Belgium was not created by a spontaneous uprising of wealthy citizens after an opera performance, as is taught in Belgian schools. The Belgian revolution was a mass movement of the people — of the working class that was beginning to develop and the rural poor. The lack of organization and leadership of the working class and poor allowed the bourgeoisie to hijack the revolution, which led to the creation of Belgium.
An artificial state
Except for a few months in 1790, the future territory of Belgium had never been “independent”. Until 1830, the different regions that became the future Belgian state were often under different feudal powers and authorities, depending on the balance of power between the various empires at the time. This was due to its favourable geographical position, at the crossroads between the European powers and commercial cities.
The geographical and linguistic proximity of the people, as everywhere, naturally led to the existence of common elements, such as a shared culture. But at no time was there a common “national” feeling, inherited from a common history leading to a patriotic “national will” to create a common and free future.
As Anja Deschoemacker explains in the Marxist analysis in her book The National Question in Belgium: “The construction of a nation-state is a historical task of the bourgeoisie. In this sense, all states are ‘artificial’ … where the bourgeoisie, at the time of the creation of nations, plays a historically progressive role and is recognized as the leader of the nation. However, when the formation of the nation comes later, the bourgeoisie has more difficulty to impose itself. The more the working class has developed, the more the bourgeoisie tends to bind itself to the aristocracy instead of overthrowing it. It does so in order to control the working class. This is what happened in Belgium.”
The United Netherlands pursues a policy in the interest of the bourgeoisie
The area that became Belgium was part of France during the French Republic and then the French Empire. In this period, the bourgeois class developed particularly in the south, in what is now the region of Wallonia. The economic elites in the arms industry, the coal and metal sectors benefited from the enlarged market and protection against the mainly British competition. Legislation was also in their interests: a great deal of freedom for employers and landowners, allowing brutal exploitation of the workers.
After Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, what is now Belgium and the Netherlands were united in the independent United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Although the French market was lost, the favourable legislation remained and the bourgeoisie was able to profit from gaining access to the Dutch colonies– now Indonesia, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. For the bourgeois class of the future Belgian state, this was not a bad economic deal.
However, for this emerging bourgeoisie there were frustrations. First of all, it was mainly Catholic and French-speaking, unlike the ruling elite of the kingdom, which was Protestant and Dutch-speaking.
The emerging bourgeoisie in the north was more based in commerce and trade and therefore more in favour of free trade. In the south, it was more industrial, in favour of a protectionist policy. Thus, the southern bourgeoisie asked the king to increase tariffs on the imports from competing foreign industries. The king was aware of these frustrations and implemented policies to try to alleviate them.
Under the Orange-Nassau regime — the ruling house in the United Netherlands — the bourgeoisie in the southern provinces grew extremely rich on the basis of the exploitation of the growing working class, aided by the regime. It is understandable that the bourgeoisie was not at all determined to emancipate itself from a so-called “Dutch occupation”, as is claimed in the official histories.
The nascent proletariat lived in miserable conditions
The proletariat was still small in number at the time, but still more numerous than one might think and from the beginning of the 19th century was growing rapidly.
At that time, the textile industry was the most developed industry, especially in West and East Flanders. Ghent in East Flanders had 220 cotton workers; in 1802, by 1810, there were 10,000. What became Belgium had 220,000 workers in the cotton industry in 1825, 150,000 of them in East Flanders alone. In the years before the 1830 revolution, metalworking and coal mining was developing in the provinces of Hainaut and Liège.
The situation for the masses was miserable. Competition with mainly British products put pressure on working conditions, involving long working days. The bosses could count on an enormous reserve of workers, as many peasants were driven into the cities by famines and low prices for agricultural products. This competition between workers meant that wages were very low, well below the subsistence minimum. Child labour was far from rare, as families needed each of their members to sell their labour in order to be able to live.
The situation was made even worse with new taxes levied on milling and slaughtering, which increased the price of bread and meat. These measures brought 5 million guilders (equivalent to about 50 million euros today) to the state, but made life even more difficult for the masses. These taxes were finally abolished in 1829, but obviously too late: the discontent was already too deeply rooted.
The uprising of 1830
After the defeat of Napoleon by the old regimes of Europe in 1815, the French monarchy was restored, with Louis XVIII ruling until his death in 1824. The 1830 July Revolution in France, which overthrew the ultra royalist king Charles X, had a big influence on the proletariat and the masses throughout Europe, especially in the southern provinces of the Netherlands. During August, the government made things worse, including raising the price of bread and organizing big and expensive festivities in Brussels for the king, William I’s 59th birthday on the August 25. From August 22, posters were all over Brussels: “Revolution for August 25th!”
On August 24, mass gatherings took place in the streets as well as in the cafes and bars. Until then the cafes were mainly frequented by the bourgeoisie, but the masses seized them during the revolutionary process, as the masses need rallying places to organize themselves. The myth of the revolution after a night at the opera, is because some opera-goers joined the protests on the evening of August 25.
The bourgeoisie tries to subdue the revolution
The bourgeoisie decided to arm itself to preserve its property, establishing the “Garde Civique.” They also appealed to the army of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and at the same time tried to use the popular revolt as a lever to get more concessions from the king. William I refused concessions, instead sent more troops to Brussels with his sons at their head.
The clumsy conduct of the prince only increased the revolt, with large numbers of Belgian troops deserting the Netherland army. Some bourgeois became afraid and fled from Brussels. Within the bourgeois ranks, there were different currents with a majority defended the regime while a minority favoured proclaiming independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Louis De Potter, a petty bourgeois from an ennobled but progressive family, was seen as a defender of the oppressed and very popular with the proletariat, crystallized this division with an open Letter to my Fellow Citizens criticizing the conservatives.
The beginning of September saw workers and peasants from all over Belgium marching on Brussels to challenge the authorities. The city hall was stormed and thousands of proletarians started to disarm the bourgeoisie. A power vacuum existed with the masses not taking power. The bourgeois took advantage of the disorganization of the insurrection and acted to secure their rule. They accepted that keeping the union with the Netherlands would be difficult, installed a provisional government on September 26. On October 4, the provisional government proclaimed the independence of the southern provinces.
The ruling class did everything to keep the interests of the masses at bay. The National Congress decided to establish a monarchy: the bourgeoisie did not want a republic, which was far too close to the model advocated by the French revolutionaries and which could anger its future potential allies. Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, of Germanic origin and resident in England, was named king; notably to please the British ally. He later married Princess Louise d’Orléans, also to seal an alliance with the French monarchy. Out of a population of 4 million inhabitants only 46,000 had the right to vote. The Belgian bourgeoisie didn’t play its historical role in the bourgeois revolution. In its struggle against the workers and peasants, the industrial bourgeoisie even united with the class it should logically have overthrown: the feudal aristocracy, accompanied by the church.
Absence of instruments of struggle
During the revolutionary process of 1830, we saw the embryos of traditions of struggle that would be seized and developed in the history of the future Belgium. This is notably the case of the “March on Brussels,” an idea that was found at other key moments in the history of class struggle such as in 1950, during the “Royal Question,” or during the “Strike of the Century” in the winter of 1960–1961.
But in 1830, the proletariat was young, devoid of collective experience as a class and unorganized. It could not count on a political tool to defend its own interests. It would be a few years later that the embryos of workers’ class organizations would appear.
The importance of instruments of struggle remains a key issue today. In order to lead a revolutionary process to victory, the presence of a revolutionary socialist party is necessary; a party that concentrates the lessons and experiences of the struggles of history and traces out perspectives for overthrowing the capitalist system and building a democratic socialist society.
