Security & justice: what do Belgium's parties propose in 2026?

What do Belgium's parties propose on security and justice in 2026?

In 2026, Belgium's ten main parties fall into two families on security and justice. On one side, the N-VA, MR, Open VLD, CD&V and Vlaams Belang back penal firmness: heavier sentences for serious crime, faster and more effective enforcement of convictions, and more prison places. On the other, the PS, Ecolo, Groen and the PTB·PVDA want first to reduce the use of prison, develop alternative sentences and bet on prevention and rehabilitation. Vooruit and Les Engagés sit between the two, each mixing a share of firmness and a share of alternatives.

This dividing line does not pit a "good" manifesto against a "bad" one. It pits two answers to the same question: how to protect society while managing already-full prisons. The first bets on punishment and deterrence. The second bets on prevention and lower reoffending. Both camps say they want less crime and better-protected victims; they simply pull different levers.

By the numbers, the context shifted this year. The new Criminal Code, with its eight-level scale of sentences, has had its entry into force postponed to 1 September 2026. In parallel, the Arizona government toughens some sentences and tries to relieve prisons that hold around 13,500 inmates for 11,000 places. It is this twin movement — toughen the law, yet lack cells — that shapes the whole debate this year.

How do you read these positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a sign per lever here: a green + when it clearly backs that approach, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This system replaces stars or marks out of 5, which would suggest a moral ranking.

The key point: no column designates a "good" party. A party marked with a + on firmness is often marked with a − on alternatives, and vice versa. The two levers answer different priorities — sanction and deter for one, prevent and rehabilitate for the other — backed by different voters. Reading the table means spotting the lever each party favours, not handing out a prize for virtue.

For example, the Vlaams Belang gets a + on firmness and a − on alternatives, which it deems lax. The PTB·PVDA has the opposite profile. Neither is "in the lead": they are not playing on the same field.

The new Criminal Code and sentences: what changes in 2026?

The big shift of 2026 is the entry into force, now set for 1 September, of the new Criminal Code. It replaces a text dating from 1867 and introduces an eight-level scale of sentences: levels 1 to 6 for correctional penalties, levels 7 and 8 for criminal ones. Its article 27 sets four aims for punishment: expressing society's disapproval, repairing the harm, favouring rehabilitation and protecting society. On paper, imprisonment becomes the last resort, to be handed down only if no other sanction is enough.

In parallel, the Arizona government toughens the response to serious crime. It raises sentences for drug trafficking, organised crime, terrorism and violence against people holding a social function or in cases of domestic violence. It also creates new offences, such as escape and sabotage of the electronic tag, and introduces mandatory drug testing in detention. Enforcement of sentences is meant to become faster, notably for short sentences that long went unenforced.

These two movements may look contradictory: a Code that makes prison a last resort, a government that toughens sentences. In reality, they reflect the permanent tension of Belgium's penal debate. In the same year, Belgium shows both the will to punish the gravest acts more harshly and the ambition to move away from the prison-reflex for minor offences. The concrete outcome will depend on resources — judges, prison officers, available places — more than on stated intentions.

What do the parties defending penal firmness propose?

Centre-right and right-wing parties want a justice system that sanctions faster and more firmly, to deter and reassure. The N-VA carries the clearest line: an end to impunity, more prosecution, real and effective sentences, including for drug users, and investment in security. The MR backs tougher enforcement of sentences — stricter conditions for conditional release and prison leave, immediate appearance for petty offences — and higher prison capacity. The Vlaams Belang calls for the hardest line, with zero tolerance and a flat refusal of any decriminalisation.

The Open VLD and CD&V share this logic of firmness, with nuances. The Open VLD stresses the efficiency of the penal chain and, on drugs, distinguishes trafficking to be repressed hard from cannabis whose sale it proposes to regulate. The CD&V emphasises authority and support for police and justice services, without ruling out alternatives for the least serious acts. On overcrowding, this camp bets first on building: new closed centres — projects mention sites such as Steenokkerzeel, Jumet, Jabbeke and Zandvliet —, a new prison plan, faster expulsion of inmates in an irregular situation, and exploring detention capacity abroad.

The core argument is protection: sanctioning quickly and surely would discourage offending and answer a sense of impunity. The criticism, voiced by the left and part of those on the ground, is that adding cells without reducing entries sustains an already chronic overcrowding, and that an overloaded prison prepares poorly for release, hence favours reoffending. The debate is not only moral: it is about what, in practice, reduces crime most.

What do the parties betting on prevention and alternatives propose?

Left-wing parties want first to reduce the use of prison and tackle the causes of crime. The PS proposes making alternative sentences genuine main sanctions, developing small detention houses and transition facilities that prepare rehabilitation, and strengthening psychosocial support in prison to cut reoffending. The PTB·PVDA backs restorative and educational sanctions centred on repairing the harm done to the victim, specialised institutions for interned and drug-dependent people, and support for the status of prison officers.

Ecolo and Groen stress prevention and health. Both green parties argue for a drug policy based on public health rather than repression alone: Ecolo mentions local commissions inspired by the Portuguese model, Groen opens the debate on a regulated market for certain substances. All favour alternatives to detention, social support and the fight against inequality as the first bulwark against crime.

The core argument is long-term effectiveness: a short prison sentence often desocialises more than it corrects, while a well-monitored alternative sentence cuts reoffending and costs less than incarceration. The criticism, voiced by the right, is that a discourse centred on rehabilitation can be seen as too lenient towards offenders and not attentive enough to victims, and that some alternatives require human and budgetary follow-up that is currently lacking. Here too, the disagreement is as much about means as about principles.

Where do Les Engagés, Vooruit and the CD&V stand?

These three parties occupy the middle ground and blur the left-right split. Vooruit, socialist but a member of the Arizona coalition, accepts firmness measures in the name of government cohesion while claiming investment in prevention and rehabilitation. Hence its ~ on firmness and its + on alternatives: it votes tougher sentences for serious acts, but defends small detention facilities and social support.

Les Engagés cultivate an assumed centrist position. The party backs authority and a firm response to crime, but has clearly evolved on drugs, moving from a prohibitionist line to an approach closer to public health. Hence its ~ on firmness and its + on prevention: neither the right's zero tolerance, nor the left's sole logic of alternatives, but a balance presented as pragmatic.

The CD&V, finally, leans towards firmness — support for police, authority, enforcement of sentences — while keeping a Christian-democratic tradition of attention to rehabilitation and support. Hence its + on firmness and its ~ on alternatives: it accepts rehabilitation schemes for minor acts, without making them a central plank. These pivot positions make the three parties hard to label, which is also a strategic choice.

Drugs: repression or public health?

On drugs, the dividing line largely, but not entirely, overlaps the firmness / prevention axis. The N-VA, CD&V and Vlaams Belang reject any decriminalisation and want to repress use too, in the name of fighting trafficking. At the other end, the PTB·PVDA argues for regulated legalisation of cannabis under public control, targeting drug barons rather than users, and Groen opens the debate on a regulated market for certain substances.

Between the two, the Open VLD distinguishes hard and soft drugs and proposes regulating cannabis production and sale, while Ecolo and Les Engagés put forward a public-health approach inspired by the Portuguese model, which treats use as a health issue rather than a criminal one. This example shows that the same party can be firm on one front and open on another: the Open VLD, tough on enforcing sentences, is among the most open on cannabis. Reducing a manifesto to a "for" or "against" security label misses these nuances.

Security and justice: what do the votes and actions say?

Beyond the manifestos, the 2026 actions confirm the dividing line. The Arizona majority — N-VA, MR, Vooruit, CD&V, Les Engagés — passed heavier sentences for several offences, the creation of new offences and a bill meant to relieve prisons, notably through faster expulsion of inmates in an irregular situation. The PS, Ecolo, Groen and the PTB·PVDA, in the federal opposition, deem this approach too focused on repression and call for a real plan of alternatives and prevention.

Testing promises against actions is the best antidote to electoral marketing. Every party says it wants "more security"; it is the texts voted, the government agreement and the prison budgets that reveal the lever actually pulled. The overcrowding case is telling: building cells and reducing entries are two strategies that coexist uneasily when the budget is tight.

To dig further, the comparator lets you put two parties side by side on security and justice, the ranking sums up positions theme by theme, and the quiz starts from your priorities rather than a manifesto. The methodology details how these positions are gathered and remains open to challenge.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best: the real effect of heavier sentences or of greater use of alternatives depends on the resources of the justice system, the number of judges and officers, the quality of follow-up and social factors that go beyond criminal law alone. Nor does it factor in your experience — victim, neighbour, professional on the ground — which often weighs more than a national average.

So the right reflex is not to remember a winning camp, but to link each position to the lever it pulls, then to test this overview against what you expect from a security and justice policy.