Contents
Regulamentul Organic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regulamentul Organic (Romanian name, translated as Organic Statute or Organic Regulation; French: Règlement Organique, Russian: Oрганический регламент, Organichesky reglament)[1][2][3] was a quasi-constitutional organic law enforced in 1834–1835 by the Imperial Russian authorities in Moldavia and Wallachia (the two Danubian Principalities that were to become the basis of the modern Romanian state). The onset of a common Russian protectorate which lasted until 1854, and itself in force until 1858, the document signified a partial confirmation of traditional government (including rule by the hospodars). Conservative in its scope, it also engendered a period of unprecedented reforms which provided a setting for the Westernization of local society. The Regulament offered the two Principalities their first common system of government.
Background
History of Romania
This article is part of a series
Prehistory
Dacia
Dacian Wars
Roman Dacia
Thraco-Roman
Early Middle Ages
Origin of the Romanians
Middle Ages
History of Transylvania
Principality of Transylvania
Foundation of Wallachia
Foundation of Moldavia
Early Modern Times
Phanariotes
Danubian Principalities
National awakening
Organic Statute
1848 Moldavian Revolution
1848 Wallachian Revolution
United Principalities
War of Independence
Kingdom of Romania
World War I
Greater Romania
World War II
Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
Communist Romania
Soviet occupation
1989 Revolution
Romania since 1989
Topic
Timeline
Military history
Romania Portal
The two principalities, owing tribute and progressively ceding political control to the Ottoman Empire since the Middle Ages,[4] had been subject to frequent Russian interventions as early as the Russo-Turkish War (1710–1711),[5] when a Russian army penetrated Moldavia and Emperor Peter the Great probably established links with the Wallachians.[6] Eventually, the Ottomans enforced a tighter control on the region, effected under Phanariote hospodars (who were appointed directly by the Porte).[7] Ottoman rule over the region remained contested by competition from Russia, which, as an Eastern Orthodox empire with claim to a Byzantine heritage, exercised notable influence over locals.[8] At the same time, the Porte made several concessions to the rulers and boyars of Moldavia and Wallachia, as a means to ensure the preservation of its rule.[9]
The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, signed in 1774 between the Ottomans and Russians, gave Russia the right to intervene on behalf of Eastern Orthodox Ottoman subjects in general, a right which it used to sanction Ottoman interventions in the Principalities in particular.[10] Thus, Russia intervened to preserve reigns of hospodars who had lost Ottoman approval in the context of the Napoleonic Wars (the casus belli for the 1806–12 conflict),[11] and remained present in the Danubian states, vying for influence with the Austrian Empire, well into the 19th century and annexing Moldavia's Bessarabia in 1812.[12]
Despite the influx of Greeks, arriving in the Principalities as a new bureaucracy favored by the hospodars, the traditional Estates of the realm (the Divan) remained under the tight control of a number of high boyar families, who, while intermarrying with members of newly-arrived communities, opposed reformist attempts — and successfully preserved their privileges by appealing against their competitors to both Istanbul and Saint Petersburg.[13]
In the last decades of the 18th century, the growing strategic importance of the region brought about the establishment of consulates representing European powers directly interested in observing local developments (Russia, the Austrian Empire, and France; later, British and Prussian ones were opened as well).[14][15] An additional way for consuls to exercise particular policies was the awarding of a privileged status and protection to various individuals, who were known as sudiţi ("subjects", in the language of the time) of one or the other of the foreign powers.[16][17][15]
A seminal event occurred in 1821, when the rise of Greek nationalism in various parts of the Balkans in connection with the Greek War of Independence led to occupation of the two states by the Filiki Eteria, a Greek secret society who sought, and initially obtained, Russian approval. A mere takeover of the government in Moldavia, the Eterist expedition met a more complex situation in Wallachia, where a regency of high boyars attempted to have the anti-Ottoman Greek nationalists confirm both their rule and the rejection of Phanariote institutions. A compromise was achieved through their common support for Tudor Vladimirescu, an Oltenian pandur leader who had already instigated an anti-Phanariote rebellion (as one of the Russian sudiţi, it was hoped that Vladimirescu could assure Russia that the revolt was not aimed against its influence). However, the eventual withdrawal of Russian support made Vladimirescu seek a new agreement with the Ottomans, leaving him to be executed by an alliance of Eterists and weary locals (alarmed by his new anti-boyar program); after the Ottomans invaded the region and crushed the Eteria, the boyars, still perceived as a third party, obtained from the Porte an end to the Phanariote system[18][19][20][21]
Akkerman Convention and Treaty of Adrianople
The first reigns through locals — Ioniţă Sandu Sturdza as Prince of Moldavia and Grigore IV Ghica as Prince of Wallachia — were, in essence, short-lived: although the patron-client relation between Phanariote hospodars and a foreign ruler was never revived, Sturdza and Ghica were deposed by the Russian military intervention during the Russo-Turkish War, 1828–1829. Sturdza's time on the throne was marked by an important internal development: the last in a series of constitutional proposals,[22][23] advanced by boyars as a means to curb princely authority, ended in a clear conflict between the rapidly-decaying class of low-ranking boyars (already forming the upper level of the middle class rather than a segment of the traditional nobility) and the high-ranking families who had obtained the decisive say in politics. The proponent, Ionică Tăutu,[24] was defeated in the Divan after the Russian consul sided with the conservatives (expressing the official view that the aristocratic-republican and liberal aims of the document could have threatened international conventions in place).[25][21]
On October 7, 1826, the Ottoman Empire — anxious to prevent Russia's intervention in the Greek Independence War — negotiatied with it a new status for the region in Akkerman, one which conceded to several requests of the inhabitants: the resulting Akkerman Convention was the first official document to nullify the principle of Phanariote reigns, instituting seven-year terms for new princes elected by the respective Divans, and awarding the two countries the right to engage in unresticted international trade (as opposed to the tradition of limitations and Ottoman protectionism, it only allowed Istanbul to impose its priorities in the grain trade).[26][27][21] The convention also made the first mention of new Statutes, enforced by both powers as governing documents, which were not drafted until after the war — although both Sturdza and Ghica had appointed commissions charged with adopting such projects.[28]
The Russian military presence on the Principalities' soil was inaugurated in the first days of the war: by late April 1828, the Russian army of Peter Wittgenstein had reached the Danube (in May, it entered present-day Bulgaria).[26] The campaign, prolonged for the following year and coinciding with devastating bubonic plague and cholera epidemics (which together killed around 1.6% of the population in both countries),[29] soon became a drain on local economy:[30] according to British observers, the Wallachian state was required to indebt itself to European creditors for a total sum of ten million piastres, in order to provide for the Russian army's needs.[31] Accusations of widespread plunder were made by the French author Marc Girardin, who travelled in the region during the 1830s; Girardin alleged that Russian troops had confiscated virtually all cattle for their needs, and that Russian officers had insulted the political class by publicly stating that, in case the supply in oxen was to prove insufficient, boyars were to be tied to carts in their place — an accusation backed by Ion Ghica in his recollections.[32][33] He also recorded a mounting dissatifaction with the new rule, mentioning that peasants were especially upset by the continuous maneuvers of troops inside the Principalities' borders.[34] Overall, Russophilia in the two Principalities appears to have suffered a major blow.[35] Despite the confiscations, statistics of the time indicated that the pace of growth in heads of cattle remained steady (a 50% growth appears to have occurred between 1831 and 1837).[36]