This seems to be an art installation, but I see no explanation of what it means. Is there subtext that's obvious to someone from Belgium (e.g., politicians on phones is a known hot issue)? Or is the viewer supposed to interpret?
BTW, if the main complaint that you have about your politicians is that they sometimes look at their phones while in meetings, you're doing really well, count your blessings.
> if the main complaint that you have about your politicians is that they sometimes look at their phones
It's just a cheap shot to rile up people that don't know better. Actively listening and arguing with opposition in the Parliament have very little to do with actual politics.
Swedish newspapers do a similar thing every year when they name and shame the politicians that submitted the fewest bills, making no mention of the fact that they are all useless and will be rejected in the current system. Somewhat related, The Social Democrats abuse the system and use AI to generate hundreds of questions each month that the government have to research and give written responses to. It's all a ton of pointless work that have negative impact on actually getting things done.
I'm confident most people can agree that Belgium have worse problems. Without knowing the details, I believe them going two years without a government had more impact than politicians using their phones while waiting for their time to speak or vote.
The fact that Belgium could function without too much issues for that long points to that it did not have much of an impact. This is because a lot of the things that a normal federal government does, is done by the regions in Belgium.
Obviously the subtext is that they are faffing off on their phones and not using their presence at a parliamentary meeting to represent the interests of their constituents in that meeting, which is what they were elected to do. Though from that perspective we should also focus some more on the empty seats, then.
It's somewhat tricky to measure the effectiveness of your MP, because of course their work output is politics.
We have https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ in the UK, which is a fantastic site, listing everything your MP does in Parliament. But the truth is that most MPs always vote exactly how their party tells them, and rarely speak. The main chamber in Parliament is mostly national debate on how to run the country, and amendments and motions are put forward outwith that chamber, by teams of MPs communicating with the Speaker's office.
Most MPs in the Commons are just waiting their turn to speak, and they wrote their speech the day before. The rest only turn up at voting time, and vote how they were told to by their party, then leave again. They don't listen to speeches, it's not going to make them vote differently.
So perhaps we need all the MP's official emails and texts to truly scrutinize their activity. Their presence and focus in the chamber is of limited importance.
What's more useful, IMHO, are when MPs join the various Parliamentary committees and listen to witnesses, scrutinize legislation line-by-line, and such. Those are meetings where I'd like MPs to be fully focused.
BTW, if the main complaint that you have about your politicians is that they sometimes look at their phones while in meetings, you're doing really well, count your blessings.