The future of the Belgian Senate

One of the main characteristics of many federal system concerns the strength and region-based composition of the second chamber. When Belgium became a federation in 1993, its Senate was reformed and ceased to share equal power with the lower chamber (House of Representatives). Its composition was also reformed as the system of appointment of senators became based on a system of direct and community-based election. The recent state reform of 2012-14 once again transformed the Belgian Senate. Not only does this reform further reduced the legislative powers of the Senate, but it also alters its composition. The new system of appointment of senators combines indirect and mixed region-based and community-based designation. This has deeply affected the profiles of the senators and the daily working of the Senate. More recently, these reforms are not satisfactory for some parties (among which ethno-regionalist parties) and they clearly demand a removal of the Belgian Senate. Based on the analysis of party manifestos, parliamentary debates and media speeches, this paper investigates the arguments displayed by political parties at the occasion of the two reforms of 1993 and 2012-14, as well as in the current situation. The arguments for these in-depth reforms rely on different grounds, depending on the type of parties: political arguments (for the ethno-regionalist parties), economic arguments (for the populist parties), democratic arguments (for the green and fringe parties), electoral arguments (for the mainstream / established parties), etc.. This paper analyses party positions on the Senate reform over time, across party families and across repertoires of arguments and intends to disentangle the logics behind it. Does it reveal a long-term evolution of the Belgian society and its regime towards a weakened federal level (and de facto more autonomy for the regions and communities) ? Does it translate an ideological evolution of parties towards more democracy, efficiency and accountability (as part of a ‘new politics’ movement) ? Or is it simply part of a strategy for some parties to attract more votes and/or enter government ?