Project Details
Projekt Print View

The emperors desk: a site of policy making in the Habsburg Empire? Francis Joseph I and his Cabinet Office

Subject Area Modern and Contemporary History
Term from 2017 to 2022
Project identifier Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 360187517
 
Final Report Year 2022

Final Report Abstract

Our research project started with the ambition to shed new light on policy making in the Habsburg monarchy during the reign of Francis Joseph. Looking at the practices of decision making by the emperor we were able to revise substantially our view on monarchical rule. The role of the emperor has been described so far as active participation in the affairs of government, adapting to the changing political situation. Focusing on his pen-pushing activities, we are confronted with an emperor, whose desk was flooded with 135.000 individual cases related to the micro management of organizations, concerning the awards of titles and distinctions, an increase in pensions, the admission of married candidates to the study of surgery, but also the appointment of professors and the commutation of death sentences. The emperor was wasting his time with petty issues because he was reluctant to give up his monarchical prerogative. The expanding state apparatus forced him to cut back, however. Even before constitutional changes impacted monarchical rule, the rapidly expanding number of files resulting from the state building process had reduced the possibilities of monarchical control or active participation in government activity. The emperor was active at his desk, busy signing hundreds of thousands dossiers. But he was, at the end, the signing machine he really did not want to be, if we trust a remark he made in a letter to Prime Minister Koerber. He nodded through most of the files by accepting the resolution proposed by his ministries (76%). The second most frequent resolution (21.5%) was taking note of a submission, i.e. passive support of a proposal. A negative vote on a proposed resolution or an independent resolution was very rare, happening only in 1.1% of all cases. This is even true for the period of neoabsolutist rule, which forces us to rethink the position of the emperor within the policy making system of the Habsburg monarchy. The emperor had two important functions — beyond serving as the mere symbolic identification figure. He was the one who could use his staff to negotiate a compromise in politically conflictual decisions. This can be deduced from an extended processing time in the chancellery with a short decision making time. This consensus orientation does not correspond to the ideas of the emperor's personal regiment, but it is clearly expressed in statistics of his decision-making activity. In the constitutional state, the emperor was responsible for enforcing laws. At the same time, he was the only actor in these decision-making processes who could suspend the application of law in individual cases and make an alternative decision by way of clemency — in order to serve the ideas of justice of his subjects.

Publications

 
 

Additional Information

Textvergrößerung und Kontrastanpassung