How successful was Metternich in dealing with the principal problems of
the Austrian Empire in the period 1815-48?
Introduction
Europe had been, through the course of the Napoleonic wars, reshaped and gone through dramatic changes in many aspects. France, a state which had gone through a revolution fueled by a strong sense of nationalism and liberalism had been successful in conquering a significant part of Europe. The traditional and conservative kingdoms and empires of Europe were--and had reason to be--afraid of the upcoming ideas of the freedom of the individual and united nationalities. It did not fit well with their system of ruling, which often endeavored the governing of several nationalities and minorities in a number of regions. That was certainly the case in 'The Empire of the House of Austria', where a sovereign, namely Emperor Francis I, controlled an empire that consisted of a wide range of regions with an even wider range of ethnicities. Emperor Francis' greatest companion in the task of keeping his empire intact was Prince Clemens Wenzel von Metternich, Foreign Minister of the Austrian empire, and later its State Chancellor.
The question about to be answered is 'How successful was Metternich in dealing with the principal problems of the Austrian Empire in the period 1815-48?'. The question has a few variables and can be looked at from many perspectives. Because the definition of the 'principal problems' facing the empire ought to have been different amongst the habitants, and because not even Metternich and his superior shared the same opinions on the matter (even though they were in no way antagonists on what the problems facing them were, they did not have the same approach to how to handle them) the viewpoint one should take when attempting to identify the 'principal problems' is debatable. The liberals and nationalists would probably have defined the 'principal problems' as the lack of a constitution and the government's blindness to the aspiring national unity. The working class would probably consider the 'principal problems' being the lack of housing due to the increasing urbanization following the industrialization, and the insignificant working conditions. However, since the focus in the question lies on Metternich, who without a doubt was one of the most influential and powerful men in Europe at this time, and since he was the one with the most decisive power over the empire, save for the change-despising emperor, it is from his point of view and with regards to the 'principal problems' of his definition that this essay will put its focus.
Metternich's problems consisted of trying to restrain the erupting forces of nationalism, liberalism and democracy that had already exploded in France and brought disruption and unwanted chaos into Europe and now, in a similar manner, threatened to tear apart his empire. Only the diminishing respect and loyalty to the Hapsburgian throne glued the different ethnic groups together. To counter the rising popularity of nationalism, he used the principle of divide and rule to keep his people in check. He responded to the rising demand for change and democratization with control the people to the extent that historians has referred to the Austrian empire under his rule as a 'police state'. His refusal to embrace the new liberal ideas and use them to his advantage was perhaps a result of the Emperor's reluctance to act and allow for reforms and was probably an important factor in his inability to further control the fate of Austria.
Body
Up until that moment in time, the natural way of governing had been with one autonomous leader in control of one or several regions. No consideration was taken to things such as language and cultural background of a group of people when the borders were divided between the rulers, but the possession of a territory was rather defined by whom was married to whom and who had the military control of the area. Thus it is not hard to understand how alien and threatening the ideas of nationality and democratic rule were to the Kings and Emperors throughout Europe. After all, the last country that showed any tendency towards these concepts was France where the rulers had been decapitated following the revolution. When voices such as that of Count Istvan Szechnyi of Hungary, calling for unification by promoting the Magyar language culture, were raised, Metternich's diagnose was that the infectious Nationalism had begun to spread in the Austrian empire. He had to come up with a treatment. His answer was to let the different strains of Nationalism grow in a controlled manner by allowing and even encouraging the increased interest in local languages, literature and history. Metternich thought that this would satisfy the nationalistic needs of the liberals and at the same time, he could use the renewed hate towards other ethnic groups that came with the nationality, in order to play the different peoples against each other whenever he saw fit. According to Professor Amy Chua, all the powerful empires throughout history "rose to global dominance through tolerance"[1] . Though the tolerance by her definition is not the modern version comprising "human rights [...] equality, or even respect"(1) but rather tolerating their existence on their terms and let them "live, participate, prosper and rise in your society, regardless of ethnicity race and nationality--even if it's just for instrumental reasons"(1). To some extent, Metternich identified this and could use this to his advantage. By letting some manifestations of nationalism be, he thought himself able to satisfy the needs of his population, while still remaining on top of the empire. Ofcourse, there was still a need of common factors that which could bind the different nationalities together. Believing that increased saying in the affairs of the empire might encourage renewed loyalty towards the empire, Metternich put forward ideas to increase the involvement of the different nationalities in governmental affairs. None of these did however function properly and Emperor Francis was suspicious towards any form of change. The nationalistic 'disease' that was to a considerable extent enabled by Metternich's own actions, that he himself had helped feeding, with the motive of dividing and rule, eventually became out of control and manifested itself in the 1849 revolution sending him into exile.
To Metternich, liberalism was synonymous with chaos and anarchy. In line with the common perception from the 18th century enlightenment, he thought that life was to a great extent controlled by a number of natural laws--not only those which controlled the physical world and our perception of it, but also the interactions and changes of society and mankind. He believed that it followed a natural cycle and that the balance between chaos and stability was natural. In his view, the liberal ideas was nothing more then the chaos of anarchy that threatened the stability of his society and he saw in himself the person who was to stop the trouble from taking a hold of the empire. Just as he argued in the Vienna congress that a powerful Austria was the key to a balance of power in Europe, so did he see conservatism and authority as the answer to the increasing disorder. With a strong emphasis on authority, he set out to create a system of oppression that had no equivalent in Europe at that time. It included the establishment of a network of informers, surveillance of individuals and monitoring of letter correspondence. With the industrialization at its rise, communications were getting better, but there were still obstacles in getting your voice heard and the liberal ideas were most widespread in the middleclass, which was not a very big part of the population. In order to get a real movement going, the liberals needed to spread their ideas and thoughts to the working classes. In this regard, Metternich's methods were sucessful in slowing spreading the 'anarchy' and 'disorder', greatly helped by "the Carlsbad Decrees" which followed the assassination of August von Kotzebue, that forbid any texts under 320 pages. By controlling the allready quite limited flow of information, Metternich made the way towards revolution a hard struggle and pushed many liberals underground. However, if we look at a more recent example of a government controlled state, the USSR, data from a US government funded study from 1979 showed that "alternative press reached 45% of high-level professionals, 41% of political leaders, 27% of managers, and 14% of blue-collar workers."[2] It is, of course hard to compare the two states, but this study can give us a hint that the public continued to receive information that they were not supposed to, despite Metternich's best attempts.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Metternich did fail in his attempts to revitalize the Austrian empire without having to embrace the, in his view chaos, that would follow liberalism. While it is true that he accomplished more then most prominent men in power during his years of rule, he did it at the cost of many of the already few liberties that his people had. His attempts to combat nationalism with nationalism could have been more successful, had it not been for the fact that when he gave the people an inch, they wanted a mile. This could have been prevented if they could have, through the use of a central system like the ones attempted by Metternich, apply some of that nationalism back at the empire. It is very hard to prevent an idea, once it gets a foothold, and liberalism was on the rise throughout Europe. Metternich's police state may have had a certain success, but it is hard to enforce a law that criminalizes widespread ideas and beliefs. Metternich's ultimate failure lie in his failure identify the possibilities of the 'chaos' that was liberalism and to adapt to the new circumstances instead of dismissing the ideas as presumptuous.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar