Ferdinand Ier de Roumanie

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.
Aller à : navigation, rechercher
Ferdinand Ier
Le roi Ferdinand Ier, roi de Roumanie
Le roi Ferdinand Ier, roi de Roumanie
Titre
2e roi des Roumains

(&&&&&&&&&&&0466612 ans, 9 mois et 10 jours)
Couronnement
Président du Conseil Ion Brătianu
Alexandru Averescu
Alexandru Marghiloman
Constantin Coanda
Ion Brătianu
Arthur Văitoianu
Alexandru Vaida-Voievod
Alexandru Averescu
Take Ionescu
Ion Brătianu
Alexandru Averescu
Prince Barbu Știrbey
Ionel Brătianu
Prédécesseur Carol Ier
Successeur Michel Ier
Prince héritier de Roumanie
1886
(environ 28 ans)
Monarque Carol Ier
Prédécesseur Aucun
Successeur Mihai
Biographie
Titre complet Roi de Roumanie, prince de Hohenzollern
Hymne royal Trăiască Regele
Dynastie Maison de Hohenzollern
Nom de naissance Ferdinand Viktor Albert Meinrad von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Date de naissance
Lieu de naissance Sigmaringen (Prusse)
Date de décès
Lieu de décès Sinaia (Roumanie)
Père Leopold, prince de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Mère Antonia de Portugal
Conjoint Marie d'Édimbourg
Enfant(s) Carol II Red crown.png
Princesse Elisabeta de Hohenzollern
Princesse Maria de Hohenzollern
Prince Nicolae de Hohenzollern
Princesse Ileana de Hohenzollern
Prince Mircea de Hohenzollern
Héritier Mihai

Ferdinand Ier de Roumanie Ferdinand Ier de Roumanie
Monarques de Roumanie

Ferdinand Ier , né le à Sigmaringen et mort le à Sinaia, est roi de Roumanie de 1914 à 1927.

Généalogie[modifier | modifier le code]

Ferdinand Ier de Roumanie appartient à la lignée de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen issue de la quatrième branche, elle-même issue de la première branche de la Maison de Hohenzollern. Cette lignée appartient à la branche souabe de la dynastie de Hohenzollern. Il a pour ascendant Burchard Ier de Zollern.

Biographie[modifier | modifier le code]

Fils de Léopold (1835-1905), prince de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, et d'Antonia de Portugal (1845-1913), il est le neveu du roi Charles Ier de Roumanie. En 1886, il est proclamé héritier du trône roumain par son oncle.

En 1893, il épouse Marie d'Édimbourg (1875-1938), fille d'Alfred de Saxe-Cobourg et Gotha, duc d'Édimbourg, et de la grande-duchesse Maria-Alexandrovna de Russie. Ils ont six enfants :

Avant et pendant la Première Guerre Mondiale[modifier | modifier le code]

Ferdinand accède au trône à l'âge de 48 ans, après la mort de son oncle, le roi Charles Ier (roumain : "Carol I") de Hohenzollern, survenue le 9 octobre 1914. Roi de la Roumanie depuis seulement deux ans, Ferdinand se voit en 1916 à la tête d'un pays engagé en guerre contre l'Allemagne, son pays natal, une situation qu'il accèpte avec beaucoup de courage et dignité, mais qui suscite en lui aussi des sentiments contradictoires (il va écrire en 1914 dans une lettre à son frère, en Allemagne, de son souhait que le pays natal gagne la guerre[1] qui, pourtant, la Roumanie - le pays pour lequel il est au moment de l'expression du souhait le prince héritier et qu'il va régner seulement quelques mois plus tard - va le faire finalement de côté de la Triple-Entente, les adversaires de l'Allemagne). Pour son dévoument, les Roumains vont le nommer « Ferdinand le Loyal », même si après la dissolution de l'empire Austro-Hongrois dans l'après-guerre, leur roi va se montrer prêt à recevoir la couronne de roi de l'Hongrie offerte par la noblesse hongroise, projet abandonné seulement en raison de l'opposition déterminée de la classe politique roumaine[2]. Pendant son règne, les Roumains vont réaliser l'union de tous les territoires peuplés majoritairement par les roumanophones, le processus de formation de l'état national étant ainsi terminé.

L'Après-Guerre[modifier | modifier le code]

En l'absence de réformes sociales et politiques nécessaires, pendant les dernières décennies du XIXe siècle et le début du XXe, la Roumanie se trouvait déjà dans la tourmente[3] : il y a eu des révoltes paysannes à répétition (dont celle de 1907, la plus grande et brutalement réprimée) – et la classe dirigéante elle-même se rendait compte q'une révolution a pu être temporairement évitée seulement grâce au déclenchement de la Première Guerre Mondiale[4]. C'est dans ce contexte et sur le fond de la prise du pouvoir par les bolcheviques en Russie voisine, qu'en Roumanie de l'après-guerre on a adopté, sans enthousiasme[5] et en versions finales très diluées[6], des réformes agraires et politiques, car le roi Ferdinand Ier de concert avec l'oligarchie a saboté le processus[7],[8],[9],[10]. Le roi Ferdinand Ier a participé au sabotage des réformes (attitude qui va bientôt engendrer une réaction de rejet contre la dynastie corrompue[11] de Hohenzollern et contre le système politique roumain de l'époque, une démocratie de façade[12] qui à ce moment-là avait déjà fait son temps), en s'alliant avec les membres de l'oligarchie libérale[13][14][15][16][17], par intérêt personnel, car il était lui-même un grand propriétaire terrien[18]. Durant la première moitié de l'entre-deux-guerres (1918-1927), quand la traditionnelle « démocratie mimée » roumaine[19] a encore continué de se manifester, ce n'était pas l'électorat qui décidait le vainqueur des élections, mais le roi Ferdinand Ier[20][21][22][23] qui, comme son prédecesseur[24][25], était le facteur ultime[26] et déterminant[27] qui décidait à l'avance le gagnant du scrutin[28]. Dans le régime autoritaire[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] roumain, le choix politique du roi sortait constamment gagnant des élections parce qu'on usait à profusion de la corruption[37][38], de la censure[39], de la fraude électorale[40][41][42][43][44][45] et de l'intimidation[46],[47]. Malheureusement, dans l'après-guerre - une époque censée être celle de grandes réformes en Roumanie - le roi Ferdinand Ier a choisi de garder et s'en servir, pendant tout son règne[48][49], de l'ancien modèle politiqe autoritaire[50] et très particulier[51][52][53], hérité de son prédécesseur, le roi Carol Ier (Charles Ier), de sorte qu'aucun chef de parti et gouvernement nommé par Ferdinand pour organiser des élections n'a vu ce choix royal infirmé par l'électorat[54][55][56], tout comme aucun chef de parti et gouvernement nommé par le roi Carol Ier pour organiser des élections pendant l'avant-guerre n'a vu, lui non plus, le choix du souverain infirmé par les urnes[57][58] : le fonctionnement particulier[59] du système politique roumain permettait au souverain de destituer un gouvernement (avant et sans que le Parlement passe une motion de censure), et nommer ensuite un nouveau gouvernement chargé avec l'organisation des élections, qui invariablement[60] gagnait à scores écrasants, eu égard à l'usage intensif de l'administration locale pour manipuler les résultats. Le renvoi par le roi Ferdinand Ier[61][62], en 1920, du gouvernement de coalition réformiste issu des premières élections au suffrage universel masculin (et qui s'apprêtait à passer les lois concernant les réformes promises), pour redonner le pouvoir, à l'aide du traditionnel système de « démocratie mimée »[63][64] ci-dessus décrit (et utilisé ensuite par le roi Ferdinand Ier tout au long de son règne), aux corrompus oligarches libéraux[65][66], est, selon d'importants historiens et experts (comme Stephen Fischer-Galaţi, Robin Okey, Mattei Dogan et Tom G. Gallagher), rien de moins qu'un coup d'état royal[67] qui a trompé les espoirs de démocratisation véritable du pays[68],[69].

En 1925, le roi Ferdinand Ier oblige son fils Carol à renoncer à ses droits au trône en raison d'une liaison extra-conjugale avec Magda Lupescu qui fait scandale.

À sa mort, en 1927, c'est donc son petit-fils, Michel Ier (Mihai), qui lui succède.

Références[modifier | modifier le code]

  1. "Viata Reginei Maria a României – Ultima Romantica". Hannah Pakula. Editura Lider 2003. ISBN Lider-13-8-BC. p. 217 : "Fie ca Domnul să te ducă la victorie […]"
  2. p. 22 in "The Suicide of Europe – Memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza, Former Foreign Minister of Rumania". Western Islands Publishers 1968. Belmont, Massachusetts. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-58284. Printed in the United States of America. ("Following the same line of thought I arranged later to be sent to Budapest as First Secretary to our Legation there. After the collapse of the Austrian Empire and the subsequent Rumanian annexation of Transylvania (which had been for a long while a part of the Kingdom of Hungary) several Hungarian statesmen (among them Count Pal Teleki and Count Istvan Bethlen) thought of offering the Hungarian crown to King Ferdinand of Rumania. Count Miklos Banfy, whom I had known during my administrative activity in Transylvania, and whom I met again in Budapest when he was Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs, also supported the creation of such a new Danubian state . His reasons were however of a much deeper and more historical character than those of Bethlen and Teleki, who probably thought mainly of the possibility of Hungarian predominance in a Rumanian-Hungarian federation. Count Banfy was thoroughly convinced that because of the chaotic situation in which the disappearance of the two Germanic empires had left this part of Europe, and because of the apparition on its menaced borders of the formidable and pestilential entity whose name was Soviet Russia, only an organic union of our two countries, a merger of their political and military means, could in the long run ensure their survival. When I left Budapest I hastened to communicate to King Ferdinand, and to Queen Marie, Count Banfy's views on the future and destiny of our two countries. Both the King and Queen had been very receptive to the proposals of Bethlen and Teleki, which were energetically opposed, however, by the chiefs of our various political parties, who worried only for their electoral problems.")
  3. p. 24-26 in Istoria Gărzii de Fier 1919-1941 - Mistica Ultranaţionalismului. Francisco Veiga. 2nd Ed. Humanitas, Bucureşti 1995. ISBN 9789732803929. ("Etapa ascuţirii acestor contradicţii a început de la jumătatea ultimei treimi a secolului al XIX-lea, cînd presiunea marilor proprietari de pămînt asupra ţăranilor s-a agravat brusc; concurenţa giganticelor grînare americane şi a vecinilor ruşi a dus la prăbuşirea preţurilor grîului românesc şi unica soluţie care s-a pus în practică a fost de a se strînge şurubul neoiobăgiei în care trăia cea mai mare parte a ţărănimii. O lege a contractelor, promulgată în 1893, crea serioase probleme ţăranului care se întîmpla să caute de lucru în alt sat decît satul natal, iar posibilitatea de a emigra în America a fost în acelaşi timp restrînsă sever. În mod paralel, moşierii au cedat exploatarea posesiunilor, inclusiv pe ţărani, arendaşilor, care şi-au luat angajamentul să obţină un maxim de beneficii într-o perioadă scurtă, suportînd pînă şi cheltuielile derivate din recoltele proaste.18 Arendaşii, care nu manifestau mare interes în modernizarea moşiilor, avînd în vedere că mîna de lucru era abundentă şi ieftină, au devenit repede o bombă socială cu ceas: după o frază foarte expresivă a economistului român Madgearu, acum ţărănimea trebuia, "cu o alimentaţie subumană, să facă o muncă supraomenească".19 La sate, mii de copii împlineau chiar doisprezece ani fără să fi ajuns să guste vreodată lapte de vacă.20 Ura faţă de arendaşi era întărită de faptul că majoritatea erau greci şi bulgari în Muntenia şi Oltenia, şi evrei, în Moldova. Călătorii şi folcloriştii se extaziau în faţa viguroasei culturi ţărăneşti române, cu ale sale costume în culori vesele, şi muzica, energică sau melancolică. Dar această faţadă cu greu putea ascunde bolile cronice ca pelagra, sifilisul, tuberculoza şi chiar paludismul care afectau regiuni întregi. Alcoolismul generalizat era provocat, în mare măsură, de consumul de ţuică ieftină, pentru a potoli foamea. Satele, fără cea mai mică infrastructură igienică sau urbanistică, deveneau mlaştini insalubre în timpul toamnei sau primăverii. În aceste condiţii, nemulţumirea socială a crescut repede şi profund, iar ţăranii au început în curînd să se refere la "brazda dracului" în balade şi cîntece: era alegoria revoltei împotriva stăpînului. […] Primul semn: în 1888, o răscoală în care puteau fi deja sesizate sisteme elementare de organizare subversivă.23 Aceasta, împreună cu violenţa socială acumulată, a făcut ca tulburările să se producă în 27 din cele 32 de judeţe ale ţării. Totuşi, marea explozie socială a avut loc 19 ani mai tîrziu. Înrăutăţirea accentuată a situaţiei ţărănimii, o criză economică ce s-a prelungit din 1899 pînă în 1903 şi eşecul de a crea o mişcare cooperatistă care să-i înlăture pe arendaşi, stimulată din guvern de către liberali, au fost ca norii care se strîng înainte de a începe furtuna. […] Noul guvern liberal, format de urgenţă, a acţionat fără milă. Armata română a intrat în acţiune, reprimind cu brutalitate ţăranii practic neînarmaţi; în Oltenia, artileria a bombardat multe sate. S-au înregistrat numeroase victime. În afară de revoluţia rusă din 1905, nici o altă revoltă socială nu a fost atît de brutal reprimată în Europa, după anul 1870. După catastrofă - similară, în privinţa efectelor asupra societăţii româneşti, crizei spaniole de la '98 - a început o furtunoasă dezbatere naţională între economişti, gazetari, scriitori, intelectuali de tot felul şi politicieni, care contrasta cu inconştienţa dovedită înaintea revoltei. […]Însă cei mai lucizi, care nu întotdeauna erau cei ce deţineau puterea, au înţeles că ameninţarea plutea în aer de multă vreme; putea fi observată, de exemplu, în tabloul La împărţitul porumbului, pictat de Ştefan Luchian în 1897, care prezintă un grup de ţărani neliniştiţi, gata să-şi facă auzit glasul.")
  4. "The New Rumanian Constitution". D. Mitrany. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 6, No. 1. (1924), p. 110-119. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of "the British Institute of International and Comparative Law". Accessed: 02/09/2013. ("There are in the statement (hereinafter referred to as the Report) submitted to the Chamber by its Rapporteur some suggestive comments bearing on that restriction. As an apology for the many vague clauses of the new Constitution the Report says that "If the old constituent had left the ordinary legislator free to consider other cases that may have arisen, instead of laying it down that expropriation was permissible only in three defined cases, we should have had neither 1907 [which saw the most serious peasant rising in Rumania] nor another revolution, which would fatally have followed but for the outbreak of the war of 1913. ... Similarly, if the Constitution of 1917, under Conservative pressure, instead of fixing the number of hectares, had left the ordinary legislator free to study and determine the exact surface available, we should not have had to face at a certain moment the question: Constitution or revolution?")
  5. p. 94 in "Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989 - From.Ottomans.to.Milosevic". Tom Gallagher. Routledge 2001. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. ISBN 0-203-64654-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-67559-2 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-27089-8 (Print Edition). ("Except for rare moments, most political strategies involved narrow elite groups and were fought over the heads of the peasant majority. Land reform occurred nearly everywhere, but it was carried out unenthusiastically, mainly to prevent the contagion of Bolshevism infecting the Balkans. […] In Romania the aim behind land reform was often as much to cut down to size minority interests which held large estates as it was to improve the condition of the peasantry (Roberts 1951:39).")
  6. "Alexandru Averescu." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 29 Nov. 2010. ("Later, as head of the newly created People’s Party, he again served as premier (March 1920–December 1921), introducing a much diluted measure of the long-awaited land redistribution. Between March 1926 and June 1927, Averescu again formed a government. His domestic policies were generally conservative and authoritarian.")
  7. "The Movement for Reform in Rumania after World War I: The Parliamentary Bloc Government of 1919-1920". Victoria F. Brown. Slavic Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), p. 456-472. ("Certain of the necessity to stave off any further basic change in Rumanian society, King Ferdinand saw the reformers as subversive trouble-makers, particularly in the area of land reform. From the beginning, Ferdinand relied heavily on the advice of elements hostile to the Parliamentary Bloc and refused to support many of its programs. In the beginning of March 1920, a group of prominent landowners brought the king a petition, in which they complained that Mihalache's agrarian proposals were unconstitutional and urged him to beware of the pernicious influences gathering within the government. The king's most intimate confidants continually supplied him with alarming gossip about government members, especially Lupu. Police and army reports linked Peasant Party leaders and even Iorga with Bulgarian Bolshevists or radical workers. Ferdinand became increasingly hesitant to grant audiences to his own ministers, and he tightened the guard around the palace. Marghiloman claimed that "boyars not only had access to the palace and constantly denounced the cabinet for its 'Bolshevik' tendencies, but also prevented Mihalache from getting an audience to expound his views.")
  8. "Eastern Europe 1740–1985. Feudalism to Communism". Second edition. Robin Okey (Senior Lecturer in History, University of Warwick). First published 1982 by HarperCollins Academic. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. ISBN 0-203-16846-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-26365-0 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-08489-X (Print Edition). ("This new situation frightened inherited ruling circles. In 1920 King Ferdinand arbitrarily dismissed the opening government of peasantists and Transylvanian nationalists because of its decentralist tendencies and the Croatian Peasant Party suffered administrative harrassment in the early years of the Yugoslav state. Thereafter, in conjunction with Bratianu, the liberal strong man, Ferdinand resumed the pre-war royal practice of manipulating elections; the liberals won 260 seats in 1922, sixteen when they chose to retire temporarily in 1926 and 298 when they resumed office in 1927. In comparison the Yugoslav estimate, that the party organizing the elections could expect to benefit by some twenty-five seats, makes the system in that country appear positively sporting.")
  9. "The New Rumanian Constitution". D. Mitrany. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 6, No. 1. (1924), p. 110-119. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of "the British Institute of International and Comparative Law". Accessed: 02/09/2013. ("We may now consider in brief how the Rumanian Act deals with those constitutional guarantees which are the bedrock of a fundamental law. Almost all the relevant clauses have suffered some change. The trend of these changes has recently been subjected to a searching analysis by Professor Constantin Stere in the Rumanian Chamber. He devoted his speech to those sections of the Constitution which concern individual liberty, and his closely argued conclusion was that with regard both to principle as well as to machinery the individual citizen is left more helpless in the face of any abuse of authority than he was before the reform."
  10. "The Movement for Reform in Rumania after World War I: The Parliamentary Bloc Government of 1919-1920". Victoria F. Brown. Slavic Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), p. 456-472. ("Himself a large landowner and in any case always more at ease with Regat politicians and aristocrats than with rough populists and upstart provincials, King Ferdinand did as little as possible to help his government. Toward the end he seemed merely to be marking time until he could safely dispose of the coalition cabinet. With the encouragement of the king, the Liberals recovered their aplomb shortly after the 1919 elections and expended much energy and ingenuity on slandering the cabinet and its parliamentary supporters and consolidating their own position for regaining power when the time was ripe.")
  11. p. 117 in "Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989 - From.Ottomans.to.Milosevic". Tom Gallagher. Routledge 2001. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. ISBN 0-203-64654-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-67559-2 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-27089-8 (Print Edition). ("The anti-Western backlash the Iron Guard had orchestrated in the 1930s bears some comparison with the religious and nationalist revolt that swept Iran in the 1970s. A corrupt and isolated dynasty, which preferred to see wealth reside in a few hands and orientated itself towards the West, drew the wrath of intellectuals and young people who felt excluded from the system. Orthodox fundamentalism pervaded the Guard just as radical Islam was the driving force behind the Iranian revolution.")
  12. "Social Change in Romania — 1860-1940". Kenneth Jowitt (editor). Authors: Kenneth Jowitt. Daniel Chirot. Keith Hitchins. Andrew C. Janos. John Michael Montias. Virgil Nemoianu. Philippe C. Schimitter. Institute Of International Studies, University Of California Berkeley. Regents Of The University Of California 1978. Research Series No. 36. ISBN 0-87725-136-3. "During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Romanian social organization and political development were comparable in many respects to contemporary Third World patterns. As in the Third World today, three characteristics dominated Romanian social and political reality. First, there was a striking gap between the social elite and the peasantry - what the Romanian scholar C. Dobrogeanu-Gherea termed "the abyss between urban and rural Romania." One contemporary Western scholar has suggested that "in no other European country of the interwar era was the moral and psychological chasm between the oligarchic, bureaucratic elite and the lower classes as wide and as deep." Second, there was - what in the last several decades has been a common occurrence - the mechanical transfer of liberal institutional facades from the West. The transfer was accompanied by a quasi-magical view of the power and character of those institutions. Reffering to the enthusiasts of Western mdernization in mid-nineteenth century Romania, Dobrogeanu-Gherea noted that "[Western] political and … social institutions appeared to them as a kind of civilized dress, which by replacing the oriental style transformed [Romania] ipso facto from oriental to civilized." He went on to observe that underneath the Western "top hat and tails" Balkan culture and social relations continued to thrive ("să trăiască bine şi frumos"). Almost all Romanian analysts were sensitive to the discrepancy between the definition and operation of the institutions "imported" from the West.")
  13. "Eastern Europe 1740–1985. Feudalism to Communism". Second edition. Robin Okey (Senior Lecturer in History, University of Warwick). First published 1982 by HarperCollins Academic. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. ISBN 0-203-16846-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-26365-0 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-08489-X (Print Edition). ("This new situation frightened inherited ruling circles. In 1920 King Ferdinand arbitrarily dismissed the opening government of peasantists and Transylvanian nationalists because of its decentralist tendencies and the Croatian Peasant Party suffered administrative harrassment in the early years of the Yugoslav state. Thereafter, in conjunction with Bratianu, the liberal strong man, Ferdinand resumed the pre-war royal practice of manipulating elections; the liberals won 260 seats in 1922, sixteen when they chose to retire temporarily in 1926 and 298 when they resumed office in 1927. In comparison the Yugoslav estimate, that the party organizing the elections could expect to benefit by some twenty-five seats, makes the system in that country appear positively sporting.")
  14. p. 102 in "Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989 - From.Ottomans.to.Milosevic". Tom Gallagher. Routledge 2001. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. ISBN 0-203-64654-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-67559-2 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-27089-8 (Print Edition). ("The low political standards exhibited by many of the post-1918 political leaders had produced a backlash against a façade democracy based on arranged elections and special privileges for narrow financial interests presided over by a monarchy increasingly distancing itself from the people.")
  15. "King Ferdinand I of Romania" in "World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society". Margaret Sankey. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 28 Aug. 2013. ("In 1922, Ferdinand held a coronation ceremony to recognize his place as king of a "Greater Romania." Indeed, Romania had doubled in size, but Ferdinand's promises of reform after the war went unfulfilled. Ferdinand died at Sinaia on July 20, 1927. He was succeeded by his grandson, Michael I.")
  16. p. 384 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938", by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("Interwar Romania is a more dubious or, more correctly, a borderline case. The crucial role played by the monarch in electoral politics rightly leads Dogan to call it a mimic democracy.")
  17. p. 94 in "Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989 - From.Ottomans.to.Milosevic". Tom Gallagher. Routledge 2001. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. ISBN 0-203-64654-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-67559-2 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-27089-8 (Print Edition). ("In 1919, one of the few clean elections held in interwar Romania gave the PNR and its allies a governing majority. In the first election held under universal suffrage, the demand for change was deeply felt. The government formed by Vaida-Voeivod showed its radical intentions. It wished to pass a radical land reform and open contacts with Bolshevik Russia in order to regularise the frontier between them. But in 1920 the crown dismissed the first government of reformers from outside the oligarchy. Elections were held ‘in the old spirit’ and by 1922 the Liberals were back in charge (Macartney and Palmer 1962:213).")
  18. "The Movement for Reform in Rumania after World War I: The Parliamentary Bloc Government of 1919-1920". Victoria F. Brown. Slavic Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), p. 456-472. ("Himself a large landowner and in any case always more at ease with Regat politicians and aristocrats than with rough populists and upstart provincials, King Ferdinand did as little as possible to help his government. Toward the end he seemed merely to be marking time until he could safely dispose of the coalition cabinet. With the encouragement of the king, the Liberals recovered their aplomb shortly after the 1919 elections and expended much energy and ingenuity on slandering the cabinet and its parliamentary supporters and consolidating their own position for regaining power when the time was ripe.")
  19. "Le Passage Du Socialisme Aux Capitalismes - Déterminants Socio-Historiques De La Trajectoire Polonaise Et Roumaine" (Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Montréal, 2002). Elena-Anca Mot. Publié dans la revue Transitions, Vol. 43-1 (2/2004) : "La Roumanie et l'Intégration Européenne", édité par Sorina SOARE. La revue Transitions est éditée par l'Institut de Sociologie de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles et par l'Institut Européen de l'Université de Genève. ("Pour ce qui est du régime politique, la Constitution de 1866 introduit le modèle de la démocratie occidentale (selon la Constitution belge de 1831). Alors que la loi fondamentale était un document de la classe moyenne préparé pour une société capitaliste, en Roumanie, la société à caractère largement paysan gardait ses assises traditionnelles et le pouvoir économique était encore détenu par la grande aristocratie, de sorte que le système de démocratie parlementaire n’était que simulé et mimé.")
  20. p. 38-40 în "The Sword of the Archangel – Fascist Ideology in Romania". Radu Ioanid (translated by Peter Heinegg). East European Monographs No. CCXXII, Boulder. Distributed By Columbia University Press, New York, 1990. ISBN 0-88033-189-5. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-83775. Printed in the United States of America. - "[…]; meanwhile, in Rumania “government by rotation” prevailed. This system, however, was marked by peculiar features, justifying the statement of Matei Dogan that in Rumania at that time there was no authentic democracy. […] The mechanism for assuming power in Rumania did not follow the classic scheme of elections that declare as winner one party, which then takes over the government. Instead, the sovereign dismissed the prime minister—the leader of the party previously in power—and named a new prime minister, chosen from among the heads of the opposition party. Several months later the new party in power organized the elections, thereby inevitably gaining an overwhelming majority, while the newly defined opposition went crashing to spectacular defeat. Thus the party in power was never demoted to minority status by elections taking place under its aegis. Government was not the expression of the parliamentary majority; quite the contrary, the majority came about from the will of the government, thanks to the intense dernagoguery of the politicians, the immaturity of the electorate, and the trafficking in votes. […] The peasantry, which made up 80% of the population of the country was represented by 1% of members of Parliament. Despite the fact that the Rumanian Parliament was, practically speaking, the expression of the government’s domination (at bottom, the will of the monarch), some energetic personalities in Parliament tried to make the most of the possibilities for action that the Parliament theoretically provided. […] This was how things stood at the moment when living conditions among the peasantry were the shame of the nation, and when illiteracy was widespread: in 1930 44.2% of the popuation of Wallachia and Moldavia, 61.3% of Bessarabia, 34.3% of Bukovina, and 33% of Transylvania could not read or write. Futile debates in Parliament kept up a noisy superficial disturbance, while Rumania, despite its rich natural resources, continued to be “the European country with the greatest number of illiterates, the highest mortality rates for both children and adults, the highest rate of sufferers from pellagra and malaria, the lowest productivity per hectare.” Electoral fraud is eloquently illustrated by comparing the results obtained at the polls by the large bourgeois parties between the two World Wars.")
  21. p. 79 in "Romania - World Bibliographical Series, Revised Edition Vol. 59". Author: Peter Siani-Davies; Mary Siani-Davies; Andrea Deletant. Publisher: ABC-CLIO 1998. Printed in Great Britain. ISBN 185109244-7. "World Bibliographical Series" General Editors: Robert G. Neville (Executive Editor). John J. Horton. Robert A. Myers. Hans H. Wellisch. Ian Wallace. Ralph Lee Woodward, Jr. ("The author argues that Romania between the two World Wars can best be characterized as a 'mimic democracy', that is, a democracy where the political process was reversed since the parliament was not elected by a free ballot but, instead, the party in power manipulated elections in order to have the necessary majority.)
  22. "Istoria României în Texte". Bogdan Murgescu (coordonator). Editura Corint 2001. ISBN 973-653-201-1. "Disfuncţiile Regimului Democratic din România Interbelică — Analiza Politologului Mattei Dogan." (În lumina cifrelor de mai sus nu se poate susţine că în România în perioada dintre cele două războaie mondiale a existat un autentic regim democratic. (Mattei Dogan, "Analiza statistică a „Democraţiei Parlamentare“ din România", Bucureşti, 1946, p. 108–109).")
  23. p. 269 în "România şi Europa - Acumularea Decalajelor Economice 1500-2010". Bogdan Murgescu. Polirom 2010. ("Nu numai contemporanii, ci şi istoricii de mai târziu aveau să fie deosebit de critici în legătură cu profilul moral al elitelor politice şi economice din România interbelică. Critica în termeni morali, acuzele justificate de corupţie şi de lipsă de ataşament faţă de valorile democratice nu sunt însă suficiente pentru a postula răspunderea acestor elite pentru lipsa de performanţă economică.")
  24. p. 112 in "Native Fascism in the Successor States 1918-1945". Edited by Peter F. Sugar. American Bibliographical Center Clio Press ("ABC-Clio") Inc. 1971. Santa Barbara California 1971. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 71-149636. ISBN Paperbound Edition 0-87436-074-9. Clohbound Edition 0-87436-073-0. ("Unquestionably Carol lacked confidence in and had little respect for the democratic process. In this regard his attitude was similar to that of his father Ferdinand, and, for that matter, of the entire crowned dynasty of the Hohenzollern and the uncrowned of the Bratianus. His political philosophy, if he had one, was that of dynastic authoritarianism: the King was the ultimate source of political decision and the initiator of meaningful political action.")
  25. "Eastern Europe 1740–1985. Feudalism to Communism". Second edition. Robin Okey (Senior Lecturer in History, University of Warwick). First published 1982 by HarperCollins Academic. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. ISBN 0-203-16846-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-26365-0 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-08489-X (Print Edition). p. 136: "In Romania, where politics remained confined to the landlord class, this alternation became virtually formalized after 1869, with elections not so much inaugurating changes of government as ratifying those which the king had already made, by obliging his new ministers with the necessary parliamentary majority."
  26. p. 380-381 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938"), by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("In Romania, the alternation in power was operated by the crown, which constituted the center of gravity of the political regime. […] One of the basic principles of any parliamentary democracy is that the government emanates from the parliament, which represents the electoral body. In appearance this principle was respected in Romania. But the king reversed the normal order in which the chief of a democratic state exercises his prerogatives, elections first, then formation of the government.")
  27. p. 384 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938", by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("Interwar Romania is a more dubious or, more correctly, a borderline case. The crucial role played by the monarch in electoral politics rightly leads Dogan to call it a mimic democracy.")
  28. p. 8 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("Mattei Dogan, in his study of the electoral process in prewar Romania prepared for this volume, suggested that a political system may have all the institutions associated with democracy – political parties, elections and legislatures – but still not be democratic because power is exercised behind the scenes. In prewar Romania, he wrote, monarchical power was not always apparent because elected governments were free to do as they wanted so long as what they wanted was also in accordance with the wishes of the monarch; but when a government failed to conform to those wishes and interests, it was replaced by a new government, which submitted itself to the electorate for what proved to be automatic confirmation. Dogan thus reminded us that the presence of parties, elections and parliaments is not in itself sufficient proof that a democratic system exists. Prewar Eastern Europe, several Latin American countries in the 1920s and 1930s, prewar Japan, and several contemporary countries in Africa and South and Southeast Asia have had and now have similar "democratic systems" – what Dogan called "mimic democracies" – with elections that do little more than provide the appearance of popular sovereignty and popular legitimation for governments ruled by monarchs, the military and oligarchs. Like the king in the Allice in Wonderland, who says "sentence first, judgment latter", these are countries guided by the principle "government first, electionsa latter".")
  29. «L'Effondrement de la Démocratie, Autoritarisme et Totalitarisme dans l'Europe de l'Entre-Deux-Guerre». Juan J. Linz. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 2004/4 Vol. 11, p. 531-586. DOI : 10.3917/ripc.114.0531. («Les dictatures royales: La présence d’un roi à la tête de l’État était une des particularités des régimes autoritaires dans les Balkans (Roumanie, Bulgarie, Yougoslavie, Grèce). Il est important de relever que ces monarques ne cherchèrent pas à remettre en question le parlementarisme libéral dans la mesure où, constitutionnellement ou en pratique, ils gardaient un rôle décisif. Ils contribuèrent à faire et défaire les cabinets, accordaient pouvoir aux premiers ministres et partis et organisaient des élections qu’ils manipulaient allégrement.»)
  30. "Romania", Auteur(s): Roger E. Hartley. World Education Encyclopedia, Ed. Rebecca Marlow-Ferguson, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., Detroit: Gale, 2001, p. 1115-1130. Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. - "Pre-World War II, Romania exhibited many of the qualities of a dictatorship although it had a constitutional monarchy."
  31. "Le Passage Du Socialisme Aux Capitalismes - Déterminants Socio-Historiques De La Trajectoire Polonaise Et Roumaine" (Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Montréal, 2002). Elena-Anca Mot. Publié dans la revue Transitions, Vol. 43-1 (2/2004) : "La Roumanie et l'intégration européenne", édité par Sorina SOARE. La revue Transitions est éditée par l'Institut de Sociologie de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles et par l'Institut Européen de l'Université de Genève. ("L’État roumain renforcé par les acquis territoriaux exerce pleinement ses fonctions économiques et sociales. Les progrès accomplis pendant cette période sont essentiellement le résultat de la politique d’industrialisation et de l’application des politiques protectionnistes. Ce type de modernisation a été rendu possible par le modèle dictatorial bonapartiste fondé sur une bureaucratie centralisatrice et une alliance entre les élites industrielles et financières, de sorte que la démarche modernisatrice a gardé son caractère conservateur et réactionnaire.")
  32. p. 29 in "Hitler’s Forgotten Ally - Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania 1940–44". Dennis Deletant. Palgrave Macmillan 2006. ISBN 1-4039-9341-6. "The greatest discrepancy, from a western point of view, lay in the gulf between word and deed. Behind the façade of political institutions copied from the West the practice of government was subject to patronage and narrow sectional interests. Under the constitution of 1923 the king had the power to dissolve parliament and appoint a new government."
  33. "Faschismus als Reflex und Voraussetzung autoritärer Herrschaft in Rumänien." Author(s): Armin Heinen. Source: Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 12. Jahrg., H. 2, Faschismus in autoritären Systemen (1986), p. 139-162. Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG). - "La Constitution roumaine de 1923 a placé le pouvoir exécutif sous la gouverne des rois, les parties politiques n'étant même pas mentionnés dans ce text." (Die rumänische Konstitution von 1923 legte die Leitung der Exekutive in die Hand des Königs (Art. 88), die Parteien wurden nicht erwähnt.")
  34. "The Political Evolution of Roumania". Author: Joseph S. Rouček. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 10, No. 30 (Apr., 1932), p. 602-615. Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies. ("The personal basis of Roumanian politics must not obscure the fact that the most important single factor in Roumanian political life has been, with the exception of the brief period of the Regency, the Crown. Carol, Ferdinand, and now the second Carol, as recent events point out, have been in varying degrees arbiters between the parties. The power of absolute veto and the right of dissolution, in addition to the power to nominate and dismiss its Ministers, often enabled the Crown to determine the electoral result beforehand by appointing its chosen favourites to office as the Government in charge of the elections. The Government managing the elections has never met defeat in Roumania.")
  35. "Area Handbook for Romania. Authors: Eugene K. Keefe, Donald W. Bernier, Lyle E. Brenneman, William Giloane, James M. Moore, and Neda A. Walpole. Release Date: June 8, 2010. Research and writing were completed in February 1972. Published 1972. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 72-600095. This volume is one of a series of handbooks prepared by Foreign Area Studies (FAS) of The American University, designed to be useful to military and other personnel who need a convenient compilation of basic facts about the social, economic, political, and military institutions and practices of various countries. ("Economic and formal political progress, however, was not matched by similar advancement of democratic processes in the social field. The liberal provisions of the 1866 Constitution were circumvented under the authoritarian governmental system, leaving much actual power in the hands of the landed aristocracy. The slowly rising middle class and small number of industrial entrepreneurs were granted some rights, but the increasing number of industrial workers and the great peasant majority shared very little in the political life of the country.")
  36. "Postwar - A History of Europe Since 1945." Tony Judt. The Penguin Press 2005. Published by the Penguin Group. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 1-59420-065-3. ("It is easy, in retrospect, to see that hopes for a democratic Eastern Europe after 1945 were always forlorn. Central and Eastern Europe had few indigenous democratic or liberal traditions. The inter-war regimes in this part of Europe had been corrupt, authoritarian and in some cases murderous. The old ruling castes were frequently venal.")
  37. p. 370-371 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938", by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("Without the climate created by the Russian Revolution, which broke out in March and October of the same year, the agricultural reform would certainly not have been of the magnitude that it was. Moreover, the government promised to recast the political culture: "During 40 years, our political parties, without exception, have practiced corruption. … We are all responsible for this situation, for not having done anything to stop this monstrous tyranny and the corruption of our public life. By the methods we used, we have created, sustained and developed the all-encompassing power of the oligarchy." This statement was not made by an isolated politician at an electoral meeting, but was solemnly declared in the Chamber of Deputies two months after the first Russian Revolution (on March 27, 1917).")
  38. p. 134 in "A History of Fascism, 1914–1945". Stanley G.Payne. Routledge 2005. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. ("Romania: […] Yet Romanian society was one of the poorest and most underdeveloped in eastern Europe, with nearly 50 percent illiteracy. Its political system had been dominated by two elitist parties (the Liberals and Conservatives). Its elections had been manipulated, and its politics and government were perhaps the most corrupt in Europe.")
  39. p. 262 in "Ten Years of Greater Roumania". Alexander Vaida-Voevod. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 7, No. 20 (Jan., 1929), p. 261-267. Published by the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Accessed: 19/11/2013. ("The elections held under the successive governments of Averescu and Bratianu have remained memorable for their electoral frauds, by the aid of which the nominees of those in power were able to defy the will of the electors and assure to themselves a majority. The use of the gendarmerie - which had been raised to the number of 40,000 - to prevent citizens from reaching the poll, the arbitrary transference of votes to the Government Party, the falsification of returns by dishonest officials, the rejection by Parliament of all electoral petitions and the ratification of all the mandates of majorities which owed their election to "fraud, violence and the theft of ballot boxes" -such were the methods employed in Roumania during the past ten years. […] Led by men who had grown old in the antiquated methods of oligarchic government, ignoring the masses and anxious to curb their aspirations, the Liberal Government, in order to assure itself of a sufficient number of adherents, introduced without any proper selection many doubtful elements into all branches of the administration. These in their turn, knowing themselves to enjoy a privileged position, lent themselves to all the abuses which arbitrary and uncontrolled government invariably engenders, while the authorities, in order to save the situation, were forced not only to shut their eyes in the face of boundless corruption, but also to resort to excessive censorship of the press, supplemented by a state of siege.")
  40. "The Politics of Backwardness in Continental Europe, 1780-1945". Andrew C. Janos. World Politics, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Apr., 1989), p. 325-358. Published by Cambridge University Press. Accessed: 11/03/2014. ("The experience of neighboring Romania was similar. In 1876, Premier Ion "I.C." Bratianu set up a political machine to the benefit of his Liberal Party. Within the machine, the prefects of the counties (judete) were turned by Bratianu into "petty satraps", whose activities made it "exceedingly difficult to agitate against the government... even for members of the boyar class." Thus, according to another historian, "as the power of the salaried bureaucracy increased, so did in proportion the power of the landed class decrease." In Hungary, the rigging of elections was confined to constituencies inhabited by minorities (and later, to the countryside), but in Romania, the system of "engineering" results by pressure or fraud was universal. In consequence, parliament was usually dominated by a single party, faced only by the token opposition of a handful of deputies.")
  41. p. 377-378 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938", by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("[…], violation of the ballot box, restriction of opposition condidates' freedom and punishment of voters suspected of having voted "badly" were the most frequent techniques. […] Electoral participation was higher than one would expect, considering the preponderance of peasants. It was very high in some poor rural areas and relatively low in some cities. This indicated that many "governmental voters" were in fact fictious, as claimed in a series of pamphlets published between 1932 and 1937 by the National Peasant party – in French, to alert French politicians and journalists.")
  42. "Rumanian Nationalism". Robert Strausz-Hupé. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 232, "A Challenge to Peacemakers" (Mar., 1944), p. 86-93. Published by Sage Publications, Inc. in association with "the American Academy of Political and Social Science" Accessed: 11/03/2014. ("POLITICAL CORRUPTION: The towering fact of Rumanian public life is graft. Its beneficiaries are a horde of jobholders and fixers. Its victims are the peasant and the Jewish moneylender alike. The economic servitude of the Rumanian peasant renders meaningless his constitutional liberties, even were these not annulled by a staggering political spoils system, buttressed by rigged elections and administrative chicanery. In view of the chronic crisis of Rumanian agriculture, it is surprising that communism has found comparatively few adherents in Rumania. Undoubtedly this is due to the non-Slavic culture of the people and their fear of Russian imperialist designs.")
  43. p. 375 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938", by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("In contrast, the Romanian political regime was characterized by severe electoral instability, one of the sharpest in Europe between the two wars. […] The other governmental votes were simply due to corruption and falsification. Trickery over votes was practiced much more by the Liberal party than by the National Peasant party (see figures 10.2 and 10.3)")
  44. p. 394 in "Conditions of Democracy in Europe, 1919-39". Systematic Case Studies. Edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser (Professor of Political Science, Phillipps University, Marburg, Germany) and Jeremy Mitchell (Lecturer in Government, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England) in association with International Political Science Association. First published in Great Britain 2000 by Macmillan Press Ltd. (ISBN 0-333-64828-5). First published in the United States of America 2000 by St. Martin’s Press, Inc. (ISBN 0-312-22843-0). ("8 Conclusions: The definition of crisis in the case of interwar Romania is a very relative one. If we were to assume that Greater Romania had been committed to compromise and the modification of traditional political practices and mentalities by accepting the democratic conditions imposed by the post-First World War peace treaties and embodied in the Constitution of 1923, then the entire inter-war period would constitute a record of political crises. However, as the acceptance of the conditions imposed upon Romania was largely pro forma, they were ignored de facto, being considered incompatible with the principles of Romanian nationalism and Romania’s political experience. Thus, the exclusion of political opponents from power by means of fraudulent elections, the discrimination against Jews, Hungarians and other minorities, the abolition of political pluralism and the parliamentary system by the royal dictatorship of 1938, and the coming to power of the Antonescu regime, were not considered as major political crises by the vast majority of the Romanian population.")
  45. p. 39-40 in "The Sword of the Archangel – Fascist Ideology in Romania". Radu Ioanid (translation by Peter Heinegg). East European Monographs No. CCXXII, Boulder. Distributed By Columbia University Press, New York, 1990. ISBN 0-88033-189-5. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-83775. Printed in the United States of America. - ("[…]; meanwhile, in Rumania “government by rotation” prevailed. This system, however, was marked by peculiar features, justifying the statement of Matei Dogan that in Rumania at that time there was no authentic democracy. The majority in the government never cooperated with the opposition, even though their programs were not too different. The mechanism for assuming power in Rumania did not follow the classic scheme of elections that declare as winner one party, which then takes over the government. Instead, the sovereign dismissed the prime minister—the leader of the party previously in power—and named a new prime minister, chosen from among the heads of the opposition party. Several m onths later the new party in power organized the elections, thereby inevitably gaining an overwhelming majority, while the newly defined opposition went crashing to spectacular defeat. Thus the party in power was never demoted to minority status by elections taking place under its aegis. Government was not the expression of the parliamentary majority; quite the contrary, the majority came about from the will of the government, thanks to the intense dernagoguery of the politicians, the im m aturity of the electorate, and the trafficking in votes. […] Later, after the Conservative Party disappeared, the distribution of seats in Parliament according to profession changed during the period between the wars. The balance between landowners and lawyers was reversed in the lawyers’ favor: 40% of the members of Parliament were lawyers, as opposed to the 18% who were large landowners. This ratio held good for all the large bourgeois parties. The peasantry, which made up 80% of the population of the country was represented by 1% of members of Parliament. Despite the fact that the Rumanian Parliament was, practically speaking, the expression of the government’s domination (at bottom , the will of the monarch), some energetic personalities in Parliament tried to make the most of the possibilities for action that the Parliament theoretically provided. Thus there were realy “parliamentary figures”, such as V irgil Madgearu, Nicolae Iorga, I. G. Duca, Nicolae Lupu, D. R. Ionitescu. But, generally speaking, participation in the debates was modest; and discussion of fundamental problems was replaced by insults, shouting, meaningless rhetoric, pretentious language, and uncalled for remarks. This was how things stood at the moment when living conditions among the peasantry were the shame of the nation, and when illiteracy was widespread: in 1930, 44.2% of the popuation of Wallachia and Moldavia, 61.3% of Bessarabia, 34.3% of Bukovina, and 33% of Transylvania could not read or write. Futile debates in Parliament kept up a noisy superficial disturbance, while Rumania, despite its rich natural resources, continued to be “the European country with the greatest number of illiterates, the highest m ortality rates for both children and adults, the highest rate of sufferers from pellagra and malaria, the lowest productivity per hectare.” Electoral fraud is eloquently illustrated by comparing the results obtained at the polls by the large bourgeois parties between the two World Wars.")
  46. p. 24 in "War and National Consolidation, 1887-1941 (History of the Balkans – Twentieth Century)". Barbara Jelavich. Cambridge University Press 1999. First published 1983. ISBN 0-521-27459-1 (Vol. 2) paperback. ("In 1884, under Liberal sponsorship, a bill on electoral reform was passed. Although the franchise was made broader, the system of voting by electoral colleges, which served to exclude the majority of the population from real political influence, was retained. Moreover, as previously, the government in power was able to control the elections through patronage and the police. The king could appoint a new ministry of his choice and then dissolve parliament and hold a new election. The government in office could assure itself of a victory in the voting by use of the centralized administrative system, and thus win sufficient support in the chamber. This procedure gave the king a pivotal role between the two parties.")
  47. "Popular Front in the Balkans: (4. Failure in Hungary and Rumania)". Bela Vago. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 5, No. 3, Popular Fronts (1970), p. 95-117, Published by Sage Publications, Ltd. ("In Rumania the right-wing National Liberal Party (NLP) had been at the helm since I933. Up to the end of 1937 the extreme anti-communist and anti-Soviet Tatarescu served as Prime Minister. He had to cope with a stronger agrarian opposition than Goemboes, and in 1935 the Rumanian extreme right also carried more weight than the Hungarian. The democratic National Peasant Party (NPP) of Iuliu Maniu, I. Mihalache, and N. Lupu managed to maintain its mass base in spite of electoral chicanery and police terror;")
  48. "The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe Since 1918". Antony Polonsky. Routledge & Kegan Paul Books 1975. (ISBN 0710080956 et 978-0710080950). p. 82: "[…] the persistent political malaise in Rumania was the contrast between the ostensibly western-style constitutional character of the regime, and its actual practices. This contrast soon became glaringly evident."
  49. p. 95-96 in "Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989 - From.Ottomans.to.Milosevic". Tom Gallagher. Routledge 2001. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. ISBN 0-203-64654-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-67559-2 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-27089-8 (Print Edition). ("However, the Liberals discreetly exploited anti-Semitism in towns with many Jewish inhabitants (Nagy-Talavera 1999:227). To put the blame on others for the obvious failures and injustices of the Romanian oligarchy enabled student discontent to be channelled in safe directions (Weber 1974: 511). […] In Romania, the deaths in quick succession of King Ferdinand and his imperious chief minister, Ion I.C.Brătianu, in 1927 enabled the reform-minded PNT to come to the fore. Its newspaper triumphantly proclaimed in 1928 that ‘[T]he country has decided through a true plebiscite against dictatorship and for the rule of law… Romania for the first time is becoming a civilized parliamentary state deserving to pass from East to West’.")
  50. "Le Passage Du Socialisme Aux Capitalismes - Déterminants Socio-Historiques De La Trajectoire Polonaise Et Roumaine" (Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Montréal, 2002). Elena-Anca Mot. Publié dans la revue Transitions, Vol. 43-1 (2/2004) : "La Roumanie et l'intégration européenne", édité par Sorina SOARE. La revue Transitions est éditée par l'Institut de Sociologie de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles et par l'Institut Européen de l'Université de Genève. ("La Roumanie a été le seul exemple authentique de deuxième servage en Europe orientale, le changement du système agraire étant le résultat du capitalisme industriel (développé en Occident) et non pas marchand comme dans les trajectoires endogènes de modernisation des structures féodales. […] En se dotant de structures institutionnelles fortement bureaucratisées, dans la tradition de l’autocratie et du despotisme féodal, la Roumanie a amorcé la transformation capitaliste sans la modernisation des structures sociales existantes qui restaient traditionnelles et arriérées : la loi agraire de 1864 proclame la fin formelle de l’ordre féodal (la fin du servage), qui se trouve à l’origine des transformations des structures économiques, mais les rapports agraires ont gardé, même après cette date, des résidus féodaux, qui ne seront réellement abolis qu’après 1945. […] À l’instar des autres pays qui ont réalisé la modernisation selon une démarche réactionnaire (la Prusse, le Japon, l’Italie), la Roumanie offre plutôt l’exemple d’un régime semi-parlementaire fondé sur un État avec un haut degré d’autonomie par rapport aux forces qui structurent la société. Les deux classes dominantes (la bourgeoisie et l’aristocratie foncière) formaient, de par leur origine et intérêts communs, une coalition réactionnaire, propre, selon les thèses de Moore, aux systèmes agraires en voie de modernisation “par le haut”18. Malgré le fait qu’on était loin du fascisme, on décèle, dès cette époque, quelques prérequis de cette forme politique : le maintien des structures paysannes à l’aide de la répression politique (les révoltes paysannes de 1888, 1907), une configuration conservatrice mettant en évidence l’alliance de la classe terrienne et de la bourgeoisie avec, dans les conditions d’un faible développement de cette dernière, une dominance de l’aristocratie et, enfin, le rôle moteur de l’État dans l’industrialisation permettant la modernisation sans le changement radical des structures. […] Pour l’instant, on a constaté que la Roumanie, bien que se dotant des institutions propres à la démocratie libérale, n’expérimentait au fond qu’une formule autoritaire semi-parlementaire.")
  51. "Eastern Europe 1740–1985. Feudalism to Communism". Second edition. Robin Okey (Senior Lecturer in History, University of Warwick). First published 1982 by HarperCollins Academic. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. ISBN 0-203-16846-1 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-26365-0 (Adobe eReader Format). ISBN 0-415-08489-X (Print Edition). p. 165: "Disturbing signs, however, were the refusal to make German a second state language in Czechoslovakia and the prerogatives preserved to royalty in Yugoslavia and Romania." p. 136: "In the Balkan states, with their revolutionary origins, sovereigns had to adapt to the elections, parties and ministerial responsibility of constitutional life. This did not come easily to German princes like Charles of Romania (1866–1914), and Alexander von Battenburg (1879–86) and Ferdinand von Coburg of Bulgaria (1887–1918), or to King Milan of Serbia (1868–89) who, though of the native Obrenovic dynasty, had been educated abroad and preferred the life-style of Biarritz to that of Belgrade. Yet unsophisticated societies accorded a charismatic role to their sovereigns—Ferdinand, for one, took care to cultivate an ostentatious etiquette—and this helped rulers to exploit the prerogatives of constitutional monarchy, notably rights of appointment of ministers and dissolution of parliament, in a way unthinkable for a Queen Victoria."
  52. p. 381-383 (Chapter 16: "Romania: Crisis without Compromise", Stephen Fischer-Galati) in "Conditions of Democracy in Europe, 1919-39". Systematic Case Studies. Edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser (Professor of Political Science, Phillipps University, Marburg, Germany) and Jeremy Mitchell (Lecturer in Government, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England) in association with International Political Science Association. First published in Great Britain 2000 by Macmillan Press Ltd. (ISBN 0-333-64828-5). First published in the United States of America 2000 by St. Martin’s Press, Inc. (ISBN 0-312-22843-0). ("Preservation of the monopoly of power in the hands of the Romanian aristocracy and upper bourgeoisie, of the old Romanian military leaders and the Orthodox hierarchy precluded acceptance of diversity – social, political, ethnic, or economic. […] At the end of the First World War, the Old Romanian kingdom was what the socialist leader Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea called a ‘neo-feudal’ society. Some 90 per cent of the population consisted of peasants, most of whom were illiterate and nearly all of whom were of the Romanian Orthodox faith. The industrial working class, almost entirely the sons and daughters of peasants, amounted to about 6 per cent of the population. It too was almost entirely Romanian Orthodox. The landed aristocracy, totally Romanian and Orthodox, was generally educated, versed in French culture, and contemptuous of the peasantry, working class, and commercial bourgeoisie. The state bureaucracy, comprising mostly intellectuals and members of the free professions, shared the prejudices of the aristocracy toward the lower social classes.")
  53. "Social Background of Roumanian Politics". Joseph S. Roucek. "Social Forces", Vol. 10, No. 3 (Mar., 1932), p. 419-425. Published by: Oxford University Press. ("As there was hardly any democracy in pre-war Roumania, the sudden transition after the War was at least a mixed blessing to her hard-pressed leaders.")
  54. p. 104 in "Romania – Borderland of Europe". Lucian Boia (translated by James Christian Brown). Reaktion Books Ltd. 2001. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd. ISBN 1 86189 103 2. ("Carol returned and proclaimed himself King. A strong-willed and authoritarian figure, he saw the ruling of the country as his personal prerogative, and eroded the power of the political parties as much as he could. In the elections of 1937, the Liberal government lost (the first time a Romanian government had been voted out of office!), while the Legionary movement - or Iron Guard, a nationalist party of Orthodoxist and anti-Semitic character - won a disturbing 15 percent of the vote.")
  55. p. 372 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938", by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("The majority premium simply reinforced the winning party. To benefit from it, a party first had to obtain 40 percent of the national vote. Here is the keystone of the system: the party holding power on the day of the election always attained at least 40 percent of the vote until 1937. But – and this is of essential importance – the same party was never in power for two successive legislative elections. The alternation in power was regulary ensured. […] It was characterized by the alternation of two parties in power: the Liberal party and the People's party between 1920 and 1927; the Liberal party and the National Peasant party between 1927 and 1937."
  56. "An Eyewitness Note: Reflections on the Rumanian Iron Guard ". Zvi Yavetz. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 26, No. 3/4, "The Impact of Western Nationalisms: Essays Dedicated to Walter Z. Laqueur on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday" (Sep., 1991), p. 597-610. Published by Sage Publications, Ltd. (Zvi Yovetz is Fred Lessing Professor of Ancient History at Tel Aviv University and Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York (Queens). He is the author of "Plebs and Princeps" (Oxford 1969), "Caesar's Public Image" (London 1979) and "Slaves and Slavery" (New Brunswick 1987; Augustus, Tel Aviv 1988). He is currently working on a book on Czernowitz between the world wars). ("The elections held on 20 December 1937 were unique for three main reasons. Firstly, not since 1918 had the ruling party lost an election. As a matter of fact, no one in the West respected the Romanian parliamentary democracy that was established in 1918. It was an open secret that governments rigged elections, that voters were easily corrupted, and the entire issue of electoral ethics produced more questions than answers.")
  57. p. 94 in "Rumania, 1866-1947. (Oxford History of Modern Europe)". Keith Hitchins. Oxford University Press 1994. ISBN 0-19-822126-6. Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Ipswich Book Company Ltd., Suffolk. ("The king played a key role in determining the outcome of elections through his constitutional authority to appoint the incoming Prime Minister. By the final decades of the century the procedures for changing governments had been perfected. The process began with the resignation of the sitting government, consultations between the king and leading politicians, and the selection of one among the latter to form a new government. The first task of the newly designated Prime Minister after he had chosen his cabinet was to organize elections for a new Chamber and Senate. That was the responsibility of the Minister of the Interior, who mobilized the prefects of the judeţe and the rest of the state administrative apparatus, whose loyalty had been verified, to make certain that the opposition would be overwhelmed in the coming elections. Between 1881 and 1914, as the result of their zeal, no government designated by the king was ever disappointed at the polls.")
  58. p. 31 in Istoria Gărzii de Fier 1919-1941 - Mistica Ultranaţionalismului. Francisco Veiga. 2nd Ed. Humanitas, Bucureşti 1995. ISBN 9789732803929. ("Monarhul a fost oferit de familia Hohenzollern, una dintre cele mai fertile furnizoare de principi europeni, sub numele de Carol I. El era cel care trebuia să cheme la conducere pe unul sau altul dintre partide, după care se realizau alegeri limitate cu grijă de sistemul cenzitar, alegeri care, în mod invariabil, confirmau la conducere noul chemat.")
  59. The Movement for Reform in Rumania after World War I: The Parliamentary Bloc Government of 1919-1920. Victoria F. Brown. Slavic Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), p. 456-472. - "The fate of all Rumanian political parties rested to an unusual degree in the hands of the king. One key to royal power was the peculiar Rumanian system of having the king appoint a new prime minister before parliamentary elections were held. Because the party just given power was then allowed to "make the elections" in its own interests, the king's choice of minister effectively determined the complexion of the new parliament. The theoretical power of the Rumanian monarch was further enhanced by his constitutional rights of absolute veto and dissolution of parliament, and, in practice, the king had always played a very active political role, serving as arbiter between the warring Liberals and Conservatives. Even when his mediating role became unnecessary at the end of World War I, because of the eclipse of the Conservatives and the rightward drift of the Liberals, the king was able to maintain and perhaps even increase his grip on Rumanian political life by using his constitutional and traditional powers to define the interests of the ruling class.
  60. p. 380-381 in "Competitive Elections in Developing Countries". Edited by Myron Weiner and Ergun Ozbundun. Chapter 10 ("Romania: 1919-1938"), by Mattei Dogan). Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1987. ("In Romania, the alternation in power was operated by the crown, which constituted the center of gravity of the political regime. […] One of the basic principles of any parliamentary democracy is that the government emanates from the parliament, which represents the electoral body. In appearance this principle was respected in Romania. But the king reversed the normal order in which the chief of a democratic state exercises his prerogatives, elections first, then formation of the government. This reversal can be explained by the profound social, cultural and political realities of the country. The king was obliged to reverse the order to save the façade of the democratic game. This reversal created what I call mimic democracy. This is how mimic democracy functioned. The king would revoke the government without a vote of no confidence by parliament. A new government would be appointed, which would immediately ask the king to dissolve parliament, where it lacked a majority. After a maximum interval of two months, as formally specified by the constitution, new elections were held. As we have seen, the new party in power until 1937 always succeeded in obtaining at least 40 percent of the national vote and thus was able to benefit from the majority premium, which gave it more than 60 percent of the parliamentary seats. […] a conservative leader and prime minister before World War I, Petru Carp, addressed to the king: "Give me the power and I shall make a Parliament in my image." The chronological order of the political process was as follows: revocation of the government, appointment of a new government, dissolution of parliament, new "elections", parliamentary majority for the new government. But one might observe that the population was consulted and that it could ratify or reject the new government. Here is the core of the matter: the electorate never put the party holding power in the minority until 1937. The fresh government knew how to manage the elections. It was not the king who exercised pressure on the electorate.")
  61. "Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919–39 (Comparative Analyses)". Edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser (Professor of Political Science, Phillipps University, Marburg, Germany) and Jeremy Mitchell (Lecturer in Government, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England). Palgrave MacMillan 2002. ISBN 0-333-96606-6. ("Stephen Fischer-Galati describes the background to the royal coup against the government in 1920. The peasant coalition government advocated first "a comprehensive program of land expropriation and social reform in the village; second it professed national reconciliation through observance of the incorporation agreements (of non-Romanians in ‘Greater’ Romania) and of the provisions of the so-called Minorities Treaty… These ‘treacherous’ acts were branded as incompatible with the national interest by Bratianu and his entourage and, perhaps even more significantly, by the monarchy. Acting in consort with conservatives and nationalists, King Ferdinand dismissed the Vaida government in March 1920 at the moment when parliamentary approval of a play for agrarian reform that would have indeed satisfied the demands of the peasantry and consolidated the rule of pro-peasant or peasant parties …" (Fischer-Galati 1991). The destruction of democracy in the name of the nation was precipitated by intense class conflict in Hungary and Romania.")
  62. p. 65-66 in "Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919–39 (Comparative Analyses)". Edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser (Professor of Political Science, Phillipps University, Marburg, Germany) and Jeremy Mitchell (Lecturer in Government, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England). Palgrave MacMillan 2002. ISBN 0-333-96606-6. ("p. 65: The attempt by the victorious allies to introduce 'western' democracy into Eastern Europe after the war by means of extension of political rights to all social classes, adoption of universal male suffrage, protection of the interests of national minorities, granting of citizenship to Jews, and introduction of 'western-type' constitutions proved singularly unsuccessful in all succession states save, in part, in Czechoslovakia. Just as in the nineteenth century, the mostly nationalist anti-democratic forces, reinforced by the threat of Bolshevism, made a mockery of the constitutional principles to which they had subscribed, volens nolens, at the end of 'the war that was to end all wars'.")
  63. "Conditions of Democracy in Europe, 1919-39". Systematic Case Studies. Edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser (Professor of Political Science, Phillipps University, Marburg, Germany) and Jeremy Mitchell (Lecturer in Government, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England) in association with International Political Science Association. First published in Great Britain 2000 by Macmillan Press Ltd. (ISBN 0-333-64828-5). First published in the United States of America 2000 by St. Martin’s Press, Inc. (ISBN 0-312-22843-0). - "Thus, it is quite apparent that the regimes in Hungary or Romania, for example, must be qualified, even before the final breakdown, as largely ‘façade’ democracies."
  64. p. 99 in "Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy - Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe". Gregory M. Luebbert. Oxford University Press 1991. - "Elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the level of modernization was greater, but still a handicap for liberals. In the cities, in the place of an economically independent middle class a kind of ersatz middle class appeared, dependent on state employment and foreign capital. In the countryside, a landed elite often continued to lord over an impoverished and illiterate peasantry. Under these circumstances, such liberal institutions as appeared—written constitutions, manhood suffrage, and parliaments, for example—were merely epigonic."
  65. "Reluctant Allies? Iuliu Maniu and Corneliu Zelea Codreanu against King Carol II of Romania". Rebecca Ann Haynes. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 85, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), p. 105-134. Published by the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Accessed: 11/03/2014. ("National Liberal governments were noted for high levels of electoral manipulation and corruption and for economic 'clientism'. When the National Liberals were brought to power in 1922, Maniu contested the legality of the election and he remained an adversary of the party throughout the decade and beyond. It was largely as a result of the National Liberal government's increasingly authoritarian tendencies that the Romanian National Party fused with the Peasant Party, which had been founded in the Old Kingdom of Romania in I918 by Ion Mihalache. The National Peasant Party was thus created in 1926 with Maniu as party president.")
  66. p. 38 în "The Sword of the Archangel – Fascist Ideology in Romania". Radu Ioanid (translated by Peter Heinegg). East European Monographs No. CCXXII, Boulder. Distributed By Columbia University Press, New York, 1990. ISBN 0-88033-189-5. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-83775. Printed in the United States of America. "During World War I, when most of the country was under foreign occupation, in the state of mind encouraged by the Russian Revolution, reforms were instituted in two areas, agriculture and elections. The constitutional changes of 1917 and the electoral law of November 16, 1918 inaugurated an electoral system characterized by universal suffrage, a secret ballot, electoral wards, voting from electoral lists, and the adoption of proportional representation in the Chamber. Deriving originally from Belgium, this electoral law was abandoned in 1926 for another, replacing proportional representation with the principle of "minority representation". This principle stipulated that the party which won a majority of the votes (at least 40%) would enjoy a m ajority advantage of about 50% of the seats in Parliament, with the other fifty percent being distributed proportionally among the parties that had gotten at least 2% of the vote. The granting of the majority advantage—similar to the one employed by the Italian fascist law of 1923—aimed at forming a strong majority within the Parliament.")
  67. "Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919–39 (Comparative Analyses)". Edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser (Professor of Political Science, Phillipps University, Marburg, Germany) and Jeremy Mitchell (Lecturer in Government, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England). Palgrave MacMillan 2002. ISBN 0-333-96606-6. ("The 1920 royal coup d’état in Romania – which not only ended a brief period of democratic rule but also removed the only government in the interwar period that attempted to achieve reconciliation with the national minorities – was justified by the ‘treachery’ ethnic compromise supposedly constituted against Romanian interests (Fischer-Galati 1991: 34–5).")
  68. "Le Passage Du Socialisme Aux Capitalismes - Déterminants Socio-Historiques De La Trajectoire Polonaise Et Roumaine" (Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Montréal, 2002). Elena-Anca Mot. Publié dans la revue Transitions, Vol. 43-1 (2/2004) : "La Roumanie et l'intégration européenne", édité par Sorina SOARE. La revue Transitions est éditée par l'Institut de Sociologie de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles et par l'Institut Européen de l'Université de Genève. ("Sur le plan politique, les structures institutionnelles libérales, sont, à l’instar du siècle passé, et cela malgré la démocratisation du système représentatif, en contradiction avec les structures sociales et économiques, arriérées et traditionnelles, d’une part, et avec les pratiques (autoritaires) de leur fonctionnement, d’autre part. […] Pour nous, les pulsions totalitaires trouvent essentiellement leur source dans les contradictions entre le caractère purement formel des arrangements institutionnels démocratiques et les structures socio-éconmiques encore largement traditionnelles, qui n’ont pas été éradiquées par les réformes agraire et électorale, la Roumanie développant, dans la continuité historique, la voie conservatrice de modernisation caractérisée par le contrôle, économique et social, “d’en haut”.")
  69. "La Roumanie Des Années Trente, De L’Avènement De Carol II Au Démembrement Du Royaume (1930-1940). Boisdron Matthieu. Parçay-sur-Vienne, Anovi, 2007, 221 p., 16 €. Comte rendu par Traian Sandu. («La publication de bons mémoires de mastère est une politique juste pour encourager les jeunes talents. Matthieu Boisdron ne déçoit pas. Ayant «fait» la Grande Roumanie après la première guerre mondiale, Paris devint un excellent poste d’observation et d’action pour constater les dysfonctionnements de son «pupille» roumain dès les années 1920, aussi bien dans le désintérêt qu’il marqua à l’égard de l’action anti-allemande de la France dans la Ruhr que dans l’application sui generis de la démocratie parlementaire par celle qu’on appelait complaisamment la «Belgique d’Orient».)

Voir aussi[modifier | modifier le code]

Articles connexes[modifier | modifier le code]

Liens externes et sources[modifier | modifier le code]

Sur les autres projets Wikimedia :