Impossibility of reigning

Impossibility of reigning is a mechanism envisaged by article 93 (in the classification of 2007) of the Belgian Constitution, which stipulates that:

" If the King is unable himself to reign, the ministers, after having made note this impossibility, convene the Rooms immediately. It is provided for the supervision and regency by the Rooms réunies."

The objectives by the authors of the original Constitution was undoubtedly to install a mechanism which never leaves the country without sovereign, at one time when the King held a real to be able, while guaranteeing as much as possible that the government and the Rooms could take the adequate measures in order to ensure the continuity of the capacity.

The mechanism, which was used only twice in the history of the country, was not it without then causing difficulties for the country and the legitimacy of the royal institution.

the first time that the government started the mechanism is presented during the second world war, whereas Léopold III was prisonner in Germany (the reality of the captivity itself was called in question). The decision of the government, at the end of the war, to note the end of impossibility of reigning, whereas the king had not returned yet to Belgium, was one of the elements releases of the royal Question, which ended up causing the abdication of Léopold III in favor of his/her son Baudouin I {{er}}.

the second time was called upon by Baudouin I {{er}} itself, which refused to ratify, as its constitutional role envisages it, the law dépénalisant the Avortement, which went against its religious convictions, without however wanting to put sticks in the wheels at the democratic process, and which preferred to be put on leave lasting 36 hours, time that the Council of Ministers ratifies the texte.
Le problem which arised in fact holds especially in the way in which the mechanism was started: whereas the Constitution provides that the government must make note impossibility of reigning, by a medical expert for example, here it is the king himself which called upon it, and the Rooms themselves which noted it! Then, there was interference of the royal person with the function, the person taking the initiative here and preventing the function from being exerted as she should. Lastly, even if that occurred more, one could have feared that a precedent is thus created, without counting on the coexistence of legal texts ratified by the King and others not, with all the risks of unconstitutionality that could have generated.

Random links: