Századok – 1999

Tanulmányok - Csapó Csaba: Csendőrség és közigazgatás (1881–1914) III/497

518 CSAPÓ CSABA tenues avec les fonctionnaires de l'administration comtale et communale sont aggravés de gros différends jusqu'à la fin des anées 1880, la possibilité de la coopération harmonique et de la réflexion commune se réalisa seulement plus tard. La raison est que dans les premières décennies les gendarmes ne devaient accomplir que des services "traditionnels" de la sécurité publique, par contre, dès le débuts des années 1890 la présence des mouvements "dangereux" des minorités et des ouvriers posa des problèmes même au niveau national. La direction politique de l'état, en déclarant qu'ils mettent en danger l'ordre social existant, commena à se baser de plus en plus énergiquement sur les fonctionnaires de l'administration la plus intéressée. Cela ne changea pas essentiellement les principes écrits échéants du maintien des relations, mais l'esprit d'une solidarité mutuelle se manifestait dans les relations de la gendarmerie et de l'administration qui surgit la possibilité de la coopération plus utile. L'emploie de la gendarmerie dans les villes fut difficile par la suite de la formulation juridique inexacte. Dans le cas des villes de droit municipal, elle dépendait à l'essentiel, d'après la loi X/1882, de la demande de la municipalité; la loi ne disposa pas des villes de droit de conseil réglé. Le compromis fut inévitable de nouveau par la suite de la présence des mouvements de masse produite après 1904. L'état renona à des exigeances financière justes, les villes, elles abdiquèrent à un élément non négligeable de leur autonomie. En somme on peut constater que - sans compter les premiers débats - de gros difficultés ne se manifestent pas dans les relations de la gendarmerie et de l'administration et que lors des crises elles s'enfforcèrent ensemble de les régler. GENDARMERIE AND ADMINISTRATION 1881-1914 by Csapó Csaba (Summaiy) The Compromise of 1867 involved considerable changes in Hungary in politics, economy, and society alike. Consequently the sphere of policing had to be transformed as well. In the new system of maintaining order the relationship of the gendarmerie and administration became one of subordination. In contrast with former gendarmes, the police officers (csendbiztos) and pandours (pandúr) appointed after 1867 were fully at the mercy of municipal and county officials of all levels. Subordination manifested itself not only in everyday service but determined eveiy minute of the policemen's lives from employment to salaiy. Act III of 1881 brought therefore fundamental changes by providing that the gendarmerie had to be set up once again. County organizations were replaced by a centralized body standing under military control in many respects. Although the opposition claimed during the debate in the House of Representatives that the government was bringing back the spirit of the 1850s and dictatorship, the necessity of change was obvious. Two different trends came into conflict here, and the privileges of the counties based on custom and the standpoint of the government wanting to create an effective administration and maintain public order could not be reconciled. The author discusses the relationship of the gendarmerie and administration in two chapters due to the differences of legal regulations for the towns and the countryside. There were serious problems between the gendarmerie and the counties, as well as the administration of the villages until the late 1880s. The possibility of co-operation was created only later. The reason for this is that in the first decade of their existance the gendarmes had to fulfil only the traditional duties of maintaining order but from the first half of the 1890s the newly emerging workers' movement and the movement of the nationalities added to the difficulties. The political leaders of the country believed that this was a threat to the existing social order and started to rely more and more on administration as a sphere most interested in maintaining it. This did not involve a formal change in the relationship of administration and gendarmerie but these two factors started to feel that they depended on each other and could more easily co-operate. To employ the gendarmerie in towns was difficult due to the inaccuracy of legal regulations. In the case of municipal boroughs Act X of 1882 made it dependent on the request of the municipal authority. Corporate towns were, however, left out of consideration. A compromise was made necessary by the emergence of the above-mentioned mass movements after 1904. The state made concessions as to its lawful financial claims on the one hand and the towns gave up a significant part of their autonomy on the other. To sum up, the relationship of administration and gendarmerie was not heavily burdened with all the initial difficulties and in times of crisis they could effectively co-operate.