Many criticisms have been made about Belgium’s democracy: that it is a depoliticized democracy, it is a partitocracy (DE WINTER, 1998), it lacks a common public sphere, the public apathy, or about the lack of political alternance (SINARDET 2008). However, a series of constitutional reforms beginning in 1970 changed the originally unitary Belgian State to a unique model of federalism. These reforms were rationalized, for example, by the argument that political institutions should reflect society (and its diversity) and should bring the political power closer to the people. Federalism in Belgium emerged through the institutionalization of the consociational practices (DESCHOUWER 2009). These practices were born to manage the old secular/religious and socioeconomic cleavages but they were later exploited used by the linguistic cleavage (center-periphery without center). The institutionalization of these practices has consequences for the pattern of the public sphere(s). This paper aims to explain how the public sphere actors in the public sphere can trigger debate and political mobilization on the future of Belgium, in this institutional context. My hypothesis is that even though divisions existed in Belgian society which can partly explain the evolution of its institutions, the institutionalization of consociationalism is the key explanation for the pattern of the Belgian public sphere (social movements, associations and media) (WALGRAVE 2010, FERREE and al., 2002). Two factors are relevant here: the institutions that are related to the linguistic segmentation of the public sphere (the electoral system and the system of political representation) and the aspect of the political system related to access to the public sphere (the role of the political parties etc). The public sphere actors have to deal with these institutions that function as a structure of opportunities (KRIESI 1997). This hypothesis will be assessed by interviews with organizers of social movements and associations, and journalists.
