Habsburg Austria: Experiments in Non-Territorial Autonomy

Abstract

In the early twentieth century, three provinces of the Austrian half of the Habsburg Empire enacted national compromises in their legislation that had elements of non-territorial autonomy provisions. Czech and German politicians in Moravia reached an agreement in 1905. In the heavily mixed Bukovina, Romanian, Ukrainian, German, Jewish and Polish representatives agreed on a new provincial constitution in 1909. Last but not least, Polish and Ukrainian nationalists compromised in spring 1914, just a few months before the outbreak of the First World War vitiated the new provisions. Even though the provisions of these agreements varied substantially, new electoral laws introducing national registers were at their heart. These were designed to ensure a fairer representation of national groups in the provincial assemblies and to keep national agitation out of electoral campaigns. The earliest compromise in Moravia went furthest in consociational power sharing. However, the national bodies within the provincial assembly had no right to tax their respective national communities, and the provisions of the provincial constitutions kept the non-nationally defined nobility as an important counterbalance. The compromises in Bukovina and Galicia, even if they categorised all inhabitants nationally, contented themselves with even less autonomous agency for the national bodies in the provincial assemblies and rather emphasised the symbolic elements of national autonomy. The non-territorial approach in all three crownlands, however, was an instrument to reorganise multi-ethnic provinces that increasingly became the model for national compromises in other Austrian provinces.

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Acknowledgement

This article was written with the support of the Erwin Schrödinger Scholarship of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and a research grant of the Cultural Affairs Department of the City of Vienna.

Notes

1. In fact, there was no consensus on what to call the Cisleithanian part. Its official denomination between 1867 and 1915 was ‘The Kingdoms and Lands represented in the Imperial Council’. The term ‘Austrian Empire’ for Cisleithania was legally introduced only in 1915, though this had been widely used ever since 1867.

2. For a good introduction on how the relationship between the central and the provincial administrations was organised in Cisleithania, see Hye (2000).

3. As cited by Wright (1919). This translation was improved and adapted by Jeremy King and the author.

4. I prefer the ethnonym ‘Ruthenian’ over the later ‘Ukrainian’, because it was used until the early twentieth century both in Austrian official terminology and by the people themselves. If referring to the language, though, I use the term ‘Ukrainian’.

5. For general information on the Moravian Compromise, if mostly on the associated political circumstances, see, in English, Kelly (2003). The best explanation of the compromise in English is the as yet unpublished article, King, 2010. For the centenary of the Moravian Compromise, the University of Brno organised a conference; see Fasora, Hanuš, and Malíř (2006). An older but detailed study in German is Glassl (1967). Since he was in charge of actually drafting the law, von Skene's (1910) recollections are also very interesting.

6. In the long run, Czechs might have taken over the seats of the two chambers of commerce because of the growing strength of the Czech commercial elite.

7. Landesgesetz- und Verordnungsblatt für die Markgrafschaft Mähren (Mährisches LGBl). 1906. I. Stück. Nr. 1–4. Gesetze vom 27. November 1905. Nr. 1, §§ 3, 3a, 3b, pp. 1–2. The German version of the provincial law gazette is available at the ALEX online law collection of the Austrian National Library: http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?apm=0&aid=lma&datum=1906. See also Glassl (1967, p. 197).

8. Mährisches LGBl. 1906, Nr. 2, §§ 31, pp. 23, 38–39.

9. Mährisches LGBl. 1906, Nr. 1, § 32a, p. 8.

10. Mährisches LGBl. 1906, Nr. 3, §§ 2, 3, pp. 41–42.

11. The district boards were not necessarily congruent with the territory of the political districts, but comprised all schools using one of the two languages in a defined region that could consist of several parts of one or more political districts.

12. Mährisches LGBl. 1906, Nr. 1, § 32a, p. 8.

13. Mährisches LGBl. 1906, Nr. 4, Abt. II, § 20, p. 50.

14. There is only one short academic article on the Bukovinian Compromise in English and this concentrates on the Jewish aspect; see Rachamimov (1996). For the very few studies in German, see the excellent article by Leslie (1991). Other introductory studies include Hensellek (2011), and Kotzian (1992). On the development of the Bukovinian Diet before and after the compromise, see Ceauşu (2000).

15. Gesetz- und Verordnungs-Blatt für das Herzogthum Bukowina (Bukowinisches LGBl). 1910. XXIII. Stück. Nr. 26–27. Gesetz vom 26. Mai 1910, Nr. 26, §§ 10a, 12, pp. 98–100. The German, Romanian and Ukrainian version of the provincial law gazette is available at the ALEX online law collection of the Austrian National Library: http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=lbu&datum=1910&page=118&size=45

16. Bukowinisches LGBl. 1910, Nr. 27, §§ 55–62, esp. § 59, pp. 125–128.

17. Bukowinisches LGBl. 1910, Nr. 26, § 31a, p. 102.

18. There is very little academic literature on the Galician Compromise, and nothing in English. For a survey article see Kuzmany (2013). For details on the circumstances leading to the Galician Compromise, see Buszko (1956), and an article of a contemporary legal scholar, Starzyński (1918). Grodziski's studies (1993, 2000) on the general history of the Galician Diet are very helpful as well.

19. There are many excellent studies (books, edited volumes and articles) on aspects of Galicia during the quasi-autonomous period, though no general study on the province's socio-political history stands out. In English, see Hann and Magocsi (2005), and Magocsi (2002). In German, see Maner (2007), and Marschall von Bieberstein (1993). In Polish, see Kieniewicz (1952) and Kawalec, Wierzbieniec, and Zaszkilniak (2011).

20. Dziennik ustaw i rozporządzeń krajowych dla Królestwa Galicyi i Lodomeryi wraz z Wielkiem Księstwem Krakowskiem (Dziennik ustaw dla Galicyi). 1914. Część X. Nr. 65. Wydana i rozesłana dnia 12. lipca 1914. Ordynacya wyborcza, §§ 19–21, p. 186–189. The Polish version of the provincial law gazette is available at the ALEX online law collection of the Austrian National Library: http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=lga&datum=1914&page=335&size=45

21. Dziennik ustaw dla Galicyi, 1914, Nr. 65, Statut krajowy, §§ 11, 12, p. 171.

22. Austria and Hungary both had ministers of finance within their governments. The joint Austro-Hungarian minister of finance was only responsible for the financial affairs of the federation's common tasks like the military, customs and diplomacy.

23. Gesetz- und Verordnungs-Blatt für Bosnien und die Hercegovina. 1910. Nr. 19, Allerhöchste Entschließungvom 17. Februar 1910. Landesstatut und Wahlordnung, Landesstatut § 22, Wahlordnung § 5, pp. 30–31. The German version of the provincial law gazette is available at the ALEX online law collection of the Austrian National Library: http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=lbh&datum=1910&page=43&size=45

24. Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Hauses der Abgeordneten des Österreichischen Reichsrates. XVIII. Session, 4. Sitzung am 27. Juni 1907 (Wien: K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei), Sitzungsprotokolle, p. 124.