Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

ISSN 2029-2074

THE POLISH-LITHUANIAN PECULIAR TYPE OF FEDERALISM

Daniel Rodrigues University of Coimbra (Portugal)

Keywords: Polish-Lithuanian , federalism, multi-nationalism. Pagrindinės sąvokos: Abiejų Tautų Respublika, federalizmas, daugianacionalizmas.

Introduction

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ( – Abiejų Tautų Respublika), officially born from the Union of (1569), can be seen as an interesting case study to understand the historical evolution of fed- eral political systems. As the result of a free union between the Kingdom of and the Grand-Duchy of , the Rzeczpospolita was con- stituted of different with ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. The Polish-Lithuanian was a kind ofrespublica provinciae or respub- lica provincialis. And, the management of its internal differences made it a true multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state when, at the same time, the western European were developing opposite policies with the purpose to integrate and to assimilate their peripheries, homogenising their national territories. Thus, it is essential to see how the authorities of the dealt with all these differences in order to preserve them in spite of the extent of such a vast Commonwealth. With the present crisis of the traditional nation-state and anticipating the possibility of its decadence in favour of infra-national and supra-na- 122 DANIEL RODRIGUES

tional entities, it is important to not underestimate past experiences. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should be seen as more than a mere political instrument created in order to defend the territorial integrity of both Polish and Lithuanian realms. It should be linked to the institutional building of multi-national states and, subsequently, to the modern right of minorities, the development of regionalism and federalism in the European states and in the (EU). The Rzeczpospolita has a vital sig- nificance for the present studies on regional and federal matters. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyse the importance of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a peculiar type of federalism and to see in which way some of its elements can be used. However, the concept of federalism, or confederalism, applied to the Rzeczpospolita cannot be de- tached from the present references to a “ of the Regions”.

The first federalist, or proto-federalist, project in Poland was elaborated by Boleslas the Brave who, in the early 11th century, had the vision to cre- ate a of Western Slavs under Polish leadership as a response to German growing supremacy in . However, his dream did not survive. The that he built with the support of Hungary and Ba- varia was destroyed by its enemies, a coalition lead by the German empire (Dziewanowski 1963: 443). After a period of territorial fragmentation, the Kingdom of Poland was restored in 1320 by Wladyslas the Short, becoming a kind of federation of lands. Previously independent or semi-independent, these lands preserved in some cases their own institutions and their voievod (or wojewoda, palatines) (Izdebski 1994a: 300). After his father, Kazimierz III the Great ruled what can be called the embryo of a multi-national em- pire (Castellan 1994: 51). , Germans, , Wallachs, and Armenians became part of it. During the 14th century, a new principle of representation emerged and had as a consequence the creation of the Diet () in the next century (Izdebski 1994a: 300). Progressively menaced by its German neighbours and its encircle- ment by them, the Kingdom of Poland clearly needed to find the support of other nations in an analogous position. The , which es- tablished itself on the Baltic fringes in 1226, was simultaneously a threat to 123

Poland, Hungary and the Grand-. Consequently, these were natural partners in a coalition or a union against the Teutonic knights. Strengthened by a traditional alliance of three centuries, a union between the kingdoms of Poland and Hungary was, at the time, the more viable and easiest solution. Nevertheless, this union was weak as it was revealed by divergences about foreign policy matters, the constant friction about the condominium in Red , and the question of Moldavia. Therefore, it ended when the princess Jadwiga of Anjou, daughter of Louis of Hungary, ascended to the throne of Poland after the death of her father and Kazimi- erz the Great, in 1374. The (Kréva) (1385) linked the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania in a of two dynasties and was the beginning of a durable association between them. According to the agreement, both nations maintained their own legal system and local cus- toms, the lands known “as terrae Lithuaniae et Russiae were attached to the Corona Regni Poloniae” (Dziewanowski 1963: 449), the Grand Duke con- verted to Roman Catholicism, and he assumed the Polish crown through his marriage with Jadwiga (1386). Jogaila, now Wladyslaw II Jagiello, had to govern the Kingdom of Poland, respecting the prerogatives of the mag- nates, landed gentry and other nobles. The privileges granted to nobility at Kashau (or Kassa, nowadays Košice) eleven years before the Union of Krewo (or Kréva), as the guarantee of its previous rights or the exemption from all taxes (with the exception of a nominal tax land), constituted the beginning of the limitation of monarchical power and it was one cause of failure for the “royal mechanism”. As stated by D. Stone: Recent dynastic changes gave many Polish nobles the sense that the state existed independently of the monarch, and they felt that they shared responsibility for running it. Having gained extensive privileges in return for their political support, Polish nobles came to regard as executive officers subject to supervision by the political nation composed of state officials meeting in groups such as the royal council and the sejm, which latter became the Polish (Stone 2001: 5). In fact, the creation of the Sejm and the legal partnership between the and the parliament lead to the implementation of a balance of political power. According to H. G. Koenigsberger, this dominium politicum et regale was not an exception, but the norm in the late medieval epoch (1978: 193). It was only during the 18th century that political changes in some parts of Europe were able to limit parliamentary power or simply to abolish it. 124 DANIEL RODRIGUES

The newly formed union defeated Teutonic knights at Tannenberg (or Grünwald, or Žalgiris) in 1410 and, as a consequence, the Treaty of Toruń (or Thorn) divided their possessions into Western (or Royal) and Ducal Prussia. If the first was directly incorporated into Poland, the sec- ond became a fief of it. Samogitia was returned to Lithuania. Poland was dragged into eastern problems of Lithuania, of which the mounting con- flict with Muscovy was a major issue for its own future as an independ- ent nation. The Lithuanian expansionism to the East and its struggle for the dominium Russiae was no longer a reality since the defeat in the battle of the Vorskla River (1399) but, from the middle of the 15th century, the Muscovite propaganda began to present the dynastic and religious rights of the of Muscovy on Ruthenian lands as valid arguments for its annexa- tion. Polish kings were concerned about the question of Ruthenia and the project of a trialist Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian federation was evocated, and it was almost concluded during the 17th century. Another way found by Polish kings to face up to Muscovite claims was the conclusion of defen- sive alliances with the independent principalities of and Novgorod, which failed due to the ineffectiveness of Polish rulers to protect them of being conquered by the troops of Ivan III (1464 and 1470) (Dziewanowski 1963: 454, Stone 2001: 25–26). The same happened to the principality of Tver and the fortress of which were lost to Muscovy in 1485 and 1514, respectively. After years of conflict with Muscovy and successive failures to defend its own interests and those of its allies, its inability to sustain Tartar raids in its southern-eastern provinces, and the Livonian War; the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania had no other solution than to establish a closer association with the Kingdom of Poland in exchange for Polish military assistance. This renewed association, deeper than the personal union realized in 1385, was fulfilled after a long and hard negotiation process, concluded with the Union of Lublin, in 1569. In 1569, the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania agreed to become a federal union, also know as the Commonwealth of the Two Nations (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów). The new elective had one common king, a common diet and a common foreign policy. Both nations kept their own army, their own administration and their treasury. Finally, the Sejmiky (or regional assem- blies), established in 1454 by the Act of Nieszawa, were not abolished in Lublin. It was also decided that some Lithuanian territories were ceded to Poland. Kiev and Ruthenia, and , disputed by both na- 125 tions for a long time, passed under Polish administration. In respect to re- ligious matters, the Union of Lublin guaranteed freedom of religion as well as equality for the Greek Orthodox faith and the project of establishment of an autonomous reformed national church was in the mind of authori- ties. With the (1596), the Orthodox Church of Poland- Lithuania was allowed to retain its traditional liturgy; its clergy gained the prerogatives of the priests, including the right of its bishops to sit in the Senate and their equality with the Roman Catholic episcopacy. As counterpart, it only had to recognize the supremacy of the . Thus, the Greek , or Uniate Church, was created as a way to unify religions in the Commonwealth. However, the jealousy of the Latin side resulted in dissidences among the Orthodox clergy and weakened this ambitious project.

The Commonwealth of the Two Nations is characterized by an impor- tant ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. And, as respublica provinciae or respublica provincialis, regional and local ensured through political and institutional arrangements. As it was said before, the Union of Lublin respected the particularities of each nation. Sejmiky survived despite the creation of a common diet. The management of its internal differences transformed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into an effective multi- ethnic and multi-confessional state. Policies of integration and assimilation of peripheries were not part of its internal policies. Linguistically, the Commonwealth had three official languages: Latin, Polish and Ruthenian (proto-Ukrainian and Byelorussian) (Satoshi 2007: 139). This does not mean that they were the only languages of the Com- monwealth. The existence of different ethnic minorities who spoke in their own languages contributes to a more important diversity. Germans spoke German, Jews spoke and used Hebrew for religious purposes, Ar- menians spoke Armenian, and a large part of the Lithuanian population spoke Lithuanian or Russian. Nevertheless, the was the language of integration. It was spoken not only by the population of the Kingdom of Poland but was also used by the elite of the Commonwealth. The Polish language became the lingua franca for the majority of noblemen from the Baltic fringes to the northern Black Sea (Satoshi 2007: 140). 126 DANIEL RODRIGUES

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was also a multi-confessional state. Roman Catholics were almost half of the total population during the 16th century. With the , and Calvinism spread all over the Commonwealth; and, the of (1573) was the guarantee of a peaceful coexistence among Christian denominations. The predominance of Roman Catholicism was only disputed by the Or- thodox Church in the Russian lands of the Commonwealth. The creation of the Uniate Church (or the Greek Catholicism) in the Union of Brest was not enough to merge both religions into a single one, ending with existent frictions. The Commonwealth also had non-Christian minorities including Jewish people and some Muslims.

The Commonwealth had a two chamber system. This bicameral Diet, or Sejm, was composed of the Upper and the Lower House. The Upper House, or Senate (Senat), was composed of the aristocratic element of the Commonwealth, which means bishops, magnates and castellans. The Low- er House, or Chamber of Deputies (Izba Poselska), was composed of the lower nobility. In the Commonwealth, the nobility (), which repre- sented 10 % of the population, was the only class present in the Sejm. The Sejm convened every two years for six weeks. According to D. Roháč, it is important to make a distinction between regular Sejmy and those which are summoned during interregnums by the archbishop of (Roháč 2008: 116). In the Sejm, legislation was passed, budgets were approved, and war and peace were decided as well as taxation matters. It legislated only by unanimity. As a result of the “”, the right of each member of the Sejm to deliberately stop any legislation proposed or to nullify a whole session of it, its power was gradually weakened and the real control of the country was on regional assemblies (Izdebski 1994a: 301, Roháč 2008: 116). The towns had no power in theSejm . And, even if a few cities had the possibility to send their delegates to the Sejm, it was only of a symbolic na- ture (Wyrobisz 1989: 611). Their political significance was a fable. Wyrobisz refers to private towns which could be important trade centres on a regional scale. These towns were economically isolated from the country market and 127 completely dependent from private landowners (Wyrobisz 1989: 611). Ac- cording to Marcin Bielski, “towns were meant for the comfort and benefit of the gentry” (Wyrobisz 1989: 611). The urban matters were, dealt into the Sejm and Sejmiky. Problems like taxation, prices and the defence of towns were not neglected, essentially because they interested the gentry (Wyro- bisz 1989: 622–624). For local government, there were Sejmiky in which the nobles elected and instructed envoys (poslowie) to the Sejm, among other functions (Butterwick 2005: 695). The szlachta constituted itself as clients of magnates in Sejmiky and Sejm. This naturally contributed to the weakness of the monarchy (Koenigsberger 1978: 202).

According to O. P. Backus III and J. Jakstas, the major cause in the de- cline of the Commonwealth was the problem of its unity. Political com- petition, failure in the establishment of a strong monarchy (failure of the so-called “royal mechanism”), cultural and religious differences within the union, internal , and foreign interventions were factors which contributed to undermine the unity of the Polish-Lithuanian Common- wealth (Backus III 1963, Jakstas 1963). It would be interesting, for example, to see in which way Polish-Lithuanian authorities dealt, or wished to deal, with the problem of Ruthenian (or Ukrainian) . If, between 1387 and 1430, the “Ru- thenian Law”, or Jus Ruthenicum, was accepted by the Polish rulers in their province of , the Polish administrative system was progressively in- troduced and incorporated in this land (Vernadsky 1951: 255). Due to the Cossack revolts at the end of the 16th century fear and death spread in south-eastern lands of the Commonwealth. Crushed by the royal troops, it was fundamental to make some political and institutional ar- rangements in order to keep these lands in peace and to avoid their seces- sion. The agreement reached at Hadiach in 1658 between Ivan Vyhovs’ky and the Commonwealth was supposed to radically change the status of Ukrainian lands. The most important measure was the formation of a sepa- rate Grand-Duchy of Ruthenia which would be united to two other parts of the Commonwealth in similar ties to those of Lublin. It would be the Commonwealth of the Polish, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian Nations. The Grand-Duchy of Ruthenia would keep its own ministers, its treasure and 128 DANIEL RODRIGUES

coinage. With Poland and Lithuania, it would have a joint parliament and was to be ruled by a freely elected hetman. Finally, Ruthenia would have its own army of 30,000 men and the hetman a force of 10,000 mercenaries (Dziewanowski 1963: 461–462). Due to the lack of unity among the Cos- sacks themselves, divided between pro-western and pro-eastern factions; the lack of vision and generosity of the Polish nobility; the lack of mutual trust; and some religious intolerance, the idea of this trialist state failed. As Dziewanowski says, “the Union of Hadiach remained a matrimonium ratum sed non consumatu” (Dziewanowski 1963: 461–462). The has as result the total abolition of traditional Polish institutions, including territorial institutions. With the exception of some territories annexed by Austria-Hungary and the Province of Poznań (1815–1830) in Prussia, no previous Polish-Lithuanian lands received any kind of local autonomy (Izdebski 1994a: 301).

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an example of a multi-na- tional, multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state during almost three cen- turies. Even if some internal conflicts and separatisms persisted during its time, the Commonwealth succeeded to manage them in order to avoid se- cession and to preserve its national features. Moreover, even with imperfec- tions, the Commonwealth was able to constitute a common defence against imperialisms which were threatening it (Halecki 1944: 15). Created as a result of Lithuanian needs for military support and Polish nobility interests, this state was able to constitute itself as a proto-federalist state. The Polish-Lithuanian institutions of theSejm and the Sejmikys have their importance to define a model of European federalism. The “Europe of the Regions” idea should be able to incorporate some features of the political and institutional organization of the Commonwealth in order to endow EU with instruments for the management of diversity. The local and regional decision-making allied to supra-national institutions in which those would be represented is the best way to preserve their particularities. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not survive foreign interventions and internal political competition. Nevertheless, the EU was borne with the wish that people could bring peace and prosperity to themselves. The historical circumstances that dictated the end of the Commonwealth are 129 no longer alive. Thus, it is important to understand this peculiar type of federalism within its time and to learn from its benefits.

1. Backus III, O. P. 1963. The Problem of Unity in the Polish-Lithuanian State. lavicS Review 22(3): 411–431. 2. Butterwick, R. 2005. Political Discourses of the Polish Revolution, 1788–92. English Historical Review CXX(487): 695–731. 3. Castellan, G. 1994. Histoire des peoples d’Europe centrale. Paris: Fayard. 4. Deveike, J. 1950. The Lithuanian Diarchies.The Slavonic and East European Review 28(71): 392–405. 5. Dziewanowski, M. K. 1963. Dualism or Trialism? Polish Federal Tradition. The Slavonic and East European Review 41(97): 442–466. 6. Halecki, O. 1944. The Historical Role of Central-.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 232: 9–18. 7. Halecki, O. 1952. Imperialism in Slavic and East European History. American Slavic and East European Review 11(1): 1–26. 8. Izdebski, H. 1994. Autonomie (en Pologne). In D. de Rougemont (dir.), & Saint Ouen (Ed.), Dictionnaire International du fédéralisme (pp. 300–303). Bruxelles: Bruylant. 9. Jakstas, J. 1963. How Firm Was the Polish-Lithuanian Federation? Slavic Review 22(3): 442–449. 10. Koenigsberger, H. G. 1978. Monarchies and in Early Modern Europe. Dominium Regale or Dominium Politicum et Regale. Theory and Society 5(2): 191–217. 11. Koyama, S. 2007. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a Political Space: Its Unity and Complexity. In H. Tadayuki, & F. Hiroshi (Eds.), Regions in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and Present (pp. 137–153). Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University. 12. Roháč, D. 2008. The Unanimity Rule and Religious Fractionalisation in the Polish- Lithuanian Republic. Constitutional Political Economy 19(2): 111–128. 13. Stone, D. 2001. The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386–1795. Seattle & London: Washington University Press. 14. Vernadsky, G. 1951. The Royal Serfs Servi( Regales) of the ‘Ruthenian Law’ and Their Origin. Speculum 26(2): 255–264. 15. Wyrobisz, A. 1989. Power and Towns in the Polish Gentry Commonwealth: The Polish- Lithuanian State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Theory and Society 18(5): 611–630.

When the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created, at a first time as a personal union, this was the mere consequence of political interests. Nevertheless, it was able to develop into a multi-national body characterized by its singularity and respect of local and regional differences. Was it a perfect political system? It was not, but with some features of what can be called a proto-federalism, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is an in- teresting case-study for the modern rights of minorities, as well as peace studies through institutional-building. 130 DANIEL RODRIGUES

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present the more relevant aspects of the Com- monwealth in order to understand its importance not only as an exception at its time, but as having the potential to be an example of peaceful cohabitation, tolerance and multicul- turalism for modern Europe.

<"#

Sukūrus bendrą Lietuvos ir Lenkijos valstybę, pirmiausia tai buvo asmenine unija susietos valstybės, turinčios bendrų politinių tikslų. Tačiau ši valstybė sugebėjo tapti daugiatau- te, gerbiančia vietinius ir religinius skirtumus. Ar tai buvo ideali politinė sistema? Ji tokia nebuvo, tačiau atsižvelgiant į tam tikras ypatybes, kurios gali būti pavadintos protofedera- lizmu, ši valstybė yra įdomus atvejo analizės pavyzdys tiriant modernias mažumų teises ir institucijų kūrimą. Šiame straipsnyje stengiamasi išryškinti svarbiausius Lietuvos ir Lenkijos valstybės bruo- žus, šalies išskirtinumą ir pateikti tai kaip galimą taikos, tolerancijos ir daugiakultūriškumo pavyzdį šių dienų Europai.

Top View