The Principalities - Union of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859
The union of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859 was the final but not necessarily natural result of the efforts made by generations of Romanians between 1770 and 1857. Since the early 16th century, Moldavia and Wallachia had been under the grip of the Ottoman Empire and, like all the other provinces controlled by the Turks, had not passed through the same stages as western Europe, namely the Renaissance and the Reform, the Baroque and the Enlightenment. The economic, political and cultural backwardness of the Romanian principalities was much stronger than what intellectuals in Western Europe deemed as backward in their own societies. This is why modernisation was more intensely felt in the Romanian principalities.
Ever since the 1770s, the Romanian boyars had been sending letters to Russia and Austria, two Empires which they saw as more advanced, calling for the two powers' intervention to oust the Ottomans from the Romanian principalities. Moldavia's union with Wallachia was not seen as instrumental to modernization, but as a means to reestablish institutions and implement social reforms. The Union was insistently advocated by the reformists around the 1850s, and was eventually realised on January 5th and 24th, respectively, when Alexandru Ioan Cuza was elected ruler in both principalities. Between 1859 and 1861, during Cuza's reign, administrative union of the two principalities was carried out at the level of institutions, currency and army under the coordination of a central commission based in Focsani.
The political debate around 1859 saw the convergence of two main topics: the modernisation of the country and the union, which had been two separate issues before the 1848 revolution. Before 1859, the union did not necessarily mean modernisation, while modernisation did not imply the union. After the failure of the 1848 revolution, all the revolutionary energy was concentrated into the political goal of the union, and modernisation was subordinated to this goal. This national goal called for a convergence of political and national unity. The union was seen as a panacea for all problems in Romanian society.
Once the union was achieved, following extremely heated debates between unionists and anti-unionists, rigged elections and France's intervention, the new state had to be organised. Cuza alone, the man who came to symbolise the Union, was not a guarantee for the young state's good functioning and its longevity.
In 1859 a personal union was effected, Colonel Alexander John Cuza being elected for Moldavia on 17 January and for Wallachia on 24 January ; the double election was ratified by the Porte after some hesitation. In 1861 Cuza established, instead of the separate ministries, a common ministry and a common representative assembly, and in 1862 the union of the principalities, henceforth known as Rumania, was proclaimed.
After 1859, the structure of the new state was based, politically and administratively, on a radical centrist model. Culturally speaking, the goal was to have a uniform approach of the identity issue. However, centralism was not the only option available in the early 19th century. The separatists supported the idea of a confederation, a type of state that respected regional interests and identities. This model first circulated in the revolutionary milieus that had only later supported the idea of the Union. Federalism was an attempt to take East-European national identities out of the control of the empires and organise them into new political structures. Before 1859, a few prominent people, mostly pro-union, came up with the so-called "politograms" in which they argued in favour of administrative decentralisation.
The debate whether to adopt a centralist or a federalist state model was fierce. The opposing sides threw in the battle substantial arguments to support their positions. The unionists believed centralisation would lend more coherence to the state, while the federalists saw decentralisation as a means of awarding equal importance to the two political entities making up the new state.
The separatists' arguments are recorded in a series of documents. They were afraid that after the Union the capital would move to Bucharest, which eventually happened, and Moldavia would be marginalised, something which can be documented. The separatists feared that Moldavia and its capital would be left outside the centre and that their interests would come second. They also argued that the Union would let Moldavia fall prey to a constant depreciation of its capital and products. A series of meetings of the business community in Iasi after 1859 indeed showed that the capital, the products and real estate prices had dropped sharply. The separatists were also afraid that the Wallachians would hold the majority in legislative and executive bodies, while Moldavians would be marginalised and feel like a people that was conquered rather than an equal partner in the union. Contemporary research shows that the political elite in the capital Bucharest was indeed made up mostly of Wallachians.
Romania developed based on the centralist model, while still aware of the advantages of federalism. However, the young country was in need of foreign credibility to start its reforms. This credibility was provided by the constitutional monarchy, which channelled all creative energies in the right direction and consolidated what had been achieved.
Prince Cuza introduced a series of reforms; the most important were the secularization of the Greek monasteries, the law dealing with public instruction, the codification of the laws on the basis of the Napoleonic Code, and especially the land laws of 1864, by which the peasants were given free possession of the land and the remnants of serfdom, socage and tithes, were abolished.
As the chamber, which was controlled by the boyars, was particularly opposed to the last measure, Cuza abolished the chamber in 1864 and gave the country a new constitution with two chambers. After the coup d'etat of 1864, universal suffrage was introduced, largely as an attempt to ' swamp ' the fractious political parties with the peasant vote ; while at the same time a ' senate ' was created as a ' moderating assembly ' which, composed as it was of members by right and members nominated by the prince, by its very nature increased the influence of the crown. The chief reforms concerned the rural question. Firstly, Cuza and his minister, Cogalniceanu, secularized and converted to the state the domains of the monasteries, which during the long period of Greek influence had acquired one-fifth of the total area of the land, and were completely in the hands of the Greek clergy (Law of December 13, 1863). More important still, as affecting fundamentally the social structure of the country, was the Rural Law (promulgated on August 26,1864), which had been the cause of the conflict between Cuza and the various political factions, the Liberals clamouring for more thorough reforms, the Conservatives denouncing Cuza's project as revolutionary.
Notwithstanding all his services, Cuza brought the country into a financial crisis. A conspiracy was formed against him, in which the army participated; on the night of 22 February, 1866, he was seized by the conspirators and compelled to abdicate the following morning.
In order to obviate internal disturbances or external interference, the leaders of the movement which had dethroned Prince Cuza caused parliament to proclaim, on the day of Cuza's abdication, Count Philip of Flanders - brother of King Leopold of Belgium and the father of King Albert of Belgium - Prince of Rumania. The offer was, however, not accepted, as neither France nor Russia favored the proposal. Meanwhile a conference had met again in Paris at the instance of Turkey and vetoed the election of a foreign prince. But events of deeper importance were ripening in Europe, and the Rumanian politicians rightly surmised that the powers would not enforce their protests if a candidate were found who was likely to secure the support of Napoleon III, then ' schoolmaster' of European diplomacy.
This candidate was found in the person of Prince Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen [Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen], second son of the head of the elder branch of the Hohenzollerns (Catholic and non-reigning). Prince Carol was cousin to the King of Prussia, and related through his grandmother to the Bonaparte family. He could consequently count upon the support of France and Prussia, while the political situation fortunately secured him from the opposition of Russia, whose relations with Prussia were at the time friendly, and also from that of Austria, whom Bismarck proposed to ' keep busy for some time to come'. The latter must have viewed with no little satisfaction the prospect of a Hohenzollern occupying the throne of Rumania at this juncture.
Prince Carol, allowing himself to be influenced by the Iron Chancellor's advice, answered the call of the Rumanian nation, which had proclaimed him as 'Carol I, Hereditary Prince of Rumania, elected at the instance of Napoleon III on 14 April 1866. On 22 May he entered Bucharest, and after some months was recognized by the Porte, although Rumania had again to recognize its obligation to pay tribute. From the beginning of his reign Charles had great difficulties to overcome; the development of the country had been prevented by centuries of foreign occupation, commerce and manufacture were to a great extent in the hands of foreigners, the land was for the most part in the power of a few great landowners, while the mass of the population were poor and burdened with heavy taxation.
Notwithstanding frequent rotation in power of the political parties, a series of reforms were passed, and the army, organized after the Prussian model, made creditably efficient. When the RussoTurkish War broke out in 1878, Rumania made a treaty with the tsar, allowing the Russian troops to march through its territory, and on 22 May, 1877, declared its independence of the Porte.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
