Did you see last week's The Economist article about it being time to dismantle Belgium because "its job is done"? The article title - Time to call it a day - certainly got my attention and made me question (again) what it really means to be a country. Yeah, so how do you define a country; what is a country, really?
As a cursory glance (into my mind's dictionary), I think of a country as a very static entity, and not just a political device on paper. People live in countries! And they work, and play there too (unless their government says otherwise). But, thinking more about it, I do understand that the notion of a "country" is one of human organization and, effectively, one of hierarchy for dividing the world into chunks manageable for us as individuals. The world is too big for it to just "be" without the creation of many mental bins.
The article also implies - again, to my surprise - that Belgium does not currently have a properly-elected government, which seems odd given that Brussels is the headquarters of the European Union - you'd think they would at least want to set a good example at home. haha. In fact, it seems like a state of politics that is more common in less developed nations, nations in turmoil; of course, Belgium is still quite civilized in all other respects. Still, it was the first I had heard of this sort of thing, but apparently this has been the case since the last elections (June 2007, I think). But I can't find confirmation; Belgium seems to have a complex system of government as a result of its 60/40% split of Flemish (Dutch) and French-speaking citizens. I assume The Economist has done its research, but, still, you take these things with a grain of salt without first-hand knowledge.
So where does that leave us? Guessing, for sure: Belgium, born 1831 and dissolved 2007? Or 2008.. or 2800? Whenever (if, sil vous plait) the political entity known as Belgium does finally call it a day, what will its citizens do? The Economist muses:
No doubt more good things can come out of the swathe of territory once occupied by a tribe known to the Romans as the Belgae (like Magritte, Simenon, Tintin, the saxophone and a lot of chocolate.. also frites). For that, though, they do not need Belgium: they can emerge just as readily from two or three new mini-states, or perhaps from an enlarged France and Netherlands.
My first comment is that the author forgot - forgot! - to mention Belgian beer.. but I digress. ;) It still blows my mind (a little) that none of this makes any real news; at the least, it's a good reminder of where political systems come from (people!, like Soylent Green) and why we have established them in the first place (to help us solve problems of daily life). More importantly, it also reminds us that sometimes ideas and constructs that worked in the past do not necessarily work forever, and so we periodically need to reassess our ultimate goals as a civilization and, if necessary, tweak our institutions; we must adapt.
Here, in the specific case of whether Belgium should break up, I don't have enough knowledge about the country to say whether it is a good idea, that is, one that is appropriate for their current conditions. But, again, just bringing up the notion that a country can serve a purpose (or fail to do so), then be turned around into another political entity (or entities) to work better in new conditions, speaks to the humanity of these institutions and to the fact that we are therefore in control of our own destiny. Even whole civilizations - supercountries! - have ebbed and flowed throughout history; we can read books about our successes and failures, and remember to do better.
No comments:
Post a Comment