Why are there tensions between Walloons and Flemish people?

The functioning of Belgium is often explained poorly, highlighting the extremely complex relationship existing between the country's two primary communities: the Flemish and the Walloons. These groups exhibit significant linguistic, cultural, and political differences that can appear either recent or rooted deeply in ancient history. Unlike other multilingual nations, Belgium does not feature a single dominant Francophone culture with a small minority; rather, the balance leans approximately 60/40, with the Flemish population being numerically superior. Maintaining accord between these groups proves challenging, sometimes threatening the cohesion of the state. The impetus for examining this dynamic arose when Bart de Wever, a Flemish independentist, became the federal prime minister in February 2025.

The maintenance of the understanding between Walloons and Flemish people is frequently strained, occasionally appearing on the verge of collapse. The political landscape is defined by these underlying tensions, which require deep investigation to fully comprehend the nation's structure and surprising resilience.

The territorial history of Belgium begins with conquest by Julius Caesar, leading to progressive Romanization in the south, where Romance dialects, derivatives of Latin, eventually became Walloon dialects. However, the south was more densely populated than the north. By the 5th century, with the decline of the Roman Empire, Germanic Franks settled the relatively free northern territories, imposing their language—the ancestor of modern Dutch. This established a fundamental linguistic separation dating back to late Antiquity: Germanic languages in the north and Latin-derived languages in the south.

Crucially, this linguistic distinction did not correspond to a unified political border during the subsequent centuries. From the 5th to the 10th century, the regions were part of shifting Merovingian and Carolingian empires. Later, during feudalism, the area fractured into numerous principalities, often functionally independent of distant kings or emperors.

And I add another layer: in most of these 'Belgian' principalities of the Middle Ages, several languages, both Romance and Germanic, were actually spoken. So it is not so binary.

In the 14th and 15th centuries, the Dukes of Burgundy gradually unified these principalities through inheritance and marriage, establishing common institutions under a single authority. However, this unity was personal and dynastic; the territories were governed together but did not merge, retaining significant autonomy. Following the Burgundians, the territories passed to the Habsburg dynasty. Charles Quint was the last Habsburg ruler born and raised in the Belgian territory; his successors governed from Spain or Austria via appointed governors.

It is important to note that these Belgian principalities were not formally annexed by Spain or Austria; they merely shared the same sovereign. This arrangement lasted until the late 18th century, culminating in the 1789-1790 revolt where the principalities declared independence, forming the 'United Belgian States,' though this union was quickly suppressed by the Austrians.

Attention again, because the Belgian principalities were not 'annexed' to Spain or Austria! Just, they shared the same sovereign, it is not the same thing!

The conquest by the French Republic in 1794-1795 marked the official end of the medieval principalities, as the new French state annexed the territory entirely. For two decades, French and Belgians were treated as equal citizens under the same laws. Since French was already the language of the elites in both the south and north, this occupation significantly reinforced the practice of using French across the territory.

Following the expulsion of the French in 1814, allied powers established the Kingdom of the Netherlands—a vast state combining modern Belgium and the Netherlands—to create a buffer against France, without consulting the local populace. This union proved difficult due to profound differences between the two peoples. The Belgians were predominantly Catholic, while the Dutch favored Protestantism. Furthermore, the Dutch imposed the exclusive use of Dutch, a language rejected by the Francophone elites who preferred French.

The situation deteriorated, reaching a breaking point in the summer of 1830 amid economic hardship across Europe. Residents of Brussels revolted, expelling the Dutch, and the independence of Belgium was proclaimed on October 4, 1830. At this moment, there was no inherent animosity between the northern and southern inhabitants, and the concepts of Flandre and Wallonie did not yet carry their current political meaning.

A National Congress elected a sovereign, the German prince Léopold de Saxe-Cobourg, who became Leopold I, the first King of the Belgians, taking the oath on July 21, 1831. The constitution guaranteed many political liberties, though voting rights were restricted exclusively to wealthy men, tailoring the regime to the bourgeoisie. Despite low expectations for survival, Belgium resisted annexation and rapidly became a leading global industrial power.

The dynamic that began to oppose what would soon be called Flanders and Wallonia unfolded in several stages, beginning with economic opposition throughout the 19th century. The southern region became industrialized, rich, and highly urbanized; it was also largely anticlerical, with socialism spreading rapidly among the workers. Conversely, the northern economy remained more rural and poorer, and the Catholic Church retained significant influence.

As the economic and social gap widened, the terms Wallonia and Flanders were increasingly utilized. This economic split was compounded by a linguistic cleavage. In Flanders, voices rose against the domination of French within the Belgian state, as the state refused to recognize Dutch, complicating daily life for many citizens.

And the more the gap widened, the more frequently the two new appellations, Wallonia and Flanders, were used.

This atmosphere fostered the birth of the Flemish Movement, which advocated for state recognition of Dutch and often rejected French use in Flanders, associating it with France, anticlerical republicanism, liberalism, and socialism. Meanwhile, in Wallonia, there were fewer reservations regarding French, partly due to linguistic proximity to Walloon dialects and greater appreciation for ideas originating from France. Consequently, the Walloon Movement appeared, campaigning to maintain French's dominant position throughout the entire country.

These converging factors created increasingly distinct identities. Brussels, initially speaking a Dutch dialect, rapidly became majority French-speaking due to its status as the capital of a French-speaking elite nation. In a reciprocal move, Dutch gained usage in Flemish justice and administration during the 1870s. A major shift occurred in 1893 when a general strike secured universal male suffrage, allowing every man to vote.

With nearly 60% of the new electorate being Flemish, linguistic demands could no longer be ignored, leading to the 1898 law recognizing Dutch and imposing state bilingualism. However, this compromise satisfied few. Many Flemish individuals felt the recognition was too slow and insufficient. Conversely, many Walloons complained that universal suffrage resulted in two decades of Catholic right-wing victories, as the Catholic party was dominant in Flanders.

But alas, this compromise leaves no one really satisfied.

Between 1894 and 1914, both sides felt they were suffering cultural, social, or political defeat, always viewing the neighbor's situation as superior. This tension was dramatically interrupted by the invasion of the German Empire in 1914.

During the First World War, the Belgian army retreated behind the Yser River, leaving 95% of the territory occupied. The Germans attempted to divide the population by promoting Dutch and favoring the Flemish. While only a small minority of Flemish people collaborated, the patriotic backlash against the occupier was massive. Nevertheless, after the war, many Francophones used the collaboration of a few Flemish individuals as a pretext to reject several demands from the Flemish Movement.

In reaction, a segment of the Flemish Movement radicalized during the 1920s and 1930s, with Flemish parties explicitly demanding independence for Flanders for the first time. To de-escalate tensions, a compromise was reached starting in 1932: a linguistic border was drawn, dividing Belgium into unilingual regions—Dutch in Flanders and French in Wallonia—with Brussels remaining officially bilingual.

When Germany invaded again in May 1940, they attempted the same divide-and-rule tactic but faced a much more tense environment. In the summer of 1940, all Belgian prisoners speaking Dutch were automatically released under the pretext of Germanic proximity, while Francophone soldiers remained imprisoned until the war's end. This created years of suffering and the perception among Walloons that their neighbors were privileged.

The radicalization of the Flemish Movement during WWII meant more Flemish individuals engaged in collaboration, causing deep psychological injuries across the country. Francophones felt bitterness toward Flanders for aligning with the occupier, while many Dutch speakers felt the repression against collaborators was overly harsh. This discord was aggravated by the 'Royal Question' concerning King Leopold III, who capitulated without his government's consent and refused to join the government in exile, later meeting Hitler in 1941.

The 1950 referendum to decide the King's fate resulted in a national 'Yes' victory, but the regional split was stark: the Flemish majority favored his return, leading Walloons and Bruxellois to feel that the Flemish majority was imposing a king they rejected. The country seemed closest to explosion, leading Leopold III to eventually abdicate in favor of his son, Baudouin.

The fundamental economic structure of the 19th century reversed during the winter of 1960-1961. Wallonia's industrial base (mining, metallurgy) entered sharp decline, causing widespread economic concern. Conversely, Flanders benefited from post-war investments, becoming one of Europe's wealthiest regions. When a right-wing government imposed austerity measures, a general strike erupted; the movement ended quickly in Flanders but was sustained much longer in Wallonia, solidifying the Walloon conviction that the national government was dominated by Flemish economic interests.

Tensions escalated further in 1968 with the crisis surrounding the University of Louvain, located in Flanders but hosting a large French-speaking section. Flemish militants successfully pushed for the French section's departure, forcing them to relocate across the linguistic border and establish a new city-campus: Louvain-la-Neuve in Wallonia. These major events—the Royal Question, the general strike, and the university split—hit core areas of governance, work, and instruction, making the country seem genuinely endangered.

Despite the peril, the majority of citizens desired greater autonomy rather than outright secession. In response, reforms undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s aimed to transform the Kingdom of Belgium into a federal state. This involved creating distinct entities based on language and territory.

While these compromises prevented the state from exploding, problems persist. In Flanders, the independence movement gains traction as some feel it is unjust to financially support the poorer Wallonia. Wallonia, conversely, resists further reforms to the structure. Brussels-Capital, officially bilingual and cosmopolitan, remains geographically enclave within the Flemish territory, yet nearly 90% of its residents primarily speak French, making it a constant source of disagreement.

Despite the ongoing friction, the majority of the population does not desire the country's split. However, two separate worlds increasingly exist, each with its own language, media, political parties, and universities, with minimal awareness of the other community's affairs.

But well, after there are more and more two worlds living apart, with each its language, its media, its parties, its universities...

The question of whether Belgium will disappear must be approached cautiously, considering that since its creation, predictions of its short lifespan have proven incorrect. For nearly 200 years, the country has endured, transforming and reforming itself, yet consistently retaining the name 'Belgium.'

Appreciation is extended to Simon Lechat of the channel 'Van De Belgique' for providing this comprehensive historical overview of Belgium.