12.07.2015 Views

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CONSTANTIN IORDACHIpopulation). Together with the administrative centers of Tulcea <strong>and</strong> Constanþa(22,262 <strong>and</strong> respectively 31,576 inhabitants), there were 6 othertowns over 5,000 inhabitants. Favored by the new political order, <strong>Romanian</strong>smonopolized the state administration <strong>and</strong> increased their urban residencein the province. In 1909, urban <strong>Romanian</strong>s acquired majority inseven cities, representing 98% in Cuzgun, 92% in Ostrov, 66% in Mãcin,68% in Cernavodã, 61% in Hîrºova, 51% in Isaccea, <strong>and</strong> 50.6% in Mahmudia.In the other six cities, <strong>Romanian</strong>s held a relative majority, witha proportion of 37% of the population in Medgidia, 34% in Constanþa,33% in Babadag, 28% in Mangalia, 27% in Chilia, <strong>and</strong> 26.8% in Tulcea.The <strong>Romanian</strong> urban element was in the minority only in Sulina, witha ratio of 17% of the population. 73 The rising <strong>Romanian</strong> urban bourgeoisiesucceeded also in nationalizing the commercial activity in theprovince, while the economic role of former “Oriental” urban elitesdecreased systematically. Thus, if in 1878 “the few <strong>Romanian</strong> merchantsin Dobrogea could be counted on the fingers of a single h<strong>and</strong>,” in 1909,from 7,664 registered Dobrogean merchants, there were 4,815 <strong>Romanian</strong>s<strong>and</strong> 2,849 “foreigners” (Greeks, Jews <strong>and</strong> Armenians). 74 The symbol ofDobrogea’s urban modernization was the development of Constanþa thatthrived from 5,000 inhabitants in 1878, to 12,725 in 1900, <strong>and</strong> to a moderncity of 31,000 in 1912. These successes were praised by the <strong>Romanian</strong>elites, who used economic progress as a legitimizing factor for <strong>Romanian</strong>rule. In 1903, 25 years after Dobrogea’s annexation, M. D. Ionescuassessed enthusiastically that “in the economic domain Dobrogea hasadvanced with giant steps.” 75 Based on statistical comparisons betweenDobrogea, other parts of Romania <strong>and</strong> different European countries,Ionescu documented Dobrogea’s miraculous transformation, from a “pileof ruins” into a prosperous province.3.3 CENTRALIZATION VERSUS REGIONALISM: STRATEGIES OF POLITICALEMANCIPATION EMPLOYED BY NORTHERN DOBROGEANSA central component of the exceptional administrative regime in Dobrogeawas the local administration. The province labored under a heavilycentralized bureaucratic apparatus, which escaped the control of locallyelected institutions, but was tightly controlled from Bucharest. Accordingto the 1880 law, mayors in Dobrogea were not elected, but appointed bythe prefect in villages, <strong>and</strong> by the Ministry of Interior in cities. Furthermore,unlike in Romania proper, where members of the communal councilswere elected on a larger electoral basis, in Dobrogea local councilorswere partly named by the prefect, while only some were elected by localinhabitants, in a restrictive franchise. Finally, local administrators had140

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!