Belgium's federalisation has involved both territorial and non-territorial autonomy, with the former embodied by the cultural communities and the latter by the regions. The paper argues that a recent controversy over an old issue, the split of the electoral district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV), reflects a clash between these two forms of autonomy. Until recently, French-speakers living in Halle-Vilvoorde (part of monolingual Flanders) could vote for French parties, while Flemings in Wallonia were de facto not allowed to do likewise. In 2003, the Constitutional Court found this to be against the constitution, yet, a majority of French-speakers argued that, as a minority in Flanders, they should have the right to vote for their own parties. The Flemings, on the contrary, pointed to Flanders' monolingual status and asked French-speakers to respect their laws and institutions.
For French-speakers, their non-territorial right to vote for parties belonging to the same cultural area should have priority over the territorial autonomy of Flanders, while the Flemings stressed their territorial sovereignty. The Belgian case suggests that non-territorial autonomy works better in areas where linguistic groups are highly intermingled, as it might stir conflict at the linguistic frontier, especially in presence of changes in the linguistic composition of the area. The paper also raises questions about the potential territorial effects of non-territorial autonomy - such as the infringement of one's rights as a member of a cultural community over the sovereignty of a territorial one - and examines ways of dealing with similar situations.
