Page - 337 - in Österreich-Ungarns imperiale Herausforderungen - Nationalismen und Rivalitäten im Habsburgerreich um 1900

© 2020, V&R unipress GmbH, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783847110606 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737010603 transfer of imperial knowledge, too. They were frequently also interlocutors betweencenterandperiphery,whoserolewas tobalanceconflicting interests.12 Finally,empiresgraduallyadaptedtothemodelsprovidedbytherivalnation states,whilethelatteralsoborrowedfromtherepertoireofempires.Thismutual adaptationprocess ledtothenationalizationofempiresandtheimperialization ofnationstates, aprocess thatmanifested itself in reformssuchasbroadening suffrage, universal conscription in empires, or colonial fantasies of nation states.13 In the HabsburgMonarchy it happened against the backdrop of de- mocratization,whichmeant not just reformsof the electoral law, but also and mainly thespreadofcivicassociational life, aswell asagradual engagementof ever larger segmentsofsocietywithpolitics, formallyor,often, informally.The resultwas thegrowing influenceof societyonpoliticaldecisions, althoughthis influencewasoften exerted through informalmeans, influencing thebureauc- racyatdifferent levelsof theadministration.14 Hungaryaround1910 fittedmostof thecriteriaofan imperial state.Behind the smokescreen of the ever louder rhetoric of a unitary nation state,15 it still exhibitedmany features of a dynastic territorial conglomerate. Not only was dualistHungary the result of theunificationof a series of administrativeunits previously under the direct authority of Vienna (the Grand Principality of Transylvania;theterritoryoftheborderregiments;Croatia,ruleddirectlybythe Viennesegovernmentafter1849;theBanat,abolishedin1778,revivedaspartof theVoivodinabetween1850and1860),butdualistHungarywasalsotheproduct oflastingeffectsof thedisunityof thereconqueredcountry(after1718)andthat of the feudal legal system,whichpersistedwell into the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Themost notable among themwas the applicationof theneo-abso- lutistAustrianCivicCode (issued in1852) inTransylvania, apractice thatwas finally abolished only by the communist regime,16 but the abolishment of privilegedgroups (inSpisˇ/Szepes, the J#sz-KunandHajdffldistricts) and terri- torialunits(theSaxonNationsuniversität,theSz8kelySeats)didnothappenuntil the1876administrative reform,either.Evenafter thisdate, someof theseunits continued to exist after some reform. The Transylvanian SaxonNationsuni- versitätwas, for example, transformed intoa representativebodywhosemem- bers were elected by the inhabitants of the former Königsboden per parlia- 12 Hirschhausen,NewImperialHistory? (seenote1),p. 734–737. 13 JörnLeonhard/UlrikevonHirschhausen,EmpiresundNationalstaaten im19. Jahrhundert, Göttingen2009,p. 12–3,107–109;Hirschhausen,NewImperialHistory?(seenote1),p. 753. 14 Cohen,NationalistPolitics (seenote2). 15 Andr#sCieger,Ahatalomrajutott liberalizmus8saz#llamadualizmuselso˝ fel8nekmagyar politikaigondolkod#s#ban, in: Sz#zadv8g20(2001),p. 95–118. 16 MagdolnaM#ria Vallasek, Az 1918. 8vi egyesül8st követl jogegyes&t8si folyamat k8rd8se Rom#ni#ban,MagyarKisebbs8g9/2–3(2004),p. 573–590. RegionalElites,NationalistPolitics, LocalAccommodations 337