Opinion: No strategist, technocrat or communitarian will save Brussels

On 23 January, the press published an opinion piece by our co-mission holder Jan Goossens. In it, he argues a conviction that lies at the heart of Molenbeek for Brussels 2030: Brussels will not recover through technical or budgetary reforms alone, but through a cultural project capable of bringing its residents together.

This article expresses the vision that has guided our work since the launch of MB2030: to make culture a driver of cohesion, imagination and urban transformation. We share it here as a contribution to the public debate, at a crucial moment for the future of our region.

In the months ahead, MB2030 will continue this work through citizens’ labs, artistic creations and international partnerships. Because Brussels needs reforms, but it also needs shared dreams.

Read the article:

No strategist, technocrat or communitarian will save Brussels

Published in De Standaard on 23/01/2026 and in La Libre Belgique on 29/01/2026

How can we succeed in becoming, together, the “best version of ourselves”: a small world-city that dares to take its destiny into its own hands? We need bold figures capable of cleaning up and reforming, but also of connecting people and inviting them to dream.

For a moment, we believed we could nurture hope in Brussels. Were our political leaders finally going to offer us a perspective for the future? Was a “coalition of the willing” beginning to emerge, one that, freed from vetoes and political calculations, would dare to choose the general interest of Brussels residents? For those who, over recent decades, have worked here in the cultural sector and in civil society, it felt like an immense relief. How can we manage to become, together, the “best version of ourselves”: a small world-city that dares to shape its own future? Proud of what works, clear-eyed about the essential changes that must be made. Brussels’ untapped potential remains enormous. But without an urban and cultural vision that does not lock itself into a single community or into communal divisions, we will never realize that potential.

The hope and the relief were short-lived. The political deadlock continues. For many people in Brussels, it is felt in their very flesh: jobs disappearing, repayments dragging them into a spiral of debt, families left behind. No single politician, party or level of government bears sole responsibility for this.

A thoughtful and unifying project

Nor is it a matter of denying the existence of the fundamental issues at the root of this deadlock. The trajectory of our budget is unsustainable. Our institutional organization and electoral system must be adapted to the needs of metropolitan governance and to demographic changes. This requires rigorous consolidation and intelligent adjustments—therefore political courage and determination. Does anyone still truly believe that we will regain a safe and clean city, with affordable housing and healthy mobility, if no firm conclusions are drawn from the current chaos? Forming “a” government, whatever it may be, will not be enough: Brussels needs a carefully considered and unifying project for society.

In reality, this is where the problem has always lain. Since June 2024, there has never been any question of an ambitious urban project. Invective and insults have flown unchecked. One would probably have to be among the quarrellers not to see the pitiful image ultimately projected onto an entire city. Who still takes an interest in these squabbles? The debate then shifted to institutional reorganization, financial consolidation and a return to core missions. All of this is necessary.

Convincing the greatest number

But a world-city of more than one million inhabitants, where over a hundred languages are spoken, where many are very poor and a few extremely rich, is neither a company nor an amusement park. “The people of Brussels” are far more than workers or consumers. This population embodies an extreme social, cultural, political and religious diversity. How can the greatest number be convinced to pull the same Brussels cart together? We do not share a common history. So how, then, can we build a common future? This is not a soft question asked by sensitive souls from the cultural sector. Beneath all the necessary technocratic patchwork, it is the most fundamental question for a livable Brussels. Do we really want more fragmentation and polarization, with all the possible violent excesses that entails? Or do we want to give all Brussels residents — from dynamic dual-income couples to brilliant Euro-expats and innovative artists from around the world, to vulnerable but creative and hardworking newcomers — good reasons to stay here? Order must certainly be restored, but we must also lay the cultural foundations for a challenge that lifts us up collectively. Without this, many Brussels residents whom we desperately need will pack their bags. In fact, this is already happening.

For a year and a half, many cultural and social projects that “make” Brussels on a daily basis and keep it livable despite everything have found themselves in very troubled waters. Others have been crushed by the political machine, such as Molenbeek for Brussels 2030, the bid for the title of European Capital of Culture. Of course, Leuven had a strong project, but to claim that this candidacy was as urgent and necessary as that of Molenbeek, and that Molenbeek would not have won even with a fully functioning Brussels government, amounts to absurd cynicism. Consequently, allowing the deadlock to continue or undertaking a sweeping clean-up may, in both cases, mean that there is no longer any room for urban imagination. The justification is quickly formulated, but it is weak: “culture is not an essential Brussels competence,” “there is no money,” “the communities already do enough” (while they continue to work side by side as if “the other” did not exist), and “we already need to keep Kanal alive.” Yet an institution does not make a cultural policy. Neither of the two communities designs its policy starting from Brussels.

A question of viability

The last quarter-century, since Brussels 2000, has amply demonstrated that long-term cultural dynamics qualitatively improve living together in Brussels and give it meaning. The States General of Brussels civil society, the cultural agreement between more than a hundred cultural organizations, the Zinneke Parade, the collaboration between major Brussels institutions such as the KVS, the Théâtre National, La Monnaie and Bozar, and bicommunal structures like Flagey and the KunstenFestivaldesArts are not flashy events; they have profoundly and positively transformed Brussels. The Brussels-Capital Region has rarely been the main driving force, but it has been an engaged partner. In an era of identity polarization, all of this cannot simply end up in the waste bin.

Brussels needs more than a government of technocrats or a mere regional unity. Brussels calls for bold figures capable of cleaning up and reforming, but also of connecting people and inviting them to dream. In every scenario, this presupposes a fully fledged Brussels cultural policy, nourished by the rich network of cultural and social partners of all sizes. It does not matter who leads these projects: this is not about positions, but about the viability of our city. Without a cultural policy, Brussels will continue to weaken. On 22 March, we will mark ten years since the terrorist attacks, planned from Molenbeek, that tore our city apart. It is precisely from Molenbeek, and through culture, that we must show that living together in Brussels and in Europe can take another path.

– Jan Goossens, co-mission lead, Molenbeek for Brussels 2030

Source: “Geen enkele strateeg, technocraat of communautarist zal Brussel redden” – De Standaard