What was the reason for amending the constitution of Belgium in 1993? List the changes it brought about
Answers
Answer:
The Constitution of Belgium (Dutch: Belgische Grondwet, French: Constitution belge, German: Verfassung Belgiens) dates back to 1831. Since then Belgium has been a parliamentary monarchy that applies the principles of ministerial responsibility for the government policy and the Trias Politica. The Constitution established Belgium as a centralised unitary state. However, since 1970, through successive state reforms, Belgium has gradually evolved into a federal state.
The last but not least radical change of the constitution was carried out in 1993 after which it was published in a renewed version in the Belgian Official Journal. One of the most important changes was the introduction of the Court of Arbitration whose competencies were expanded by a special law of 2003, to include Title II (Articles 8 to 32), and the Articles 170, 172 and 191 of the Constitution. The Court therefore developed into a constitutional court and in May 2007 it was formally redesignated Constitutional Court. This court has the authority to examine whether a law or a decree is in compliance with Title II and Articles 170, 172 and 191.
Historical aspects Edit
Origins Edit
The Constitution depicted as the Tablets of Stone on a Belgian coin, guarded by the Belgian lion
The Belgian Constitution of 1831 was created in the aftermath of the secession of Belgium from the United Netherlands in the Belgian Revolution. After the revolution's initial success, an elected National Congress was convened in November 1830 to create a devise a political order for the new state. The members of the National Congress reflected a variety of political ideals, but the vast majority supported the "Union of Oppositions" which had emerged before the revolution.[1] This brought together moderate liberals with liberally inclined Catholics. As three modern historians describe:
The 1831 constitution was [...] a compromise between the landowners and clergy on the one hand and the liberal middle class on the other. The conservative forces were willing to adapt to the inevitable changes in society but this willingness was aimed at retaining the organic link with the past and preventing radical change. The liberal middle class, in spite of their desire for systematic, radical reform with a view to its expansion, showed restraint, a typical reaction of early liberalism.[2]
The result was a "carefully balanced compromise" that mixed some radical liberal aspects with a firmly conservative ethos.[3] It was inspired by the precedents of the French constitutions of 1791, 1814 and 1830, the Dutch constitution of 1814 and English constitutional principles. Belgium was established as a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislature. Powers were separated between the executive, legislative, and judiciary. The Constitution guaranteed the freedoms of expression, education, religion and of the press, through the franchise was severely limited by a property tax qualification.[4] Though liberal in many respects, the constitution also placed the Catholic Church in a privileged position. Despite mandating the separation of Church and State, the Church was given a favoured position while maintaining its independence.[5] The draft document was completed on 7 February 1831.
The Constitution of 1831 was a highly visible national symbol of Belgian nationalism throughout the 19th century. A.V. Dicey, a British legal theorist, concluded that the Belgian document "indeed comes very near to a written reproduction of the English constitution".[6] It also inspired contemporary liberal movements in other European countries, including Denmark which adopted a constitution in 1849 which was explicitly based on the Belgian precedent. J.A. Hawgood, a historian, wrote:
The Belgian constitution of 1831 rapidly replaced the Spanish constitution of 1812—except in the remoter backwoods of Latin Europe and Latin America—as the beacon-light for liberals and radicals who did not stand so far to the left [...] that they wanted to Overthrow all monarchies and replace them by republics. Wherever a strictly limited constitutional monarchy was the ideal — there stood the Belgium of King Leopold as a shining example. Hers was the constitution that 'had everything' — the sovereignty of the people clearly recognised, a monarch and a dynasty owing their position to having taken an oath to honour the constitution, a bicameral legislature, both houses of which were completely elected fay the people, an independent judiciary, a clergy paid by the state but independent of it, and a declaration of the rights of the citizen firmly based on the principles of 1776 and 1789, yet in a number of respects containing improvements upon these.[7]