Representatives of the Central Authority and County Administration in Transylvania (1867–1925)

Our study aims to analyse the transition process through which the Transylvanian county public administration was transformed from the pre-1918 Hungarian model into the Romanian one in accordance with Law 95/1925 for administrative unification. To this end, we will address three relevant and interrelated criteria: the role of the representative of the central authority (the lord lieutenant (főispán) until 1918 and later the prefect), the status of county officials (mainly in relation to the former) and the degree of local self-government. Our hypothesis is that, in the case of Transylvania, the changes in the wake of administrative unification with the Kingdom of Romania did not occur abruptly following the arrival of a new political regime. Instead, they constitute a continuation – albeit at a faster pace and with less resistance from the county structures – of the policies of administrative centralisation that the Hungarian state had been striving to impose since the end of the nineteenth century in relation to the traditional local autonomies.

Our research bears relevance for the history of both Romania and Central Europe, as it synthesises regional scholarship on the history of public administration in pre-war and interwar Transylvania with international works on the Habsburg monarchy and its successor states. There is a rich body of literature focused on the public administration in Transylvania, both for the period before 1918 ¹ and the early interwar years; ² however, it is mainly written in Romanian or Hungarian, and in only a very few cases has an attempt been made to compare the two periods and identify continuities and changes. ³ Following the most recent scholarship, which has highlighted the persistence of the Habsburg bureaucratic tradition in the successor states, ⁴ our study aims to trace some features of this issue for one of the easternmost territories of the monarchy.

1. Administrative legislation in dualist Hungary, 1867–1918

Prior to the 1848 revolution, the county (vármegye) in Hungary – and to a lesser extent in Transylvania – was an institution that enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and combined administrative, legal and political powers. It was headed by an elected county commissioner (alispán) and overseen (without legal powers) by the monarch's representative, the lord lieutenant. After the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, Transylvania ceased to exist as a province and the Hungarian government in Budapest became the central political authority, whose executive branch increasingly gained ground over the legislative branch. Historians also saw this lack of balance between the state powers reflected in the development of administrative legislation. ⁵

Significantly, during the same period, the political system in Romania, while structurally and functionally different from that of its Hungarian counterpart, experienced the same imbalance between the executive and legislative branches of government. This similarity, combined with the processes of professionalisation and bureaucratisation that characterised the institutional modernisation of both states, ⁶ fuelled centralisation tendencies that were easier to implement in Romania than in Hungary, due to different historical traditions. In what follows, we briefly analyse the evolution of administrative legislation in Hungary and Transylvania after 1867, as this was the foundation onto which the changes after 1918 were grafted. The legislation is available online in the original language, ⁷ and has also been published in Hungarian, ⁸ Romanian ⁹ and German. ¹⁰

In 1867, Hungary's counties enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. Their administration was regulated by Law XLII/1870, ¹¹ which was geared towards modernisation and standardisation following the separation of the administration from the judiciary in accordance with Law IV/1869. The former also regulated the relationship between the government (represented by the lord lieutenant) and the county, broadening the powers of the minister of the interior and the lord lieutenant whilst restricting the autonomy of the county's self-elected institutions. However, the position of lord lieutenant was still somewhere in between that of an honorary dignitary on the one hand, and a regulated office on the other hand. ¹²

One innovation was the introduction of ‘virilism’, which was modelled after the Austrian and Prussian example. Traditionally, the members of the county assembly (now rebranded the ‘county committee’) were elected by those inhabitants who had the right to vote. ¹³ Conversely, the new law stipulated that only half of all assembly members were to be elected, while the other half would be composed of ‘virilists’ (i.e. citizens who paid the highest taxes – with a multiplier of two applied to the taxes paid by those who held a diploma). This measure rendered representation less democratic, expanded the political base of government at the county level, and also increased the number of ethnic Hungarian representatives in counties with a non-Hungarian demographic majority.

The same law re-established the old Hungarian system of autonomous county budgets, which were funded by local taxes and revenues. This proved unsustainable in practice, meaning that the state had to financially support the county administrations – a matter that was only definitively regulated by Law XV/1883. From then on, the counties were legally financed from the state budget, which could be supplemented by a local tax: a maximum of 3% of the amount received from the state and an additional 2% with the agreement of the Minister of the Interior. The latter approved the budgets and any subsequent changes in the personnel rosters. ¹⁴

Law VI/1876 introduced a new institution: the county administrative commission. ¹⁵ Prime Minister Kálmán Tisza conceived of it as a coordinating and mediating body between the various state institutions operating on the county territory (financial directorates, state architectural offices and school inspectorates, as well as the post and telegraph, etc.) and the county bodies, but also as a tool for controlling the latter. ¹⁶ It was composed of 21 members (11 representatives of state institutions and the county, including the lord lieutenant, as well as 10 elected by the county commission) and was chaired by the lord lieutenant.

The qualification of personnel was another pressing problem, as the traditional process for electing civil servants at the county level often circumvented clear criteria for training and professional aptitude. Law I/1883 established mandatory qualification criteria for various offices at both the state and county level. County commissioners and county notaries, as well as district sheriffs (szolgabíró), were required to have either graduated from at least four years of legal and administrative studies and have passed a state exam in administrative science or the bar exam or to hold a doctorate in administrative and legal science. The county attorney (tiszti főügyész) had to complete the bar exam, while the officers of the orphanage see had to pass the state exam in legal science. In addition, all officials had to be ‘morally reliable’. Exemptions were provided for those already in office by accepting non-university legal courses (i.e. from law academies). However, no formal qualification criteria were explicitly imposed for lord lieutenants. ¹⁷

The most important changes in the realm of county administration were introduced by Law XXI/1886, ¹⁸ which remained in force until 1918 and beyond (albeit with minor changes), until the passing of the Romanian administrative unification law of 1925. Its provisions aimed at centralisation, as well as strengthening the authority of the executive branch and limiting local self-government, yet without completely dismantling the latter – despite the fact that a number of contemporary voices, even within the ruling Liberal Party, had called for it. In this respect, the powers of the minister of the interior and of the lord lieutenant were extended. The law still confirmed the right to self-government of counties and towns classified as municipalities (Article 1), and the general assemblies of the counties retained extensive powers in this regard, however, the minister of the interior could audit and investigate the internal administration, financial management and administrative procedures at any time (Article 4). The budget and all related matters were placed almost entirely under his control (Article 5).

One of the most important changes pertained to the lord lieutenant (Chapter IV). The latter was still appointed by the monarch based on the proposal of the minister of the interior; he was directly subordinated to the latter and was sworn in after confirmation. This notwithstanding, the office was no longer merely that of an honorary dignitary and was now placed among the pay grades for state officials – lord lieutenants were paid the same amount as ministerial councillors, although their salaries differed according to the size of the county population. Furthermore, for the first time and under precisely regulated conditions, the lord lieutenant was also entitled to a pension. He oversaw the general assembly meetings, could call extraordinary meetings, and chaired the administrative commission and henceforth the county's permanent commission as well. The lord lieutenant also gained powers over the state institutions operating on the territory of the county.

Chapter VI regulated personnel-related matters. It now limited the number of staff positions for those who were elected as county commissioners, notaries and the attorney, as well as the president and officers of the orphanage see, in addition to district sheriffs and high sheriffs (főszolgabíró). All other officials were appointed for life by the lord lieutenant (Article 80). In this regard, the influence of the latter greatly increased, and even if self-government as a principle was not abolished and the local administrative elite continued to be elected rather than appointed, important steps were taken towards the professionalisation of staff, which also entailed their subordination to the central authority as opposed to the county they served in. Additionally, the disciplinary procedure – outlined in Law XXIII/1886 ¹⁹ – established that the minister of the interior and the lord lieutenant could launch investigations against any civil servant at any time, thus strengthening the grip of the central authority.

The ethnic composition of the lord lieutenants’ corps reflected the changes in the regime and political vision between 1848 and 1918. Prior to the revolution of 1848, provincial power in Transylvania was divided according to an agreement between the three nations of estates and four official denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Unitarian). In the period between 1849 and 1867, following the abolition of the prerogatives of the nobility and of the three-nation system in the wake of the 1848 revolution, the Romanians were also gradually accommodated into this system in accordance with the new policy of ‘Gleichberechtigung’ (‘equal rights’). ²⁰ There was a fluctuating degree of ethnic representation regarding the appointments of the lord lieutenants, supreme captains and royal judges (the former's respective equivalents for districts and sees) after the October Diploma of 1860: Saxon sees were headed by Saxons and a Romanian, while the Székely sees were administered by Hungarians/Székelys. At the county and district level, the majority of those in charge were Hungarians, however, some Romanians were also appointed. Following the compromise of 1867, the remnants of the old system were preserved for a number of years. The ethnic composition of those at the head of both the Saxon and Szèkely sees initially remained unaltered by these changes. Romanians were appointed or retained to head the two Romanian districts (Năsăud and Făgăraș), however in the case of the counties, only Hungarians remained in office. ²¹ The situation changed significantly following the administrative reform of 1876, when the small Saxon and partly Székely sees were merged into newly formed counties. Romanians subsequently disappeared entirely from among the group of lord lieutenants, and the number of Saxons within their ranks was reduced considerably. The position of the lord lieutenant of Szeben County was an exception to this rule – he traditionally also headed the Saxon University, ²² which was why this role was consistently occupied by Saxons until 1918.

A system for the allocation of offices according to ethnicity was also implemented at the level of the county / see administration, at least in some administrative units: The offices of county commissioner, high notary and attorney were distributed among members of the three major ethnic groups. This, however, was neither the result of any normative practice nor treated as a rule of thumb at the provincial level – it was exclusively a matter of local political balance. Similarly, the use of the three languages in the administration was tacitly preserved, however, the usage of both German and especially Romanian declined following the nationalities law of 1868, and even more so after the administrative reform of 1876. ²³ While they did not disappear entirely, their persistence largely depended on the ethnic structure of the administrative unit. German, for example, was also used in writing until the end of the period in question, then continued into the early 1920s in the Saxon counties. With the exception of Ágoston Berecz’ studies, this issue is rarely addressed by scholars in a consistent manner. ²⁴

In the 1890s, the most important change in the administration was the establishment of the administrative court by Law XXVI/1896. By thoroughly regulating the preliminary procedure, it laid the foundations for procedural law in administrative practice. ²⁵

At the beginning of the twentieth century, county officials were subjected to a transformation that essentially turned them into state officials in many respects. Under Law III/1902, employees from the county accounting office were transferred to the state financial directorates. ²⁶ Law LIX/1907 regulated the continuity of seniority and reciprocity of pension rights between state and county civil servants. ²⁷ Law LVII/1912 standardised the salaries of county employees according to the pay grades, seniority, and other conditions required for promotion, as well as the right to supplementary allowances. ²⁸ Law XXXV/1912 introduced family allowances for state and county employees according to their number of children. ²⁹ All these measures contributed to the gradual increase in professionalisation among county officials and the bureaucratisation of the system, whilst also strengthening their relationship with the central authority.

After 1910, the new government led by István Tisza pushed for further bureaucratisation and professionalisation, albeit only through moderate reforms and without circumventing traditional self-government structures. The main goal was to impose new appointment procedures for all county officials, including those who were still elected. This would have tied the local administrative elite to the Ministry of the Interior, thus formally preserving self-government whilst practically transforming it into a subsidiary of central authority. A new office, which was meant to function as an ombudsman, was also envisioned as a means to protect the rights of the county against potential abuses by lord lieutenants or ministers. ³⁰ However, the laws on administrative reform did not pass through parliament due to the outbreak of World War I.

During the war, the government issued numerous decrees that did not bring any notable changes. They were mainly geared towards managing war-related problems, including evacuations, refugees, war widows and orphans, as well as the food and fuel crisis, in addition to the conduct of civil servants during hostile occupation. ³¹ Within this context, Law LXIII/1912 on exceptional wartime measures greatly expanded the powers of an older institution, namely the government commissioners. They had jurisdiction over one or more counties and their powers, which were specified in Ordinance No. 620/1918, exceeded those of both the lord lieutenants and county institutions. ³²

Administrative reform remained a desideratum, however, the dissolution of the state prevented the implementation of the process. By the end of the war, the county public administration in Transylvania and Hungary reached the halfway mark on the path towards centralisation. The lord lieutenants and the government commissioners had gradually acquired increasing powers and could directly or indirectly intervene in the operations of self-governing bodies. They also directly controlled county officials through their right to appoint and confirm them. The latter, in turn, had been subjected to a process of professionalisation defined by clear criteria for professional training, internal structure and hierarchical advancement, as well as a transformation into state officials in terms of salary benefits and social security, and the regulation of relations with the supervisory authority (the Ministry of the Interior). A statute pertaining to civil servants in Hungary was drafted in the autumn of 1918, however, it never became a bill. ³³ In financial terms, the counties were depended almost entirely on the Ministry. Political and traditional considerations prevented the complete abolition of the counties’ historical autonomy. However, when compared to 1867, it was largely restricted, standardised across the country, and partially centralised.

2. The Ruling Council, 1918–1920

The dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy and, by extension, of dualist Hungary also affected the civil service. Government authority faced challenges from new power structures that emerged at the central, provincial and local levels. These structures enjoyed the backing of some civil servants and different segments of society. On 9 November 1918, within days of its formation, the Romanian National Council in Hungary announced it would take over the administration of Transylvania, the Banat and eastern Hungary (23 counties and parts of three other counties) beginning from 12 November. Negotiations between the Romanian National Council and the Hungarian government failed, ³⁴ however, the takeover progressed slowly and the council also faced competition from other similar political structures: from the Transylvanian section of the Hungarian National Council in Cluj, and later from the Supreme Government Commissariat of Transylvania ³⁵ as well as the Deutsch-Sächsischer Nationalrat (German-Saxon National Council) in Sibiu. ³⁶

At the local level, the authority of the old administration either diminished or vanished entirely, and civil servants such as village notaries and district sheriffs were targeted by the radicalised population. County-level administrations generally remained in place, yet were challenged everywhere by ‘national councils’ organised along ethnic lines and supported by armed ‘national guards’. For several weeks, various old and new institutions operated concurrently. The county civil servants were often members of these new institutions, which helped maintain public order through cooperation between various national councils on the one hand, yet also undermined the esprit de corps of the bureaucrats and divided them based on ethnic loyalties on the other hand.

The plurality of power centres at the regional level ended in December 1918, after the Romanian Ruling Council (Consiliul Dirigent), with the support of the Romanian army, assumed control of the public administration in Transylvania. As a regional provisional government with 12 departments, it was an institution with executive powers, however, its members always stressed that the only legitimate government was the one located in Bucharest. Conversely, the latter afforded the Ruling Council a considerable degree of autonomy – merely foreign policy, defence and telecommunications were centralised in Bucharest from January 1919. ³⁷ Essentially, between December 1918 and April 1920, an administrative level that had previously disappeared after 1867 was temporarily reactivated in the territories that were transferred from Hungary to Romania. This level was the province, which now encompassed a territory much larger than historical Transylvania.

In the case of Transylvania, the period preceding the administrative unification law of 1925 can be divided into three main stages: the tenure of the Ruling Council (December 1918–April 1920), the anticipation of the new constitution (1920–1923) and the completion of the administrative reform and unification (1924–1925). ³⁸

Through decree-laws, the Ruling Council created the legal framework of the first stage, albeit only at the provincial level. Two additional bills (on agrarian and electoral reform) were passed by the Grand National Council, which was a representative body that performed the role of a parliament, yet was also under the de facto control of the Ruling Council. ³⁹ The aim of the latter, and its president Iuliu Maniu in particular, was to centralise administration at the provincial level, as had been explicitly stated in a circular note addressed to the prefects. ⁴⁰ The prefects were the equivalent of the former lord lieutenants, however, their powers over the counties were more extensive.

More than a third of the 24 decrees issued by the Ruling Council dealt with the civil service. ⁴¹ Decrees I–IV laid the foundations of the new Romanian administration, with some provisions remaining in force until 1925. Decree I replaced Hungarian with Romanian as the official language, yet retained the provisions of the 1868 nationalities law regarding the use of multiple languages in county administrations based on demographic criteria. Civil servants retained their offices, but they could be replaced at any time. Decree II upheld Law XXI/1886 but abolished the institution of ‘virilism’. However, the democratic effects of this measure were curbed by the decision to dissolve the county assemblies until new elections could take place on the one hand, and to transfer their powers to the prefect on the other hand. The same decree abolished the election of senior county officials. Henceforth, all civil servants would be appointed by the prefect or the head of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Ruling Council following the prefect's nomination. However, the decree did not provide details on the appointment procedures, which will only be published one year later, in December 1919. From then on, at least in theory, the prefect could appoint a new official only following a competitive review of applications. In practice, the prefect submitted the name of his preferred applicant to the Department of Internal Affairs for approval. He also decided whether civil servants from one county would be granted permission to apply for office in another county. ⁴² Such direct power over the civil servants exceeded that of the lord lieutenant prior to 1919.

Decree IV introduced the Romanian administrative terminology, while Decree VI replaced the administrative tribunal with a provisional court for administrative disputes, which operated under the aegis of the Ruling Council. Decree VIII organised the state police and replaced the municipal force. Decree XVI established new parliamentary constituencies. Decrees XXII and XXIV, which were never practically implemented, regulated the elections for the town and county assemblies and the administrative committee.

Overall, the changes between 1918 and 1920 were twofold. Some of these transformations seemed obvious, such as the changes regarding the official language and specialised terminology, the abandonment of ‘virilism’ (in part because Romanians formed a minority within this group), or the influx of Romanian civil servants into offices that were vacated following the resignation or emigration of Hungarians. However, even these conspicuous changes were only gradual in nature, and they involved some elements of continuity and resistance. For years to come, correspondence with central institutions continued to be written using old Hungarian-language typescripts, or even the Hungarian and German languages – much to the exasperation of officials in Bucharest. In this regard, opposition to the imposition of Hungarian as the official and exclusive administrative language after 1867 and even after 1876 found its equivalent in the early 1920s, this time in relation to the Romanian language. At the end of 1924, there were still civil servants who did not know Romanian, and even those who were able to employ it in everyday interaction as a second language often failed to attain the level of command and acquire the specialist vocabulary necessary for official administrative paperwork. Accordingly, they continued to employ Hungarian and German in official correspondence with Bucharest. ⁴³

As for the ethnic reshuffling of the civil service, one-third of newly appointed Romanian civil servants in the county administration were in fact former village notaries, and therefore still part of the old administration. The newcomers from outside the administration, who comprised approximately half of all staff, were mostly graduates of legal studies, former lawyers or had worked as legal experts in private institutions before 1918. Accordingly, they were already somewhat acquainted with administrative paperwork, which helped ease the transition process. A recent statistical analysis of the factors that contributed to the reconstruction of the civil service in Transylvania between 1919 and 1925 shows that although ethnicity became increasingly significant (with a clear preference for Romanians), it was not more important than the criterion of professional training. ⁴⁴

Other apparent changes were in fact merely sped-up continuations of trends that had already manifested themselves at an earlier date: They included the strengthening of the role of the central authority's representative, the further limitation or even termination of the activities of self-governing institutions, the abolition of the election of county officials, and the latter's increasing dependence on the central authority. The rapid implementation of this second category was vital for ensuring public order and that public services ran smoothly, yet it simultaneously provided the Ruling Council with administrative and political control of Transylvania. By temporarily abolishing the self-government of the counties and conferring the decision-making powers to the prefects, the Ruling Council achieved a provincial centralisation of public administration that took its cue from the Hungarian governments and anticipated subsequent developments.

The purpose of this provincial centralisation was not only administrative, but also political. Despite the Ruling Council's constant disavowal of the label ‘regional government’, ⁴⁵ most of its leaders hoped Transylvania would retain as much autonomy as possible within the kingdom of Romania. ⁴⁶ Such hopes were quickly dashed by the law on the unification of Transylvania and other territories with Romania, which was enacted on 29 December 1919 ⁴⁷ and followed by the dissolution of the Ruling Council on 4 April 1920. ⁴⁸

3. The acceleration and completion of administrative unification, 1920–1925

The Ruling Council was replaced by a Regional Unification Commission, which was based in Cluj and whose members were appointed by the government in Bucharest. Similar commissions operated in Chernivtsi/Cernăuți and Chișinău and were coordinated by the Central Commission for Unification and Discharge in the Prime Minister's Chancellery. On 1 April 1921, the secretariats of these commissions merged into a general directorate, which was soon disbanded. ⁴⁹ Through this succession of institutional transformations, the administrative apparatus of the Transylvanian counties – which had already been centralised and placed under the control of the Ruling Council – came under the de facto control of the Ministry of the Interior in Bucharest. In legal terms, the county administration continued to be regarded as distinct from the state administration. In practice, however, the key office of the prefect, whose holders were politically appointed, achieved the goal of administrative centralisation and effective control of the county administration through extended prerogatives, including those partly inherited from the period before 1918 and later augmented in 1919–1920.

The period between 1920 and 1923 saw further changes in the area, at a slower pace, but in the same direction. The county orphanage sees in Transylvania were taken over by the Ministry of the Interior, ⁵⁰ and later by the Ministry of Justice ⁵¹ – a measure which merely continued the process of transferring local guardianship to central child welfare institutions that had already begun in the early twentieth century in Hungary. In both countries, the public authorities’ attention to orphaned and abandoned children can also be traced back to strong nationalist motives, as well as a policy of acculturation. ⁵² The relationship between civil servants and the Ministry of the Interior was also strengthened: In 1922, the latter stripped the prefects and vice-prefects of the right to make decisions regarding the promotion, hiring or penalisation of subordinate staff, ⁵³ thereby further restricting self-government in the counties. Correspondence between county authorities and foreign administrative authorities on even minor issues was redirected through the Ministry of the Interior and forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ⁵⁴

The year 1923 saw the drafting of two important pieces of legislation that heralded in the final stage of administrative unification. The 1923 constitution established the general framework within which the future administrative unification was to be implemented. Article 4 stipulated that the territory of Romania was to be administratively divided into counties and communes, and Article 108 specified that the laws regulating the functioning of the administration were to respect the principle of administrative decentralisation. Other provisions referred to the principle of the legal responsibility of civil servants (Article 31) and the subordination of administrative litigation to the judiciary (Article 107). The mentioning of the principle of administrative decentralisation in the constitution was a concession. It was intended to attract support for future administrative unification among politicians in the newly united provinces – especially in Transylvania, where the political elite remained strongly attached to the ideals outlined in the Declaration of Alba Iulia from 1 December 1918. ⁵⁵ However, the debates on the practical implementation of this provision lasted for several years, and the principle itself would ultimately be only partially implemented; this was similar to other political and social issues left unaddressed by the constitution of 1923, which became matters of fierce political debates. ⁵⁶

Additionally, in June 1923, the ‘Law on the Status of Civil Servants’ was passed. Among various other provisions, it not only regulated the relations between all categories of civil servants employed in public institutions and the state, but also introduced rules on recruitment (the degree and type of education required for different positions), promotions, salaries and pensions, as well as the right to appeal to legal forums and, perhaps most importantly, secure (i.e. tenured) employment. Many of these rules had already been in place in Transylvania prior to 1918; while some remained in force afterwards, they had been subject to derogations due to exceptional circumstances – this held particularly true in regard to questions pertaining to the level of education. ⁵⁷ Secure employment was an important step towards reducing the dependence of civil servants on their superiors, including political decision-makers such as prefects. In practice, however, they remained tied to the goodwill of their superiors due to the legality of transferring civil servants between different offices of a similar level, including across counties and sometimes even to different provinces. This did not violate the provisions of the statute.

The transition from the administration of dualist Hungary to the unified administration of the kingdom of Romania was largely completed by 1925 following the implementation of Law 95/1925 for administrative unification. ⁵⁸ The exegesis of the subject by historians, legal scholars and specialists in public administration is extensive. ⁵⁹ In this particular case, we are interested in those aspects concerning the criteria at the centre of our analysis: the role of the prefects, the status of county officials and self-government at the county level.

Scholars have highlighted the gap between the provisions of the constitution of 1923 and those of the law of 1925 when it pertained to the issue of decentralisation. The latter did not offer concrete steps for the implementation of this principle, and most of its provisions extended to the newly united provinces the centralised system of the old kingdom of Romania, which had been built on the French administrative model of the nineteenth century. ⁶⁰ The reasons for this were related to both the Romanian administrative tradition and the political vision and needs of the governing National Liberal Party, which viewed local self-government – particularly in regions with non-Romanian demographic majorities – as a liability when it came to the construction of a national state. Centralisation was criticised by most political leaders in Transylvania, ⁶¹ however, with few and limited results.

Regarding the basic administrative units stipulated in the constitution – the county and the commune (urban or rural) – the law of 1925 added the district (plasa), which was an intermediate level lacking a clearly defined legal status that had also existed prior to 1919. The national territory of Romania was divided into 71 counties. Its representative bodies were the county councils, which regularly met in two annual 15-day sessions, but could also be convened extraordinarily by order of the prefect. The county councils’ powers and domains of decision-making covered primary, secondary, and vocational education in the county, public health and social welfare, as well as the construction and maintenance of roads, public works, and economic activity. It also made decisions regarding the appointment of administrative staff in these sectors, apart from physicians and engineers (Articles 118–123). Its membership was small (between 24 and 36 individuals, depending on the county's population), and merely 60% of all members were elected by the voters. The remaining 40% were ex officio members, mostly civil servants or heads of various state services at the county level, along with a representative of the religion with the largest congregation in the county (Article 103). Compared to the pre-1918 county assembly, the county council was less representative, but it was also more closely linked to the central authority: the 50% of ‘virilists’ who had previously represented the interests of the local elite were now replaced by the 40% of ex officio members who, although they still belonged to the local elite, were for the most part directly dependent on the state by way of their profession.

The county council established the composition of the five county commissions, each with a different area of responsibility: administration, public works, economy, religion and education, and health and social welfare (Article 112). Their speakers formed the ‘standing delegation’, which was chaired by the prefect and practically ran the county between county council meetings (Articles 138–155). The standing delegation had the same duties as the county council – apart from territorial reorganisation and major financial matters, such as voting on the budget or approvals and concessions of services. However, it also had specific duties, the most important of which was the supervision of the county and municipal administration (Articles 143 and 144). Thus, decision-making powers at the county level were concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people, and the selection of members and leadership of the various county institutions was pyramidal, with the prefect situated at the apex. Furthermore, there were no checks and balances.

The administrative law of 1925 also extended the powers of the prefects, who had taken over many of the duties of the dissolved municipal assemblies and commissions since 1919. This was in line with the tradition of the office in the old kingdom of Romania, where the prefect's powers entailed both the implementation of laws and oversight of the county administration. ⁶² Prefects were now appointed by the government (on the recommendation of the minister of the interior) and formally belonged to the staff of the Ministry. However, according to the 1923 statute, they were not civil servants. Prefects performed a supervisory function, but they were also the effective heads of the county administration (Article 11) and definitively assumed the duties that had previously been assigned to the county commissioners / vice-prefects. Thus, the balance between the representatives of the county and those of the central authority, which had existed until 1918, disappeared – the centralisation of powers by the latter, initiated under the stewardship of the Ruling Council, became permanent. Just like the other officials, the vice-prefect became a subordinate of the prefect (Article 14). The prefect controlled the public administration of the county and the communes, including the appointment, transfer, and dismissal of civil servants, and he also had disciplinary powers. Furthermore, he was head of the county police and gendarmerie and possessed the ability to call on the army for assistance (Articles 330–352). While there were no special qualifications required for the position prior to 1925 (in accordance with the old Hungarian legislation), the new law now stipulated that prefects needed to hold a university degree. However, this only applied to those who had not previously served as prefects for at least one year (Article 330).

At the level of the commune, some of the outgrowths of centralisation that emerged in the wake of Law 95/1925 were rolled back by Law 167/1929 on the organisation of local administration, which had been drafted by the National Peasants’ Party during its time in office. Under this new law, the management of the county administration was transferred from the prefect to the chairman of the standing committee of the county council (whose role was similar to that of the county commissioners before 1918). However, the separation between the political and the administrative function of the prefect did not match the political views of other parties. As a consequence, these provisions were repealed after the National Peasants’ Party had been defeated at the polls. ⁶³

4. Conclusions

In Transylvania, the centralisation of public administration and the limiting of the counties’ self-government began shortly after 1867, however, historical tradition and Hungary's lack of full sovereignty within the Habsburg monarchy slowed the pace of this process. From the vantage point of the opposition parties in particular, the administrative autonomy of the counties was a safeguard against abusive intrusion by the ruling party or the monarch. While Law XXI/1886 gave the government and its representatives, the lord lieutenants, increased control over county administration, it also established clear limits, which remained in place until the end of the war.

The system of self-government was not only restricted by the prerogatives of the lord lieutenant, but also by the Ministry's control over county finances and its ability to conduct audits and investigations. However, this centralisation and standardisation also had positive effects: civil servants at the county level effectively became state employees in terms of their service rank, salary, and the social benefits they received. Moreover, the potential for abuse of office, nepotism, and corruption by officials who in many cases had previously been elected from the same families for centuries was reduced considerably. On the whole, state pressure had contributed to the professionalisation of county officials, and to the bureaucratisation and streamlining of the system. This modernisation of the administration, however, was also supposed to contribute to the strengthening of the nation-state, and the lord lieutenants were expected to supervise and promote this process. Civil servants, regardless of their nationality, were required to embrace the ‘concept of the Hungarian state’ – to use a widespread expression of that time – with Hungarian as the official language. During World War I, the lord lieutenants were often invested with extraordinary powers in their role as government commissioners. Accordingly, both the centralisation process and the nationalisation policy of the administration anticipated what would follow in the interwar period – albeit in reverse.

The extraordinary period following the end of the war proved conducive to the acceleration of these processes, by way of the disintegration of the old administration, the need to restore order and control in the territory, the necessity for the Romanian authorities to be able to rely on loyal civil servants, and the ideological paradigm shift that removed the impediment formerly represented by the historical tradition of counties’ self-government in the kingdom of Hungary. Political factors were also important in this regard: The Ruling Council sacrificed the administrative autonomy of the counties for the sake of provincial centralisation, in the hope that this process would concentrate enough ‘political mass’ to support a form of regional autonomy in turn. However, this strategy failed and only facilitated further administrative centralisation at the state level. One of the possible reasons for this failure was that the regional ‘political mass’ consisted only of Romanians – the Saxons (who sought to maintain their own ethnic autonomy within the framework of provincial autonomy) assumed the role of ‘fellow travellers’, while the Hungarians categorically refused to collaborate with the National Romanian Party. In this sense, the measures introduced by the National Party indirectly paved the way for the continuation of nationalist policies in the administration, only now with the Romanian state as the main actor and the Romanians as the chief beneficiaries.

The institution of the prefect came to play a key role in this process. Prefects assumed and extended the powers of the lord lieutenant in two essential areas: the self-governing bodies of the counties and the civil servants. The former were dissolved in 1919 and their powers were absorbed by the prefects. Although a regulatory framework for their operation was eventually drawn up, no county elections were held until 1925. Accordingly, the prefects were the sole decision-makers at the county level, answerable only to the central authority that had appointed them. Since before 1919, the lord lieutenants were responsible for appointing most civil servants, but one of the greatest changes in the period that followed was that henceforth, they handled the appointment of all civil servants, including senior county officials. The measure itself was commensurate with the paradigm of administrative modernisation and professionalisation. Even Hungary's rulers – along with many of the officials concerned – would have liked to impose it before the war. However, this way, after 1918, the representatives of the ‘local administrative elite’, who were the only force with the ability to coalesce an opposition against the prefect at the county level, became entirely dependent on that office.

To a large extent, the situation of civil servants from ethnic minorities in interwar Romania also mirrored the one in Hungary prior to 1918. A high percentage of the population in both countries belonged to an ethnic minority that was politically distrusted by the majority. This led to the defensive modernisation of the administration in certain respects, including limiting the presence of civil servants from ethnic minorities in higher offices to the greatest possible extent. Although the roles and actors were reversed after 1918, the relationship between the state (which projected itself as ‘national’ in character) on the one hand, and ethnic minority civil servants on the other hand, practically remained unchanged. ⁶⁴

After 1920, following the takeover of administrative management by the authorities in Bucharest, the adaptation of the previous legal framework shifted towards the introduction of measures that aimed at administrative unification. These entailed the structural reorganisation of the county administration according to Romanian legislation, the increased centralisation and almost complete concentration of decision-making power in the hands of the Ministry of the Interior, and the introduction of the first unitary laws for all regions of the country. Within this context, the role of the prefects gained in importance, while the degree of self-governance diminished. In 1923, civil servants were afforded a number of rights under the statute, which was a step forward on the path towards professionalisation, yet their formal and informal dependence on representatives of the central government remained. Administrative decentralisation, laid down as a principle in the constitution of 1923, was only marginally reflected by Law 95/1925, which further concentrated decision-making powers in the hands of the prefects, both in the domain of local public policy and in relation to the county officials. The county council did gain some self-governing powers, however, in practice, these were mostly exercised by the standing delegation chaired by the prefect, which extended the latter's control over matters related to self-government. Similarly, the fact that the delegation – whose members were not civil servants – effectively controlled the civil servants, whose appointment and secure (i.e. tenured) employment depended on the prefect in any case, stymied any initiative on their part.

In Transylvania, the transition from the administration of dualist Hungary to that of interwar Romania meant the continuation of processes that began in the early years of dualism and gradually intensified and expanded, with the ultimate goal of increasing state control over the county administration. The fact that centralisation in Hungary's case did not imply such a strong erosion of self-government at the county level as it had been implemented in Romania can be traced back to the combination of historical and political traditions that enjoyed the support of a strong, county-based opposition. As soon as this tradition faded in the wake of the province's incorporation into another state and a change in political leadership, the intensity and pace of the process increased. The continual legislative changes before and after 1918 also contributed to a certain degree of instability in the county administrative system. In both states, government representatives – the lord lieutenants and prefects – played a key role. Their control over local institutions of self-government and the civil service through a combination of political and administrative powers provided the means through which this centralisation was achieved.