Pointing to the potential
LAST autumn, Belgium was shaken by a powerful wave of struggle against the austerity programme of the Jean-Luc Dehaene government, a coalition between christian democratic and social democratic parties* from the north and south of the country. The movement did not succeed
International Viewpoint #253 February 1994
For trade union activists this combines with a growing awareness that social needs must be satisfied if society is not to splinter, with an attendant growth of the far right. The question of in defeating government plans; parliament gave the green light to "the global project for employment, competitiveness and social security". But what happened points to the potential explosiveness of the social situation in a number of countries.
unemployment occupies a central place in this awareness.
Many trade unionists understand that austerity, and the race for competitivness, flexibility and increased productivity (areas in which Belgium is in first place in Europe, and perhaps in the
ALAIN TONDEUR** — Brussels, 17 January 1994
T HE social movement
began on 29 October with a national demonstration by the Socialist trade union FGTB, for which more than 60 thousand people mobilised over two days. This unexpected success produced a wave of hope and stimulated the combativeness of the whole working class.
Following this, there was tremendous pressure in favour of united action and the Christian trade union CSC was forced to take to the streets. On 15 November, the "Common Trade Union Front" called for a selective national strike; the railways and other services were spared, but industry was paralysed.
There were sectoral strikes on 22 November and 24 November in three and six provinces respectively. The week of 22 to 26 November saw the struggle reach its peak, with a general strike paralysing the country on 26 November. Due to a lack of perspective, the movement then ran out of steam, ending on 10 December with a final demonstration organised by the FGTB. This final demonstration was smaller than that on 29 October, and the bitterness of activists was obvious.
The movement highlighted significant changes in working class opinion, the consciousness of trade union activists, and the activity of different sections of the working class — in terms of the forms of struggle and in relations with the trade union apparatuses. Deep anger over never-ending sacrifices had finally burst forth.
Belgium is actually in a rather unusual situation in the European context, having a public debt of 7,000 billion Belgian francs (SUS195 billion) or onehundred and twenty percent of gross 28 national product (GNP). Since the end of the 1970s, governments have imposed a series of austerity programmes The annual State deficit has been brought closer to the European average (nearly six percent of GNP today as opposed to more than eleven percent of GNP at the beginning of the 1980s) but the country is still far from meeting Maastricht criteria. However, the ruling class is fully in favour of respecting its demands, not only to save its policy of a strong franc linked to the German mark, but also from its fear of institutional instability, given the State's composition of two separate linguistic blocs.
The road remaining to be travelled will be even more difficult, inasmuch as the social damage has already been severe: 500 thousand unemployed; 1.1 million victims of unemployment; and twenty-one percent of households living in a state of material insecurity.
Broad layers of the population now know that sacrifices serve only to "make the rich richer and the poor poorer." It is well known that the State budget would be in order were the State not obliged to pay out 730 billion Belgian francs yearly to service a debt which is ninety percent internal.
"Take the money"
Over the years the slogan Take the money where there's money to spare!" has been widely taken up and translated into precise demands: for taxes on large fortunes; an increase in corporate taxes (more than a half of firms pay no tax); the elimination of fiscal privileges for multinationals and power companies; taxes on stockmarket profits; and also the outright cancellation of the debt.
world) does not create jobs but in fact eliminates them.
Demands for a radical reduction in the working week (to thirty-five or thirty-two hours) are increasingly counterposed to the employers' strategy of increasing part-time work. Proposals for a public programme of job creation to meet social needs are met with conside-
As such, this latest social movement has had an anti-capitalist thrust — unfocussed, but clearer than in the struggles of the 1977-86 period. Several factors point to rising discontent with the very logic of the system — with a war of competition between working people in different countries and between those active in and excluded from the labour
These sentiments have not cancelled out the rising tendencies towards xenophobia, but last autumn shows that the social frustrations behind them can lead to tremendous social struggles which massively strengthen solidarity in word
The strike on 26 November clearly reflected the current state of mass feeling in the country and was without precedent even in Belgium's rather stormy social history. It was something more than a simple national work stoppage - a sign that the working class is still capable of throwing its weight behind a general strike.
The autonomous activity of working people was impressive. As the big enterprises were in general already paralysed,
* The coalition includes the Christian People's Party (CVP) from Flanders; the Christian Social Party (PSC) from Wallonia; the Flemish Socialist Party; and the Walloon Socialist Party.
** The author is a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (POS/SAP, Belgian section of the Fourth International) and editor of the organisation's journal, La Gauche.
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
BELGIUM
International Viewpoint #253 February 1994 massive pickets were concentrated on small and medium enterprises which lack union representation. Industrial parks were cut off with road blocks. In many cities, the trade unions were able both to paralyse industry and organise big demonstrations: 15 thousand in Antwerp on 22 November; 4 thousand in Liège and 4 thousand in Louvière on 24 November; 5 thousand in Charleroi and 3 thousand in Leuven on 26 November. These figures also show that Walloonia (the French-speaking region) is no longer the driving social force in the country.
A number of factories joined together the two days of strike action, 24 and 26 November, by combining national and their own specific demands. The following features should also be noted: the central role of industrial workers; the dynamism of a new generation of young workers; and the beginnings of an alliance between the working class and the youth movements — on 24 November, 20 thousand youth (largely Flemish) demonstrated against racism to mark the second anniversary of the electoral breakthrough of the far right Vlaams Blok party.
This social mobilisation can be cited as an example of the potential which exists for sudden social turns. Last summer, after the death of King Baudouin, Belgium was submerged in very powerful emotions. The exaltation of the moral values of the deceased monarch, his faith, his commitment to the plight of "the most disadvantaged", his contempt for the mediocrity of the political class — all this created a stifling climate of populist national unity.
The media chose to blow up the whole affair and the upper reaches of the State thought the moment right to conclude a "Social Pact" linking the trade unions to austerity, under the cover of job creation. The idea was
NON
moted by King Albert Il in his inaugural speech to Parliament. He proposed the idea of a pact similar to the one signed in 1944, which created a comanaged social security system - even though the present accord aims at dismantling this very system.
In the midst of all this Prime Minister Dehaene obtained a solemn declaration from his social partners to the effect that they would conclude a pact "as desired by the King", and from the end of August until 20 October, secret negotiations were conducted at the highest level.
A group of experts presided over by the Governor of the National Bank — in violation of the Maastricht Treaty, which calls for the central banks to be independent - submitted a thick report which the Prime Minister immediately made the basis for the pact. During these weeks, social passivity was pronounced, despite worrying reports of the attack which was being prepared.
### Split
The movement was born not as a result of direct pressure from the rank and file, but rather due to a split in the upper ranks of the apparatus of the FGTB. The main industrial trade union groupings agreed to reduce wage costs through the lowering of employers' contributions to social security. They were even ready to renegotiate collective agreements concluded for 1994 (which included an average wage increase of 1.5% and the automatic indexation of salaries).
However they could not agree on the question of government control of the agreements, which they felt might lead to the marginalisation of the trade unions in the factories - where social negotiation, a pillar of the Belgian system, has already deteriorated under the effects of "participative management".
With massive unemployment, contracting out, and growing recourse to the courts by employers to safeguard the "right to work", the national inter-professional apparatus of the trade union could no longer continue the negotiations, and they were broken off after the first sitting on 21 November. The smokescreen of unanimity which had hidden class contradictions thus evaporated in one fell swoop.
The President of the FGTB, François Janssens, tried to stop things at that point, but in vain. The pressure to act was too strong.
The success of the FGTB demonstration on 29 October also forced the CSC to take action. Its apparatus did not appreciate having its hand forced in this way. It was not against action, but not in such circumstances, and certainly not around the themes concentrated upon by the FGTB demonstration.
In fact, since the beginning of 1993, the CSC leadership had been preparing its members to accept a new austerity offensive and had talked about the idea of a social pact before anyone else.
The CSC leadership wanted to see a massive reduction in salaries and costs, in exchange for job creation and "equally shared" sacrifices. An internal poll asked members to choose between different formulas of "work sharing", with the understanding that factory competitiveness would not suffer as a result. Losses in wages were presented as a demonstration of solidarity among working people. Finally, an acceleration in the privatisation of public enterprises was seen as a source of finance which could be devoted to employment.
The CSC leadership counted on its support in the Flemish Christian People's Party (CVP) (one of the main bourgeois parties) to obtain employer commitment to their proposals. But the FGTB mobilisation spoiled their game, and re-oriented the concerns of the population.
However, even though the two trade union confederations established an action plan together, and adopted five common demands, the priorities of their apparatuses were different.
They did have two common concerns. One was not to bring down the coalition government. Accordingly, the second was not to pursue the memorandum on "Take the money where there's money to spare" and "Provide employment for all" which they delivered to the government in 1992.
But for the rest, the priority of the CSC apparatus was to co-manage a kind of employment policy, while that of the FGTB was to defend collective agreements. This difference is related to the specific differences in the ways christian-democratic and social-democratic reformism exercise hegemony and go into crisis.
The two trade unions do not share the same national and social centres of gravity. The CSC holds the majority in Flemish-speaking Flanders while the FTB holds the majority in Frenchspeaking Walloonia and they belong to competing networks of political clientelism. There is not enough space to go into this matter here, but the policy of division carried out by the trade union leaderships is a result of these factors — as certain activists have thought, a conspiracy.
In the heat of the mobilisation, these divisive policies were exposed as never before. After the strike on 15 November,
29
Internationa/ Viewpoint #253 February 1994 employers advised the government to abandon its freezing of collective agreements for 1994, in order to avoid sparking class war in their factories.
In exchange, in the name of balance, Dehaene manipulated indexation. Under the pretext of protecting the environment and discouraging the consumption of tobacco and alcohol, salary increases to keep up with the rise in living costs were postponed for eight months. The Prime Minister also took minimal measures against the "rich" - which were essentially measures against popular
The leadership of the FGTB considered this to be "positive" action and announced an end to its actions. At the same time, the CSC said the plan was unacceptable and enlarged the mobilisation. Fifteen days later, the tables were turned; the CSC suspended its activities (while judging government proposals to be unsatisfactory), while the FGTB prepared for the final battle of 10 Decem-
Tens of thousands of trade unionists mobilised against the divisive policies of the apparatuses. The fact that the raising of the stakes at the top did not draw a favourable response from the rank and file is a new development.
### Confrontation
The first struggle was waged to force the CS to quit pact negotiations, but the most spectacular confrontation took place inside the FGTB. When its leadership's position became known, there was a veritable revolt in the trade union. In Antwerp, the local apparatus immediately gave in to strike threats from the chemical sector. In Liege, where the local leadership tried to keep a lid on things, strikes broke out in steel and metal works. The national office was forced to beat a hasty retreat before its congress, which a happy coincidence - had been scheduled for two days after its decision to suspend activities and two days before the cancelled industrial action, on 18 November.
At this congress, Janssens tried a new manoeuvre by calling for a strike on 26 November — a "Red Friday" for the FGTB alone. But the CSC supported the proposal, leading to the success of the 26 November action.
But those who wanted to go further down the road of trade union unity did not get very far. This was primarily to do with the very apolitical nature of the trade union left, which radicalises in action, but is not very strong around 30 questions of strategy and programme. To overcome division, there should have been a call for the full withdrawal of the plan, and a repetition of the demands put forward in the 1992 memorandum.
With such a perspective, the fall of the government would have been inevitable. So a political alternative was needed to offer a third way, which neither supported the coalition government nor paved the way for the return of the Thatcherite Verhofstadt of the Flemish Liberal party, the VLD.
The Socialist Workers' Party (POS/SAP, Belgian section of the Fourth International put forward the idea that a social movement could, through struggle, break the political apparatuses and force a major political recomposition to the left, within the perspective of forming a "social government". The proposal was met with some interest, but despite the political awakening of the trade union left it was still inadequate to defend it and tackle the apparatuses.
The line of the trade union leadership made it possible for the government to push through almost the whole of its programme. This is a significant victory for the employers; they have obtained the maximum possible given the current
Salaries have been frozen until 1996. The indexation of salaries and social payments has been manipulated. Employers can hire young workers at 90% of the full salary, even if this means paying less than below the minimum wage, and do not have to make employer payments to social security for
For every "new job", employers receive a credit of 100 thousand Belgian Francs per year deductible from their contributions to social security. "New employment" is defined as any job equivalent to at least fifty percent of a fulltime job. So enterprises have an ideal legal framework in which to generalise flexibility and further increase the amount of part-time work.
Any reduction in the working week with no reduction in wages has been excluded. Moreover, the government has implemented a scandalous measure to force certain categories of the unemployed to accept "small jobs" offered by individuals through local agencies.
The plan has also led to a structural destabilisation of social security, through a decrease in revenues. Since these shortfalls will be compensated primarily through an increase in indirect taxation, working people will suffer. As for employers, they will profit three times over: once through the lowering of costs, then through the development of private pensions and health insurance, and finally through the privatisations -facilitated by the growth of private insurance, which will release additional capi-
Aside from maintaining wage agreements for 1994, the government did not make a single real concession. The trade union movement will be able to confirm how the employers use the fruits of its modification in the area of wages. The stated goal is to negotiate enterprise plans for the sharing of employment". But this concession is also a terrible trap, for it will be very difficult for trade union delegations not to be complicit in the capitalist reorganisation of produc-
As for the employers, they are satisfied with the whole procedure, which has "depoliticised" the plan, placing social situation down to the level of individual firms — where they are strong — and restoring the social peace which is indispensable to the proper functioning of the "just in time" economy.
The parliamentary vote in favour of the plan is a victory for the CVP and the Christian Social Party (PSC). The CVP has discovered that a robust austerity policy can be implemented with a social democratic coalition partner — against the trade union movement, and with minimal risks of the social explosion which a purely bourgeois government could very well provoke.
Nevertheless, the breadth of the movement has had an impact politically. The government could only push through the plan at the cost of a tremendous amount of tension within its social bases and in the Flemish CSC, there are a growing number of voices calling for a clean break from the CVP.
The trauma is at least as deep amongst the Socialists. The FGTB was founded by the Walloon Socialist Party (PS), of which it was originally the trade union commission. Never before in the history of the country has a general strike been organised against a government in which the PS were participating.
The fact that every PS deputy voted in favour of the government and its plan will certainly be pounced on electorally by the green parties. Events call for a recomposition "on the left of the left" — to present a credible alternative, and to avoid a situation in which the far right has a monopoly on radicalism in the next elections. But that, of course, is another story. *