Clash of claims: nationalizing and democratizing policies during the first parliamentary election in multiethnic Czechoslovak Ruthenia

Abstract

This paper examines the question of why the countrywide 1920 parliamentary election in Czechoslovakia was postponed in its eastern borderland, Podkarpatská Rus, by putting this event into a context of simultaneous processes of democratization and nationalization, described here as the “double transformation.” The territory in question was inhabited by a Ruthenian majority, who received the support of the government in Prague; a Jewish population without clear preferences regarding their loyalties and aims; a still-influential Hungarian minority; and finally, a Czech-dominated state administration. The aim of the state administration was to let the ethnically mixed population of Ruthenia vote for its parliamentary representatives in the most democratic way possible. However, this intention clashed with the realities in place: old loyalties of the local population toward the Hungarian elites, Hungarian revisionism, a lack of governance, and security issues. Complicating the situation, Romanian troops still occupied the eastern part of Ruthenia as a result of the war among Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania in 1919; Romanians claimed part of the territory for their own nation-state. Faced with these thorny issues, the Czechoslovak state administration felt constrained to postpone the elections until 1924.

Keywords:

• Subcarpathian Rus
• Czechoslovakia
• nationalization
• democratization

Acknowledgements

The author owes special thanks to his colleagues Dr. Victoria Harms and Mark Berman for their comments with regard to content and language.

Notes

1 The history of interwar Podkarpatská Rus is part of the so-called Rusyn Studies (mainly Magocsi 1978, 1988–2012, 2002, 2015). Rusyn studies aim to popularize the idea that the Eastern Slavs living south of the Carpathians constitute a nation with its own distinct language. In Europe, studies based more heavily on archival sources have been presented (Švorc 1997, 2005, 2007; Rychlík and Rychlíková 2013; Fedinec and Vehes 2010). Besides articles about the process of attaching the Ruthenian territory of Hungary to Czechoslovakia in 1918–1920 (Magocsi 1975; Švorc 1997), there is only one article about the failed parliamentary election in 1920 (Švorc 2005).

2 Hungarian became the only official language; as a result, following the School Law of 1868, Hungarian was the only language of instruction in the Ruthenian counties, with the exception of the primary schools, which were run by churches. The church-run schools were placed under state supervision. See Žeguc (1965, 72).

3 According to the Hungarian Statistical Reports (Magyar statisztikai közlemények) published by the Royal Hungarian Central Statistics Office (Magyar Királyi Központi Statisztikai Hivatal), vol. 56 (1915), 330–433 – which Peter Švorc analyzed – as of the 1910 census, carried out in what would become Podkarpatská Rus, 89.6% of people worked as farmers, 3.4% in the industrial sector, 0.8% in trade, transport, and the financial sector, 0.8% in the service sector, and 4% as wage workers (Švorc 2007, 22).

4 During the relevant period until 1920, the Czechoslovak government was still using the Hungarian statistics from 1910, which included the following demographic structure: 572,028 residents, broken down by native language into 319,361 Ruthenians, 169,434 Magyars, 62,187 Germans, 15,387 Romanians, and 4,057 Slovaks. Broken down by religious denomination, 372,799 were Greek Catholic, 84,697 were “Israelites,” 64,102 Evangelical Reformed, 48,240 Roman Catholic, 1557 Evangelical Lutheran, and 539 Orthodox. Taken from a magazine for Czechoslovak civil servants; see Nečas (1919–1920, 136).

5 This included Avhustyn Vološin in Užhorod and Anton Beskid in Prešov.

6 There is a wealth of literature on the specific processes of incorporating the later Podkarpatská Rus into Czechoslovakia and on the decision-making process of the Ruthenian elite. See, for instance Magocsi (1975, 360–381), Švorc (1997, 39–60), Rychlík and Rychlíková (2013, 21–32).

7 De facto, however, this parliament had hardly any democratic legitimacy; hardly anyone participated or was allowed to participate in its election on March 4, since the Ruthenian counties in Hungary at that time were almost exclusively under Czechoslovak or Romanian control. See Švorc (1997, 45).

8 Masaryk ([1922] 1991, 149, 194, 1925, 269–72, 424), Čapek (1935, 176f) clearly summarized, for instance, as follows:

And finally we have the constitutional problem of Carpathian Ruthenia and the development of this autonomous region, which was promised to us in the peace conference based on the wishes expressed by its ethnic community members in America as well as in the homeland. (cited in Masaryk 1925, 424)

9 It was only after the capture of Užhorod that Slovakian officer Ferdinand Písecký informed the local national assembly about the agreement between Masaryk and Žatkovič. See Krofta (1936, 26).

10 On the question of the “Ruthenes south of the Carpathians,” see Kolář (1997, 61–69).

11 This is a reference to the “Scranton Resolution,” dated 19 November 1918. In this plebiscite, 732 out of a total of 1102 votes (67%) were in favor of annexation by Czechoslovakia; 310 (28%) were for a union with Ukraine; 27 for a completely independent state; 10 for a union with Russia; and nine for remaining part of Hungary. Figures taken from Magocsi (1978, 85).

12 For more on the “Užhorod Memorandum,” dated 8 May 1919, see Magocsi (1975, 378f).

13 This replacement of the official language led to several issues for example in case of the language usage in the civil service or at public schools (Rychlík and Rychlíková 2013, 103–124).

14 The clear Czech overrepresentation in the Slovakian administration met with strong criticism (Bakke 1999, 525).

15 Initial talks were held here about a general statute in Prague (Lichtej 2002, 94).

16 Prague National Archive (PNA), Fond “Předsednictvo ministerské rady” (PMR), Box 4032, p. 522; Box 4047, p. 500.

17 Generální statut pro organisaci a administraci Přikarpatské Rusi přičleněné pařížskoukonferencí republice Československé [General Statutes for the Organization and Administration of the affiliated Přikarpatské Rusi of the Czechoslovak Republic]. See Hořec (1997, 12–14).

18 On the image of the Podkarpatská Rus among Czechs during the interwar period, see Budin (1996).

19 Archives of the Office of the President of the Czech Republic (AKPR), Fond “KPR 1919–1947,” Inv. č. 205, Sign. D 6863/20.

20 PNA, Fond “Ministerstvo Vnitra I – Prezidium,” Sign. 225-200-1 through 225-203-2.

21 On the Hungarian revisionism of the interwar period, see Kovács-Bertrand (1997); Zeidler (2007).

22 On the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia, see Tóth, Novotný, and Stehlík (2012, esp. 76–111).

23 These were the “First Central Russian National Councilor” from the Žatkovič fraction and the Russophile “Central Russian National Councilor.”

24 Request to postpone elections for Podkarpatská Rus, 7 January1920, in: PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133; C. R. N. R. from Chair Dr. Gagatko to the Administrative Office of the Council of Ministers, 20 January 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133; amendments to the declaration by the First Central Russian National Councilor, 18 January 1920, in AKPR, “KPR, 1919–1947,” Inv. č. 205.

25 From the Ministry of the Interior to the director of civil administration for the Podkarpatská Rus, 6 February 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

26 This would have been a reference to the First Central Russian National Councilor, who was closely aligned with the Žatkovič fraction.

27 AKPR, “KPR, 1919–1947” Inv. č. 205.

28 PNA, Fond PMR, Box 4036, p. 925.

29 Masarykův ústav a Archiv AV ČR, Archiv ÚTGM, Fond “T. G. Masaryk, sign. R,” Box 40, Folder 3, p. 3; PNA, Fond PMR, Box 4037, p. 254.

30 Dr. Brechja to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 9 March 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

31 Ministry of the Interior to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 13 March 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

32 Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 10 June 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

33 Vice-Governor of the Podkarpatská Rus to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 28 June 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

34 PNA, Fond PMR, Box 4047, p. 500.

35 Ministry of the Interior to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 10 September 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

36 Civil administration of Podkarpatská Rus to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 19 September 1920, n PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

37 Between these two inquiries, on 17 September and 5 October 1920, were three weeks in which nothing happened. See Administrative offices to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers/Department for the Podkarpatská Rus, 17 September 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133; Administrative offices to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 5 October 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

38 Ministry of the Interior to the civil administration of Podkarpatská Rus, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

39 The Romanian troops were withdrawing very slowly, which caused resentment among the civil population. Jews in particular were said to have been harassed (Rychlík and Rychlíková 2013, 30).

40 Ministry of the Interior to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 12 October 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

41 Civil administration to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 18 November 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

42 Civil administration of the Podkarpatská Rus to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers, 23 December 1920, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

43 Ministry of the Interior to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers: Permanent voter lists in Podkarpatská Rus, 5 January 1921, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

44 Vice-Governor of Podkarpatská Rus to the Executive Board of the Council of Ministers/Department for Podkarpatská Rus, 15 January 1921, in PNA, Fond PMR, Sign. 133.

45 PNA, Fond PMR, Box 4047, p. 501f.

46 On the 1935 election, see Sláma (1988, 34–49).

Additional information

Funding

Research for this article was generously funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Collaborative Research Centre “SFB/TRR 138 Dynamics of Security. Types of Securitization from a Historical Perspective.”