Section 1. History of the political Section 1. History of the political Dogaru Cosmin Ștefan, University of Bucharest PhD in Political Science, Faculty of Political Science Assistant Professor E‑mail: dogaru.cosmin‑[email protected] Romanian politics in 19th century: the attitude of the liberals and the conservatives towards the two-party system Abstract: Across this paper, I will examine the way in which the significant aspects of the Roma- nian two-party system were analysed by the political actors, both liberals and conservatives, during the reign of Charles I (1866–1914). Politicians from both political currents, that dominated the Romanian political life in that time, de- bated a series of topics concerning the evolution and the operation of the Romanian two‑party system: the liberal political regime, the government alternation between the liberals and the conservatives, the role of the constitutional monarchy in the consolidation of the Romanian political regime etc. The conservative and liberal political leaders together with Charles I (who was first the prince and then, after 1881, the king of Romania) supported the operation and the consolidation of the government alternation, according to the British model, between the two political forces that in- variably dominated the Romanian political regime: the National Liberal Party — NLP (founded in 1875) and the Conservative Party (created in 1880). Keywords: political regime, Charles I, government alternation, political leaders, Romanian two- party system. Introduction comprehensive methodology related to critical text The government alternation of the two forces analysis and comparison of relevant historical data represented a major concern of the political leaders, to be found both in official sources such as political who considered this mechanism as very useful for the and parliamentary discourses and in personal docu- good operation and organisation of the Romanian ments such as memories. state. The coalition governments became indesirable The government alternation of the liberals on the political platform since they tended towards and the conservatives political instability — noticed between 1866–1871 During that time, the politician Vasile Boerescu [5, 100], followed by a stable political climate (1871– exposed the alternation mechanism as a natural fac- 1876) and then long governments period — the lib- tor in the Romanian political regime: “we also man‑ eral one (1876–1888) and the Junimea conservative age to learn — step by step — that the opposition should one (1888–1895). In time, the power alternation of not be seen as the enemy. This is the law of progress and I the two parties was the only viable political mecha- think that our parliamentary system made serious prog‑ nism known until then that offered the long-wanted ress. I remember how much we have progressed at least political stability, especially after thestabilisation of the since 1859 onwards” [2, 248]. We can remark that the two‑party system in 1895–1914. political stability represented the normal unfolding For this type of research, that is still relevant for of the state and, implicitly, the progress. Invariably, the nowadays Romanian political realm, I will use in time, the alternation of power of the two politi- 4 Romanian politics in 19th century: the attitude of the liberals and the conservatives towards the two-party system cal forces ensured political stability and generated a course delivered on the 14th of November 1896, consolidation of the liberal political regime. in Iaşi, was offering an interesting analysis of the al- Vasile Lascăr, an important leader of the National ternation mechanism in Romania: “by party alterna‑ Liberal Party, expressed his conviction in a Chamber tion I do not understand a mechanical operation, which meeting, on March 25, 1901, when referring to the ad- could, for instance, decide that each government should versary, the Conservative Party (obliged to step down stay in power for five years and then step down; no, by from government due to its well-known inner strife): party alternation, I understand the replacement of a par‑ “we wish it from all our hearts to reunite and become a ty, when its work power decreased, with the other party, strong government party, which could lead the state af‑ which was full of life and power” [10, 32–33]. When fairs when we are not able to go on and could continue one of the two parties diminished its political force, the work that the liberals had started” [14, 401]. Vasile the other was supposed to continue the reform pro- Lascăr’s belief was that both political parties had to cess that was necessary for the young Romanian state. be sufficiently strong from an organisational point A year later, in the political dispute, Take Ionescu of view and not only in order to create some balance was criticising the National Liberal Party because within the Romanian political regime. “they thought that the government of the country be‑ Furthermore, the liberal Vintilă I. C. Brătianu, longed to them through divine right, that the govern‑ an important political leader of that period, speci- ment was only theirs and that any raise to power of the fied the relationship between the opposition and the conservatives was considered a kind of usurpation” [10, ruling party. According to him, a political party in 106]. opposition turn out to be “a control agent for the ex‑ The formation of the Conservative ecutive power”, therefore “capable to examine the solu‑ Democratic Party (1908) — A challenge to the tions offered by the adversaries, to go against them when operation of the Romanian two-party system they do not believe them suitable and even to propose Thus, Take Ionescu, a capable and pragmatic other solutions” [3, 374]. politician, militated for the government alterna- From the other part of the political spectrum, the tion of the two parties asserting that: “for both par‑ conservative Take Ionescu asserted without doubt ties there must be a place under the sun; they should that “a constitutional and parliamentary government alternate in government, but from their alternation, the cannot exist otherwise than in those cases in which the permanent interests of the state should not suffer; on the differences between the parties are such that the one contrary, with all their alternation, some things must can continue the work of the other” [10, 107]. From remain beyond their passions and reciprocal revenge” this point of view, one can find common ground be- [6, 57–58]. At that moment, this political leader thus tween the liberal Vasile Lascăr and the conservative supported an organised alternation of the National Take Ionescu, both pleading for the necessity of bal- Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, which ance between the two government parties — each should lead to the consolidation of the political of them being capable to continue “the work of the mechanism and, implicitly, of the state. With the other” towards the good operation of the Romanian formation of the Conservative Democratic Party by state. In this respect, the relationship between the Take Ionescu in 1908, his vision changed for another government and the opposition had to be based on political direction, which had sensible immediate re- a series of well-established parametres of the politi- sults in the Romanian party system. cal game in order to come up with the reforms that Within the Romanian political regime, the were necessary for the country: “the other is the true creation of the Conservative Democratic Party political conception of the two parties concurring to the produced an internal hemorrhage within the Con- achievement of great deeds [for instance, the sanction- servative Party and weakened the force of the con- ing of the Constitution]” [11, 66]. servatives in front of their adversaries, the liberals, Both had to concur to the big projects that were who managed to maintain the unity of their party connected to the national objectives or to the good even after the death of Charles I, in 1914. During operation of the state. Also Take Ionescu, in a dis- that time, the liberals knew to play the political game 5 Section 1. History of the political better, having a firmer party discipline than their po- government party “had to back off, to be questioned litical adversaries [7, 127] and managing to adjust eventually on their former deeds, maybe as an extreme with more ease than the conservatives to the chang- consequence; in any case, new ministers were supposed es that appeared in the Romanian state and in the to replace them and to represent a different majority — Romanian society, especially after the First World that is a different party” [15, 410]. War (WWI), when the two reforms that were nec- Among the important political leaders at the end essary for the development of the Romanian state: of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the agrarian reform and the electoral one were in- Titu Maiorescu was firmly convinced that in the po- troduced. litical arena, “it is in the essence of the constitutional sys‑ The government alternation between NLP tem to have at least two parties/…/If these do not exist, and the Conservative Party — A mechanism fa- there is only a democratic‚ Caesarism’, not a parliamen‑ vored by the majority of the political leaders tary system” [16, 72]. A useful mechanism was thus Another vocal leader of that age was the con- regulated within the political game for the operation servative Nicolae Filipescu, who also in a discourse of only two government parties, the National Liberal delivered on 29 January 1897, referred to the system Party and the Conservative Party, which could thus of government alternation between the two political ensure the political stability of the country. forces: “the liberal party came to power not due to its In 1895, when the liberals came back to power merit, but due to a constitutional necessity, through the after seven years of opposition, the conservative effect of our political mechanism, which imposed the Titu Maiorescu considered that the liberal govern- party alternation” [8, 234].