National Sovereignty in the Belgian Constitution of 1831. On the Meaning(s) of Article 25

Abstract

Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution of 1831 specifi es that all powers emanate from the nation, but fails to defi ne who or what the nation is. This chapter aims at reconstructing the underdetermined meaning of national sovereignty by looking into a wide array of sources concerning the genesis and reception of the Belgian Constitution. It argues, fi rstly, that 'nation' and 'King' were conceptually differentiated notions, revealing a concern on the part of the Belgian National Congress to substitute the popular principle for the monarchical one. By vesting the origin of sovereignty exclusively in the nation, it relegated the monarch to the position of a constituted power. Secondly, it refutes the widely accepted defi nition of national sovereignty as the counterpart of popular sovereignty. The debates of the constituent assembly prove that the antithesis between the concepts 'nation' and 'people', supposedly originating in two rivalling political-theoretical traditions, is a false one. Not only were both terms used as synonyms, the Congress delegates themselves plainly proclaimed the sovereignty of the people. However, this did not imply the establishment of universal suffrage, since political participation was limited to the propertied classes. The revolutionary press generally endorsed the popular principle, too, without necessarily agreeing to the form it was given in practice. The legitimacy of the National Congress's claim to speak in the name of the people was challenged both by the conservative press, which rejected the sovereignty of the people, and by the radical newspapers, which considered popular sovereignty invalidated by the instatement of census suffrage.

Pulling the curtain on the national sovereignty mythSovereignty and referendums in Belgian constitutional doctrine

“…Giving voice to the nation through legal decision-making is reserved exclusively for political representatives. Yet, it has been shown elsewhere that the national sovereignty interpretation is an anachronism (De Smaele, 2005;Deseure, 2016b;Geenens and Sottiaux, 2015). This chapter traces the development of the closely related subjects of sovereignty and referendums in Belgian constitutional doctrine from 1831 onwards.…”