VUB CASE: Freedom and Resistance: The Impact of Collective Action in the Belgian Struggle for Universal Suffrage.

As a university from Brussels, the capital of both Belgium and the European Union, we at the VUB know all too well what protesting means.  We experience demonstrations in one way or another every week, and yes, sometimes they can drive us crazy.  But do we take enough time to consider that demonstrations are the ultimate utterance of three fundamental rights at the core of our rule of law, namely: the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association?  And do we truly understand how these rights have shaped our history? In fact, we all owe a lot to demonstrations from the past, so let’s explore some Belgian legal history and analyse the power and importance of some pivotal collective actions. Let’s explore how collective actions in Belgium’s struggle for universal suffrage instrumentalised these fundamental constitutional rights, and how this has shaped our Belgian history. 

Collective action in perspective 

First of all, let’s pause to consider the term ‘collective action’. Because ‘protesting’ is hardly an academic term and does not capture the full scope of what mass demonstrations can be. The term ‘collective action’ on the other hand, better reflects what this blogpost means by mass demonstrations. But what is collective action? People take to the streets when they disagree with something, that much is clear. It is also clear that they do so to express dissatisfaction and to exert pressure on those in power. Yet, every collective action is different and this makes defining it much more difficult than one would expect. For example: there are the ‘small factory strikes’, but there are also ‘big general strikes’ where an entire country can be involved. In fact, collective action doesn't even necessarily have to involve a strike, it can also simply be a collective expression of discontent. Therefore, every collective action must be examined within its own historical context. So let’s keep this in mind while analysing past collective actions. The study of collective action can become endlessly complicated. Nevertheless there are some common elements that make the term more tangible. Sociologist Charles Tilly refers to following common elements: public action, for common interests and/or grievances, on behalf of a relatively powerless group. (1) These common elements give us a grasp of the concept of ‘collective action’,  but they do not yet help us determine its (historical) impact. And because of this complex interplay with historical context it is difficult to even make general statements about the success of disruptive forms of politics. Some collective actions have little impact, some have a lot of impact and measuring their impact is not always self-evident. But, true impact is, above all, about political reform.  To assess and understand political reform, one must look at historical legal sources. This means that legal history can help us navigate complex history by distilling what has actually changed from a legal perspective. Moreover, it can deepen our understanding of old legal concepts. In other words: legal history can help us discover the true power of collective action!

The Belgian Constitution 

Let’s start at the birth of our Belgian Constitution in 1831, an incredibly progressive constitution for its time. Regarded as a great triumph of modern constitutionalism, it became a model or point of reference for several other constitutions. (2) The Belgian Constitution established a far-reaching set of modern rights and freedoms, especially for 1831. Without these rights and freedoms enshrined in the constitution, collective action would never have been possible in the same way as outlined later. These rights have truly shaped our history. As briefly mentioned, collective action is the ultimate utterance of three of these fundamental rights: the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association. In this blogpost, I argue that, with a bit of goodwill, these rights can be interpreted as an early right to collective action, but, of course, not without boundaries.

In its article 18, the 1831 Constitution enshrines the freedom of expression. This article guarantees a free press without preventive censorship, remarkably progressive for its time and its significance should not be underestimated. Any restrictions to this right may therefore only be applied ex post, in a repressive manner. In practice, however, this freedom of expression was not absolute. For example, Orangists (supporters of the Dutch King Willem I) were strictly guarded in the aftermath of the Belgian Revolution.(3) Article 19 provides freedom of assembly, again, without any preventive, ex ante measures. However, some conditions can be found in this article: the assembly has to be, unarmed, peaceful and the participants must act in accordance to law. Additionally, the second paragraph states that in the case of assemblies in the open air, preventive and prohibitive measures are possible. This reveals that the constituent assembly, the National Congress, was clearly wary of mass demonstrations and their possible impact. (4) Article 20 expresses freedom of association. However, two important nuances should be noted in relation to this freedom. Firstly, trade unions were banned until 1866 and -secondly- some forms of striking remained banned until 1921. (5) It goes without saying that these are important restrictions on the freedom of association. In theory, things were different in practice, but the law still functioned as a powerful lever for change. (6)

The paradox of the Belgian Constitution from 1831 

Considering these (new) fundamental rights, and taking into account the political context of newly independent Belgium, one can quickly discern something of a paradox in the Belgian Constitution of 1831.  On the one hand there are far-reaching fundamental rights and freedoms for the masses.  On the other hand, the masses had no democratic voice. In nineteenth century Belgium the elites still held all the political power (as they de facto had had for centuries).  We therefore must admit that the new constitution was progressive in certain (important) aspects, yet retained unmistakable 19th-century characteristics. (7) This paradox between far-reaching fundamental rights and a considerable (“99%-ish”) democratic deficit can thus be seen as 'the great flaw’ of the Belgian Constitution of 1831. But it is a flaw that did not go unnoticed, on the contrary. The masses would leverage the three fundamental rights previously mentioned (the freedom of expression, assembly and association) in their fight for universal suffrage. And this paradox, this tension, will give rise to the collective actions that brought about the first changes to this progressive, yet imperfect, Belgian constitution.   

Let’s continue by exploring this ‘great flaw’ of the 1831 Constitution, namely its democratic deficit. It is important to recognise that the Belgian constitution was drafted by an elitist National Congress that entrenched its own interests in that constitution. To understand suffrage in early Belgium, once again this constitution must be examined. Article 25 gives ultimate power to ‘the Nation’, which can only express itself through parliamentary representation. This ‘national sovereignty’ is frequently set in opposition to the concept of ‘popular sovereignty’, where the people have the ultimate power. (8)  So, while the individual holds a central position in the progressive Belgian Constitution, power does not reside with the individual but the Nation. In early Belgium this meant that almost no one could participate in democracy. Suffrage in early Belgium was based on a census system. This system was enshrined in the Constitution under articles 47-52 and further regulated by the Electoral Law of  March 3rd  1831. (9)  In short, census suffrage meant that only men aged over 25 who met certain tax criteria were allowed to vote.  In other words, the House of Representatives was elected by a small, elite group of men. Yet, because ‘the Nation’ could only express itself through parliamentary representation, the elected representatives were still regarded as the embodiment of the will of the people. (10) At the first Belgian election in 1831, there were only about 46,000 eligible voters out of a population of around 4 million. In the middle of the nineteenth century only about 2% of all Belgians held all the political power (as seen on graph below).

(census suffrage)  (blue: inhabitants, red: voters, green: voters/inhabitants)  (11) 

This early Belgium was nothing more than a pseudo-democracy with an enormous democratic deficit.  And although the tax requirement to vote was reduced in 1848, this census system remained in force until 1893. (12)  In 1893 the system did not change merely out of goodwill either, on the contrary, for Parliament safeguarded the interests of the census voters. It was rather the result of pressure from the streets and collective actions that democratic rights were broadened to the masses. Now, in 21st century Europe, most collective actions are increasingly about preserving rights and expressing discontent than fighting for new fundamental rights. Recent examples are: the youth for climate protests, the gilets jaunes protests (mainly in France), the various farmers protests, and so on. History entails both continuity and change: certain features from the past persist, although in a different context. However, we should be aware that the legal framework wherein social protest takes place, is of the utmost importance to ensure pressure from public opinion, or participate in the formation of policy. This blogpost wants to reflect on a time when collective action clearly shaped the foundations of current modern society. Let’s dive into the Belgian struggle for universal suffrage, a struggle where the impact of collective action cannot be underestimated.   

Harnessing the power of freedom towards universal suffrage 

In the 19th century, a new class of industrial workers emerged who became aware of their civil rights and of their modern freedoms. But it was primarily with the help of socialists that they also began to recognize the power of these rights.  It was the newly founded Belgian Workers Party (BWP) (°1885) that, at the end of the 19th century, truly shifted the focus from mere workers discontent to national political objectives. (13) The BWP’s main battle was in fact the fight for universal suffrage. And collective action will come to play an essential role in this fight towards a democratisation of the Belgian electoral system. Socialist militants succeeded in channelling and directing workers protests at the end of the 19th century towards the struggle for universal suffrage. Revealing how these modern freedoms, from the 1831 Constitution, were leveraged to expand the democratic rights of the people. The following section takes a closer look at several key collective actions for the democratisation of the Belgian electoral system. 

In 1886, a major general strike took place that affected nearly the entire country. Particularly in the Walloon industrial sector violent riots broke out that carried a revolutionary undertone. (14) Factories were set on fire, machines were destroyed, and the country was shaken to its core. As a result, this devastating action was met with severe repression and dozens of strikers were killed. But, the social-democratic movement expressed its disapproval of the violent collective actions in Wallonia. (15) The Belgian Workers Party left room for compromise and did not turn to revolution. The collective actions in 1886 initiated the first steps towards social legislation, however, real compromise, real change, did not yet happen. The Catholics and Liberals feared that expanding suffrage would fuel the rise of socialism so they opposed further democratisation fiercely. Nevertheless these major strikes remained a strong signal to what the workers, the people, wanted: universal suffrage.

("Universal suffrage will overcome all its adversaries", 1913: the socialists are depicted as a strong boxer who takes on both the Catholics and the Liberals, striking them down with his universal suffrage.) (16) 

In 1893, Belgian Parliament rejected universal suffrage, prompting the Belgian Workers Party (BWP) to bring the country to a standstill. Hundreds of thousands participated in the collective action and once again lives were lost. A week later, as a compromise, universal plural voting was introduced, bringing the strike to an end. (17) It can be thus concluded that this 1893 collective action directly led to real democratic progress, in fact, for the first time in its history the Belgian constitutional was revised.  This collective action had real impact! The new article 47 was fairly complex, but essentially came down to the following: every man older than 25 years old had one vote and certain categories of people got additional votes, up to a maximum of three per individual. Married heads of households who paid property tax, landowners/savings account holders, people with a diploma of higher education, and senior civil servants all qualified for additional votes. (18) This meant that additional votes primarily benefited the elite. Hence, it is important to understand that universal plural voting was no more than a compromise. It was a complicated compromise between the old census system and the BWP’s goal of universal single voting. (19) Plural voting diluted the influence of the lower classes, thereby moderating their impact on politics and allowing the dominance of the elite to persist. Still, plural voting led to the first breakthrough of the Belgian Workers Party in Parliament. (20) And the Belgian Workers Party still held firmly to its central goal: universal single voting (“one man, one vote”). 

(Universal Plural Voting) (blue: inhabitants, red: voters, green: votes, purple: voters/inhabitants) (21)

Collective action continued 

In 1902, the Belgian Workers Party launched a general strike to protest for universal single suffrage.  They would not accept the compromise of plural voting and their goal remained unchanged: universal single suffrage. But these actions achieved little, despite six deaths in the city of Leuven. This so-called “blood night of Leuven” made headlines and set the tone for later actions, so the actions were not in vain. (22) The BWP continued their campaign for universal single suffrage and it became clear that it had to become the next step. In 1913, the outcome was no different, but this time almost 400 000 workers went on strike! Public opinion and the government realised that universal single suffrage could no longer be stopped. Yet it was only after the First World War, after dragging on for over forty years, that universal single suffrage for men finally became a reality in 1918. From this point on all Belgian men older than 21 years of age could vote. The 1919 elections were held under this new system, but were in fact unconstitutional, as the Constitution had not yet been amended. However, the newly elected parliament enacted a constitutional revision in 1921 to regularise the situation.(23) This marked a turning point in resolving the democratic deficit of the 1831 Belgian Constitution, nearly 90 years since its origin. But not for women, their struggle was far from over… Améline’s blogpost delves deeper in how women and their male supporters kept up the struggle in this next stage. The right to vote is, and remains, the foundation of our democracy.

(Universal single voting) (blue: inhabitants, red: voters, green: voters/inhabitants) (24) 

(1921 elections Belgian Workers Party campaign poster: “how you voted in 1914 – how you vote nowadays, thanks to the socialists”)

Conclusion 

By leveraging the fundamental freedoms of expression, -association, and -assembly from the progressive Belgian constitution,  the masses succeeded in expanding their democratic rights,  through collective action. The people exercised their constitutional rights in order to expand others.  But despite being grounded in constitutional rights, collective actions did not go without conflict.  Some collective actions even proved deadly.  Incidentally, it is remarkable that Belgian workers never truly became revolutionary. Two factors were important for this absence of revolutionary drive: first of all, the Belgian political elite managed to find a balance between compromise and repression. Concessions were never immediate nor complete either, as universal single suffrage was in part a result of the First World War. Secondly, the Belgian Workers Party managed to rally the more radical, revolutionary socialists behind their central message and goal of “one man, one vote”. Socialist coordination and backing also proved crucial in the Belgian fight for suffrage.   

This short historical case study should remind us that every collective action is grounded in constitutional rights that are older and more fundamental than we often realise.  And that, collectively, we owe a great deal to these rights and freedoms.

(voters compared to inhabitants 1830-2019) 

(blue: inhabitants, red: voters, green: voters/inhabitants) (25) 

By August Vanschoubroek 

Sources 

(1) TILLY C., From Mobilization to Revolution, McGraw-Hill, 1978. 5-8. 

TILLY C., Social Movements, 1768-2004, Paradigm Publishers, 2004, 5-7. 

KRINSKY J. en MISCHE A., 'Formations and Formalisms: Charles Tilly and the Paradox of the Actor', Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30 juli 2013/39, 2013, 1-26. 

(2)  VELAERS J.,  De Grondwet: een artikelsgewijze commentaar: deel I: Het federale België, het grondgebied, de grondrechten, die Keure, 2019. 13-14 

‘Het ontstaan van de Belgische Grondwet’, De grondwet voor iedereen, 2025 https://www.belgischegrondwet.be/1830-1831/het-ontstaan-van-de-belgische-grondwet (consulted June 24 2025) 

(3) VELAERS J.,  De Grondwet: een artikelsgewijze commentaar: deel I: Het federale België, het grondgebied, de grondrechten, die Keure, 2019, 325-327, 545-550.   

(4) VELAERS J.,  De Grondwet: een artikelsgewijze commentaar: deel I: Het federale België, het grondgebied, de grondrechten, die Keure, 2019, 563-575. 

(5) GERARD E. en VERLEDEN F., De ongrijpbare macht: politieke geschiedenis van België, Acco, 2019, 30-31. 

(6) VELAERS J.,  De Grondwet: een artikelsgewijze commentaar: deel I: Het federale België, het grondgebied, de grondrechten, die Keure, 2019, 576-577, 598-599.  

(7) VELAERS J.,  De Grondwet: een artikelsgewijze commentaar: deel I: Het federale België, het grondgebied, de grondrechten, die Keure, 2019, 7-13. 

(8) MAES C., Het Soevereiniteitsbegrip in de Belgische grondwet van 1831: een rechtshistorisch onderzoek naar de betekenis van soevereiniteit voor de organisatie van de Belgische staatsmacht, doctoraat KULeuven, 2020, 2-7.  

(9) Kieswet van 3 maart 1831 

(10) MAES C., Het Soevereiniteitsbegrip in de Belgische grondwet van 1831: een rechtshistorisch onderzoek naar de betekenis van soevereiniteit voor de organisatie van de Belgische staatsmacht, doctoraat KULeuven, 2020, 205-220. 

(11) ‘1831 tot 1893 Wie genoeg betaalt beslist’, Belgian Senate, 2019, https://www.senate.be/home/sections/geschiedenis_en_erfgoed/AES-SU/art-2_nl.pdf, (consulted June 24 2025). 

(12) HOOGHE, M., ‘Kiesrecht en democratisering in België 1831-1998. De nieuwe tekst van artikel 8 G.W. in historisch perspectief’, TBP 1999/9, 590. 

GERARD E. en VERLEDEN F., De ongrijpbare macht: politieke geschiedenis van België, Acco, 2019, 67. 

(13) WITTE E., MEYNEN A. en LUYTEN D., Politieke geschiedenis van België: van 1830 tot heden, Manteau, 2016, 104-118. 

(14) DENECKERE GITA, ‘Straatagitatie. Een versluierde geschiedenis: het oproer van 1886 anders bekeken’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis 1989/1-2, 253–291. 

(15) WITTE E., MEYNEN A. en LUYTEN D., Politieke geschiedenis van België: van 1830 tot heden, Manteau, 2016, 111. 

(16) ‘1893 tot 1918 Sommigen zijn meer gelijk dan anderen’, Belgian Senate, 2019, https://www.senate.be/home/sections/geschiedenis_en_erfgoed/AES-SU/art-3_nl.pdf, (consulted June 24 2025). 

(17) GERARD E. en VERLEDEN F., De ongrijpbare macht: politieke geschiedenis van België, Acco, 2019, 92-98. 

(18)  HOOGHE, M., ‘Kiesrecht en democratisering in België 1831-1998. De nieuwe tekst van artikel 8 G.W. in historisch perspectief’, TBP 1999/9, 591. 

GERARD E. en VERLEDEN F., De ongrijpbare macht: politieke geschiedenis van België, Acco, 2019, 94-95. 

(19) WITTE E., MEYNEN A. en LUYTEN D., Politieke geschiedenis van België: van 1830 tot heden, Manteau, 2016, 116. 

(20) WITTE E., MEYNEN A. en LUYTEN D., Politieke geschiedenis van België: van 1830 tot heden, Manteau, 2016, 116. 

(21) ‘1893 tot 1918 Sommigen zijn meer gelijk dan anderen’, Belgian Senate, 2019, https://www.senate.be/home/sections/geschiedenis_en_erfgoed/AES-SU/art-3_nl.pdf, (consulted June 24 2025). 

(22) ‘Bloodbath in Leuven, Fighting for the Vote’, Canon van Vlaanderen 2023, https://www.canonvanvlaanderen.be/en/events/bloodbath-in-leuven/ (consulted June 24 2025). 

(23) HOOGHE, M., ‘Kiesrecht en democratisering in België 1831-1998. De nieuwe tekst van artikel 8 G.W. in historisch perspectief’, TBP 1999/9, 591-594. 

(24) ‘1919 Eindelijk één man, één stem’, Belgian Senate, 2019, https://www.senate.be/home/sections/geschiedenis_en_erfgoed/AES-SU/art-1_nl.pdf, (consulted June 24 2025). 

(25) ‘1893 tot 1918 Sommigen zijn meer gelijk dan anderen’, Belgian Senate, 2019, https://www.senate.be/www/?MIval=index_senate&MENUID=41500&LANG=nl, (consulted June 24 2025)