Smallcons Project A Framework for Socio-Economic Development in Europe? The Consensual Political Cultures of the Small West European States in Comparative and Historical Perspective (No. HPSE-CT-2002-00134) Work Package 10 Paths in Austrian and Finnish History Helmut Konrad, Martin Pletersek, Andrea Strutz (eds.) Department of History/Contemporary History, University of Graz September 2004 Contributors: Helmut Konrad, Martin Pletersek, Johanna Rainio-Niemi, Henrik Stenius, Andrea Strutz 2 Contents Helmut Konrad, Martin Pletersek, Andrea Strutz Paths in Austrian and Finnish history – a tentative comparison Helmut Konrad Periods in the History of Austrian Consensualism Henrik Stenius Periodising Finnish Consensus Martin Pletersek, Andrea Strutz A Monarchy and Two Republics – the Austrian Path (including comparative context of neighbouring new EU-members) Johanna Rainio-Niemi Paths in the Austrian and Finnish history: FINLAND (including comparative context of neighbouring new EU-members) 3 Paths in Austrian and Finnish history – a tentative comparison Helmut Konrad, Martin Pletersek, Andrea Strutz The smallcons-project "A Framework for Socio-economic Development in Europe? The Consensual Political Cultures of the Small West European States in Comparative and Historical Perspective" reserves a particular place for Austria and Finland because "[…] these cases suggest that the communication capacity conditional for consensualism can emerge within only a few decades." (Annex to the contract: 3). As opposed to the other project countries, the project proposal assumes that the two are the discontinuity cases whose historical paths didn't seem to point towards consensualism. In the words of Peter Katzenstein, "[…] the Austrian train was at every branch switched in a direction opposite from the other small European states." (1985: 188). While the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland developed what Katzenstein calls the corporatist compromise, Austria and Finland experienced a period of insecurity, turmoil, and even civil war. For some reason though, both countries developed consensualist practices and attitudes during the second half of the 20th century. Austria already in the late 50s and Finland at a time when consensualism elsewhere seemed to go through a period of crisis. In order to test the project assumption and to explain the remarkable transition to consensualism the historical development of Austria and Finland has to be taken into account. As these countries' histories are investigated with a view on the later development of consensualism, special attention is given to socio-economic development and democratisation, but also to the rifts that run through society and coined political culture. The time-frame of investigation varies according to topic. The main starting point is 1848 for Austria, slightly earlier in the 19th century for Finland. As for the end of the period in question, a slight overlap to WP11 is created by stopping in the 1950ies for Austria (wage-price agreements, 1950 strike) and a bit earlier for Finland. In the smallcons WP 7 report, Christianne Smit analyses the historical roots in the "old" consensual countries the project deals with – i.e. the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland – critically following the argument of Peter Katzenstein (1985). The question to what extend Katzenstein's theses can be applied for Finland and Austria is adressed by the respective papers in this workpackage. While developments in Austria and Finland are certainly different from the "old" consensual countries, they are also contrast cases compared to each other. An in-depth comparative analysis of the question of the "consensual turn" will have to wait for the results of WP 11; here, an overview of the main similarities and differences of the developments in Austria and Finland will be given: 4 Similarities: parallel political breaks a) A shift in the geopolitical situation in the beginning of the 19th century: • Finnland separates from the Swedish realm and becomes part of Tsarist Russia as a Grand Duchy. • Austria separates from the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 (the later Austria becomes part of the Habsburg Monarchy). • Both separate from (western) powers and become part of (eastern) empires, although with different internal positions. b) Democratisation • In both countries universal suffrage (in Austria only for men though) was introduced as a result of the Russian revolution 1905. c) Small states in a new European order • Both states emerge 1917/18 as a result of disintegrating empires at the end of World War I. d) Political polarisation • In both countries society is deeply divided at the end of World War I. A political rift between Left and Right runs through the country that eventually leads to a bloody discharge. Differences: a) Nationalism: • Austrian nationalism is a German language nationalism with centrifugal effects; it cannot serve to legitimate the small state. • Finnish nationalism (also as language nationalism) serves to differ Finland from Russia and Sweden; it can therefore be considered an important factor in nation building. b) Viability: • Finnish economy emerged as a national economy during the 19th century. Viability of the state was not questioned. 5 • Austrian economy was oriented towards the Habsburg empire and therefore dysfunctional for the small state. The First Republic was considered a state that would not be able to survive. c) Civil War • The ferocity of the Civil War in Finland (1918) can be seen as a direct consequence of the breakdown of Tsarist Russia. • Civil war in Austria (1934) only broke out one and a half decades later after a domestic trigger. d) The role of the Left • The Left in Austria is united in the Social Democratic movement and committed to a reformist path. The role of Communism is marginal. • In Finland, Communism is of significant importance. e) Inter war period: • In Finland, modernisation prevails with the bourgeoisie dominating. • In Austria, society is split. Modernisation is centered in Red Vienna. Precursors of corporatism: • Finland: While bourgeois centre parties are open to trade union involvement, employers block any attempt at collective bargaining well into the thirties. Trade unions are closely connected to the Communists and therefore under constant suspicion. Socialists try to act through parliamentary channel and remain rather passive towards unions. • Austria: A number of institutions that can be seen as precursors of corporatist arrangements exist but post WWI society in Austria is highly polarised, lacking the political will for cooperation. Trade unions and Social Democrats are depicted as "Siamese Twins". 6 Comparative context: New EU-Member states The second part of the workpackage is the investigation of the poiltcal history of the neighbouring acession countries, i.e. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the case of Finland as well as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia in the case of Austria. According to the Annex, the work is intended to create a foundation for fruitful discussions in the workshop of WP 12 where researchers from these countries will discuss the relevance of the corporatist systems in the smallcons countries as models for these new members of the European Union. This part aims at a brief outline of the historical paths of development concentrating on democratic developments, the impact of fascism and the communist takeover after World War II. An investigation of eventual early corporatist institutions in the inter-war period is not part of this investigation. Here a brief outline of the major similarities and differences ist given: a) Nationalism movements in the 19th century • Nationalist movements in the Habsburg empire occurred as a reaction to the German Austrian domination (esp. Hungary, South Slavs). • Nationalism in the Baltic states occurred to limit the power of the domestic (German) rulers. b) Nation state building process 1918/20 • Nation states are emerging out of out dissolving Habsburg and Russian empire – seeking national independence. c) Economic starting point in the new states and land reform • The disintegration of the empires left all in dire straits due to the loss of their (protected) markets and their resources. It took them more or less a decade to recover and then they were hit hard by the Great Depression. • An exception is Czechoslovakia that inherited a big share of the total industrial workforce and industrial capacity of the monarchy. • Land reform was only carried out in the Baltic states and in Czechoslovakia. d) Democratisation and political development • All nation states start as democratic republics (exception Slovenia in the SHS- monarchy with parliamentarian features). 7 • Interwar period: The government coalitions shift from more or less leftist, centered and conservative coalitions to governments that show distinctive authoritarian characteristics (e.g. one party system where all other parties are banned) in the 1930s. • Estonia 1934 • Latvia 1934 • Lithuania 1927/28 • Slovenia within Yugoslavia 1929 (King Alexander introduced dictatorship) • Hungary 1936 attempt for a corporate state • The exception is Czechoslovakia that stays democratic before WWII breaks out. e) WWII • All these states experienced WWII German occupation during the war. f) Soviet dominance • In the 40s and 50s all those nation states get under the domination of the Soviet Union, only Yugoslavia can develop an alternative model of Socialism. Whether the corporatist systems in the smallcons countries