from various parties who, just like us, are in favor of extending that right to national parliaments, as is already the case in the Netherlands and other countries today.

I give you today the opportunity to confess colour, because we have submitted an amendment for that extension, as the original bill actually ambitioned. I will, of course, count on the support of all those who are strong supporters of this amendment in the vote on that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I can only congratulate the members of the Chamber once again for the work done. I believe that this will effectively make a step forward.

I would like to emphasize that there is something wrong in the story that the PS has just come to tell here. The party acknowledges having discussed and agreed to the fact that the military – which it has always regarded as a separate class and which must be kept in a cage – may be listed, collect votes, and possibly even be elected. If they are then elected, however, the votes are for the party, but the mandate associated with it, the party gives to its traditional friends. In short, she thanks the ladies and gentlemen soldiers; they have done their best, but for the rest the party is working on it. I do not understand that. This is a very strange vision.

Members of my party have already cited that the text could eventually go further. I am convinced that now the logic is being pushed through, allowing those candidates at the level where it is possible today to effectively take that mandate. After all, what is the point of creating the possibility of candidates, in order to make it then practically impossible for the candidate elected in the event to exercise that mandate, to do what the voter has elected him for?

Dear members of the Chamber, I wish you congratulations once again on this step forward. We will see what the future brings.

Mr. Speaker, I am still surprised by the remarks of the Minister, because he seems to think that we will have dozens of military personnel on our lists, but we do not have them, Mr. Minister!

The most military in our country may be André Flahaut, but he is not a military. He is an amateur of the army. He is a acquaintance! There are no soldiers at home. You tell us, “It’s incredible, we’re going to put soldiers on our lists and they won’t be able to sit! What a scandal!”

There is another case much more common than the one you cite here: dozens of municipal officials, candidates on lists in municipal elections cannot sit. This case is much more common than that of the army you mention. There are many similar cases!

That is exactly what I mean!

What you say is that we have voted in the past for the possibility for a military to be a candidate, while the exercise of the mandate is not possible. Today, a person who has been elected can effectively exercise his or her mandate. This is the point of the majority legislation. It makes it possible for an elected candidate to exercise his or her mandate at the same level as he or she can be elected today. We make it possible! These candidates are not only there to vote for you, but also to exercise their mandate. This is the subject of today’s decision.

In any case, I can confirm that there are no pre-sensitive military on our lists but what I know is that there are ⁇ many on yours! That is certain!