|
|
Re-establishing the state monopoly on violence: Death Penalty and Military Justice in Post-war Belgium (1944-1950).
| During the judicial prosecutions which occurred in the aftermath of the Second World War, numerous death sentences were pronounced in Belgium. Between 1944 and 1950 c. 2940 collaborators and occupiers were convicted and 242 of them were actually executed. In many ways the post-war phenomena of death penalty contrasts with regular Belgian penal practice.
While since 1863, with a few exceptions, all death sentences had been almost automatically commuted, for the first time in decades civilians were executed, moreover, on a large scale. In addition, these civilians were trialed by military (rather than civilian) courts. Finally, the executions took a different shape: instead of being decapitated, the convicts were –like military- brought to death by firing squad.
The main goal of this contribution is to explain this disruptive trajectory. The focus on the close relation between the legitimacy of state authority and the state monopoly on violence makes it possible to tackle the question. During occupation the violent struggle between Belgian political factions (collaborators versus resistance) eroded state authority. Paradoxically, after Liberation the state had to use violence - the exceptional punishment of the death penalty – to reaffirm its weakened legitimacy by cracking down on collaborators. A prolonged state of siege (untill 1949) allowed to quicken legal actions against those civilians who had violated ‘the Security of the state’ by bringing them before military courts.
The practice of post-war death penalty by military justice is analysed as a clear indicator of the state’s search for relegitimation. The profile of the executed can reflect state priorities in this regard. Which kind of behaviour was considered unacceptable to pardon, and was effectively punished by death? Did the execution policy correspond with the varying legitimation needs of the state? The formal aspects of the executions may be revailing as well. Did the publicity of the executions succeed at easing popular demand for justice? Was the publicity of the executions in other words functional to the state’s goals?
By asking these questions it becomes clear that the state monopoly on violence is never absolutely given. Confronted with a legitimacy breakdown, Belgium developped a policy which can only be understood in the light of long-term development of state formation.
|
|
|
|
