The Democratic Peasants' Party (, PȚD; ; , Demokratychna selyans'ka partiya), also known as Democratic Party, Peasants' Party, National Democratic Party or Unirea Society, was a provincial party in Bukovina, Austria-Hungary, one of several groups claiming to represent the ethnic Romanians. It had a national liberal and left-wing populist agenda, and was mainly supported by "the peasants, the village teachers, and some of the intellectuals."Cocuz, p. 310 Its leader was Aurel Onciul, seconded by Florea Lupu, both of whom were adversaries of the conservative and elitist Romanian National People's Party (PNPR). Rejecting sectarianism, the PȚD combined Austrian and Romanian nationalism, as Onciul argued that Romanian aspirations could only be fulfilled inside the multi-ethnic empire. For this reason, and for its role in dividing the Romanian vote, the party was often accused of double-dealing.
In 1902–1905, the PȚD pursued an alliance policy with politicians from the other ethnic groups—including, most controversially, Ukrainian nationalists. This resulted in the creation of a Progressive Peasants' Fellowship, which dominated the Diet of Bukovina and, in 1904, passed an electoral reform project drafted by Benno Straucher. Ethnic rivalries pushed the group back into sectarian politics before the legislative elections of 1907. The PȚD embraced economic antisemitism and, together with the PNPR, merged into Christian Social Romanian Party in 1908. It continued to have an autonomous existence, with its elite controlling Bukovina's state bank and Raiffeisen credit union. Its business practices nearly drove Bukovina's economy into insolvency, turning other Romanians against Onciul.
The PȚD reemerged informally during the election of July 1911, and again formally in April 1914. At that stage, it embraced agrarianism and anticlericalism, while also reaffirming its loyalty to Austria and its opposition to the Kingdom of Romania. It became dormant a few months later, with the outbreak of World War I and the Russian offensive, during which party activists put up an inefficient paramilitary resistance.
Onciul continued to represent the PȚD in the Austrian House of Deputies to 1918, singular among his Romanian colleagues for endorsing a Romanian–Ukrainian partition of Bukovina. His cooperation with the Ukrainian Galician Army resulted in his and his party's disgrace, but the backlash contributed to Bukovina's incorporation with Greater Romania. Lupu assumed leadership of the PȚD in its final avatar, which ultimately merged with the Democratic Union Party in 1919. Its Arcași paramilitaries, reformed as a set of independent clubs, and later as an official organization of the Romanian state, were in near-continuous existence until 1944.
History Foundations The PȚD existed during the final stages of Austrian Bukovina, when the "extreme ethnic fragmentation"Livezeanu, p. 55 created various rivalries or alliances between its main ethnic groups: the large and rural communities of Romanians and Ukrainians (or "Ruthenians"), and the mostly urban German and Jewish minorities. From his early years, Onciul was separated from the mainline currents of Romanian nationalism in Bukovina, represented at first by the local Concordia Society (or "National Romanian Party"). Although he did preserve contacts with its conservative wing, he was more interested in the rival PNPR (or "Radical Nationalist Party"). However, as historian Vlad Gafița notes, his attempt to participate in the latter was hampered by his professional work: for a while, he worked as a bank clerk in Moravia.Gafița (2009), p. 157. See also Bălan, p. 9; Cocuz, pp. 313, 443; Corbea-Hoișie, pp. 18–19; Iațencu & Olaru, p. 75 Onciul had antagonized other Romanians by taking sides with the Austrian officials, in turn accused of playing community leaders against each other, or of "Machiavellianism".Cocuz, pp. 7–8, 164. See also Iațencu & Olaru, p. 76
According to scholar Irina Livezeanu, the "relative liberalism" of the Austrian administration promoted an "accommodationist" climate, in which the elites were less tempted to group on competitive national bases—Onciul illustrated such a spirit.Livezeanu, pp. 55–56 Historian Teodor Bălan believes that Onciul's ascendancy was directly owed to the new Governor of Bukovina, Konrad zu Hohenlohe, who wished to calm the situation after a season of Romanian–Ukrainian political battles. For this, he needed "a political program with economic demands, which would exclude the national question" and "replace political romanticism with realism."Bălan, pp. 8–9 Onciul validated these priorities by turning to a moderate nationalism which favored an "entente with the Ruthenians, national autonomy, cultivation of the vernacular, and a more intimate relationship with Romanians abroad."Olaru (1994), p. 283
Onciul first took a seat in the Austrian House of Deputies during the January 1901 election, which he contested at Czernowitz.Hallabrin, p. 40; Iațencu & Olaru, p. 75 By October, he was publicizing his critique of the PNPR, accusing it of passivity. According to Onciul, the "old men" of Bukovina's politics endorsed a radical program on paper, knowing full well that they would never apply it."Din Bucovina", in Gazeta Transilvaniei, Nr. 225/1902, pp. 1–2 Identifying with the "youth", the PȚD was formally established in early 1902, but took almost a year to emerge as an organized group: in January 1903, it published its "Democratic Program", and on February 2, held its first congress, as "the Political Society Unirea or Democratic Peasants' Party".Gafița (2009), pp. 157, 158, 172. See also Cocuz, pp. 310, 311, 317–318, 443; Corbea-Hoișie, p. 19; Diacon, pp. 136–137; Olaru (1994), p. 286 Onciul was its president, seconded by Grigore Halip and George Hostiuc; Unirea's first motto was Înainte, nimănui spre daună, tuturor spre bine ("Forward, with bad outcomes for none and good outcomes for all").Olaru (1994), p. 286
Onciul, who was the party president, made his entry into politics at an inauspicious time, when the Concordia Conservatives and the PNPR had agreed to merge back into a single party, headed by Iancu Flondor. This challenge guided the PȚD unorthodox strategy, including its alliances and its attacks on other Romanian leaders.Gafița (2009), p. 157. See also Cocuz, pp. 315–317 The latter were carried in the two party newspapers, Privitorul ("The Onlooker") and Voința Poporului ("The People's Will"), both of which had been founded in 1902.Cocuz, pp. 308, 310, 312, 317, 325; Corbea-Hoișie, pp. 18–22, 42–47; Diacon, p. 137; Gafița (2009), pp. 157, 160, 170; Olaru (1994), passim Onciul's brother in law, the Conservative Florea Lupu, came out in support of these attacks. Together with his refusal to accept the PNPR merger, this stance caused him to be expelled from Concordia—although he held on to his seat in the House.Cocuz, pp. 301–302, 312
Positioning
In its propaganda, the PȚD accused the "boyar" elite of having exploited the peasant class and the rural intelligentsia, claiming to expose elitist nationalism as a scheme; it advocated its populist nationalism of a distinctly left-wing stance.Cocuz, pp. 301–302; Gafița (2009), pp. 157–158, 171–172 Privitorul deplored "boyar" elitism, and exposed the non-Romanian origins of various families forming the conservative ruling class.Olaru (1994), pp. 284–285 According to Gafița, Onciul and his followers saw themselves as emancipated progressives: "profoundly loyal" to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, capable of seeing beyond national divisions, and even open to the idea of a trans-ethnic, Austrian nationalism. Gafița also sees Onciul as employing "doublespeak" on this issue, and of willingly fashioning himself to be the diametrical opposite of Flondor.Gafița (2009), pp. 158–159
Historian Ioan Cocuz, one of Onciul's staunchest critics,Gafița (2009), p. 171 describes him as "wholly unscrupulous", as well as "anti-national", "a loyal Austrian".Cocuz, pp. 311–312 However, researcher Mihai Iacobescu writes that the PȚD agenda may have been "hesitant, contradictory, dissolving", but not truly "anti-national".Iacobescu, p. 90 Onciul firmly believed that Austria had united the small peoples of East-Central Europe, and that this had protected them from being absorbed into the Russian Empire.Bălan, pp. 15–16, 84–86; Corbea-Hoișie, p. 48. See also de Szász, pp. 6–8, 10 While preserving imperial rule, he favored a multicultural approach, with each people granted "independent organization and management", especially over language education."Zuid-Afrika. Een Les uit Oostenrijk", in Neerlandia, Year 9, 1905, p. 63 The process leading to additional federalism was a form of suum cuique, with the Moravian Diet as a working model of ethnic cohabitation.Corbea-Hoișie, pp. 48–49 His ideas on the topic were overall similar with the "United States of Greater Austria" designs of Aurel Popovici,Corbea-Hoișie, pp. 48–49; de Szász, p. 10 as acknowledged by Popovici himself.Popovici, pp. 96, 320 Onciul also extended this federal model to solve the national issue of Romanians being divided over several states: a scheme proposed by Privitorul around 1902 was to somehow incorporate the Kingdom of Romania into Austria."Nouvelles du jour", in La Liberté, July 12, 1902, p. 1; Bălan, pp. 16, 84; Nicolae Iorga, Constantin Bacalbașa, Istoria presei românești, p. 156. Bucharest: Adevĕrul, 1922; Popovici, p. 320
As Livezeanu observes: "Aurel Onciul's National Democratic Party [...] brought together liberal Romanians who favored ethnic compromise and opposed the social conservatism of the National Party." According to Nicolae Iorga, the historian and nationalist polemicist, Onciul became especially adept at manipulating the schoolteachers and peasants against the aristocrats.Iacobescu, pp. 90–91 Cocuz similarly suggests that Onciul and Lupu relied on an "incitement" tactic: "setting the class of Romanian schoolteachers against the national Romanian parties".Cocuz, p. 302 A major point of contention was class representation within the Diet of Bukovina, with Onciul noting that 150 "boyars" elected 10 parliamentarians, while 18,000 peasants and 70,000 proletarians elected one deputy each.Olaru (1994), pp. 285–286 The party's original manifesto argued: For ten years now, we have repeatedly tried to reason with our boyars into giving the people its fair share of public life, but all our attempts have been in vain. The boyars never ceased confiscating the people's electoral right, and to abuse it in order to grow rich and occupy for themselves offices on the people's money and for the people's perdition. Given this, we have no other road left but the fight against boyars in order to gain our electoral liberty and with it the people's legitimate influence over its own destiny. [Unirea Society is] a point of convergence for honest, national and democratic, Romanian politics.Cocuz, p. 310; Gafița (2009), p. 172
The effect of this discourse is assessed by Gafița as follows: "The democrats' orientation toward predominantly social demands, as opposed to those of a national-political substance reaped momentary electoral gains, but also numerous losses for the Romanian emancipation movement as a whole. The latter was submerged and weakened by a climate of internal conflict, but also by the spread of left-wing concepts, such as the class conflict of peasants and boyars, inside the Romanian camp."Gafița (2009), p. 158 Scholar Andrei Corbea-Hoișie also notes that Onciul's platform "was not based on the strict national doctrine of the established [National Party], but on [the] goals of left-liberal social and political progress". Rather than representing the peasantry, the group was vying "for the favor of the Romanian middle class".Corbea-Hoișie, p. 20
Freisinnige Verband