Ferdinand I of Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Ferdinand of Romania)
Jump to: navigation, search
Ferdinand I
King Ferdinand of Romania.jpg
Ferdinand I of Romania
King of the Romanians
Reign 10 October 1914 – 20 July 1927
Coronation 15 October 1922
Predecessor Carol I
Successor Michael I
Spouse Marie of Edinburgh
Issue
Carol II
Elisabeth, Queen of the Hellenes
Maria, Queen of Yugoslavia
Nicholas, Prinz von Hohenzolllern
Ileana, Archduchess of Austria
Prince Mircea
Full name
Ferdinand Viktor Albert Meinrad
House House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Father Leopold of Hohenzollern
Mother Antónia of Braganza
Born (1865-08-24)24 August 1865
Sigmaringen, Germany
Died 20 July 1927(1927-07-20) (aged 61)
Sinaia, Romania
Burial Curtea de Argeș, Romania
Religion Roman Catholicism
Monarchical styles of
Ferdinand I of Romania
Royal monogram of Ferdinand I of Romania.svg
Reference style His Majesty
Spoken style Your Majesty
Alternative style Sir

Ferdinand I (Ferdinand Viktor Albert Meinrad; 24 August 1865 – 20 July 1927) was King of the Romanians from 10 October 1914 until his death in 1927.

Early life[edit]

Born in Sigmaringen in southwestern Germany, the Roman Catholic Prince Ferdinand Viktor Albert Meinrad of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The name was later shortened simply to Hohenzollern. Within his family, he was called Nando.

Ferdinand I was the son of Leopold, Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Infanta Antónia of Portugal (1845–1913), daughter of Queen Maria II and King Ferdinand II, a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and heir to the Slovakian-originated Hungarian magnates of Kohary on his mother's side.[1]

Following the renunciations, first of his father in 1880 and then of his elder brother Prince Wilhelm of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen in 1886, young Ferdinand became the heir-presumptive to the throne of his childless uncle, King Carol I of Romania, who would reign until his death in October 1914.[2] In 1889, the Romanian parliament recognized Ferdinand as a prince of Romania. The Romanian government did not require his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy from Catholicism, as was the common practice prior to this date, thus allowing him to continue with his born creed, but it was required that his children be raised Orthodox, then the state religion of Romania. For agreeing to this, Ferdinand was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, although this was later lifted.

Ferdinand's mother's first cousin Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria sat on the throne of the neighbouring Bulgaria beginning in 1887 and was to become the greatest opponent of the kingdom of his Romanian cousins. The neighboring Emperor Francis Joseph, monarch of Austria-Hungary and as such, ruler of Transylvania, was Ferdinand's grandmother's first cousin.

Ferdinand, a complete stranger in his new home, started to get close to one of Queen Elisabeth's ladies in waiting, Elena Văcărescu. Elisabeth, very close to Elena herself, encouraged the romance, although she was perfectly aware of the fact that a marriage between the two was forbidden by the Romanian constitution (according to the 1866 Constitution of Romania, the heir-presumptive to the throne was not allowed to marry a Romanian).

The affair caused a sort of dynastic crisis, in 1891. The result of this was the exile of both Elisabeth (in Neuwied) and Elena (in Paris), as well as a trip by Ferdinand through Europe in search of a suitable bride, whom he eventually found in Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Marie of Edinburgh.

Marriage[edit]

In Sigmaringen on 10 January 1893, Prince Ferdinand of Romania married his distant cousin, the Lutheran Princess Marie of Edinburgh, daughter of Anglican Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh and the Orthodox Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna of Russia. Marie and Ferdinand were third cousins in descent from Franz Frederick Anton, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Marie's paternal grandparents were Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Her maternal grandparents were Alexander II of Russia and Marie of Hesse and by Rhine. The reigning Emperor of the neighbouring Russia, at the time of the marriage was Marie's uncle, Tsar Alexander III, who would be succeeded by his eldest son, Marie's cousin, Tsar Nicholas II, the following year.

The marriage produced 3 sons: Carol, Nicholas and Mircea (one of whom, Mircea, died in infancy) and 3 daughters: Elisabeta, Maria (Mignon) and Ileana. The marriage was unhappy and the couple's two youngest children, Ileana and Mircea, are generally acknowledged to have been sired by Marie's long-time lover, Barbu Știrbey.[3][4]

King of the Romanians[edit]

Romanian Royalty
House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Carol I
Queen
    Elisabeth of Wied
Children
    Princess Maria
Ferdinand
Queen
    Marie of Edinburgh
Children
    Carol II
    Elisabeth, Queen of the Hellenes
    Maria, Queen of Yugoslavia
    Nicholas, Prinz von Hohenzolllern
    Ileana, Archduchess of Austria
    Prince Mircea
Carol II
Children
    Michael
Michael
Queen
    Anne of Bourbon-Parma
Children
    Crown Princess Margareta
    Princess Elena, Mrs. McAteer
    Princess Irina, Mrs. Walker
    Princess Sofia
    Princess Maria

Ferdinand succeeded his uncle on the latter's death (Carol I died without surviving issue) as King of Romania on 10 October 1914, reigning until his own death on 20 July 1927.

He was the 1,174th Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece in Austria in 1909 and the 868th Knight of the Order of the Garter in 1924.

World War I[edit]

Though a member of a cadet branch of Germany's ruling Hohenzollern imperial family, Ferdinand presided over his country's entry into World War I on the side of the Triple Entente powers against the Central Powers on 27 August 1916. Thus he gained the nickname the Loyal, respecting his oath when sworn in before the Romanian Parliament in 1914:'I will reign as a good Romanian'. It is still unclear though, whom he was finally "loyal" to, as long as after the World War One and the collapse of Austria-Hungary empire (which made possible that the province of Transylvania joins Romania to form the unitary Romanian national state), he was prevented to accept the crown of the Hungarian kingdom from the hands of Magyar aristocracy only by the stubborn opposition of the Romanian political parties, which refused to admit that the Romanian people live again into a multinational state, even one reigned by their Hohenzollern king.[5]

Wilhelm and Ferdinand (British World War I poster)

As a consequence of this "betrayal" toward his German roots, Kaiser Wilhelm II had his name erased from the Hohenzollern House register.

Despite the setbacks after the entry into war, when Dobruja and Wallachia were occupied by the Central Powers, Romania fought in 1917 and stopped the German advance into Moldavia. When the Bolsheviks sued for peace in 1918, Romania was surrounded by the Central Powers and forced to conclude the Treaty of Bucharest, 1918. However, Ferdinand refused to sign the treaty. When the Allied forces advanced on the Thessaloniki front, they knocked Bulgaria out of the war, and Ferdinand ordered the re-mobilization of the Romanian Army. Romania re-entered the war on the side of the Triple Entente.

The outcome of Romania's war effort was the union of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania in 1918, which complete the long process of the Romanian national state formation. Ferdinand became the ruler of a greatly enlarged Romanian state in 1918–1920 following the Entente's victory over the Central Powers, a war between the Kingdom of Romania and the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and the civil war in Russia, and was crowned King of Romania in a spectacular ceremony on 15 October 1922 at the historic princely seat of Alba Iulia, in Transylvania.

A new period of Romanian history began on the day of the Union of Transylvania with Romania (Great Union Day, Marea Unire).[6][7][8] This period would eventually come to an end with the Nazi Vienna Awards and the 24-hours Soviet Ultimatum[9] that led up to World War II, these parts of Romania being annexed by its neighbors. As such, they are widely seen as an attempt to provoke the country into taking sides and joining the war.[10][11][12]

After the war[edit]

Domestic political life during his reign was dominated by the conservative National Liberal party led by the brothers Ion and Vintilă Brătianu. The acquisition of Transylvania ironically enlarged the electoral base of the opposition, whose principal parties united in January 1925 – October 1926 to form the National Peasant Party.

Romania before WWI was already a country in persistent social turmoil[13] and under the threat of a revolution, tragedy avoided after the brutal repression of the 1907 peasant revolt only by the outbreak of the war.[14] As a consequence of the untenable statu quo, the first interwar years saw the adoption – unenthusiastically[15] and in much diluted forms[16] - of a land reform and of a new constitution (1923) as well as the extension of the democratic franchise to universal (male) suffrage. Because king Ferdinand I sided,[17][18][19] as his predecessor, king Carol I,[20][21] with the landed aristocracy and the corrupt[22] oligarchy (groups politically defended after the war by the Liberal party and its substitute, People's Party of general Averescu[23][24]) against the pro-democracy forces that won the first post-war elections, all these much-needed reforms finally did nothing[25][26][27] but add a new baroque and useless layer to the already[28] crumbling façade[29][30][31] of the epigonic[32] antebellum political[33] system,[34] a façade democracy which will produce before long a vigorous fascist backlash against it[35] and against the corrupt dynasty that used it.[36] Under this old[37] Romanian political system[38] the king easily manipulated[39][40] the results of the elections,[41] by dismissing an acting cabinet/prime-minister and thereafter choosing his favored party-leader as the head of a new cabinet in charge with organizing the ensuing elections;[42][43] this new cabinet could, in turn, use at will the state power (police[44][45]) in order to guarantee electoral victory for itself and the fulfillment of the king`s political choice,[46][47] by the extensive use of intimidation,[48][49] censorship[50] and electoral fraud.[51][52] As such, the system ensured invariably ballot victory for all king`s governments organizing elections before the war,[53][54] as it ensured also ballot victory for all king`s governments organizing elections after the war, as long as king Ferdinand I reigned.[55][56][57][58] That unfortunate situation prevailed for the king himself had vested interests (he was a big land-owner[59]) in perpetuating his and the oligarchy`s grip on power.[60][61] Politically speaking as the first fiddle[39] in Romania, Ferdinand used the authoritarian system he inherited from his predecessor, the king Carol I,[62] and maybe even "enhanced" the king`s grip on the political life of the country,[63] in order to cancel the effects of the post-war democratic reforms,[64][65][66] the dismissal in 1920 of the pro-reform peasantist cabinet amounting in some historians’ view to nothing short of "a royal coup d’état"[67] that aborted a genuine democratic evolution.[68][69] These authoritarian[70][71] political practices,[72] as bad[73] as they already were immediately after the war,[74] will be still further worsened, democratically speaking, under Ferdinand’s reign, when in 1926 the Liberal party changed the election act.[75]

Ferdinand died in Sinaia in 1927, and was succeeded by his grandson Michael I, under a regency. The regency had three members, one of whom was Ferdinand's second son, Prince Nicholas.

Honours and awards[edit]

Ancestry[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Ferdinand I". Retrieved 28 March 2013. 
  2. ^ "The Royals: King Ferdinand I". Retrieved 28 March 2013. 
  3. ^ Julia Gelardi (2005). Born to Rule, Granddaughters of Queen Victoria, Queens of Europe. Headline Book Publishing. pp. 91–93&115. ISBN 0-7553-1392-5. 
  4. ^ Pakula, Hannah (1985). The last romantic: a biography of Queen Marie of Romania. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 337. ISBN 0-297-78598-2. 
  5. ^ p. 22 în "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.")
  6. ^ http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/conti_eng.htm
  7. ^ Vasile Goldiș
  8. ^ http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:m2CBTHFwkd0J:www.international-journal-of-axiology.net/articole/nr13/art11.pdf+%22marea+unire%22+%22great+union%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgrcm7HUCWRr63VANfV3q4OjKuLHijxPRvYGpvo82Mv3QPoncXcMex66GoqjhohXStAG8fFU2dr0DrASVSvAyrNE1aOGqFfcxXakjDg-plP4mmVNPyF37h0ow8mY39pmbpqqmtr&sig=AHIEtbTh4_tteyghnKsqHJrER83EsmimLw, page 158
  9. ^ "Romania: A Country Study". Federal Research Division. Library of Congress. Edited by Ronald D. Bachman. Research Completed July 1989. 2002 Blackmask Online. ("Romania suffered three radical dismemberments in the first year of the war that tore away some 100,000 square kilometers of territory and 4 million people. On June 26, 1940, the Soviet Union gave Romania twenty−four−hour ultimatum to return Bessarabia and cede northern Bukovina, which had never been a part of Russia; after Germany's ambassador in Bucharest advised Carol to submit, the king had no other option.")
  10. ^ Institute for Operative-Strategic Studies and Military History, Romania in World War II 1941–1945, Publishing House Sylvi, Bucharest 1997. ISBN 973-9175-24-4
  11. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tu4WAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Institute+for+Operative-Strategic+Studies+and+Military+History%22&hl=en&ei=GdTGTNuFKoa6sQPnzO2GDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
  12. ^ "King Ferdinand I". Retrieved 28 March 2013. 
  13. ^ pp. 24-26 in Istoria Gărzii de Fier 1919-1941 - Mistica Ultranaţionalismului. Francisco Veiga. 2nd Ed. Humanitas, Bucureşti 1995. ISBN 9789732803929.
  14. ^ "The New Rumanian Constitution". D. Mitrany. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 6, No. 1. (1924), pp. 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?")
  15. ^ 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. ("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).")
  16. ^ "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.")
  17. ^ "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. ("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.")
  18. ^ 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. ("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).")
  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 editée par l'Institut de Sociologie de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles et par l'Institut Européen de l'Université de Genève. ("L’Etat 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.")
  20. ^ 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 0-87436-074-9. ("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.")
  21. ^ "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.")
  22. ^ pp. 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).")
  23. ^ p.262 in "Ten Years of Greater Roumania". Alexander Vaida-Voevod. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 7, No. 20 (Jan., 1929), pp. 261-267. Published by the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Accessed: 19/11/2013. (p. 261: "Ten years of anxiety, disillusionment and experience followed. The first Government, the outcome of the free election which took place in October, I9I9, was quickly set aside. It was a Coalition Government representing five parties, the regional parties of the three united provinces and two parties from the old kingdom-that of Mr. Nicholas Iorga and the newly-born Peasant Party. They were in turn superseded by the majority elected in May, I920, in accordance with the "traditional methods" of the new Premier, General Averescu. His was a camouflage Government intended to hold the place for the omnipotent Liberal Party under Ion I. C. Bratianu. Brought into power as a result of the pressure and unlimited influence exercised by Bratianu upon King Ferdinand, it was forced in its turn to resign after holding office for less than eighteen months. Mr. Bratianu then remained in power till I926, when a second Averescu Cabinet was appointed, to be followed a year later by Bratianu once more. After the death of King Ferdinand and of Ion Bratianu himself in I927, the latter's brother Vintila remained at the head of the Government. p. 266: One encouraging symptom is that the antagonism artificially provoked by the Liberals while in office, and also by their substitutes in the Averescu party, between the new provinces and the old kingdom, between the various social classes, between the Roumanians and the minorities, even between different religious creeds, has disappeared as if by magic.")
  24. ^ p. 92 în Istoria Gărzii de Fier 1919-1941, Mistica Ultranaţionalismului. Francisco Veiga. Ediţia a II-a, Humanitas, Bucureşti, 1995, ISBN 9789732803929. ("Averescu s-a menţinut la putere din martie 1926 pînă în iunie 1927. În decursul acestei scurte perioade, generalul a încercat o apropiere politică de Italia fascistă, dar, în realitate, nimeni nu l-a prea luat în serios, nici măcar italienii. Era un secret cunoscut de toată lumea că acest guvern avea să dureze atîta timp cît voiau liberalii să-l menţină. Cu toate acestea, şi avînd în vedere capacitatea sa politică limitată, Averescu a făcut tot ce trebuia pentru a se transforma într-un monstru ca cel al lui Frankenstein şi a se întoarce împotriva creatorilor săi. A încercat o serie de asalturi asupra monopolurilor financiare liberale, crearea unui sistem de credite agricole şi contractarea unui împrumut din Italia; de asemenea, s-a încercat o scurtă conspiraţie dinastică. Pe punctul de a fi demis de rege, la stăruinţele liberalilor, Averescu a ameninţat chiar cu lovitura de stat. În continuare, liberalii au luat din nou puterea, cîteva zile înainte de înfiinţarea Ligii Arhanghelului Mihail. Totuşi, traiectoria urmată din 1922 arăta că manevrele liberalilor nu mai erau simple reacţii conjuncturale. Aviditatea şi oportunismul lor lăsau să se întrevadă în ce măsură le era erodată puterea. În realitate, România trăia amurgul unei întregi ere politice. Marile stele ale oligarhicei familii Brătianu erau pe cale de a se stinge: Ion I. C. Brătianu - fiul lui I. C. Brătianu şi patriarh al familiei din 1909 - avea să moară chiar în 1927, la puţine luni după moartea regelui Ferdinand, cel mai important sprijin al guvernului său.")
  25. ^ "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.")
  26. ^ "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.")
  27. ^ "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), pp. 139-162. Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG). - "The Constitution of 1923 left the executive power in the hands of the king (art. 88) and the political parties were not even mentioned." ("Die rumänische Konstitution von 1923 legte die Leitung der Exekutive in die Hand des Königs (Art. 88), die Parteien wurden nicht erwähnt.")
  28. ^ 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.")
  29. ^ 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."
  30. ^ "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."
  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 editée 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.")
  32. ^ 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."
  33. ^ "Eastern Europe 1740–1985. Feudalism to Communism". Second edition. Robin Okey (Senior Lecturer in History, University of Warwick). First published 1982 by HarperCollins Academic. ISBN 0-415-08489-X. 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." 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."
  34. ^ "The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe Since 1918". Antony Polonsky. Routledge & Kegan Paul Books 1975. ISBN 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."
  35. ^ 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 0-15-27089-8. ("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.")
  36. ^ 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 0-15-27089-8. ("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.")
  37. ^ "Social Background of Roumanian Politics". Joseph S. Roucek. "Social Forces", Vol. 10, No. 3 (Mar., 1932), pp. 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.")
  38. ^ "The Politics of Backwardness in Continental Europe, 1780-1945". Andrew C. Janos. World Politics, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Apr., 1989), pp. 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.")
  39. ^ a b 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.")
  40. ^ «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. - "The Royal Dictatorships: Having a king as the head of the state was one of the peculiarities of the authoritarian régimes in Balkan (Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece). It is worth to stress the fact that these monarchs doesn’t tried to challenge the liberal parliamentarism as long as constitutionally or in practice they kept a decisive role. They named and dismissed cabinets, granted power to prime ministers and parties and organized elections they cheerfully manipulated." («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.»)
  41. ^ 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".")
  42. ^ pp. 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.")
  43. ^ "The Political Evolution of Roumania". Author: Joseph S. Rouček. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 10, No. 30 (Apr., 1932), pp. 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.")
  44. ^ 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.")
  45. ^ "Popular Front in the Balkans: (4. Failure in Hungary and Rumania)". Bela Vago. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 5, No. 3, Popular Fronts (1970), pp. 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.2 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;")
  46. ^ pp. 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.")
  47. ^ 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.)
  48. ^ pp. 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.")
  49. ^ "Rumanian Nationalism". Robert Strausz-Hupé. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 232, "A Challenge to Peacemakers" (Mar., 1944), pp. 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.")
  50. ^ p.262 in "Ten Years of Greater Roumania". Alexander Vaida-Voevod. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 7, No. 20 (Jan., 1929), pp. 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.")
  51. ^ 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)")
  52. ^ 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.")
  53. ^ p. 94 in Title: "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.")
  54. ^ p. 31 in Istoria Gărzii de Fier 1919-1941 - Mistica Ultranaţionalismului. Francisco Veiga. 2nd Ed. Humanitas, Bucureşti 1995. ISBN 9789732803929."
  55. ^ 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.")
  56. ^ 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 regularly 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."
  57. ^ pp. 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 0-15-27089-8. ("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’.")
  58. ^ "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), pp. 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.")
  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), pp. 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.")
  60. ^ 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), pp. 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. […] 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.
  61. ^ pp. 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.")
  62. ^ "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 editée 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 Etat 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’Etat 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.")
  63. ^ 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), pp. 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.
  64. ^ "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), pp. 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.")
  65. ^ p. 26 in "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. ("In many countries the crisis was sharper on the level of political institutions, resulting from the absence of political traditions. In Poland, in Rumania, in Bulgaria, in Yugoslavia it (the liberal system) never really functioned, the fine post-war democratic constitutions remained purely formal entities.")
  66. ^ "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. Referring 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.")
  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. ^ "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.")
  69. ^ 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'.")
  70. ^ "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."
  71. ^ "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.")
  72. ^ "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), pp. 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.")
  73. ^ "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 editée 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”.")
  74. ^ "The New Rumanian Constitution". D. Mitrany. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 6, No. 1. (1924), pp. 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."
  75. ^ 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.")
  • (Romanian) Wolbe, Eugen:Ferdinand I – Întemeietorul României Mari (Ferdinand I, founder of Greater Romania), Humanitas, 2006.

External links[edit]

Ferdinand I of Romania
Cadet branch of the House of Hohenzollern
Born: 24 August 1865 Died: 20 July 1927
Regnal titles
Preceded by
Carol I
King of the Romanians
10 October 1914 – 20 July 1927
Succeeded by
Michael I