On the work of the Parliamentary Committee on the Colonial Past

For us Belgians, it has been more than two generations since the end of colonisation in Africa, but this increasingly distant past continues to haunt us. Hollywood is preparing a sensational film about the Independent State of Congo, Leopold II is regularly accused of genocide and there are voices calling for decolonising Belgium’s public spaces and sending back to Africa the objects in our museums that originated there. It is difficult not to feel deeply uncomfortable with these accusations and to question these demands. Even if current generations can hardly be held responsible, some of our fellow citizens descended from yesterday’s colonised peoples feel that the weight of the colonial past continues to weigh on them, exposing them to prejudice and discrimination.

For us Congolese too, the ranks are thinning of those still familiar with the colonial period. For some, this foreign occupation with its violence, annoyances, racism and abuse remains vivid. For others, it is more the memory of a period when many things worked better than they do now. And then, whatever one thinks of it, without the actions of Leopold II, there would have been no Congo. For their part, the younger generations care little about the past when faced with the difficulties of everyday life, even if testimonies of it persist in the cities and to the far corners of the bush and the great forest. In the present context, some people question the responsibility of the former metropolis of the past and make claims about it.

For harmonious relations and peaceful memories.

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Congo’s independence, King Philippe took a public stand in his address to President Tshisekedi: “Our history is made up of shared successes, but has also known painful episodes. … I want to express my deepest regret for these wounds of the past, the pain of which is rekindled today by the discrimination that is still too often present in our societies. I will continue to fight all forms of racism. I encourage the reflection initiated by our Parliament so that our memories can be put to rest once and for all. In his reply, the Congolese head of state stressed the need to continue the harmonious relations that stem from the strong bond built during our shared history: “I think it is necessary that our shared history with Belgium and its people be told to our children in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Belgium, based on scholarly work by historians from both countries.” But the most important thing for the future is to build harmonious relations with Belgium, because beyond the stigma of history, the two peoples have built a strong bond that I was personally able to experience during my exile in Belgium, my other Congo.” So we have to face this shared past, try to see it clearly and resolve things objectively. And we can only welcome our Parliament’s initiative to set up a Commission for this purpose.

But reading the terms of reference of this Commission on Belgium’s colonial past, we have to wonder what the real objectives of this initiative are and what results we can expect from it. Moreover, given the different sensitivities in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, it is probably not conducive to the work of the commission and its experts to include in the same issue the way questions about the colonial past and its consequences are raised in these three countries. We will therefore approach the issue here only from the Belgian-Congolese perspective. But let us be clear: in itself, this Commission could be an ideal basis for clarifying the grey areas, the ‘fake news’ that still exists today in Belgium’s colonial history. The general public in Belgium and Africa should be objectively informed about both the violence and crimes committed during the EIC and the less glorious aspects of the administration of Belgian Congo, and the positive achievements of this period. It could also recontextualise Belgian colonial action in relation to other colonial undertakings and to the pre- and post-colonial situation. Finally, it could integrate the experiences of the last witnesses into its work. All this would make it possible to develop factual and balanced history lessons, giving a place to the prejudices of each era and their consequences. These results would provide a balanced and common basis for fostering cohesion and understanding between our countries and between the different segments of our respective societies.

For an objective and impartial work.

But looking back at the terms of reference, we can only be struck by the systematic selection of ‘incriminating’ themes. One main objective is put forward: reconciliation. Is this the case between Belgians and Congolese, Rwandans and Burundians? Are we even angry? Wounds, discomfort, misunderstandings, yes, but we do not feel angry, still less that we are adversaries! The fact that the establishment of historical facts has been placed in an ideological perspective from the start is astonishing and complicates the task considerably. Where the commission’s work should have provided clarity without prejudice, we are already seeing targets being set, including condemnations and reparations. This instrumentalisation of the historical approach raises questions among many scholars who have already spoken out on the subject and distanced themselves from the commission’s work. The ultimate goal, of course, is to use historical conclusions to empower Belgian MPs to take political initiatives. To be credible and gain broad approval, this process must be as non-partisan as possible.

While we know that absolute methodological neutrality in historical issues is a utopia, research today cannot be systematically incriminating or exculpatory. Similarly, the idea, with its conspiratorial overtones, that we would deliberately avoid studying troubling aspects of colonial history shows a profound ignorance of the many studies conducted by historians in Africa and in Belgium over the decades. Finally, the clear intention is to move quickly and focus only on specific historical facts, analysing and assessing them exclusively in terms of today’s values. Why this sudden rush, which contrasts with the way previous historical parliamentary commissions have worked? If the real intention is to build a strong relationship on the basis of definitively pacified memory, should not the various aspects of the issue be considered at leisure? Methodologically, the debate should first of all be conducted in close cooperation with the authorities of the countries concerned. Otherwise, we will remain in the relationship of subordination resulting from colonisation, which we rightly want to denounce!

Second, and for the same reason, each country must be treated separately. Finally, the political will to face the past requires scholarly work without too much prejudice. For the large Congolese public, colonial memories remain ambiguous. They are nostalgic for all that was achieved in terms of public and social infrastructure, means of transport, health, education and scientific knowledge. But these achievements also had their downside: an underlying violence and ordinary racism with its attendant annoyances, a colonial society frozen into a caricature, a disastrous blindness to ongoing developments and legitimate demands. As for the expectations in Congo, they clearly relate to the development of a harmonious and peaceful relationship, without shocks, of a partnership with greater involvement of Belgians and Congolese in Belgium in a resumption of progress.

For better cohesion.

Although this issue has been put back on the political agenda in Belgium by a small group of activists in the wake of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, it is not a central concern for a significant part of the population, who are more concerned about the current health situation. The younger generations have had little to do with Africa and the older generations are often mildly irritated by this uncritical questioning of the past. Will knocking down statues and demanding apologies help improve relations between our countries? Among Belgians, on the other hand, it is understandable that symbols of colonial rule and of our good national conscience offend some. In Belgium, as in other countries, groups of former colonised people have transformed these common origins into 4 specific identities and grouped themselves into communities that, as minorities in their host countries, are still too often victims of racism and discrimination. Their frustrations and demands are understandable. But what can we do about it? It would be naive to believe that this is simply the result of colonial prejudice. Instead of fomenting a sense of victimisation, would it not be better to develop proposals to improve and strengthen the legal and regulatory framework to promote equal opportunities and combat racism, propose support formulas for better access to jobs, etc.? Wouldn’t such an approach produce much more tangible and lasting results and avoid counterproductive antagonism with part of the Belgian population? The younger generation of Afro-descendants should be able to receive signals, gestures and commitments that are more sustainable and comprehensive to increase their chances of prosperity on an equal footing, without discrimination….

This is a goal far removed from those advocated by activist groups that favour the ‘us’ over the ‘you’ and approach the colonial past – which most of them knew nothing about – from an exclusively negative and ideologically hostile angle. The commission’s work will have a positive impact and counter racism if, after clarifying the past and its current consequences as objectively as possible, it focuses on initiatives to promote the development and better integration of migrant generations into Belgian society as a whole, as well as strengthening the legal mechanisms already in place to combat racism. As for the bilateral dimension with Congo, better mutual knowledge of the sensitivities and aspirations of our times should be the guarantees for this strong relationship, which has already amply proven its shared benefits. Whatever one thinks of the colonial past, the ties between our countries are alive and well. Despite the vicissitudes of history, they testify to a mutual closeness and affection. So let’s focus on what brings us closer together, let’s build the future together, and let’s be frank about it, without using the past as a tool.