Seite - 352 - 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 fromarchdukeFranzFerdinand,oreventheAustromarxistnationalautonomy proposals.Itisalsotellingthatsincethelastyearsofthe19thcenturyimperialand provincial legislationtriedtoaddress the imperialcrises, too,withextensionof suffrage,orwith theprovincial compromises.62 Hungarywasoftennotpartof theseplansbecauseof itsuniquepositionand unitarycharacterthattheHungarianelitewasnotyetreadytoabandon,andnor had it seen anymeaningful legislation to reduce the growing social tensions. Nevertheless, these political attempts that aimed at reconfiguring center-pe- riphery relationswithin the countrywerebound to the crisis. TheMaramures‚ modelaimedatpreservingafinebalancewithinamulti-ethnicnobility inorder to eliminatenational conflict, and it achieved this aimwithwell-proven, tradi- tionalmeans.Theothertwoattempts,however,atleast inpart,werereactionsto the challenges posed by the nationalmovements and the failures ofmodern- ization.Thereforetheydidnotrelyonthetraditionsofasocietystillshapedbyits feudal legacy; rather, they tried to inventnewmodelsofcenter-periphery rela- tions. But even though, just like in Cisleithania, they have grown out of national conflict, their goalswereverydifferent.Regionalists inTransylvania andHun- garian leaders inBras‚ovdidnot aimat securingor extending the rights of the nationalities or establishing national autonomy. Their concernwas quite dif- ferent– thatof thepreservationofHungariandominancewithinHungary.The peculiarityofthesecasesliesexactlyinthischaracteristic,astheywantedtorelax theunitarynatureoftheHungariannationstateinordertopreserveitsnational character.Or, to put itmoreprovocatively: while inCisleithania reform ideas tended to promote a nationalization of the empire, in Hungary rather dis- mantlingof anddissociation from thenation statewas their trend.Givenhow muchthesuccessorstateshavestruggledwithsimilarproblems,andhowoften they employed the samemethods (and sometimes even the same people) to resolve these problems, at least temporarily, Hungary’s experiment with its center-periphery relations can be understood as a precursor for the post- Habsburgquasi-ormini-empires.63 Thethreecasesoffer important lessons for thosewhowishtograspAustria- Hungaryasan imperialunity, aswell.Whileneitherof thesecaseshas revealed top-down transmission of the imperial ideas, they still speak of an imperial characterofHungary–thecomponentstateoftheHabsburgEmpirethatisoften 62 Heir/Wimmer,Isnationalismthecause(seenote3);Judson,TheHabsburgEmpire(seenote 2); Börries Kuzmany, Habsburg Austria: Experiments in Non-Territorial Autonomy, in: Ethnopolitics 15/1 (2016),p. 43–65. 63 Judson,TheHabsburgEmpire(seenote2);G#borEgry,Etnicit#s,identit#s,politika.Magyra kisebbs8gek nacionalizmus 8s regionalizmus között Rom#ni#ban 8s Csehszlov#ki#ban 1918–1944,Budapest2015. GáborEgry352