Exactly 27 years after the party was founded, Vlaams Belang held a leadership election for the very first time. But unlike other parties, it was not the 20,000-strong party membership that cast the votes, but rather a select circle of less than 500 board members. In a secret ballot at the party conference on December 12th, 2004, the only candidate supported by the party top was elected by 442 out of a total of 469 board members (94.24%).

This candidate, Frank Vanhecke, had already been in charge of the party since 1996. Back then, Karel Dillen, founder and leader of the party, appointed Vanhecke as his successor. The moment of this transfer of power was rather clumsily picked – it came during a conference carrying the title “The people decide. More democracy in a free Flanders”. Consequently, the move was not very well received.

“That a leader-for-life should appoint his successor at a conference on democracy, seems at the least not very well thought through. People criticise Vlaams Belang for not being democratic – we could not present our opponents with a better argument for that”, wrote VB local councillor for Brasschaat (and later MP) Luc Sevenhans on June 19th, 1996, in an angry letter to the right wing magazine ‘t Pallieterke. “Frank Vanhecke may be a good choice, but whose choice is it? Last year I spent a hundred evenings working for VB. Can someone from the party top explain to my family why I have no right to elect the party leader?”

An extract from the party statutes provided a sufficient answer. It is also a phrase Vanhecke favours to appease his critics: “Democracy is a form of government, not a form of political party or club.” [1]

Ex-party leader-for-life

The 1996 conference on democracy was the last time leader-for-life Karel Dillen could be seen in the spotlight – he could be seen performing a disappearing trick. The then nearly 71-year-old party founder and leader (born 1925) had uninterruptedly been at the helm of the party since it came into existence in October 2nd, 1977 - then known as Vlaams Nationale Partij (VNP – Flemish National Party), and known since May 28th, 1979 as Vlaams Blok. He had secretly been preparing his abdication a while before then.

Already on January 11th, 1996, Gerolf Annemans had carefully mentioned the subject in an interview with Gazet van Antwerpen (Antwerp Gazette). “I can’t rule out that possibility”, Annemans replied to the question whether he considered himself a candidate to succeed Dillen. Annemans had already been approached by Dillen in 1987, who offered him his own parliamentary seat. This was the starting point for speculations about the future of the leadership.

Filip Dewinter, who now and then gets portrayed as Annemans’ opponent within the party, made his reaction public four months later. Again in an interview with Gazet van Antwerpen, on May 11th, 1996, Dewinter revealed that he was not interested in the VB leadership job. He added that he wanted to concentrate all his efforts on Antwerp, and that “Annemans can enter the contest, like anyone in the party, but I think these matters should not be discussed in the public sphere.”

Dewinter undoubtedly knew that the knot had already been cut. In it’s edition of May 15th, 1996, the right wing weekly ‘t Pallieterke already announces who will succeed Dillen. There is not much discussion around the subject – the VB party statutes state that Dillen has the right to decide alone who should follow in his footsteps.

A surprise to many, he chose Frank Vanhecke, a 37-year-old MEP (born 1959), a loyal member of his personal inner circle who had only held a significant political position for two years.

Rather pit bull than poodle

A few days before the conference on democracy of June 8th, 1996, the news was leaked to the press. A fair number of journalists considered the appointment of Vanhecke to be signalling a change of direction for the party. Or rather, they hoped it would happen. However, there never was any strong evidence for this.

The following could be found in the editorial of De Standaard (The Standard) on June 10th, 1996: “Over the last few weeks, hope has been emerging that by changing it’s leader, Vlaams Blok would open up an option to evolve into a normal conservative party. A party that would peacefully represent the decent conservative opinions that are important to a part of the electorate. Or that the party would evolve once again into a radical Flemish nationalist party, without any racist tendencies.” – something VB has never been under Karel Dillen.

The editor of De Morgen (The Morning) is on the same wavelength on June 11th, 1996: “It was a tense moment seeing which direction the Blok would choose under it’s new leader, and whether the fraction of the party that would like to see a cosy coalition between the accepted right and the more extreme variants had found itself an ally in him.”

The brand new leader soon shattered these dreams. Vlaams Blok will remain Vlaams Blok, Vanhecke stresses: “Journalists and our political opponents would surely have liked to see VB adopt a moderate course, whatever that would mean. Hovever, we are not here to please our opponents, but rather to defend and represent our manifesto and our electorate as well as we can. […] Our political opponents should know that we will not move an inch from our current positions”, he writes in the July 1996 party magazine.

Vanhecke rushed in to make it clear to friend and foe alike that under his leadership, VB would not carry the rifle on the other shoulder. “The whip-party strategy that Vlaams Blok has been carrying out since the very beginning has certainly been politically advantageous. […] There is no reason to change this strategy,” he states early on in the job. “We can’t be oblivious to the fact that three tough years are ahead of us still until the general election of 1999. As an opposition party we relish the challenge of election campaigns. We need to start creating the necessary conditions for another electoral success today. That means making our parliamentary work more flexible where needed, an increased militancy and an increased presence on the streets.”

Karel Dillen watches approvingly in the background. “If your fate leads you to choosing between poodle and pit bull, choose to be a pit bull”, Dillen aimed at Vanhecke in his farewell speech. “Accept friendly pats on the shoulder with a smile, but do not let yourself be guided by them. […] As leader of Vlaams Blok you play a double role. You are the good shepherd, leading your flock. But a good shepherd can become a watchful and if needed aggressive sheepdog, fighting those who attack the flock, be it from the outside or from the inside.” [2]

The ranks are closed again

The former and the new leader of Vlaams Blok remain in close contact with each other. “I am not leaving Vlaams Blok”, says Dillen, “and I hope that Vlaams Blok will never leave me.” [3]  Like Vanhecke, Dillen keeps his seat in the European Parliament – both of them are re-elected in 1999. In 2004 Dillen retires, but as an honorary chairman he still has a say in the party top.

Some other familiar faces also stay put. For example, the then 61-year-old Roeland Raes (born 1934) keeps his inconspicuous role as deputy leader-for-life (until forced to leave in 2001), replacing Vanhecke when absent and chairing the meetings of the party top.

The change of leadership is well received among Vlaams Blok members. Dillen’s choice of successor is not contested by anyone, because that could of course be seen as criticising Dillen himself. “Supporting Frank Vanhecke and continuing the fight shoulder to shoulder and arm in arm under his leadership is the best way to express our gratefulness to Karel Dillen for what he has done for us, Vlaams Blok, and Flemish nationalism,” stresses Joris van Hautem, the editor of the Vlaams Blok magazine seen by some as another possible successor, in a piece praising Dillen in the June 1996 edition.

From VU to VNP / Vlaams Blok

He may not always have been in the limelight, but Frank Vanhecke has been playing a significant role in Vlaams Blok for longer than Filip Dewinter or Gerolf Annemans for example.

As a teenager, Vanhecke, who was born on May 30th, 1959 in Bruges, joins the Taal-Aktie-Komitee (TAK, Committee for Action on Language) and the Volksuniejongeren (People’s Union youth wing). He sees it as a matter of honour to attend every single one of the infamous TAK-walks (see picture). After the Volksunie (VU - People’s Union) agreed to sign the Egmont-pact (creating a three-region federalism in Belgium) and entered into Belgian government, the 18-year-old Vanhecke furiously ripped up his VU membership card. “Not so much because of the Egmont-pact itself, but because it was unbearable to see VU enter a government without demanding amnesty (for WW2 collaborators)”, he clarifies later in an interview. [4]

As a replacement, he soon obtains a membership card for Karel Dillen’s Vlaams Nationale Partij (VNP – Flemish National Party) and offers himself up as a representative for Bruges. In September 1977, Vanhecke enrols on a communication studies course at the Vrije Universiteit van Brussel (VUB – Free University of Brussels). In 1981 he graduates with a dissertation about the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right), an ideology that would like to revive the far-right. Vanhecke’s 112-page long thesis carries the title “Metapolitical strategy, organisation and ideas of the cultural New Right in France: Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), 1967-1981.” Professor Herman Balthazar is his supervisor. In the introduction to his thesis Vanhecke calls the New Right “an interesting phenomenon, from both the ideological and general organisational perspective (thus also from the perspective of strategic application of the ideas.)”

During his time at university, Vanhecke becomes a contributor to the VB magazine. In March 1979 his first article is published, dealing with the Egmont-pact and the Volksunie treason. Vanhecke also argues that Vlaams Blok should take action to unite the divided Flemish nationalist youth organisations. “We cannot just sit and watch the left and extreme left undermine our traditional youth movements without being able to present a valuable alternative,” he claims in June 1979. “A united Flemish youth movement must be the alternative in youth work. Because the traditional youth movements are indeed deteriorating. […] This could be a task for the Vlaams Blok leadership and it’s militants: paving the way towards this unity, a unity that stands above all party politics. Furthermore, it should be a unity without any foreign ideologies or symbols, but on the basis of a healthy and uncompromising Flemish, Dutch nationalism.”

The West-Flemish race

Without Vanhecke there would be no Dewinter: Filip (born 1962) bought his VB party membership card off his fellow townsman Frank, three years his senior. Dewinter initially was a member of the Vlaamse Volkspartij (VVP – Flemish People’s Party) of Lode Claes, which was another anti-Egmont party like Dillen’s VNP. [5] The two men from Bruges built up a strong friendship. Together they became militants for the Vlaamse Scholieren Actiegroepen (VSAG – Flemish Students Action Groups), the predecessor of the Nationalistisch Jongstudenten Verbond (NJSV – Nationalistic Young Students Union), which is the secondary education wing of the Nationalistische Studentenvereniging (NSV – Nationalistic Students Union). The Bruges duo gain influence in both of these.

Unlike Dewinter, Vanhecke returns to Bruges after his time at university - he does not forget his roots.  “Since the French invasion of 1830, in which only a few frenchified members of the establishment in our region collaborated, West Flanders (one of ten Belgian counties, with Bruges as it’s capital city) has been one of the worst victims of the emergence of the rogue state that is Belgium. Only the toughness of the West-Flemish race and the hard labour of the West-Flemish people have ensured that now, West-Flanders too has become relatively affluent. […] In the re-emergence of the Flemish people and in our nationalist battle, the West-Flemish people have played a very significant role. We can’t name all significant West-Flemish contributors because there are too many,” he writes in the party magazine in November 1979.

Soon after university, Vanhecke makes his way to the very top of the party. The young communication studies graduate becomes chief press officer, and remains in that position until he becomes party leader in 1996. In the 1980s, Vlaams Blok was still an unprofessionally organised party with little influence or ambition. The party then was not as refined as it is now, when it comes to mass communication.

Vanhecke knows, as his choice of thesis topic indicates, that the political fight cannot be won without a cultural fight. In April 1981 he wrote in an article called “In favour of a nationalist media policy” : “A large number of nationalists still are not convinced that, as a Flemish nationalist party, we should establish positions on all subjects. In the end, we need to ensure the survival of nationalistic and right wing ideology itself, as today it is being affected by publisher proliferation or the over-representation of rubbish literature and simply idiotic comic books in the young book marketplace.”

These themes later surfaced within the Vlaams Blok Jongeren (VBJ - Flemish Bloc youth wing), which Vanhecke sets up in 1987 with, among others, Filip Dewinter. Dewinter becomes chairman, Vanhecke again takes responsibility for dealing with the press. Together with their followers they travel abroad to try and form a European far-right youth movement. Excellent contacts are established with Front National de la Jeunesse (FNJ – Young National Front), the youth wing of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s FN.

Vanhecke continues to specialise in foreign policy. From 1986 onwards he gets a foreign policy column in the party magazine, in which he can let himself go completely (see the frames below for excerpts). He deals with similar subjects in three speeches to the VBJ conferences of 1987, 1989 and 1990. Vanhecke never writes any other conference texts, even as leader of VB – neither did Dillen, his predecessor.

In April 1988, Frank Vanhecke is interviewed by the Deutsche National Zeitung (German National Newspaper), the far-right weekly of Gerhard Frey, which has a circulation of 150,000. Vanhecke easily wins over his new audience, for example by calling “the liberation of Mussolini” the greatest military achievement in history. He also confesses that he would have liked to have witnessed the Spanish civil war of 1936, in particular the moment when the troops of general Franco defeated the left wing people’s army. Vanhecke knows his far-right classics: he considers Jean Raspail and Robert Brasillach to be his favourite authors. When asked about his aversions, he replies straight-facedly: “the lies about the Second World War.” [6]

Dillen’s bodyguard

When Karel Dillen asks Frank Vanhecke in June 1989 to become his personal assistant in the European parliament, Vanhecke doesn’t think twice and gives up his day job in the private sector. His dream finally becomes reality: a life as a servant of his favoured political ideology. Vanhecke takes his new job to the heart: he follows Dillen everywhere he goes, as if he was his personal bodyguard. Even when Dillen goes to the ballot box in his hometown of Deurne, near Antwerp, Vanhecke travels all the way down from Bruges to accompany him. Vanhecke is also in charge of negotiations with the French FN and German Republikaner, with which VB forms a far-right coalition in the EU parliament.

On June 12th, 1994, Vanhecke wins political office himself for the first time. With 23,371 personal votes he becomes the second MEP for Vlaams Blok, alongside Dillen.

Five years later, in 1999, the roles are reversed. In European parliamentary elections, Vanhecke receives 160,177 personal votes out of a total of 584,392 VB votes. Dillen only receives 37,514 personal votes, less even than Gerolf Annemans with 45,869. In the previous elections, Dillen still received 87,009 personal votes out of a VB total of 463,919. So, Frank Vanhecke has survived his first electoral challenge since taking over the leadership in 1996.

On May 18th, 2003, he gets elected as member of the senate. Since June 13th, 2004, he has been holding a seat in the European Parliament.

The Very Best of Frank Vanhecke

Before Franck Vanhecke became VB leader in 1996, he came to fame with a column on foreign affairs in the party magazine. For twelve years, it was he who had the most influence on the international vision of Vlaams Blok. This vision was dominated by devout anti-communism, primarily anti-islamic global white solidarity and far-reaching ethnic nationalism.

All that was coupled until the mid-1990s with Vanhecke’s typical foul mouthed tough act and displays of power. Vanhecke also wrote often about far-right formations abroad, which he likes to follow closely. Many of the contacts VB would later establish with other far-right parties, were introduced by Vanhecke.

Mayor-Coward

Solidarity with other individuals of the species is a leitmotif for the far-right. White people supporting the South African ANC (African National Congress) would be knocked of their feet by a hail of disapproval. As happened in 1990 to the mayor of Amsterdam, Ed van Thijn, who had named a square in the city after Nelson Mandela, shortly after the resistance leader and later president was released from prison.

This event was sufficient to drive Vanhecke mad. “A renegade towards his own people and race,” he called van Thijn in a fiery protest in March 1990. “I suggest this man should add Traitor, Hypocrite or Coward to his title of Mayor. After what happened in mid-February I cannot think of less strong terms (you can be certain I can think of stronger ones!) to typify van Thijn. Why did the mayor of Amsterdam, already deemed totally useless by many because of problems with drugs, crime, housing and immigration in his city, think it would be useful to rename the already prestigious sounding Leiden Square the ‘Nelson Mandela Square’? Something or other caused hysterical street protests that wouldn’t look out of place amongst the shanties of Kinshasa or a deprived corner of Caracas, but that should not be seen in Western Europe. Then, in a speech to the gathered riff-raff, the monument to incompetence that is van Thijn thought it was needed to lecture the (white) South Africans.”

General Pinochet

Declarations of sympathy for foreign politicians are common in Vanhecke’s column, and he isn’t exactly picky. For years he has been rolling out the red carpet for the rogues of the far-right. A strong anti-communist feeling seems to be his primary motivation behind that. Whilst left wing regimes are portrayed by him as heretic and devilish, the far-right regimes of Latin America are being praised up to the heavens.

About the destructive hurricane that hit the Central American country of Nicaragua in 1988, Vanhecke wrote in December of that year: “The damage done by the hurricane in Nicaragua, both materialistically and morally, is absolutely nothing compared with the damage, again both materialistically and morally, done by so many years of Sandinistic strict rule under dictator “Fidel” Ortega” – even though Daniel Ortega had been rightfully elected as president four years earlier.

Augusto Pinochet on the other hand is never labelled a dictator by Vanhecke – he prefers the official title of general – even though Pinochet came to power in 1973 after a violent and bloody coup d’état against the elected president, Salvador Allende, and has held Chile in his iron grip for years. “Gorbachev, Honecker, Jaruzelski, Ceaucescu, each one of those is a communist dictator whose power rests on psychiatric institutions, Gulags and death warrants. Compared to them, General Pinochet is a mere choirboy,” Vanhecke ponders in 1988.

In February 1990, Vanhecke proposed to proclaim the then 75-year old Pinochet (born 1915) to be ‘Man of the year’, because after seventeen years of personal rule, he finally made way for a democratically elected government. “It can and should be said about him that he made his country into one of the most affluent in the region, and that he organised completely free elections and respected the results of those”, Vanhecke raves.

Franco

Vanhecke has a thing for right wing military leaders. When the Arena party (Republican Nationalist Alliance) of the controversial Major d’Aubuisson wins a general election in El Salvador in 1988, Vanhecke greets it as “the real voice of the people, against Amnesty International or any other charity.”

Later on, Vanhecke keeps praising the “right wing party of the people” that is Arena for it’s tough treatment of the left wing guerrilla group FMLN.  That d’Aubuisson is named as leader of death squads and is being held responsible for the murder of bishop Romero, defender of the poor, is considered by Vanhecke in May 1989 as “the delirious ideas of a crowd of progressive soul saviours from God-knows-where.”

Vanhecke also welcomes the release from prison of the Spanish colonel Tejero, in 1990, who once attempted a coup d’état because of sheer aversion of parliamentary democracy, and nostalgia for the times of Franco.

The Greek Colonel Papadopoulos, sentenced to death for leading the coup d’état that installed a military regime in 1967, can also count on Vanhecke’s support. “Whoever demands the release of Mandela but opposes the release of Papadopoulos, is a liar or a hypocrite, or both,” he writes in May 1990.

KKK

On another occasion, Vanhecke takes upon himself the defence of David Duke, a former top member of the Ku-Klux Klan (KKK), who wants to run for the post of governor of the American state of Louisiana. “It is alright for politicians to be former communists, but those who – perhaps stupidly – looked far to the right once in their youth are forever damned.”

In the same breath Vanhecke thinks the time is right to “finally give some praise to Dominique Venner’s 1975 book, “Le blanc soleil des vaincus” (published by La Table Ronde, Paris).  Those who want to know more about the American civil war, and the real Ku-Klux Klan, without being indoctrinated by nauseating clichés, cannot avoid this book. […] Strongly recommended as an antidote to the daily misinformation of the media,” the man who would become leader of Vlaams Blok wrote in January 1992.

His last article on foreign affairs appeared in June 1996. It is a venomous piece about the European document On racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. The article is titled “The European talk-shop strikes again” and in it, Vanhecke expresses his ‘gratitude’ to the Flemish MEPs who supported the document by calling them ‘collaborators of Islam’.

[1] ‘t Pallieterke, 03.07.1996. Stefaan Sintobin, a VB constituency party leader from Izegem, approvingly quotes Vanhecke’s words in a reaction to the Luc Sevenhans letter quoted here. Vanhecke repeats these words in an interview with the KVHV magazine Ons Leven (Our Life), May 1997.
[2] Vlaams Blok, June 1996
[3] Vlaams Blok, July – August 1996
[4] Gazet van Antwerpen, 12.06.1996
[5] Verstraete P.J., Karel Dillen, portret van een rebel, 1992, p. 143
[6] Deutsche National Zeitung, 22.04.1988 (in: AFF-Info Verzet, maart 1989).

translated by Michael Wuytens