Mark Twain on “The ‘Austrian Parliamentary System’? Government by Article 14”

Though long known to scholars, Mark Twain's two-thousand-word essay on “The ‘Australian Parliamentary System’? ” has never been reprinted. By focusing on a clause in the Austrian constitution that allowed “for the creation of urgent new laws by the executive between Sessions of the Legislature and for the continuance of the usual functions and industries of the Government—and thus the Executive itself becomes a Legislature, ” Twain analyzed government by executive fiat or emergency decree—that is, by Franz Josef I (1830–1916), emperor and king of Austria-Hungary from 1848 until his death—so it should be read alongside “Stirring Times in Austria, ” his essay about the tumult in the Reichsrath. The genius of article 14, according to Twain, is that “it means anything you please; but it does not mean the same thing to any two people. ” He also noted that barely a sixth of the members of the Reichsrath were elected by over four million Hungarian and other voters; that is, that suffrage in the empire was “a gilded and handsome phantom. ”1 He earned £100 or 500 for the piece, double what he was paid by Century and more than double the rate of Harper's: This is its construction—if it still exists. In it, Hungary is not represented, but only Austria. In round numbers Austria's population is 24, 000, 000. Previously to June, 1896, the Lower House contained 353 members. These were chosen by four privileged bodies of voters: (1) The great landed proprietors (male and female) and—in some of the provinces—the particularly heavy taxpayers; (2) The towns, marketplaces, and industrial centres; (3) the Chambers of Commerce and Industry; (4) The rural districts. Of the 353 representatives, Electoral Body No. 1 chose 85; No. 2, 116; No. 3, 21; and No. 4, 131. The four bodies together comprised 1, 891, 000 voters; but Body No. 1 possessed electing powers out of all proportion to its numerical strength. In June, 1896, a curious “reform” was made, made in reverent conformity with Austrian political habit, a habit which forbids changes in existent political things—they must be left sacredly alone and untouched—but allows annexes to be built on to an existing structure. The annex added in 1896 left the four Bodies undisturbed in their powers and privileges but added a fifth Body with 4, 128, 000 votes and seventy-two new Reichsrath members. The seventy-two new members raised the membership to what it is a present—425. The 353 are still returned by the 1, 891, 000 electors of the four former Bodies, the bulk of whom also help the 4, 128, 000 new voters to elect the 72 added members. Body No. 5 is a gilded and handsome phantom—the phantom of Universal Suffrage. It is universal suffrage as far as its miniature universe spreads: it can vote for 72 Members out of 425, and this showy privilege is denied to no man above the age of twenty-four, except the soldier, the sailor, and the gendarme in service; bankrupts, convicted thieves, embezzlers, etc. , and a special class of receivers of charity, viz. , receivers of State or provincial alms. Even that abused citizen, the Jew, has this manhood suffrage. It has a fine and even gaudy look—what there is of it—this Boon. But since it takes 4, 981, 000 of it to elect 72 out of 425 members, and even then has to let the Big Four come in and water its effort, it is probably an exaggeration to spell it with a capital B. I think, myself, that it is really only a boon, not a Boon. But perhaps the fairy-like nature of the boon will be best exhibited by statistics. Before the last extension of the suffrage the voters in the four old Bodies numbered 1, 890, 926. The fifth or new Unrestricted Suffrage Body make a total of 5, 018, 217. But of these 36. 5 per cent consist of persons who already exercised the franchise as members of one of the four old Bodies. A further 19 per cent had already a vote for the municipal elections. This leaves, therefore, 2, 233, 938 new voters (44. 5 per cent of the whole five million odd) who were for the first time permitted to participate in public affairs. Now then, while the great landholder has one Member of Parliament to every sixty-four voters, and the Chambers of Commerce one to every twenty-eight, the towns and marketplaces have one Member of Parliament to 3, 349, the rural districts one to 11, 555, and the mere ordinary fresh new Unrestricted Suffragist of the fifth Body one to every 69, 697 voters. Thus the comparative value of the new vote is but one-sixth of that of the country district class, one-twentieth of that of the town voters, and less than a thousandth part of the value of that of a large landed proprietor; and—as remarked before—the latter gets a share of the poor little concession granted to the unpropertied nobody, and helps him elect his seventy-two new representatives. However, it will be necessary to submit these disproportions to the enlightening test of an object-lesson before we can contemplate them understandingly. For instance: there are 1, 000 farthings in a guinea; let the guinea stand for the sixty-four votes by which the great landholder elects a Member of Parliament, and its equivalent in farthings for the 69, 000 odd votes by which the Unrestricted elects a Member. The sixty-four guineas will not quite shingle the top of a hat, whereas the 69, 000 odd farthings would shingle the dome of St. Paul's2 and leave enough over to pay for the job. Another: let the sixty-four represent cats, and the 69, 000 odd represent mice; this number of mice would sustain the cats six months and part of a day, at six and a half mice a day per cat, which is 165 per month, and plenty, and these same mice have been doing it for centuries, too. This shows that the calculation is correct. To continue: You will have noticed that 5, 440 great landholders elect exactly one-fifth (85) of the Lower House (425) ; it takes the rest of Austria's population of 23, 984, 345 to elect the other four-fifths. It seems a wonderful instance of the tail wagging the dog. If you ask a citizen why the suffrage is in this shape, and how the nation's voters came to be boxed off in the nation's hold in five non-communicating water-tight compartments, he will say something like this: “The obvious intention of the authors of the Constitution was to give the people as limited a share in their own affairs as possible, and to preserve the far-reaching prerogatives of the Crown nearly as possible intact: the working of the Constitution has proved that they succeeded in their object. ”You have now seen how the Parliament is constructed, and how curious and interesting and antique the plan is: the spirit that animates the membership is not less curious. For while other Legislatures work mainly with their heads, this one works mainly with its heart. One would expect that this would have novel consequences; indeed, one might be sure of it. And if he doubted it, he could come and see. The members of most other Legislatures are grouped and tagged according to their political principles, and so are the members of this one; but these have also an extra tag, and a very important one—the tag of nationality. In the Irish Party the British House of Commons has the same feature and has found out how compact and determined and persistent and unpersuadable such a force can be. If the House of Commons had eight or ten such furnaces to deal with it would have a less serene but much more interesting time than it has now. Well, nine nationalities are represented in the Reichsrath; it makes nine Irish parties, so to speak, with all that that means of difficulty, when there is need to solidify the representation upon a life-and-death national issue. There was a time when such a solidification was possible; a time “when all were for the State, ” and perhaps could have been kept so by the employment of a sufficient number of ifs: if the Crown had fulfilled its oral promises, made in stress of weather; if written promises in the existing Constitution had been fulfilled; if the Crown had taken the whole nation into its trust and confidence instead of a minority of it, and granted a fair and rational distribution of the suffrage all around. I mention this last detail not as an impertinent notion of mine, but because something in this direction was proposed in the Reichsrath over five years ago (with the Emperor's assent), and because one of the statesmen who was most eager to kill it then lived to believe he had made a mistake. The opportunity for a national solidification went by; the several minor nationalities remained apart, each fighting its cordial best for its own special rights and prides and privileges hand to hand against the rest. And so one has now the spectacle of a Legislature divided up and tallied off into tribes, in addition to the usual groupings into political parties. The membership of a tribe do not pull together except upon the tribe's little tribal question; on other matters—religion, finance, commerce, etc. —they are divided, sub-divided, and re-sub-divided into about as many groups and parties as there are members of the Legislature. Sometimes a party numbers only four: and then, often, it cannot get a quorum together therewith to interrupt the proceedings because three of the members belong to fifteen other parties and are around helping them to make a noise. Add to the above embarrassments these: That any member may speak a week if he confines himself to the question before the House; that the Ayes and Noes may be required upon pretty nearly any matter that can be imagined; that any member that wants to blow a tin horn or bang his desk with his cane, or in any other way drown and defeat the proceedings with noise, may do so; that there is no serjeant-at-arms, and no authority lodged anywhere to enforce order in the House. With a House made up of hostile tribes; these sub-divided into a multitude of conflicting and irreconcilable parties a touch of religious difference here and here, with its raw side out; plenty of people ready and anxious to obstruct progress, and no one authorized to obstruct them—what is your opinion? Will Parliamentary Government be resumed in Austria? An attempt at resumption has several times been made since the memorable time that the police invaded the House, 3 but there was no success. The impression seems general that the present system is unworkable, that it has broken down for good and all, and that all attempts to put the machine in order will fail. Is there no refuge? Is there no way out? Must Austria fall to pieces? Those who think so are surely overlooking Article 14. Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the most valuable Article a Constitution ever had it was framed by a master hand, it is interpreted by master minds, it is a Constitution all by itself. It provides for the creation of urgent new laws by the executive, between Sessions of the Legislature, and for the continuance of the usual functions and industries of the Government—and thus the Executive itself becomes a Legislature. It forbids permanent departures in certain large matters and intermeddling in certain other matters; and every act of the interval must be ratified by Parliament within four weeks after the first day of its next sittings; so No. 14 is all set down in the German tongue—the judicious German tongue. There is where its strength lies. It means anything you please, but it does not mean the same thing to any two people; no German statement does. It sounds as austere and definite as the Seventh Commandment, but the Government can commit political adultery with it every day, and while everybody may know it, nobody can prove it. It has kept this country going smoothly and comfortably for more than a year now and can keep it thus going till all the prophets are dead, no doubt. As long as Parliament remains in a trance the things done under No. 14’s authority do not have to undergo any inquiry or confront any objection; it may be that there will be no more Parliaments: then how could the Government have things more pleasantly arranged than they are? Government by Article 14 will doubtless carry the country along satisfactorily. It cannot make a permanent Ausgleich with Hungary, but that is nothing; temporary ones will answer. Is any defect discoverable, for the moment, in Austria's equipment? She has the army, the taxes, the official organization all complete; and for chart, charter, fire-and-life policy she has Article 14, otherwise the political Seventh Commandment, and it is her intention to continue business at the old stand. You asked me about the Parliamentary system only and I have confined myself to that. There used to be one. Sincerely Yours, S. L. Clemens.