Analyses of the historical origins of proportional representation (PR) in Belgium have helped shed light on the origins of electoral systems in Western Europe. Nevertheless, debates over what exactly led to the introduction of PR in Belgium persist. Was it electoral threat, Left existential threat or a combination of these two factors? This article applies the completeness standard for process-tracing and employs theoretical insights from the institutional change literature to evaluate these explanations. It re-examines the historical sources used by the extant scholarship of the Belgian case. It finds that both extra-institutional threat and electoral threat fluctuated over time, interacted with one another and mattered during different points of the electoral system reform process. In 1899, when pure PR was finally introduced, both of these factors played a role.

Social protection systems are under growing pressure and face many challenges. Some argue that a universal basic income (BI) has the potential to transcend political cleavages and offer the ground for a welfare reform. While previous literature has increasingly tackled BI’s feasibility, ground-based research is still scarce. This study intends to fill this gap by considering the positions of five French-speaking Belgian parties (PTB, PS, Ecolo, Les Engagés and MR) on BI. Through a qualitative in-depth analysis of semi-structured interviews and grey literature, the article shows that BI proposals coming from liberals, democrats and ecologists are representative of the left-right cleavage. This is explained by the multidimensionality of the ‘basic income’ concept but also by diverging visions on work and society. By studying concrete parties’ positions, this article reveals the barriers and ways forward the path to BI’s strategic political feasibility in Belgium.

Analyses of the historical origins of proportional representation (PR) in Belgium have helped shed light on the origins of electoral systems in Western Europe. Nevertheless, debates over what exactly led to the introduction of PR in Belgium persist. Was it electoral threat, Left existential threat or a combination of these two factors? This article applies the completeness standard for process-tracing and employs theoretical insights from the institutional change literature to evaluate these explanations. It re-examines the historical sources used by the extant scholarship of the Belgian case. It finds that both extra-institutional threat and electoral threat fluctuated over time, interacted with one another and mattered during different points of the electoral system reform process. In 1899, when pure PR was finally introduced, both of these factors played a role.

The academic profession is often perceived as the epitome of meritocracy, while Critical Diversity and University scholars have demonstrated how it continues to grapple with gender and racial inequality across all levels. This article delves into the challenges of inequality in academia, particularly in the context of Belgian universities, and proposes a transformative approach to address these issues. Based on my previous work, I discuss how Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) policies are misused and serve as a smokescreen to achieve the neoliberal interests of universities while remaining largely non-performative. Even more, EDI policies are introduced to bypass power, rather than change the power structures that continue to reproduce gender and racial inequality in academia. Using a praxis of hope, I move beyond identifying the problem by proposing the ‘University of the Common’ as an alternative academic system that goes beyond superficial diversity, aiming to create a university founded on social justice and in service of the common good. Key features include decolonizing knowledge, promoting antiracist feminist governance, and fostering a collective effort by academics to build an equitable university.

The current human condition knows no precedent. Our species’ history is replete with societies crumbling and ecosystems collapsing. But never before has human existence itself been this clearly on the eve of destruction. What does this mean for political science? In this piece, I argue why now more than ever political scientists ought to reflect on the question how they are to spend the 80,000 hours of their careers and explain my own choice to quit academia and do political science outside of the university.