Nationalism and the Habsburg Empire
priorities (Beneš, 2015). Well into the early 1900s, both German and Czech working-class authors wrote novels and poems emphasizing the importance of class unity between nations and critiquing the mistreatment by nationally conscious bourgeois of their workers – even those of the same nationality (Cajthaml, 1893; Stauffache, 1893). Though the reforms of 1867 did help to limit nationality conflict in the empire in the short-term, they had many long-lasting, adverse effects on the empire’s unity. The huge amount of power devolved to Hungary prevented further empire-wide reforms. It severely limited attempts at such reforms as the Hungarians were unwilling to relinquish power even for the sake of the empire’s stability. The control of the Hungarian Parliament over the franchise meant that they could separately discriminate against national minorities and further strengthen their nation (Cohen, 2000, pp. 203–204). Suggestions during the early 20 th century of a trialist state split between the south Slavs, Austria, and the Kingdom of Hungary were never implemented. The idea was opposed by Hungarian Parliament since it would mean the loss of their authority over the Kingdom of Croatia (Judson, 2016, pp. 278–279). Franz Joseph’s rigidity in following the terms of the compromise further exacerbated the issue. This lessened the ability for increasing loyalty among the Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, and Croats. Romanian and Serb populations therefore had great difficulty gaining representation in Parliament which fuelled resentment towards the Hungarians (Cohen, 2025). However, they still didn’t favour secession, as Romania and Serbia were much more backwards than Austria-Hungary (Cohen, 2025). Resentment did however, mean unrest which drastically reduced loyalty useful to the state in these regions. Additionally, 1867 revealed the lack of any significant identification with the Habsburg Empire. People rather drew from their nationality as a sign of identity. They were willing to divide bureaucratic departments and the customs union of the empire between Transleithania and Cisleithania. Despite these drawbacks in reform across the whole empire, the reduction of varied national voices in the separate parliaments helped increase cohesion and allow for a greater ability to pass legislation. The Austrians were therefore able to maintain loyalty among the Polish élite by granting them authority over Ruthenes in east Galicia (Judson, 2016, p. 273). This weakened the Ruthenes and reduced the need for compromise as the Ruthenes were still in a better position than they would be under just the Poles. The greatest challenge to Austrian reformers was therefore reduced to Czech dissidents alone, as the Slovenes were largely loyal. The Reichsrat became more effective, and the government could take more decisive action with less compromise as a result. Systems of political thought and measures for political advancement were thereafter more unified. Despite weakening the potential for a supernational identity, 1867 was able to greatly increase loyalty among non-German speakers in the short-term. In the long term, despite united reform becoming more difficult, it was necessary for further reform as increased national resentment would have further complicated reform. In all, the Compromise of 1867 certainly had drawbacks, but the reforms that followed it required its prior implementation. The expansion of democracy in the empire was facilitated by both the Compromise of 1867 and Franz Joseph’s realization of the ineffectiveness of neo-absolutism. The institution of democracy and further reforms of the bureaucracy greatly increased loyalty to the Habsburg state. This was despite it contributing to greater appeals to nationality by populist parties (Cohen, 2025). These reforms meant
266
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting