[The following article, part of a series on the development of the strong state in Europe, appeared in the December 6, 1973, issue of Rood, the Flemish paper of the Revolutionaire Arbeiders Liga, Belgian section of the Fourth International. The translation for Intercontinental Press is by Russell Block.]
The Belgian monarchy behaved.quite differently in the thirties than it does today. Now, the royal house remains behind the scenes, appearing primarily when new governments are being formed, watching carefully over how they are put together. But in the thirties Leopold III intervened in political life much more directly. He played a very important role in the introduction of the policy of neutrality.
After the resistance of the workers and the short-lived economic recovery of 1937 put an end to Degrelle's fascist "monarchical movement," Leopold III was the figure around whom the bourgeoisie united.
When the German army invaded Belgium on May 10, 1940, Leopold III took command of the army. On May 25 the main body of the government left Belgium from France via London. The king remained in Belgium even after he had surrendered. On August 31, eighty-nine deputies and fifty-four senators gathered in Limoges. They indicted the surrender agreement the king had signed and declared their solidarity with the government.
At the end of 1940, the Belgian government in exile was formed in London. In Belgium Leopold III followed a policy of collaboration with the fascist occupiers that has yet to be completely clarified. In June 1944, Leopold III married Liliane Baels, who became the "Princess of Réthy."
On June 7, 1944, the king and his family were "deported" to Hirschstein. In September 1944, Belgium was liberated and the government returned from London. On May 7, 1945, Leopold III, who had in the meantime 346
been transported to Austria, was freed from German hands by the American army
The Belgian bourgeoisie was aware that a serious revolutionary crisis could break out after the war. In order to forestall this, they made a number of concessions to the working class (e.g., social security) and took the Social Democratic BSP and the Stalinist CP into the government.
But, just the same, they were on the lookout for a solution that would allow them to install a stronger regime, which would require fewer concessions to the working class.
The maneuver centering around Leopold III was carefully prepared:
"The May 28 surrender should have won the soldiers over. The call for 'resuming work' should have won over the entrepreneurs, who were anxious to begin 'economic collaboration.' The marriage [to a Fleming] should have brought over the Flemings. The 1944 deportation was supposed to havebuilt a 'unity in resistance' around the king. The nobility and upper ranks of the clergy were won over as a matter of course. Wasn't it worth a try?" (E. Germain in l'Avant-Garde, Vol. 1, No. 1.)
The working class, however, didn't see it this way. No sooner was the king mentioned than return of the strikes began to break out. In June 1945, there were strikes over the defense of trade-union rights: in July, 10,000 people demonstrated in Charleroi under the slogan "For a Republic" and they liberated trade-union militants who had been arrested; in August, there was a strike in the Luikse metal industry and in October, a general strike nearly broke out in Borinage when a rumor circulated that an attempt had been made on the life of Achiel Van Acker [a Social Democratic leader].
The working class was too strong and the bourgeoisie had to shelve their plans for the return of Leopold III.
On July 19, 1945, parliament decided that the king could return only if his return were supported by a majority vote of both chambers (parliament and Senate) in joint session. This law reinforced the king's exile. Because of it, the CVP [Christelijke Volkspartij - Christian Peonle's nartul left the four- Christian People's party] left the fourparty coalition government (BSP-CP- Liberals-CVP).
The BSP and the CP had an excellent opportunity to rid themselves of the Liberals and form a workers government that would mobilize the working class to smash the bourgeois state apparatus.
Van Acker not only kept the Liberals in the government but he further broadened the coalition by adding the UDB (Union Démocratique Belge- Belgian Democratic Union).
This was indicative of the position of the Social Democrats and the Stalinists. They refused to resolve definitively the question of the monarchy by launching a campaign under the slogan "For a Republic" because this would have called for a mass mobilization that might well have gotten out of their control.
Only the Trotskyist organization (at that time, the IKP- Internationalistische Kommunistische Partij - Internationalist Communist Party, Belgian section of the Fourth International) took a revolutionary position:
"Instead of calling 'Down with the King' as the Social Democratic and Stalinist renegades installed in the government have done, the correct slogan would have been 'Down with the Monarchy,' the system that allows a single man to take positions such as those Leopold III is now being reproached for, a system that is one of the essential props of the capitalist regime.
"Our party alone launched this slogan. The Social Democrats and the Stalinists never talk about their re publican views. Moreover, in a situation where the only correct form of action against Leopold III is mass action and the mobilization of the working class, the traitorous leaders of these parties maintain that the struggle must remain within constitutional bounds and must be fought by parliamentary means alone." (Lutte Ouvri- ére, July 10, 1948.)
The slogan for a republie was explained further in our organization's theoretical magazine:
"For the proletariat there naturally can be no question of choosing between this or that form of bourgeois rule. 'In itself the bourgeois republic offers no advantages at all over the capitalist monarchy. But history, just like philosophy or the consciousness of the masses, recognizes no 'things in themselves.' Since the defense of the monarchy has become a question of life and death for the capitalists, the fall of the monarchy can become the point of departure for the fall of the whole regime." (E. Germain, l'Avant- Garde, Vol. 1, No. 1.)
The Trotskyists' positions give a very good example of the application of the strategy of the transitional program. From 1949 on, the slogan of a general strike against the return of Leopold III was launched, combined with the slogan for action committees among the rank and file. Other slogans were: "To defend democratic rights we must extend them," "Down with the Senate; One sovereign chamber," "Against the separation of powers," "Recall of representatives at the will of the constituents," and "Abolish the permanent army and replace it by workers' militias." (H. Vallin, Lutte Ouvriére, August 13, 1949.)
The call for a general strike was necessary because after 1945 the question of the monarchy was left hanging by the betrayal of the BSP and the CP, and the relationship of forces between labor and capital had evolved to the advantage of the latter. The working class was demoralized by the participation of its parties in the government, by partial struggles that resolved little. This was reflected in the fact that the CVP and the Liberals were able to form a government in June 1949.
In 1949-50 everyone expected a deep economic crisis, and the bourgeoisie thought the time had come to carry out a new attack rapidly, before the working class had a chance to go on the offensive again. The return of Leowe onensive agam. The return of teopold III was once more placed on the agenda.
The CVP pushed through a referendum on the question of the monerendum on the anestion of the mon archy; 57.7 percent voted for the return of the king. But there were large differences among the provinces: in Flanders 72.2 percent voted Yes, in Brussels 48.2 percent, and in Wallonia a mere 42 percent. When the king returned in July, a general strike broke out. On July 30, three demonstrators were shot to death in Grâce-Berleur. The bourgeoisie was in danger of losing power. A quick compromise March 25, 1974
was reached with the Social Democracy: Leopold III abdicated but the monarchy was retained.
That had been what the BSP wanted in the first place:
"For four years the question of the monarchy - or rather of Leopoldhas divided Belgian opinion. The position of the Socialist party is clear: Neither the monarchy nor the dynasty are in question." (From a BSP pamphlet.)
If we wish to draw the lessons for the present from this experience, the following elements are important to note.
The bourgeoisie attempted to institute the strong state in a period of deep economic crisis, at a time when it had become very difficult for it to rule by normal parliamentary means. Thus, they opted for the return of the king, who probably would have ruled with the instrument that brought him to power-extraparliamentary plebiscites. But the relationship of forces between labor and capital was the factor that determined when the bourgeoisie could make its move.
In 1945 the first attempt was quickly abandoned. It was only after the Social Democrats and Stalinists had sown confusion and demoralization in the working class for four years that a new attempt could be made. But this attempt in turn led to a significant crisis in which the working class recovered its combativeness and launched its greatest offensive of the postwar period.
Thus, the struggle against the strong state is clearly bound up with the working class's struggle for power. We will discuss the Social Democracy's attitude toward the strong state in a later article. With respect to the question of the monarchy, it is necessary to
The trials of thirty-four Pakistani military officers on charges of conspiracy have ended with nineteen convictions and sentences ranging from two years to life imprisonment, according to a report by Qutubuddin Aziz in the March 14 Christian Science Monitor. "Most of the accused," Aziz wrote, "were middle-grade officers and none commanded a policymaking position."
note that the BSP was prepared in its own interest to defend democratic freedoms, even to the point of mobilizing the workers, insofar as they could be held within the framework of capitalism (which in this case meant within the framework of the monarchy).
As early as 1949 action committees, made up of representatives of the B SP, the ABVV, and the socialist cooperatives and mutual societies, were established on a regional and national scale. It is characteristic, however, that the other currents in the workers movement (and the CP in particular) were excluded.
The Belgian working class prevented the installation of the strong state with the general strike of 1950. In this sense the strike was a partial victory. The possibilities, however, were greater. The socialist revolution was on the agenda. But the working class lacked a revolutionary leadership, a revolutionary party.
Why did the Trotskyist organization not succeed in winning over significant sections of the working class? In our opinion the answer to this question is not to be sought in its political line in the postwar period or in its position on the question of the monarchy in particular. The main reasons lie elsewhere.
The Social Democracy was able to maintain a significant portion of its base through the concessions that the bourgeoisie granted after the war. The Stalinists captured that portion of the working class that broke from the Social Democracy thanks to the enormous prestige won by the Soviet Union and the Red Army during the second world war.
The officers were arrested at the end of March 1973. At the time he announced the uncovering of a military conspiracy, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was engaged in a sharp dispute with opposition parties over provisions of a new constitution.
"The evidence of conspiracy produced by the prosecution," Aziz reported, "was largely in the nature of loose talk."