Who needs Belgium? Not, apparently, the Belgians, who have had no government since elections on June 10, in which voters split on ethno-linguistic lines between French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemings. The Belgians do not seem to care that their state is falling apart before their eyes. Even in a Europe riven by secessionist movements, Belgium takes the prize for the most fissiparous country of them all.

Last week the Economist magazine opined that “Belgium has served its purpose.” It was a purpose defined by the grand diplomacy of 19th-century Europe, not by the wishes of the disparate peoples who inhabited the once-prosperous region over which for centuries the houses of Habsburg and Orange, Catholics and Protestants, revolutionaries and legitimists had fought themselves to a standstill.

When the Napoleonic wars ended at Waterloo, now in Belgium, the United Netherlands emerged still ruling over the entire Low Countries. The Dutch kings preached religious freedom, but practiced discrimination against the Catholic Flemings and Walloons. In 1830 the July revolution in France spread to Brussels, where the French tricolors were raised, independence declared, and French troops intervened. The British Foreign Secretary, Palmerston, decided both to prevent a new European conflagration and to stop France from annexing the southern half of the Netherlands.

A century before Wilsonian liberal internationalism, Palmerston supported self-determination. He proposed to recognize Belgium as a separate kingdom. In 1831 the great powers adopted the usual solution: a minor German princely dynasty, the Saxe-Coburgs, was enlisted to provide a symbol of unity, under a name resurrected from the ancient tribe, the Belgae, that inhabited the region under the Roman Empire.

Leopold I was no stranger to such anachronisms. He had just turned down an offer to be King of Greece. The title of the new monarch, “King of the Belgians,” recognized the fact that the new dynasty had no other claim to rule than the will of the people. His son, Leopold II, is remembered as the most brutal of all the colonial rulers of Africa. It was the Belgian Congo that Joseph Conrad depicted in “Heart of Darkness,” the text that — more than any other — has become emblematic of the evils of imperialism.

If the purpose of Belgium, as a buffer state between France and Germany, was to prevent wars, it was not what one would want to call successful. World War I began with a German invasion of “brave little Belgium” in 1914. In 1940, the Germans did it again — only this time, the Belgians were not so brave. Not only did Belgian fascists collaborate with the Nazis but so did the Social and Christian democrats who would resume power after 1945.

The “national socialism” of Hendrik de Man, the most influential Belgian politician of the 1930s and 1940s, became one of the blueprints for the postwar European community, of which De Man’s disciple Paul-Henri Spaak was one of the founding fathers. De Man wanted Belgium to be “the vanguard of the European Revolution; the principle on which the new European Order hinges.”

In the post-war world, Belgium did indeed capitalize on these ideals. Both NATO and what later became the European Union were based at Brussels. There was always a tension between the two, because the aims of the Atlantic alliance and the new Europe were irreconcilable. Having failed to thwart the creation of NATO, Spaak became its secretary-general and did his best to stop it from opposing Soviet designs to encroach on Western interests.

While NATO perpetuated the American military presence in Europe, which kept the peace throughout the Cold War, the E.U. was intended to create a rival superpower and was always ambivalent toward America. Belgians benefited from both, but it was the E.U. that created so many jobs for officials that Belgium became Europe’s District of Columbia.

Today, Belgium is a microcosm of the E.U.: bureaucratic, undemocratic, corporatist. As the author Paul Belien argued in his book “A Throne in Brussels,” the “Belgianisation of Europe” is already far advanced. If the European Union is to be given back to its constituent peoples, Belgium might be a good place to start.

The break-up of Belgium need not create instability: 2007 is not 1831. Europe has nothing to fear from a free vote of the Walloons and Flemings, both of whom might choose to accede to France and the Netherlands respectively. Wiser counsel would no doubt urge the Walloons and Flemings to prefer the protection of some kind of arrangement with either the British or the Americans and their freedoms. In any event, democracy — not realpolitik — should decide Belgium’s destiny. Let us hope that Europe, too, has an opportunity to vote before its future is determined from above.