---

Johan Leman, 2 June 2022

For some time now, it has been noticeable that ministers and political parties attach more importance to emphasising where they make the difference with others than to building on existing expertise. There are probably two reasons for this. Policy is often judged in the short term and on what it failed to achieve, and the media mainly want to report ‘news’ (i.e. something that is “new”) The latter goes so far that ‘announcing’ the ‘news’ (i.e. what could be new) becomes even more important than realising it.

This lack of building on expertise, however, risks taking its toll on our parliamentary democracies. This manifests itself in two areas: 1. the ‘hot water’ syndrome, and 2. failure to realise that “gouverner, c’est prévoir”.

I will give two current examples.

1.            The ‘hot water’ syndrome. In 1989, the mosques held elections and a Supreme Council of Muslims was created. The government knew this was going on, but let it be and thought: “Let them do it. If that council is there – and it is not what want – we will just not approve it and create an alternative: a Council of Wise Men.” Consequence: there was a Supreme Council that was not recognised by the government and, shortly afterwards, there was a Council of Wise Men that was not recognised by the Muslims.  Additional consequence: an impasse that lasted eight years. Will one have a similar scenario today?

2.            Failure to realise that “gouverner, c’est prévoir”. What we are experiencing today with the shortage of teachers and the shortage of childcare facilities is a clear example of this, as if one had not been able to study the natality figures. Something similar is happening today with the ageing of the population, and thus also of the population with non-Western migration background. One knows perfectly well,  that many of these people show poor compliance and do not handle medication well. One can already anticipate that within ten years there will be a problem of care for the elderly in some urban districts. But… are we already planning?

There are more serious problems, the pension scheme etc., I know. But in any case, there is a lot more that can be foreseen and planned for than is currently the case, and which is relatively easy to solve, if one gets there in time.

P.S. And what should one think of the education debate in the Flemish Parliament, the interventions of many MPs and the answers of the Minister of Education? Does one get the impression that this is happening after a serious evaluation of everything that has been done in the field of education since the mid-1990s, both successful and unsuccessful?

Back