AH:Democracy or Dictatorship

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
User avatar
freefrench
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 11:23
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

AH:Democracy or Dictatorship

Post by freefrench » 28 Jan 2006 13:40

Hi,

do you think AH was a democracy or a dictatorship. It can't be worst than Russia or Germany. Any evidence to support would also be good

User avatar
aljaz
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 17:14
Location: Slovenia

Post by aljaz » 29 Jan 2006 12:14

From 1848, the Austrohungarian empire was also called " The prison of nations". Is there anything more to say .... :D
One of the reasons for the lost ww1 is also the decay of national bonds within the AH army. Many batallions and other army troops, simply did't want to proceed the fighting in october of 1918. They ignored the orders and start to retreat from the Italian front in great chaos, and in that days just before 4. november 1918, many of national assemblies formed the first national governments and independent states, such as Czecs, Hungarians, Slovenians, Croats...

User avatar
freefrench
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 11:23
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Post by freefrench » 29 Jan 2006 13:30

Thank you aljaz,

I woudl also like to know if the justice system was fair. especially with Princip. I know nothing about their justice and court system

luigi
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 16:38
Location: Italy

Post by luigi » 30 Jan 2006 14:17

Well, it must be said however, that as a multi-national State, it recognized most of the different nationalities to a much higher extent compared to all other Europena countries which had to deal with ethnic minorities.

I would say that, IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS TIME, the justice system and the public administration was quite fair.

I think I should put on my flame-proof suit now...

User avatar
aljaz
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 17:14
Location: Slovenia

Post by aljaz » 30 Jan 2006 23:05

Well, as Slovenian, all that i can say is, that the German and Hungarian part of the empire didn't pay much attention on national requests of their minorities that is Slavic part of empire ( to have their language for official language in their regions, and much more), which was not so small after all-at least 50% of population were Slavic origin: Slovenians, Croats,Bosnians, some Serbs,Czechs, Slovaks, Polacs, Ukrainians, Rumanians, some Russians, etc... The legislative system was very unfair towards those nations, the educational system was build only for richer classes. On paper, the empire was really "democratic" under the double crown, but in reality was cruel, diskriminative and represing system.

luigi
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 16:38
Location: Italy

Post by luigi » 31 Jan 2006 17:52

The legislative system was very unfair towards those nations, the educational system was build only for richer classes. On paper, the empire was really "democratic" under the double crown, but in reality was cruel, diskriminative and represing system


Like any other european system of that time, I would add.
On the other hand in no other european system of that time you could hope to have the right of speaking your own language entering the public offices in the Capitol City.
I admit I know very little about the situation of the Slavic part of the empire, but I'm not sure thay had felt better under, say the Zar of Russia. As far as self-determination goes, I think the KuK empire was almost the maximum an european monarchy of that time could reach in trying to match National aspirations.
At a time when General Bava Beccaris was using field guns against civilians demonstrating for food, Italian irredentist of the Trentino were allowed to speak openly of the just aspiration of national self determination from the seats of the Vienna Parliament. Once put in the context of its time, I think after all that much of the Nationalistic enthusiasmus (fed from outside, mostly) turned against the legitime aspiration of the very people hoping for a better future.

Mind you, I'm not sayng it was all "roses and flowers" as we Italian say, just trying to say that to answer the initial question one has to compare the KuK system with other systems of its time. The oteher multinational Kingdom coming to mind is the Ottoman empire... Now you will concede that a Slovenian of that time had rather kept with the KuK rather than go with the Ottoman empire, will you? :)

Best regards

User avatar
Oberst Mihael
Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 17:28
Location: Slovenia

Post by Oberst Mihael » 07 Feb 2006 03:26

aljaz wrote:Well, as Slovenian, all that i can say is, that the German and Hungarian part of the empire didn't pay much attention on national requests of their minorities that is Slavic part of empire ( to have their language for official language in their regions, and much more), which was not so small after all-at least 50% of population were Slavic origin: Slovenians, Croats,Bosnians, some Serbs,Czechs, Slovaks, Polacs, Ukrainians, Rumanians, some Russians, etc... The legislative system was very unfair towards those nations, the educational system was build only for richer classes. On paper, the empire was really "democratic" under the double crown, but in reality was cruel, diskriminative and represing system.


I agree with luigi. We still had the right to publish newspapers, books, and generally all kinds of literature in our language. Not to mention the "Slovene Camps" held throughout Carniola, which were clearly a very nationalistic/patriotic thing. Yet nothing was done about it as far as the gov't was concerned (well, not MUCH anyway, as the general idea would be that all of these camps would be banned, which was not the case). I truly think that in the context of its' time, A-H was one of the more advanced entities as far as respecting its' minorities is concerned. Of course, with someone more liberal than Franz Joseph at the helm, it could have been even better. :)

As a nation, it had its' fair share of flaws, but it also had many positive points that are not often respected enough.

EDIT: as far as the original question is concerned, A-H was never a democracy per-se, but it had elections, as well as (later on) a constitution. It wasn't a dictatorship either, as the monarch was not absolute (save for the period of absolutism and neoabsolutism). It was as democratic as any nation of the period.

Pavel Novak
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 21:36
Location: Czech Republic

Post by Pavel Novak » 19 Feb 2006 19:24

I also add czech point of view. After rise of Austria-Hungary in 1867 czech politicians were very angry against A-H because Hungary now was more than czech land and compare development of these two countries at that time. So czechs look for Russia and Russian czar but this was like shock for them and czech politicians (including Masaryk) then wanted only federation in A-H.
But everything changed with starting of ww1. Problem was that if A-H win this war together with Germany only germanisation will come to czech lands - at least czech politicians thinked it.
So czechoslovak legions fought alongside with France, Italy and Russia.
PN

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”