The chances are slim that you can find anyone on the street who can explain what confederalism means, yet this has become a major theme in the election debates. A confederation, should you wonder, is an association of sovereign member states. This is one step further than the federal state Belgium is at the moment – a union of partially self-governing regions and communities – and in the eyes of many French speakers, it is one step removed from Flemish secession.

The idea of confederalism has been around for a while. It is part of both CD&V’s and Open VLD’s party programmes, although neither of them has ever made much noise about this. What made it hot during this campaign is the separatist N-VA’s sudden devotion to it.

For the party with Flemish independence as its main objective, this sounded a bit inconsistent, leaving it open to attacks. “Separatism or confederalism, what will it be?”

CD&V’s Marianne Thyssen sneered. “Open VLD will not join a government with a separatist N-VA,” Open VLD’s Guy Vanhengel added to the confusion. Vlaams Belang, that other separatist party, called confederalism “the surest way never to obtain Flemish independence”. And, as per usual, whenever the shape of the state is discussed, all French-speaking parties felt obliged to contribute their bit as well.

Did all these attacks leave N-VA and its leader Bart De Wever bruised? Not at all. De Wever, a scholar of both Roman and Flemish history, knows The Rule all too well. This is his theme and, as long as this blabbering fills the air, his success is guaranteed.

This frustrates other parties, who want to talk about budget cuts (liberals) or pensions (socialists). The impact of those topics may hit people more directly, but the only way to get them into this campaign is by not reacting to their opponent’s inconsistencies. Now, what politician can do that?