Belgium's Cordon Sanitaire: Political and Media

The cordon sanitaire is the commitment of several Belgian parties not to form a coalition or make an agreement with the parties they place on the far right. It is not written into law. On the French-speaking side, a second arrangement, for the media, has had a regulatory basis since 2012.

Belgium's cordon sanitaire: what exactly are we talking about?

An agreement between parties, not a rule of law. The CRISP, the leading political research centre in French-speaking Belgium, defines it as an arrangement "aimed at systematically rejecting any form of cooperation" with far-right parties. Its May 2024 analysis describes it as a reality unique in Europe.

Two families of rules share the same name, and that is where the confusion comes from. The political cordon concerns governments and majorities. The media cordon concerns access to studios and debates. They differ in birth date, in signatories and in force.

1989, 1993, 2022: the chronology of the texts

It starts on 9 October 1988. At the municipal elections the Vlaams Blok breaks through, and Jos Geysels, then of the Flemish green party Agalev, proposes an understanding among democratic parties. The first protocol is signed on 10 May 1989 by the CVP, the PVV, the SP, the Volksunie and Agalev: no agreement with the Vlaams Blok at any level of government. It is denounced as early as June 1989.

It returns in 1991-1992. The "Black Sunday" of 24 November 1991, the day of the general election in which the Vlaams Blok made clear gains, then the 1992 condemnation by the Flemish Council of the party's 70-point programme, under pressure from civil society, lead the parties to sign a new protocol similar to the first. The current version dates from May 2000: it excludes any political collaboration, agreements and coalitions included, at every level of government.

Among French speakers, the Charter for Democracy is signed on 8 March 1993 by several parties including the PS, the PSC, the PRL and the FDF. Its latest version, signed on 8 May 2022, also covers social media. According to the Belga news agency, its signatories are the PS, the MR, Ecolo, Les Engagés and DéFI.

Does the political cordon have legal force?

No. It is a political commitment, and the CRISP describes no legal status for it. No text provides a sanction for a party that departs from it, and none obliges a party leader to respect it. The only response is political: the expulsion of a local officeholder, internal pressure, public criticism.

A party can therefore walk away. Several have challenged the principle at one time or another, the CRISP reports: the N-VA, the CD&V, Open VLD and, more rarely, the SP.A. In 2013, Sigfried Bracke, for the N-VA, judged it reprehensible.

The media cordon: a binding rule since 2012

The RTBF, the French-language public broadcaster, applied it on its own initiative after 24 November 1991. Its legality was settled by the Council of State, Belgium's supreme administrative court, on 9 June 1999 in the Bastien ruling: a public service may refuse its platform to parties that do not respect democratic principles. The advisory board of the CSA, the French-speaking community's audiovisual regulator, took up the principle in its recommendations of 10 March 1999.

The last step is regulatory. The CSA regulation of 29 November 2011, approved by the French Community government on 23 March 2012 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette (Moniteur belge) on 8 May 2012, addresses all audiovisual media services under the French Community. Its rules for the October 2012 elections rest on the law of 30 July 1981 against racism and xenophobia, the law of 23 March 1995 on denial of the Nazi genocide and the consolidated decree of 24 July 2009 on audiovisual media services.

In Flanders, nothing comparable exists: the cordon is limited to coalitions and does not apply to the media.

Political versus media: the comparison

Can a targeted party be elected and hold seats?

Yes, and it is the nuance most often forgotten. The cordon forbids neither candidacy, nor election, nor a presence in an assembly. Vlaams Belang has had a parliamentary group since 1991, according to Wikipedia.

The arrangement rules out three things, and only three:

• taking part in a government majority or a municipal coalition;
• concluding a coalition agreement;
• in the French-speaking version, inviting to an audiovisual debate a representative of a party that does not respect democratic principles.

It leaves voters' ballots, seats and political groups untouched.

Ranst, October 2024: one breach, two readings

On Sunday 20 October 2024, a week after the municipal elections, two local lists, PIT and Vrij Ranst, formed a majority with Vlaams Belang in Ranst, in the province of Antwerp. According to the Brussels Times, those lists included elected members from Open VLD and the CD&V, which expelled the members concerned. Other municipalities followed, including Brecht at the end of November.

The two readings face each other. For Jos Geysels, who started the cordon in 1989, the Brussels Times reports, the expulsions show the agreement is being respected: an important and hopeful signal. For the CD&V leader, Sammy Mahdi, the decision was taken by a local list and does not breach the agreement.

Why is the cordon defended, and why is it contested?

Its defenders argue first that the principle rests on texts: the European Convention on Human Rights, the laws of 1981 and 1995, the case law of the Council of State. They argue next that a democracy may refuse to share power with parties it considers hostile to its principles, without banning them. Finally, they recall that the Council of State confirmed in 1999 the RTBF's right to refuse its platform to such parties.

Its critics answer first that an agreement between parties binds no one and may end up shutting an electorate out of the formation of majorities for good. They note next that the perimeter is set by the signatories themselves, who are also competitors of the targeted parties. Reporters Without Borders, finally, condemned in 2010 the cancellation of an election debate at the RTBF made in the name of the media cordon.

Both readings rest on the same facts, and they differ only on how a democracy, which must both protect its principles and represent all its voters, should arbitrate between those two demands when they pull apart.

Is the PTB targeted?

No. The PTB has not signed the French-speaking Charter, and according to Belga, the MR's request to add the far left was not adopted in 2022. No text lists the parties concerned.

To see where these parties sit in the Chamber, read the article on the twelve parties represented; the vocabulary of majorities is explained in the glossary on the government agreement. Scores in the comparator reflect a position on a thematic axis, not a quality or a judgement: the methodology explains how to read them.

Sources: Benjamin Biard, "Le cordon sanitaire : une réalité unique en Europe", CRISP, 8 May 2024; CSA, specific rules for the municipal and provincial elections of 14 October 2012; Brussels Times, Ranst, 21 October 2024 and Brecht; Belga, French-speaking parties reach agreement on Charter for Democracy; Reporters Without Borders, state TV broadcaster cancels political debate; Wikipedia, cordon sanitaire.