This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

RESEARCH NOTE

Caretaker Cabinets in

A New Measurement and Typology

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière*

Abstract Keywords: caretaker , Belgium, cabinets, political crisis. Belgium is probably the world’s best known case of where caretaker gov‐ 1 Introduction ernments reside. Yet a clear scholarly definition and measurement of this Political scientists often use Belgium concept is missing. Based on a as an ideal case study for discussing detailed analysis of the Belgian fed‐ processes of government formation eral cabinets, this research note and of caretaker cabinets. Combined explores the main characteristics and with its complex multilevel institu‐ measures the length of the various tional architecture and its enduring caretaker periods. We find that Bel‐ regionalist tensions, these processes gium was governed for no less than have attracted much attention from 1,485 days by a caretaker govern‐ the international community. The var‐ ment between 2007 and 2020, which ious episodes of the lengthy federal equals more than four full calendar government formation even kept the years. This research note also pres‐ international media in suspense over ents a novel typology of caretaker the last decade. The fact that Belgium periods based on the institutional had a caretaker government through‐ and political practice within the Bel‐ out its successful EU presidency term gian legislative and executive in 2010 impressed many European branches. This typology can be used observers. to assess caretaker periods at other Caretaker periods mark the transi‐ levels of government as well as in tion between the termination of one other countries in order to improve government and the start of another. our understanding of the many ‘faces’ If the end of a cabinet and the kick-off that a caretaker government can take of a new one can be considered as gold on. mines for political scientists working on elections, executives and minister‐

* Régis Dandoy is professor in political science at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador and visiting research fellow and guest lecturer at the University of Brussels, Belgium. His main research interests include comparative politics, federalism, voting behaviour, election results, electronic and internet voting and election observation. Lorenzo Terrière is a PhD candidate and teaching assistant at . His doctoral research is focused on how (regionalist) parties deal with the strategic issue of government participation.

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 95 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

ial careers, the inter-bellum period did vious academic works and on a not receive the same research atten‐ detailed analysis of the Belgian care‐ tion. Literature on caretaker cabinets, taker cabinets between 2007 and in particular, is scarce (Boston, Levine, 2020. McLeay, Roberts & Schmidt, 1998; Courtenay Ryals & Golder, 2010; 2 Caretaker Cabinets: Definition Schleiter & Belu, 2015). Yet several and Characteristics scholarly works on caretaker govern‐ ments in Belgium have been published In order to prevent a void in political in prestigious journals, and it even decision making between two different constituted the core topic of an entire , countries have debate section of European Political Sci‐ implemented various procedural strat‐ ence back in 2012. These studies often egies aimed at bridging such a gap. In focused on the 2010-2011 political presidential regimes, for example, the stalemate and limited themselves to newly elected president does not take two main phenomena: (1) how can we up power immediately after the elec‐ explain these long periods of caretaker tions but rather enters into executive government and (2) how can we office a few weeks later. This period explain that the Belgian political varies from country to country. For system did not collapse – but actually instance, in the USA, Donald Trump did quite well – under a caretaker cabi‐ took the oath of office on 20 January net? 2017, i.e. no less than 73 days after the Despite these relevant academic presidential elections, and 32 days contributions with regard to caretaker after the actual vote of the electoral cabinets, there are no systematic data college. This time interval is deemed or studies available that demonstrate necessary to prepare for the transition the different ways in which such cabi‐ between the two administrations and nets diverge from others (Courtenay cabinets. On the other hand, in parlia‐ Ryals & Golder, 2010). Also, there have mentary regimes the new cabinet usu‐ been no thorough attempts to disen‐ ally takes power only after its investi‐ tangle the various kinds of caretaker ture vote in parliament. Yet this inves‐ periods. Consequently, authors have titure usually takes place a few days or used diverse definitions of what a care‐ even weeks after the elections. This taker government actually is. Further‐ custom affects both Westminster and more, there is no agreement on the consensus but is more fre‐ exact moments when a caretaker quent in countries with proportional period begins and ends. Therefore, this representation (Boston et al., 1998). research note has two objectives. First, Moreover, there coexist subnational it explores the definition, characteris‐ variations of these caretaker conven‐ tics and how caretaker cabinets are tions, for example in Australia (Davis, best measured timewise. Second, it Ling, Scales & Wilkins, 2001; Tiernan provides a detailed typology of the dif‐ & Menzies, 2007). But, overall, it is ferent caretaker periods, a tool that this specific period in the lifetime of a will subsequently allow us to compare government, located in between the caretaker cabinets across time and space. Our assessment is based on pre‐

96 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Caretaker Cabinets in Belgium

former and the new cabinet, that is man, 2007; Larsson, 1994). Non-parti‐ called a ‘caretaker’ government.1 san transitory governments have also After its resignation or its removal been observed in Bangladesh, by parliament, a cabinet is supposed to and Italy and, to a lesser extent, in Fin‐ cease its activities immediately. The land and Portugal (Courtenay Ryals & reasoning is that the dismissed cabinet Golder, 2010; Hloušek & Kopeček, cannot take any further decisions or 2014; Magone, 2000; McDonnell & actions that would compromise the Valbruzzi, 2014; Zafarullah & Yeahia future responsibilities of the next cabi‐ Akhter, 2000). net. However, it is necessary to avoid a A second important characteristic complete absence of the executive of a caretaker government concerns power, as this could be detrimental to the limited scope and range of actions the country. Therefore, the resigning of the executive. According to Van or removed cabinet cannot immedi‐ Aelst and Louwerse (2014), it is a situ‐ ately leave office and instead needs to ation in which the active government remain in power until its successor is can do little more than handling ‘cur‐ appointed (Schleiter & Belu, 2015). rent affairs’. The government is only This is the first characteristic of a care‐ ‘taking care’ of the cabinet functions taker government, which ensures that and duties whose continuity seems there is continuity and that the coun‐ essential. The basic principles a care‐ try is never without a functioning taker government adheres to are two‐ executive. In that respect, some fold. First, the cabinet refrains from authors have described caretaker cabi‐ taking decisions that may burden the nets as fulfilling a ‘bridging role’ incoming government, whereby it between duly mandated governments restricts itself to preserving the ‘policy and have referred to them as ‘interim status quo’ (Boston et al., 1998; Davis governments’ (McDonnell & Valbruzzi, et al., 2001; Schleiter & Belu, 2015). 2014). Given that a change of government is In that sense, caretaker cabinets probably imminent, it is considered have to be distinguished from those inappropriate to bind the incoming cabinets that are specifically appointed government by committing to signifi‐ to bridge the transition between two cant new political initiatives. Second, cabinets or when their sole purpose is the caretaker cabinet does not under‐ to bring the country to (early) elec‐ take new political initiatives and sim‐ tions: these are considered as interim ply postpones all significant decisions or transitory cabinets.2 Many exam‐ until the new government takes over. ples of such transitory cabinets can be Depending on the country, the care‐ found in semi-presidential systems taker government can undertake and in Central Europe (Amorim Neto actions within a larger or smaller range & Strøm, 2006; Courtenay Ryals & of policies. Golder, 2010; Hloušek & Kopeček, Several scholars have outlined 2014; Muller-Rommel, Fettelschoss & additional characteristics. In their Harfst, 2004). In Sweden, the transi‐ works on minority governments, Her‐ tory cabinets are supposed to be apo‐ man and Pope (1973) remark that litical and non-partisan and are there‐ caretaker governments have not only fore composed of technocrats (Beck‐ limited freedom of action but also a

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 97 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

limited life span. They regard caretaker no longer cast a vote on a motion of no governments as ‘default administra‐ confidence against an – already – tions’ that remain in power for just a removed executive. But even if limited and prearranged period of parliament cannot sanction the care‐ time. Yet the issue of a time constraint taker government as such, it can still that actively limits the life span of the control it in principle. For instance, it cabinet is not present in later academic is not rare to see their ministers being works. Moreover, this feature actually questioned publicly during plenary or seems contradictory to the initial defi‐ committee meetings. Parliamentary nition of a caretaker government. consent is also still needed to pass any Indeed, the notion of a caretaker gov‐ new legislation. ernment rests on the idea that this government remains in power until its 3 Measuring Caretaker Cabinets in successor is finally appointed. In the Belgium words of Hooghe (2012), “No matter how long that might take, the earlier Rather surprisingly, there is no formal government simply has to soldier on.” definition of a caretaker government In some countries, such as New within the Belgian legal framework. As Zealand or the UK, underdeveloped in many other parliamentary regimes caretaker conventions can leave the (Boston et al., 1998), the concept of country vulnerable to political crisis caretaker government or cabinet is not and controversy (Boston et al., 1998; present in the constitution, even Schleiter & Belu, 2015). Take, for though the Belgian constitutional instance, Australia where caretaker framework is quite robust in ensuring conventions are not legally binding the continuity of the governmental rules (Davis et al., 2001). An additional function (Hooghe, 2012). In regard to problem is that caretaker governments budgetary issues, a complete govern‐ do not enjoy sufficient political legiti‐ mental deadlock, as happens in the macy. First, caretaker cabinets may , is virtually impossible in have lost the vote of confidence in Belgium. Caretaker governments are parliament, which means that their only briefly mentioned in the special ministers do not enjoy the trust of the Law on Institutional Reforms (d.d. 8 MPs anymore. Second, the cabinet par‐ August 1980), which stipulates that “as ties have not yet gone through a new long as it has not been replaced, the ballot box verdict and/or through a demissionary cabinet remains care‐ new vote of confidence in parliament. taker”. This lack of political control then con‐ Thus, the definition of a caretaker flicts with the core democratic princi‐ government is determined by custom‐ ple of the political accountability of ary law and practice. These conven‐ ministers vis-à-vis the legislative tions are legally enforceable by the assembly. Indeed, since the former Council of State: cabinet’s administra‐ government has already resigned or tive acts that do not respect these con‐ has been removed, its actions can no ventions run the risk of being annulled longer be controlled by parliament (Brans, Pattyn & Bouckaert, 2016). A (Baeselen, Toussaint, Pilet & Brack, common standard acceptance is that a 2014). Thus, the legislative power can

98 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Caretaker Cabinets in Belgium

caretaker government limits itself to (c) the parliament is dissolved (Davis just three main types of policies: daily et al., 2001; Schleiter & Morgan-Jones, matters, ongoing matters (i.e. policy 2009). There is an ongoing debate as continuity) and urgent matters. to whether the formal announcement Hooghe (2012) adds to this a fourth of new elections should be added to set of policies that ensures the coun‐ this list as a fourth relevant moment try’s stability and fulfils its inter‐ (Boston et al., 1998). The end date of a national obligations. Also, the range of caretaker period is shaped by distinct actions of the caretaker cabinet is events such as (a) new elections sometimes further ‘specified’ by means (Schleiter & Morgan-Jones, 2009), (b) of own public communication. This the end of negotiation talks producing was the case during the 2010-2011 a new (Bouck‐ political crisis, when the services of the aert & Brans, 2012), or (c) the formal prime minister and the minister of appointment of new ministers by the Budget released a circular letter on 7 King (Hooghe, 2012). May 2010 on the future responsibili‐ In fact, a large array of phenomena ties of the caretaker government and events might classify as reference (Brans, 2012). points for a ‘caretaker government’. While there is a consensus among For instance, Brans et al. (2016) distin‐ scholars on the conceptual definition guish between two archetypes of care‐ of a caretaker government in the con‐ taker periods: (a) between the text of Belgium, expert opinions are parliament’s dissolution (or when an divided when it comes to the exact incumbent government loses a vote of measurement of caretaker periods. confidence in parliament) and a gen‐ Following the works of Courtenay eral election and (b) between a general Ryals and Golder (2010), we under‐ election and the formation of a new stand that the exact duration of care‐ government. On the other hand, Bos‐ taker cabinets depends heavily on its ton et al. (1998) identified two alterna‐ actual measurement. When does this tive types of caretaker periods: (a) caretaker period start, and when does between an election and the swearing- it end? Is the start of the time interval in of a new government and (b) located before or after a general elec‐ between a government resigning or tion, or does it cover both periods? losing a vote of no-confidence in Does it also include the process of gov‐ parliament and the formation of a new ernment formation, or can a caretaker government.3 Finally, the most devel‐ government be in place independently oped typology of caretaker periods is of parallel party negotiations? probably the one Baeselen et al (2014) In brief, to determine the date of proposed as they distinguish between commencement of a caretaker period, four types of periods: from the cabinet we observe that there are generally resignation until the dissolution of three events to consider: (a) the King’s parliament; between the dissolution of acceptance of the government’s resig‐ parliament and the elections; between nation (Bouckaert & Brans, 2012; the elections and the installation of Brans, 2012), (b) the sitting govern‐ the new parliament, and between the ment loses a vote of confidence installation of the new parliament and (Schleiter & Morgan-Jones, 2009), or the swearing-in of the new cabinet.

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 99 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

These aforementioned procedural and the oath of the new cabinet in the typologies diverge from the formal hands of the King on 6 December judicial interpretations of this uncate‐ 2011, whereas others found that it las‐ gorised political phenomenon. This ted for 589 days (see, for instance, comes as no surprise, since the actual Bouckaert & Brans, 2012) between the dynamic of caretaker governments is King’s acceptance of the cabinet resig‐ also heavily shaped by political evolu‐ nation on 26 April 2010 and 6 Decem‐ tions in practice. If we apply a too nar‐ ber 2011. In contrast, our measure‐ row definition in the study of this phe‐ ment then leads to an even longer nomenon, we may fail to detect some caretaker period: 597 days, from the valuable information about this day of the government’s resignation political concept. Therefore, in this (22 April 2010) up to the vote of confi‐ research note we call for a broader and dence of the new cabinet in parliament more comprehensive understanding of (10 December 2011). this ‘moving target’. Indeed, we believe When using this definition for the that enlarging our conceptual scope of whole period under study, it means attention will improve our abilities to that Belgium was governed by a de effectively analyse and explain the facto caretaker cabinet during no less political relevance of caretaker govern‐ than 1,485 days between 2007 and ments. More specifically, we consider a 2020. In other words, this corresponds caretaker period as the interval during to more than four (!) full calendar which either of the two branches years, or to 29.04% of the entire (executive or legislature) does not period between 1 January 2007 and 31 enjoy its full powers. The exact care‐ August 2020. Indeed, we argue that taker period then possibly starts on observing such a longer interval will the day of two distinct phenomena: allow for a more complete analysis of the resignation of the cabinet or the the political dynamics that are at play dissolution of the parliament (if the here. Table 1 presents the duration of cabinet still enjoys its full capacity). It the different Belgian coalition govern‐ ends on three possible occasions: the ments from 2003 to 2020, including withdrawal of the resignation of the the duration of the respective care‐ cabinet, the vote of confidence of the taker periods (in days).5 For instance, new cabinet or the installation of a of his 1,026 days as Belgian prime new parliament (provided that the cab‐ minister, Yves Leterme spent more inet still enjoys its full capacity). than half (59.55%) as the head of a In other words, we opt for a more caretaker cabinet. Far behind this all-encompassing definition of what a dubious record, and caretaker cabinet comprises, i.e. a spent, respectively, more generous measurement in com‐ 17.26% and 16.73% of their prime parison with previous works. Take, for ministership in a caretaker period. On example, the famous caretaker period4 the contrary, at the end of the Leterme II cabinet in spent only three days as prime 2010-2011. Some scholars calculated minister of a caretaker cabinet. that it lasted for 541 days (see, for instance, Baeselen et al., 2014) between the elections on 13 June 2010

100 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Caretaker Cabinets in Belgium

Table 1 Belgian cabinets (2003-2020) Cabinets Cabinet duration (in days) Caretaker period (in days) Verhofstadt II 1,623 233 Verhofstadt III 90 2 Leterme I 285 16 Van Rompuy 330 3 Leterme II 741 595 Di Rupo 1,040 174 Michel I 1,520 5 Michel II 322 313 Wilmès I 142 142 Wilmès II Ongoing 2 Total 1,485 Note: Our analysis ends in August 2020.

Figure 1 Timeline of the 2010-2011 caretaker government

4 A Typology of Caretaker Periods of the 2010-2011 political crisis (see Figure 1). To map the whole universe of care‐ The first type of a caretaker period taker cabinets in Belgium, we initially (Type A in our typology) is initiated by relied on the typology built by Baese‐ the resignation of the cabinet, gener‐ len and his colleagues (2014). To this ally owing to internal dissent. In the we add two important insights. In this Belgian political system, however, the novel typology, we distinguish seven resignation of the cabinet is effective different types of caretaker periods only after the King/Queen has for‐ (named A to G) depending on different mally approved it. Usually, the prime scenarios: pre- and post-election peri‐ minister presents his or her resigna‐ ods, parliament being dissolved or in tion to the sovereign who accepts this. place, resignation accepted by the Yet it may well happen that the King/ King, a new cabinet being sworn in. Queen does not directly accept the res‐ For the sake of clarity, we present this ignation of the cabinet (which is typology in a chronological sequence, increasingly the case in Belgian poli‐ hereby using the well-known example tics). Instead, (s)he may take a few

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 101 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

days to consult political leaders or sim‐ period of 125 days of the Michel II cab‐ ply to ‘cool things down’. The resigning inet that followed the acceptance of its prime minister can then seize this resignation by the King on 21 Decem‐ opportunity to try and solve once more ber 2018 until the dissolution of the the rising political crisis that has led to federal parliament on 25 April 2019. In the resignation of the cabinet. The total, this type of caretaker period las‐ reality of being at the brink of political ted for 145 days between 2007 and deadlock may also be used as a leverage 2020. tool during negotiation talks. Later on, The third type of caretaker period the sovereign may decide to finally (type C) may chronologically follow the accept the resignation (e.g. the Michel previous type and concerns the time II cabinet in 2018) or to refuse it (e.g. segment between the dissolution of the Leterme I cabinet in July 2008). parliament and the conduct of new During this reflection period, elections. Since the incumbent cabinet parliament remains in its full legal was already in caretaker mode at the capacity. This type of caretaker period time of the dissolution (e.g. the Michel may seem anecdotic, but it actually II cabinet in 2018), the calling of new concerns four different cabinet epi‐ elections does not affect its actual sodes during the observed time frame: working: it was already bereft of full it lasted for a total of 12 days between control by parliament since its formal 2007 and 2020. Other countries, such resignation. This delicate transition as the , have witnessed period is constitutionally bound and similar types of caretaker periods, extends to a maximum of forty days. where cabinets are labelled ‘demission‐ For example, in 2019 parliament was aire’ as soon as they have offered their dissolved on 25 April and elections resignation to the King/Queen (Otjes were conducted on 26 May. Overall, & Louwerse, 2014). this type of caretaker period lasted for The second type of a caretaker 68 days between 2007 and 2020. government concerns the interval that It may also happen that the coali‐ starts when – for whatever reason – tion government does not resign the life of the cabinet is ended before before the end of its actual term (this the end of the legislature and whereby happened twice during the 2007-2020 the King/Queen accepts this (Type B). period) and enjoys its full powers at This premature end of the cabinet may the time of the dissolution of be due to a resignation of the govern‐ parliament. This fourth kind (Type D) ment because of internal disagree‐ is different from the previous one in ments or after it lost a confidence vote that the executive is not demissionary in parliament. During this interlude, here but becomes caretaker just parliament remains in its full legal because the dissolved parliament can capacity. This kind of caretaker period no longer control the government’s typically ends with the dissolution of actions. This was, for instance, the parliament (e.g. the Leterme II cabinet case of the Di Rupo cabinet in 2014, in 2010) or the swearing-in of a new which automatically became a care‐ government (e.g. the Leterme I cabinet taker government, and this from the in 2008). A telling example of this type day of the dissolution of the federal of caretaker government lies in the parliament onwards (24 April). The

102 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Caretaker Cabinets in Belgium

two episodes that correspond to this affect the capability of caretaker cabi‐ type of caretaker period together nets to pass new legislation. In brief, account for 70 days between 2007 and the sixth type of caretaker period 2020. (Type F) concerns the time span The fifth (Type E) period resem‐ between the installation of a new bles the two previous types of care‐ parliament and the swearing-in of a taker periods but can be differentiated new government. During this period, by the fact that it immediately follows parties and their delegates discuss the upon new elections. The elections new coalition formula, the content of deliver a renewed set of representa‐ the coalition agreement, the appoint‐ tives and may alter the balance of ment of the new ministers and other power in parliament. But the key issue key issues such as state and constitu‐ for this period is that the new tional reforms. This extensive political parliament has not been installed yet agenda partly explains the length of and therefore cannot exercise its con‐ these caretaker episodes, such as in trolling duties on the actions the cabi‐ 2010-2011, where it lasted for 518 net undertakes in the meantime, no days. This is by far the most frequent matter whether the cabinet was demis‐ type of caretaker period in Belgian sionary or not before the elections. political history as it corresponds to no During this post-election period, nego‐ less than 1,079 days between 2007 and tiations to form a new cabinet are ini‐ 2020. tiated. In the recent political history of The last type of caretaker period Belgium, no federal cabinet has been (type G) corresponds to the interval formed before the installation of the between the swearing-in (the new newly elected parliament. Usually, this prime minister and the new ministers period between the elections and the take oath in the hands of the King/ first gathering of the parliament lasts Queen) and the vote of confidence in for three to four weeks (from 18 days parliament. Even if the new cabinet is in 2007 to 25 days in 2019). Within installed thanks to a political agree‐ the time frame of our study, this ment, it will only enjoy its full legal period lasted for 91 days in total. capacity after it has been formally The installation of a new legisla‐ approved by an absolute majority in ture is a key moment in the lifetime of parliament. This period may take a few a caretaker government. Even if it does days as the newly appointed prime not directly impact the power of the minister needs to present his or her executive, it means that parliament government declaration in parliament, now re-enjoys its full legal capacity to followed by an investiture debate as control the actions of the caretaker well as a confidence vote. In 2014, it cabinet. In addition, the new balance took no less than five days between of power in the legislative branch can the swearing-in of the Michel I cabinet affect the number of seats on which (11 October) and the actual vote of the cabinet coalition relies. For confidence in the federal parliament instance, the minority cabinet Michel (16 October). In total, this type of II could rely on fifty-two seats before caretaker period accounts for 20 days the elections and merely thirty-eight during the time frame we investigate. afterwards. These electoral changes

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 103 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

Table 2 Typology of caretaker periods Period Begin End Days (%) type A Resignation presented Resignation accepted 12 (0.81) B Resignation accepted Parliament’s dissolution 145 (9.76) C Parliament’s dissolution (Govern- Elections 68 (4.58) ment is demissionary) D Parliament’s dissolution (Govern- Elections 70 (4.71) ment is not demissionary) E Elections Parliament’s installation 91 (6.13) F Parliament’s installation Swearing-in 1,079 (72.66) G Swearing-in Vote of confidence 20 (1.35)

In total, we observe no less than known case of caretaker governments, twenty-seven episodes of caretaker with a view to improving the defini‐ government during the period tion and the main characteristics of 2007-2020 in Belgium. Table 2 catego‐ the concept. We developed a novel rises these into seven types of cabi‐ typology of the different caretaker nets. On average, a caretaker episode periods based on the electoral calendar lasts for 55 days, ranging from small and on the moments when one of the periods of merely two days (for two branches (executive or legislature) instance, in 2020 between the Wilmès does not enjoy its full powers. This II being sworn in and the vote of confi‐ operationalisation allowed us to meas‐ dence in parliament) to a period of 518 ure how Belgium was governed by a days in 2010-2011 between the instal‐ caretaker cabinet for no less than lation of the newly elected parliament 1,485 days between 2007 and 2020. and the swearing-in of the Di Rupo An exploration of the Belgian federal cabinet. The most frequently employed case for this time frame enables us to caretaker period (72.66%) concerns identify no less than seven different episodes taking place after the renewal types of caretaker periods. Not only of parliament and before the appoint‐ the total length of the caretaker gov‐ ment of a new cabinet. This comes as ernments but also each specific sub‐ no surprise since the most important period was precisely measured. In a and delicate steps in the negotiations next phase, this new typology and the for the formation of a new coalition distinction made between different government take place during those types of caretaker periods can be moments. highly useful in the evaluation of the quality of executive-legislature rela‐ tions and of the overall quality and sta‐ 5 Conclusion bility of the Belgian institutions and their democratic settings. This research note was aimed at build‐ Another possible next step is the ing upon the study of the world’s best validation of this typology in other countries and/or subnational contexts.

104 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Caretaker Cabinets in Belgium

In Belgium, for instance, it can be tes‐ lands, ‘government in functions’ in ted at the regional and community lev‐ or ‘government of current els of governments. Many other parlia‐ affairs’ in Belgium. mentary democracies, such as the 2 Courtenay Ryals and Golder (2010) Netherlands or Iceland, do also witness label these cabinets ‘new caretaker’ periods of caretaker government and governments, while the type of cabi‐ could likewise make use of the distinc‐ nets studied in this note corresponds tion between different types of care‐ to what they call ‘continuation care‐ taker periods. The typology is taker’ governments. particularly applicable in countries 3 These authors are less clear about the such as Australia and New Zealand, presence of a caretaker cabinet in two where the political leadership acts other possible scenarios: (a) the period differently depending on the kind of between the dissolution of parliament transition period (for instance, before and the following general election or after elections are announced – see, (provided that the government still e.g., Simms, 2011). Furthermore, it enjoys the confidence of parliament) could be analysed how governmental and (b) the period between the policy making and performance are announcement of an election and the affected during caretaker periods. To dissolution of parliament (see, for what degree are caretaker cabinets instance, Simms, 2011 for a discussion extending their own powers over time of variants of political leadership dur‐ and across different types of caretaker ing this period in Australia and New periods? Last but not least, this cus‐ Zealand). tom of a caretaker government and its 4 This period was labelled in the inter‐ different appearances could be national media as the ‘world’s longest compared with the dissimilar political government formation period in mod‐ practice in countries such as Spain or ern history’. Israel, where there is an automatic call 5 For the clarity of the argument, we for new elections after a given period included the whole period of the Ver‐ of time has passed without forming a hofstadt II cabinet (2003-2007) in this new cabinet. Similarly, the same cus‐ table. In the remainder of the research tom could be compared with the situ‐ note, we focus solely on the ation in many Central European coun‐ 2007-2020 period. tries, where caretaker cabinets rather take the form of transitory or interim References cabinets. Amorim Neto, O., & Strøm, K. (2006). Notes Breaking the parliamentary chain of delegation: Presidents and non-parti‐ 1 The concept of ‘caretaker government’ san cabinet members in European is the most widely accepted term in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 36(4), 619-643. the literature but may take different Baeselen, X., Toussaint, S., Pilet, J.-B., & names in different countries; for Brack, N. (2014). Quelle activité parle‐ example ‘interim government’ in Iraq, mentaire en période d’affaires couran‐ ‘demissionary cabinet’ in the Nether‐ tes? Cahiers de l’ULB et du PFWB, 1.

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 105 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

Beckman, L. (2007). The professionalisa‐ net ministers and parliamentary govern‐ tion of politics reconsidered. A study ment (pp. 69-182). New York: Cam‐ of the Swedish cabinet 1917-2004. bridge University. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(1), 66-83. Magone, J. M. (2000). Portugal. The Boston, J., Levine, S., McLeay, E., Roberts, rationale of democratic regime build‐ N. S., & Schmidt, H. (1998). Caretaker ing. In W. C. Müller & K. Strøm (Eds.), government and the evolution of care‐ Coalition governments in Western taker conventions in New Zealand. Europe. Oxford & New York, NY: Victoria University of Wellington Law Oxford University Press. Review, 28, 629-648. McDonnell, D., & Valbruzzi, M. (2014). Bouckaert, G., & Brans, M. (2012). Govern‐ Defining and classifying technocrat- ing without government: Lessons led and technocratic governments. from Belgium’s caretaker government. European Journal of Political Research, Governance: An International Journal of 53(4), 654-671. Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Muller-Rommel, F., Fettelschoss, K., & 25(2), 173-176. Harfst, P. (2004). Party government in Brans, M. (2012). Continuity and change in Central Eastern European democra‐ Belgium’s caretaker administration. cies: A data collection (1990-2003). European Political Science, 11, 102-107. European Journal of Political Research, Brans, M., Pattyn, P., & Bouckaert, G. 43(6), 869-894. (2016). Taking care of policy in times Otjes, S., & Louwerse, T. (2014). A special of crisis: Comparative lessons from majority cabinet? Supported minority Belgium’s longest caretaker govern‐ governance and parliamentary behav‐ ment. Journal of Comparative Policy ior in the Netherlands. World Political Analysis, 18(5), 1-16. Science Review, 10(2), 343-363. Courtenay Ryals, C., & Golder, S. N. (2010). Schleiter, P., & Belu, V. (2015). The chal‐ Measuring government duration and lenge of periods of caretaker govern‐ stability in Central Eastern European ment in the UK. Parliamentary Affairs, democracies. European Journal of 68, 229-247. Political Research, 49(1), 119-150. Schleiter, P., & Morgan-Jones, E. (2009). Davis, G., Ling, A., Scales, B., & Wilkins, R. Party government in Europe? Parlia‐ (2001). Rethinking caretaker conven‐ mentary and semi-presidential democ‐ tions for Australian governments. Aus‐ racies compared. European Journal of tralian Journal of Public Administration, Political Research, 48(5), 665-693. 60(3), 11-26. Simms, M. (2011). Westminster norms and Herman, V., & Pope, J. (1973). Minority caretaker conventions: Australian and governments in Western democracies. New Zealand transition debates. In British Journal of Political Science,3(2), P. ‘t Hart & J. Uhr (Eds.), How power 191-212. changes hands (pp. 94-107). Hounds‐ Hloušek, V., & Kopeček, L. (2014). Care‐ mills: Palgrave Macmillan. taker governments in Czech politics: Tiernan, A., & Menzies, J. (2007). Care‐ What to do about a government crisis. taker conventions in Australasia: Mind‐ Europe-Asia Studies, 66(8), 1323-1349. ing the shop for government. Canberra: Hooghe, M. (2012). Does multi-level ANU Press. governance reduce the need for Van Aelst, P., & Louwerse, T. (2014). national government? European Parliament without government: The Political Science, 11, 90-95. Belgian parliament and the govern‐ Larsson, T. (1994). Cabinet ministers and ment formation processes of parliamentary government in Sweden. 2007-2011. West European Politics, In M. Laver, K. A. Shepsle (Eds.), Cabi‐ 37(3), 475-496.

106 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Caretaker Cabinets in Belgium

Zafarullah, H., & Yeahia Akhter, M. (2000). Non-political caretaker administra‐ tions and democratic elections in Bang‐ ladesh: An assessment. Government and Opposition, 35(3), 345-369.

Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1 - doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 107 This article from Politics of the Low Countries is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker

Régis Dandoy & Lorenzo Terrière

Appendix

Table A.1 Detailed periods of caretaker governments (2007-2020) Cabinet Type Period Days Verhofstadt II D 02 May 2007 to 10 June 2007 39 Verhofstadt II E 10 June 2007 to 28 June 2007 18 Verhofstadt II F 28 June 2007 to 21 December 2007 176 Verhofstadt III G 21 December 2007 to 23 December 2007 2 Leterme I G 20 March 2008 to 22 March 2008 2 Leterme I A 14 July 2008 to 17 July 2008 3 Leterme I A 19 December 2008 to 21 December 2008 2 Leterme I B 21 December 2008 to 30 December 2008 9 Van Rompuy G 30 December 2008 to 02 January 2009 3 Leterme II G 25 November 2009 to 27 November 2009 2 Leterme II A 22 April 2010 to 26 April 2010 4 Leterme II B 26 April 2010 to 07 May 2010 11 Leterme II C 07 May 2010 to 13 June 2010 37 Leterme II E 13 June 2010 to 06 July 2010 23 Leterme II F 06 July 2010 to 06 December 2011 518 Di Rupo G 06 December 2011 to 10 December 2011 4 Di Rupo D 24 April 2014 to 25 May 2014 31 Di Rupo E 25 May 2014 to 19 June 2014 25 Di Rupo F 19 June 2014 to 11 October 2014 114 Michel I G 11 October 2014 to 16 October 2014 5 Michel II A 18 December 2018 to 21 December 2018 3 Michel II B 21 December 2018 to 25 April 2019 125 Michel II C 25 April 2019 to 26 May 19 31 Michel II E 26 May 2019 to 20 June 19 25 Michel II F 20 June 2019 to 27 October 2019 129 Wilmès I F 27 October 2019 to 17 March 2020 142 Wilmès II G 17 March 2020 to 19 March 2020 2 Total 1,485

108 doi: 10.5553/PLC/.000009 - Politics of the Low Countries 2021 (3) 1