Toward a New Central Europe

FEDERALIST ASPIRATIONS IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE

EDMUND I. LAZAR

THE somewhat fictitious theory that before man lived in society he dwelt in a "state of nature" was helpful in explaining the contract theories of the 16th century. Hobbes called this condition the "state Of war" in which every man was against every man. The unrestricted individual was driven by competition, diffidence and glory, and his passions were held in check only by force. Thus it was necessary for mankind to enter society in order to end this Bellum omnia contra omnes.

Therefore, man transferred part of his sovereign powers to the State and the "state of nature" ceased to exist within the borders of the state. But already Hobbes realized that this was just a partial solution because sovereign states do not obey higher laws and thus they still live in a "state of war". In his words, "though there had never been any time, wherein particular men were in a condition of warring one against another: yet in all times Kings, and Persons of Sovereign authority, because of their Independency, are in continual jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the Frontiers of their Kingdoms; and continual Spyes upon their neighbours; which is a posture of War." 1)

Would it not be accurate to say that the national state, which claims absolute external sovereignty and adheres to no limitation of its power to any international organization or law is motivated by competition, diffidence and glory, and limited merely by force? Hobbes' jus naturale, which is the "Liberty . . . to use his power, as he will himself, for the preservation . . . of his own life, and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto..." is actually the sovereign power of the national state. 2)

This "state of nature" in which states live today can have tragic consequences. Through the tremendous technical progress in the 20th century. modern weapons are capable of destroying humanity. But it is also true that "Technical progress which annihilates distance, time, and geographical barriers makes possible a spiritual unityî. 3)

195

However, there is an obvious cleavage between technical development and spiritual development. International solidarity and cooperation are lagging far behind material progress.. The material development has not been accompanied with equal progress in humanistic culture, social relations and international relations. As Gross formulates it, we have "alongside our twentieth-century weapons... nineteenth century relations between nations." 4)

There is an obvious need for states to enter the "society of nations", to obey higher laws in order to put and end to international anarchy. There were many attempts made in this direction. The most noted ones, the League of Nations and the United Nations, tried to achieve world society by one bold step, the latter acknowledging the usefulness of regional organizations. It seems, however, that the proper architecture of this world society would be to start out by uniting small nations in regional units, which units then would meet the contemporary economic, political and cultural needs of the people involved.

What should the method of unification be? There are two major methods: unification by force, by domination based on power; or unification by consent, based on equality and cooperation. This latter one we call federation. We see both methods used on a limited basis today. Soviet Russia achieved a certain union by conquering the different peoples in her orbit. Nazi Germany used the same method. On the other hand, Switzerland united different nationalities, peoples of different religions and tongues in a cohesive union. The founding fathers of the United States created a stable, strong and successful union applying federalist principles to the heterogeneous elements of the large North American continent.

In the microcosmos of the multi-national, multi-state region, we find the macrocosmic problems of a whole continent, or even those of world society. Such a multi-national, multi-state region is East Central Europe and in the microcosmos or this region, the macrocosmic problems of Europe are nearly completely represented.

Definition of Terms

A. Federation

Federation is a process, which aims at the establishment of a federal system, or federal government. This process can be the unification of parts, or the limited dissolution of one unit. Political scientists defined federation in following ways: :By federation, K. C. Wheare means the "method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, coordinate and independent". 5)

196

The following definition is from a less recent source: "Where several states unite themselves together under a common sovereignty and establish a common central government for the administration of certain affairs of general concern, or where a number of provinces or dependencies are by unilateral act of their common superior transformed into largely autonomous self-governing communities, we have a federal union, or federal state."6)

"The name federal government may be applied to any union of component members where the degree of union between the members surpasses that of mere alliance, however intimate, and where the degree of independence possessed by each member surpasses anything which can fairly come under the head of mere municipal freedom." 7)

"In the federal state, the member states have a part, described by the constitution in forming the supreme will of the state. In a federal state, the sovereignty lies in the central government which is separated from the member states". 8)

Karve points to the failure of eminent jurists to find a satisfactory definition of federation. He believes that the principle of federalism is not like a principle of an exact science, thus any definition might not stand the test of observation and experience for all time. His careful definition is the following: "Federation is the name we give to the process by which a widening sense of social solidarity is reconciled with the attachment for local identity, through the provision of dual political organization." 9)

B. Federalism

This term could be called also the federal principle or the federal idea. It explains more than just the legalistic and institutional aspects of this political method. Here are the more enlightening definitions of federalism: Lang explains federalism by saying:

"Its aim is diversity within unity and pointing out that federalism's transcendent or universal character penetrates, but does not absorb. The interaction of each federated part creates an organic unity that avoids a chaos of the dynamic parts. There is an interdependence between the particular and the universal. A federal polity is not an aggregate of its component members, it is not the sum of its local and general governments, it is a synthesis which is greater than, and different from the congregation of its parts. Federalism is a means for establishing order without sacrificing freedom among states that refuse to be amalgamated but realize that they must be united. Federalism, however, is more than political mechanics, it is also a symbol of union. Where there is federalism, political bodies have decided to accomplish some purpose in common, to some degree, under a rule of law. Since the federal structure must rest upon consent as well as a collective purpose, it cannot be imperially imposed. Federalism is simultaneously

197

a political technique and a social synthesis; if is a method, an ideal, a mechanism and a symbol." 10)

Mogi, the Indian scholar of federalism gives the following interesting definition: "The federal idea is the formation of harmony between plurality and unity on the basis of pragmatic utilitarianism on the ethical basis,'. 11) Mogi thinks that the federal idea is not confined to the political sphere of the state, but is the general basis of human organization. "The federal idea is the spirit of the pragmatic interdependence of the pluralistic universe and its theory is the basis of human association of any kind. I may describe the new federative theory as the applied science of that pluralism, which is the guiding principle of the theory on which the harmony between unity and plurality is based, or, in other words, the theory of equilibrium." 12)

Werner Kaegi emphasizes that federalism is not against unity, it is but opposed to the tendency of "Gleichschaltung'. He believes it is a unity in which "die Autonomie der Glieder und damit der Eigenart und Vielgestaeltigkeit im Rahmen des Ganzen Raum laest; es ist eine Einheit, in der die Glieder ein recht haben, Ordnung und Weg des ganzen Verbandes irgendwie mitzubestimmen. Diese Verbindung von Selbstbestimmung und Mitbestimmung -die foderative Freiheit- ist fur jede foderalistische Ordnung kennzeichnend." 13)

Proudhon, the French socialist, wrote in 1863: "Only federation can solve, in theory and practice the problem of an adjustment between the principles of liberty and authority by leaving everyone his proper sphere his true competence, and his full initiative. Therefore, federalism alone warrants on one hand ineffaceable respect for the citizen as well as for the government, and the other, order, justice, stability". 14) Or, as the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences formulates it, "Federalism is characterized by a tendency to substitute coordinating for subordinating relationships, or at least to restrict the latter as much as possible. Federalism develops from the theory of social contract. It replaces the Roman idea of domination by force with voluntary agreement, reciprocity, understanding and adjustment. Its basic aspect is pluralistic, its fundamental tendency is harmonization and its regulative principle is solidarity." 15)

If we accept Wheare's reasoning that both general and regional government should be limited to its own sphere and, within that sphere, should be independent of the other, 16) then the theory that the central government has absolute internal sovereignty, would not hold water. Thus it would be safer to say that federalism is the theory or method of equilibrium in a pluralistic society, which voluntarily has united for some common purpose, under the rule of law in a way to preserve and safeguard diversity and the rights of the component parts. Politically, this union is more than a league or a confederation, internally it grants more than just municipal autonomy to its diverse parts.

198

The knowledge of the federal theory can be helpful, and the lack of its proper understanding-as we will see-was sometimes the major stumbling block on the road towards the East Central European aspirations for a federal union. But even more important is to understand what are the basic preconditions which are necessary to such plans. These preconditions can be the only foundations on which a federation can be built, and in our case, without these foundations all attempts of unity in this troubled and explosive area, which is so richly endowed by nature's gifts, have little or no chance of success.

C. Preconditions to Federal Plans in the Middle Zone

The first precondition for a successful federation of the small East and Central European nations is a new kind of tolerant nationalism. Political nationalism has to be forgotten. Tolerance is of the essence of true nationalism, because respect for my national sentiment presupposes respect for yours. But political nationalism in its tolerance makes exclusive x~-hat should be complementary. 17)

Secondly, there has to be a desire for unity. This unity cannot come about as the fiat of a great power or one of the members. It has to be based on consent of all parties.

Thirdly, there has to be a desire for diversity Cultural nationalism can play here a decisive part. Fourthly, the feeling of equality has to prevail among the participating groups. There can be no racial supremacy presupposed (e.g., Slavism, Magyarism, Germanism). Furthermore, there must be mutual trust among the members desiring the union.

Fifthly, there should be no basic economic, social, political or cultural difference among the parts. An extremely poor member can hardly federate with a rich one, a democratic with a feudal society, or an illiterate with a highly cultured group.

Sixthly, there must be a sense of regional solidarity cemented by a common aim.

Seventhly, the kind of Democracy, which is not based on the Jacobinic idea that all intermediary groups and associations standing between the sovereign individual and the sovereign state are intrinsically bad and illegal, but a Democracy where the corporate entities have wide, autonomous powers and exercise quasi-governmental functions. Gross calls it "Inner federalism" and it has a rich tradition in Germany manifested in the Guilds, Staende and Genossenschaften which strongly influenced East Central Europe. 18)

As we see from these preconditions, federalism is not confined to the political sphere of the state. It becomes, more or less, a general basis for human organization in a racially, religiously and nationally heterogeneous area.

199

In the course of applying these generalizations to the problems of federalism in the Middle Zone, we have to keep in mind the fact that federalism can act in two directions: There can be a centrifugally acting federalism, its direction is away from the center in order to achieve diversity in unity by taking away power from the general government to strengthen the parts. Centripetal federalism strives, on the other hand, to unite separate entities without sacrificing the autonomy of the members.

In different times, we find both trends working in the Middle Zone. During the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, federalism had a centrifugal tendency. After the creation of the national states in this area, the direction of federalism is centripetal. As a result, the federalist plans during the Monarchy differ in many respects from those formulated after the fall of the Habsburg Empire. But one similarity should be emphasized: Federalism was always the creed of the progressive, revolutionary elements, and centralization, whether within the Habsburg Monarchy or the national states, was always the aim of the reactionaries. Even the leaders of the national revolutions in 1848-49 ended up as advocates of federalism.

Federalism in this area first had to work together with nationalism, but after the Second World War excessive nationalism became its greatest enemy. "Its beginning can be traced to the divergence between the traditional, and still semifeudal, political unit on the one hand, and the units emphasized by the nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism on the other. The historical unit was multi-national. If these units were to be preserved, and the national principle recognized at the same time, a federation of national units was supposed to be created".(19) But, unfortunately, federation never materialized in this area. Its main obstacles were national vanity, vested interest, political immaturity and intellectual aridity. To quote Lang: "deferred hopes, missed opportunities, but unwearied purpose is the substance of our tale... In this region, as in all Europe, the federal cycle... is one of aspiring hopes, ineffectiveness, catastrophe, and renewed hope with a heightened tension of urgency.î (20)

D. The Middle Zone

East of Germany and west of Russia lies a troubled area consisting of small states, most of them dominated by a foreign power, where democracy, freedom and peace were seldom experienced in its turbulent history and where the causes of the two last wars originated. Close to one-hundred million people live in this area and they speak Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Czech, Slovak, German, Hungarian, Rumanian, Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian, and Bulgarian language. There are few territories where groups are

200

homogeneous. In most cases, they are mixed together, members of the same group can be isolated from each other by other groups, as the Szekler Magyars and Transylvanian Germans are. Consequently, there are and there were no racially just borders because no national border could include all nationalities of one group, without including members of another language group.

A statistical survey will show the dilemma of this area more clearly:

1937 Country	Km2 Territory	Population	Percentage of the leading nationality
Czechoslovakia	40,508	15,263,399	50.8%
Hungary (1937)	93,086	9,038,189	97.0%
Hungary (1910)		20,886,000(21)	54.5%(22)
Yugoslavia	247,542	15,400,177	41.7% Serb 23.5% Croat
Bulgaria	103,146	6,319,200	91 %
Rumania	295,049	19,646,151	85.7%
Poland	388,634	34,596,000	90 % (23)

The problem of a satisfactory solution in this area became acute after the decline of feudalism and with the beginning of nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Until that time national groups lived under rulers, who were very often not even a member of the dominant race. For example, the Polish King and Transylvanian Prince Bathory was from 1571 to 1581 a Magyar. The greatest Hungarian kings were from the House of Anjou, Charles Robert (1307-1342) and his son Louis the Great (1342-1382), and even the "national" kings were the offsprings of such mixed royal marriages so that it would be hard to say that the Jagellos, Podebrads or even the Habsburgs represented only one national group.

The emergence of nationalism worked as a strong centrifugal force against the existing larger Empire units. These empire units within or extending into the Middle Zone were Russia, which dominated the Baltic nations and part of Poland, and the Habsburg empire.

To cope with the forces of nationalism and other centrifugal forces as different religion, historical background, etc., two methods were used: One was increasing centralism and the denial of rights to the minority groups. The other was an attempt to create national states with more or less success, climaxing in the brutal expulsion of dominated minorities. The first method was used by the Empire units, the second was tried after the first and second world wars. The third method, peaceful federation, based on democratic self-government was never tried in practice in the Middle Zone, despite a sequence of plans, attempts and half-solutions.

201

F. Vanishing Political, Economic, Cultural and Social Differences

Between the two wars, the East Central European countries had a great variety of political and social systems. Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Rumania were monarchies. Hungary, Austria and Poland were a mixture of semi-democratic parliamentary system and autocracy. Czechoslovakia was a democracy. In Hungary and to some extent in Poland, the semifeudal, great-landowning classes had considerable power. In the other countries, the land reforms broke the power of this class. There was also a striking difference in the cultural levels of these peoples.

Under Communist rule great changes took place. These changes equalized the East European satellites to a large degree politically, culturally, economically and socially. North of Greece, up to the Scandinavian countries, the political form of government is republican everywhere. The so-called satellite countries are under foreign rule, which even Austria had experienced, to a certain extent in her Eastern province up to 1955. There is little doubt that all captive nations desire freedom from foreign rule, and it seems that most people of this area desire a free, democratic form of government.(24)

On orders from Moscow, all satellite governments initiated sweeping land reforms. They are all similar except the initial reform in Czechoslovakia which "was totally different in cause, aim and scope."(25) In Hungary the reform abolished all holding over 100 yokes (acres). About 642.000 poor peasant families received small farming estates.(26)

Bulgaria hardly needed any land reform, the average size of a Bulgarian farm before the war being only five hectares. Bulgaria with its "land-reform" started immediately collectivizing agriculture.( 28)

The basic land reform of 1945 in Czechoslovakia, according to Shepherd "was not an agricultural revolution as such, but an extension of the racial and political offensive launched in every sector against the Sudeten German and Hungarian minorities.î ( 29) It was entitled by one Czech authority "the national purge of Czech land ownership".( 30) Its national tendency was best illustrated in Decree No. 12 of June 21st, 1945, issued by the Benes Government.( 31) The second Land Bill was more in line with the satellite reforms which in 1947 limited private landholding to fifty hectares.

The achievements of East European land reforms seem rather insignificant today, when after many years of ruthless drives the greatest part of the arable land is collectivized. But the Hungarian Revolution showed that in case of the overthrow of the Communist regime, though the kolkhozes were immediately dissolved, no one challenged

202

the right of the small farmer to his post-landreform holdings.

The industrial and trade situation is also rather similar in all satellite countries.(32)

On the cultural field, illiteracy is one of the basic measuring rods. The following table shows that although there were still large differences among the illiteracy rates of the East European countries, these differences were diminishing.

	Illiteracy rates in percentage
Country	1937	1949
Czechoslovakia	4.1%
Hungary	9.6 %	6.0 %
Poland	23.0%	6.1%
Rumania	-	23.0 %
Yugoslavia	45.0%(33)	25.0%(34)

The school system in the satellite countries has been standardized. There is a eight year general or elementary school, a four year secondary or technical school and four years of university or technical college. (35)

There is another interesting cultural phenomenon in the satellite countries. A spectacular rise occurred both in the number of East European books translated into each other's languages and in the ethnic minority language publications.

In 1933 there were no East European translations in Rumania or Hungary. Only one Czech book was translated into Hungarian and published in Czechoslovakia (Karel Capek, Beszelgetesek Masaryk Tamassal, Mukacevo, 1933).(36)

In 1935

Rumania		Czechoslovakia		Hungary
Rumanian language book translated into Hungarian	1	Czech language book translated into Hungarian	2	No translations from East Central European languages
Hungarian translated into Rumanian	1	Hungarian translated into Czech	none(37)

This chart illustrates, on the cultural scene, the enmity which was prevailing among most of the Danubian nations towards each other. In Hungary, publishers did not handle Rumanian, Serb, or Czech books and the public was not interested in them. On the other hand, for the three million Hungarians living outside the border of Hungary, the succession states published merely 3 books.

This kind of cultural chauvinism changed after Soviet domination, as the following charts will show.

203

Toward a New Central Europe