The cordon plumbing contains a statement of principle. It is not a strategic maneuver

In his opinion piece (DM 22/4), political scientist Bart Maddens “suspects” that the cordon sanitary “is mainly an artifice by progressives to remain in power, despite the success of the right”. And he concludes with the provocative question: “Who actually poses the greatest threat to democracy here?”

A lot of comments can be made about both that ‘presumption’ and this question.

For example, the first ‘formalized’ version of the cordon did not come into being in 1992, as Maddens writes, but in the spring of 1989, more than two years before Black Sunday, when the Vlaams Blok increased from two to twelve parliamentary seats. The short text contained both an agreement – no administrative agreements with the Vlaams Blok – and a statement about respecting fundamental rights such as freedom and equality.

Of course, democracy is also an organized disagreement, a political space where parties fight each other on the basis of their program and the associated positions and proposals. Democracy presupposes ideological diversity and a lively political debate, between left and right, conservatives and progressives, radical and more moderate parties.

But this ideological diversity implies the acceptance of a common frame of reference on fundamental democratic rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Constitution. What we call civilization. According to the signatories of the cordon, the Vlaams Blok did not meet this minimum democratic requirement and there was therefore no reason to cooperate with this party.

The cordon therefore contains a statement of principle. It is not a strategic maneuver, not a “ploy by progressives to stay in power,” let alone a party political issue. The cordon, on the other hand, is a matter of movements and parties that, despite their ideological differences, (continue to) side with the basic principles of democracy. A multi-colored alliance of progressives and conservatives, from the right and the left, to keep democracy afloat.

German Federal President Joachim Gauck described it as follows in his farewell speech in 2017: “Democracy is like a big tent in which togetherness ends when parties, movements and individuals violate the norms and laws of this democracy.”

Not an ordinary party

This principled attitude apparently falls outside Bart Maddens’ field of vision. Moreover, he bases his statements and leading questions on conjecture rather than on empirical data. They also stand in stark contrast to the research results and conclusions of many of his academic colleagues. They are concerned about the real threat to the basic democratic principles in Europe, not by ‘progressives’ but by the extreme right.

Political scientists Léonie de Jonge and Stijn Van Kessel therefore believe it is “important to make formal agreements about protecting liberal-democratic values ​​that are at odds with excluding certain population groups and imposing a ‘dominant and leading culture’. Parties and media must be prepared to set limits on tolerance for intolerance – and before these are exceeded.” (DM, 12/26, 2023).

In that sense, the cordon uses a ‘rule of law yardstick’ that the Vlaams Blok and the current Vlaams Belang do not meet. Because despite clean appearances, this party proves, both in its program and political practice (about ‘population’, ‘dominant white culture’), “that it has no regard for the rule of law and democracy”. (Lieven D’Hooge in DM 20/3). And that is why Vlaams Belang is ‘not an ordinary party like the others’, as Cd&v chairman Sammy Mahdi rightly said at his party’s recent election conference. And that is why extreme right-wing thoughts should under no circumstances be normalized.

An inspiring example

In the eastern German state of Saxony, the AfD, the sister party of Vlaams Belang, achieves high scores. During a recent visit to Leipzig and the Book Fair, where Flanders and the Netherlands were hosts, I was impressed by the actions of democratic civil society and political parties. Together they spread the call ‘Demokratie wählen. Jetzt.’ This message was explicitly present everywhere in the city and at the busy Book Fair: on posters, banners and flyers.

This heart-warming mobilization for the protection of democracy and the defense of human rights deserves to be followed in Flanders. Let us continue to be careful with human rights, both before and after the elections. The respect for these rights indicates the stock market value of a democracy that cannot afford to fall below the bottom price. Feel free to call it a matter of ‘assimilation into civilization.’