In the shifting sands of Flemish politics, alliances are rarely carved in stone, but the recent declaration by Vlaams Belang leader Tom Van Grieken that he still views the N-VA as an ally—whereas explicitly excluding its chairman Bart De Wever—has sent ripples through Belgium’s already fractured political landscape. This nuanced stance, voiced during a live interview and echoed in subsequent statements, reveals not just a tactical distancing but a deeper ideological rift that could reshape the trajectory of Belgium’s next governmental formation.
What makes this development particularly significant is its timing. With regional and federal elections looming in 2024 and the specter of another prolonged governmental stalemate hanging over Brussels, Van Grieken’s conditional endorsement of the N-VA introduces a new variable into an already volatile equation. While the two parties have historically found common ground on issues like immigration control and Flemish autonomy, the personal and strategic aversion to De Wever suggests that even shared policy objectives may not be enough to bridge the widening gap between them.
To understand the weight of this statement, one must gaze beyond the surface-level politics and into the historical DNA of Flemish nationalism. The N-VA, born from the ashes of the Volksunie in the early 2000s, positioned itself as a modern, electoral-force-driven alternative to the more traditionalist Vlaams Belang. Yet, despite their divergent paths, both parties have long competed for the same electorate—disaffected Flemish voters concerned about cultural identity, economic disparity with Wallonia, and perceived bureaucratic overreach from federal institutions.
This competition has often led to tactical cooperation, especially at the municipal level, where local N-VA and Vlaams Belang factions have occasionally joined forces to keep progressive parties out of power. Yet, national-level collaboration has remained elusive, largely due to the N-VA’s insistence on maintaining a “respectable” image suitable for coalition politics, contrasted with Vlaams Belang’s more confrontational, identity-driven rhetoric.
Enter Bart De Wever. As the long-standing face of the N-VA, De Wever has cultivated a persona of statesmanlike restraint—favoring institutional reform over ideological confrontation. His vision for Flanders centers on gradual confederalism, economic competitiveness, and administrative efficiency, all pursued through negotiation and consensus-building. Van Grieken, by contrast, has embraced a more populist, confrontational style, frequently framing Flemish interests in zero-sum terms and advocating for immediate, unilateral actions to protect what he describes as “the Flemish people’s right to self-determination.”
This philosophical divergence helps explain why Van Grieken can praise the N-VA as an ally in principle while rejecting its current leadership. In a recent interview with VRT, he elaborated:
“We spot the N-VA as a party that defends Flemish interests, but we cannot work with individuals who, in our view, compromise those interests through endless concessions and a lack of political courage. Bart De Wever represents a strategy of accommodation that we believe has failed Flanders.”
The implication is clear: Van Grieken is not rejecting the N-VA’s ideology outright, but rather its current execution under De Wever’s stewardship. This opens the door to a potential realignment—one where Vlaams Belang might support an N-VA-led government, provided De Wever steps aside or is sidelined in favor of a more hardline figure.
Such a scenario is not without precedent. In 2019, after the federal elections yielded a fragmented parliament, there were behind-the-scenes discussions about forming a Flemish nationalist bloc capable of supporting a minority government. Though those talks ultimately came to nothing due to ideological mistrust and De Wever’s reluctance to associate too closely with Vlaams Belang, the underlying dynamic remains. Today, with growing voter frustration over issues like asylum policy, language enforcement in Brussels, and economic stagnation in certain Flemish provinces, the appetite for a more assertive nationalist agenda may be increasing.
To gauge the feasibility of such a shift, it’s worth examining the electoral overlap between the two parties. According to recent polling by Kantar Belgium, approximately 38% of Flemish voters express sympathy with at least one of the two nationalist parties, with roughly equal splits between N-VA and Vlaams Belang support. Crucially, among voters under 35, Vlaams Belang has begun to outperform the N-VA—a trend attributed to its more aggressive social media presence and appeal to younger voters disillusioned with traditional politics.
This generational shift adds another layer to the Van Grieken-De Wever divide. While De Wever’s appeal remains strong among older, fiscally conservative Flemings, Van Grieken’s messaging resonates more with those who view cultural identity as under immediate threat—a perception amplified by debates over multiculturalism in cities like Antwerp and Ghent.
Experts caution, however, that any alliance—even a tactical one—would face significant hurdles.
“The N-VA’s brand is built on being a party of government, not protest,” noted Dr. Liesbet Hooghe, professor of political science at UNC Chapel Hill and an expert on European regionalism. “Aligning too closely with Vlaams Belang risks alienating the moderate voters and business coalitions that have been essential to the N-VA’s electoral success.”
the federal dimension complicates matters. Any Flemish nationalist cooperation at the regional level could exacerbate tensions in Brussels and Wallonia, where such moves are often interpreted as steps toward secession. The Belgian establishment, including the monarchy and federal judiciary, has historically shown little tolerance for actions perceived as undermining national unity—a fact not lost on De Wever, who has consistently emphasized the N-VA’s commitment to reforming Belgium from within, not dismantling it.
Still, the mere possibility of a Van Grieken-led rapprochement with the N-VA—minus De Wever—signals a potential inflection point. It suggests that the future of Flemish nationalism may not lie in the preservation of existing party structures, but in the emergence of a new synthesis: one that combines the N-VA’s organizational discipline with Vlaams Belang’s mobilizing energy, under leadership willing to eschew diplomatic niceties in favor of ideological clarity.
For now, the ball remains in De Wever’s court. Whether he chooses to adapt, confront, or wait out the storm will determine not just the fate of his party, but the broader direction of Flemish politics in a country that continues to grapple with the question of what it means to be Belgian—and what it means to be Flemish.
As these political currents shift, one thing is certain: the alliances of tomorrow are being tested today. And in a landscape where loyalty is conditional and principle often bends to strategy, the space between “ally” and “adversary” has never felt more consequential.
What do you think—can ideological solidarity survive when personal trust breaks down? Share your perspective below.
