General elections were held in Romania in December 1867 (New Style: December 1867 – January 1868), and were won by a coalition of liberal-and-radical groups, or "Concordia Agreement", formed around incumbent Prime Minister Ștefan Golescu. Concordia brought together the left-leaning "Reds", the Free and Independent Faction, and a moderate liberal section under Mihail Kogălniceanu. The latter split the moderate vote, ensuring defeat for the opposition led by Ion Ghica, which came in third, after the conservative "Whites". The reconfiguration made the country more governable, at a time of financial crisis and riotous disputes over the issue of Jewish emancipation. Controversially, Concordia sought to win over and appease antisemitic voters, although it was itself divided between more and less pliable antisemites.
The elections for the Assembly are often described as fraudulent, with the main culprit being Golescu's Interior Minister, Ion Brătianu; in the Senate race, the accusations of fraud were reciprocal. Despite the liberal sweep, "Reds" suffered significant defeats, for instance in Ilfov County, where their candidate Nicolae Haralambie failed to win against Dimitrie Ghica. The national campaign was also steeped in violence, with antisemitic riots in Tutova (following the mysterious death of electee Scarlat Vârnav) and Ialomița County. A far-reaching dispute involved the results in Prahova, where Concordia allegedly used military force to ensure its victory. Disputes over the validation of deputies and senators, including Manolache Costache Epureanu, Petru Grădișteanu and Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, continued into the early months of 1868.
Although victorious, Concordia was eventually brought down by the Factionalists, once Brătianu shunned their violent antisemitism. Reformed by General Nicolae Golescu, who succeeded his brother as prime minister, the "Reds" still secured a win in the Senate elections of July 1868. Eventually, however, they lost favor with Domnitor Carol I. The liberal ascendancy ended during the general election of March 1869, which placed the country under a "White" government.
Context In February 1866, Romania (as the United Principalities had been designated since 1864) was governed by a "monstrous coalition" of "Reds", "Whites" and moderates, chaired by Ion Ghica. Created by a coup which toppled the authoritarian Domnitor Alexandru Ioan Cuza, it supervised the April elections—under the preordained assumption that Assembly seats would be evenly split between the "right" and the "left".Marton, pp. 177–178 The Central Electoral Committee, presided upon by the radical doctrinaire C. A. Rosetti, attempted fraud in various regions (including Prahova County); however, the resulting Assembly was overall dominated by the "Whites".Marton, pp. 177–183 At the time, separatism and Cuza loyalism flared up in Western Moldavia, where a riot—instigated by Calinic Miclescu, Nicu Ceaur-Aslan, Teodor Boldur-Lățescu, and Constantin Moruzi Pecheanu—was quelled by the Romanian Land Forces.Gane, pp. 102–104; Marton, p. 146
In a parallel plebiscite, Romanians overwhelmingly voted to recognize Carol of Hohenzollern, a German prince, as their new hereditary Domnitor. The regime also instituted Parliament's upper chamber, by reestablishing Cuza's Romanian Senate. Ghica was reconfirmed as Prime Minister, his government claiming to be "neither right- nor left-wing".Moroianu, p. 139 His position was weakened by swing deputies and separatist nostalgia, and also by other hurdles: a financial crisis (which had the state borrowing from private bankers),Gane, p. 100; Moroianu, pp. 136–138 a cholera outbreak, and a localized famine.Marton, pp. 183, 190 Moreover, major disputes raged over constitutional details. One point of contention was the status of Romanian Jews, with various "Reds" and Moldavians emerging as the core opponents of emancipation and advocates of "ethnic protectionism".Marton, pp. 32, 103–104 Therefore, in its final form, the Constitution of July only granted citizenship to Christians, thus reverting a more tolerant Civil Code proclaimed under Cuza.Brătescu, p. 14
There were repeat elections in November, producing a multicolored Assembly, ridiculed in liberal circles as a "tutti frutti" legislature.Marton, p. 183 According to one count of Assembly seats, the radicals shared about 40 seats with their Moldavian allies, or "Free and Independent Faction"; there was a conservative majority of approximately 60 seats, but segmented into competing blocs; Ghica's moderate liberals could only count on some 20 deputies.Marton, pp. 183–184; Moroianu, pp. 134–135; Scurtu, p. 298 Another count suggests that Ghica was backed by one third of the Assembly, while the liberals, as the loyal opposition, had another third. Those who rejected the system, be they Cuza loyalists or Moldavian separatists, shared between them the remainder.Moroianu, p. 135; Scurtu, p. 298. See also Giurescu, pp. 41–42 Overall, "there were great clashes of vision between the Assembly majority and the cabinet, as well as between the minority and the cabinet."Nicolescu, pp. 23–24 The election was criticized from the liberal left as fraudulent in favor of the conservatives and moderates, but other contemporaries generally view it as free and fair.Marton, pp. 184–185 Over the next months, however, disputes blocked the validation of various deputies, contributing to the uncertainty of governance.Marton, pp. 185–190; Nicolescu, pp. 26–28
In March 1867 the radicals were able to seal the Concordia Agreement, allying them with the Free and Independent Faction, chaired by Nicolae Ionescu, and a group of moderate liberals under Mihail Kogălniceanu (who commended the allegiance of 25 deputies).Scurtu, p. 298 Tacitly endorsed by Domnitor Carol,Brătescu, pp. 14, 19 this new coalition was backed by a plurality of Assembly members, eventually pushing Ghica to resign.Marton, pp. 190–191 His "Red" replacement, Constantin A. Kretzulescu, was nominally a moderate,Brătescu, pp. 14–15 but the Minister of Internal Affairs, Ion Brătianu, was a "Red" doctrinaire and power-broker, sometimes described as the cabinet's true leader.Marton, pp. 24, 191; Moroianu, p. 140 Possibly pressured by his conditional allies, the antisemitic Factionalists, he also pushed orders to evict Jewish "vagabonds" from the countryside, which sparked an international scandal.Brătescu, pp. 15–22; Gane, pp. 115–116; Marton, pp. 24–26, 104, 155
By late May, Brătianu had to deal with "White" defiance, manifested when senator Petre Mavrogheni of Iași County handed in his resignation. Electors refused to turn up, and sent him a letter expressing contempt that he even organized a scrutiny.Notice and letter of protest in Romanulu, June 8, 1867, p. 470 The radicalism of government officials was also fomenting an international crisis, once it became apparent that Brătianu was backing the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee (BRCK) against the Ottoman Empire—which was still Romania's suzerain power. In April, when Panayot Hitov led a BRCK guerrilla force into the Danube Vilayet at Oltenița, the Ottomans began openly calling for Kretzulescu to step down.Constantin N. Velichi, "Coaliția sacră româno–bulgară", in Magazin Istoric, August 1973, p. 77 The Jewish evictions were especially unpopular within the French Empire, to which the liberals looked for guidance, and soon Brătianu's "demagoguery" was castigated by his allies, including Ștefan Golescu and Dimitrie Sturdza. The latter sought to have Brătianu removed by switching to Ghica's party, and eventually prompted his adversary to resign in July.Brătescu, pp. 16–20. See also Gane, pp. 114–117
During the parliamentary break, Brătianu's resignation continued to undermine political stability. In July, Factionalists Ceaur-Aslan and Nicolae Iamandi, alongside Grigore Sturdza, published an appeal for the establishment of a regional Moldavian caucus that would defy "Red" centralism (other signatories included Grigore Balș, Panait Balș, Grigore Vârnav, and Colonel Pavlov). This initiative was rejected by Kretzulescu and Brătianu, who noted that it infringed on the Constitution."Principatele române unite", in Telegrafulu Romanu, Issue 56/1867, p. 224 Faced with the crumbling of his alliances, Kretzulescu ultimately resigned in August.Nicolescu, p. 25 Cuza loyalist Ioan Emanoil Florescu was excited by this opportunity, writing to the exiled former Domnitor that anarchy would result in a regime change.Giurescu, p. 42 Instead, liberal-radicals formed a new governing coalition, which required them to encourage a maximalist version of Romanian nationalism, supporting "Greater Romania" or "Dacia"—namely, the incorporation of Transylvania and other Romanian-inhabited territories of Austria-Hungary. The cause was advanced by Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu and Alexandru Candiano-Popescu, who put out the political newspaper Perseverența. In summer 1867, Hasdeu traveled across Transylvania to "assess the conditions for a probable insurrection."Maciu, pp. 25–26 He viewed himself as a future "Red" minister, noting in 1871 that the "Dacian ideal" was being more openly promoted by that party by 1868.Maciu, p. 24
In October, Golescu officially took over as prime minister, and Brătianu was able to regain influence, eventually resuming his position at Internal Affairs. After filibustering by the "White" deputy Manolache Costache Epureanu, Golescu agreed to dissolve the Assembly and called in new elections, noting that the slim majority he had could not support a government in the long run.Nicolescu, pp. 26–30. See also Marton, p. 191 According to researcher Constantin Gane, Brătianu had actually wanted, and worked for, early elections. "The liberal party", he argues, "wanted a Chamber of its own, one that had eluded its grasp for six years, ever since 1862".Gane, pp. 114–115 Golescu's message was followed on November 29 by Brătianu's circular letter to the prefects, carried in Monitorul Oficial. Claiming that government had put up no candidates of its own, it asked functionaries to exercise a "moral influence" over the electorate, to produce a result in accordance with the national interest—generally seen as code for an election fraud through intimidation.Marton, pp. 191–192
Campaign and results Early rounds The election was the second one in history to be held under the census suffrage (and weighted voting) law of July 1866, with a two-round system where simple majorities were not decided in one session. The First College comprised voters who owned more than 300 ducats in property, and the Second included those who declared 100–300 ducats; they each elected 33 deputies with direct elections.Marton, p. 174 The Third College corresponded roughly to a "third estate", specifically designed for urban constituencies, directly electing 58 deputies in proportion to the respective town population.Marton, pp. 174–175 A Fourth College, representing taxpayers not comprised in the other categories, designated 33 of the total 157 deputies through electors. In 1866–1867, there was a 1:50 ratio of electors to registered voters.