In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

4. Intellectuals and Political Systems Models are conducive, but do not account for the total formative experience of intellectuals. The Russian model of the intelligentsia found application in some of the Balkan countries, partially for similar structural reasons to those in Russia, that is, the absence of solidified middle classes, and a long-standing intellectual tradition, as well as an answer to the broader problematic of modernization. It was also nurtured, however, by local political dynamics: the political system within which these intellectuals operated induced them either to accept or to discard their political environment, and consequently determined their pro- or anti-systemic attitudes. In the case of Bulgaria, the early setback to liberal expectations naturally radicalized educated cadres. Increased suppression and the curtailment of liberal rights under Stambolov in the 1890s, the complete derailment of the political system under the personal regime of King Ferdinand, and the explosion of the countryside by the turn of the century (see Chapter IV), delegitimized the political order in the eyes of intellectuals, who turned to ideologies of mass representation , particularly on the left. The imported Russian model was thus fortified by good local reasons, as political frustration and alienation led almost automatically to radicalization. In the case of Serbia, a number of factors promoted the radicalization of socialist intellectuals: the willingness of the Liberals to compromise with the Crown and accept a setback in liberal demands, an incomplete constitutional arrangement, the Western-inspired modernization schemes proposed by King Milan and the ascendant group of the Progressives, the unwillingness of the aforementioned political groups to share power with the Radicals, and, the partial persecution of radical intellectuals. These radicalized socialist intellectuals, who not only rejected the status quo, but saw themselves called upon to save Serbia from the menace of Western, alias capitalistic, modernization (see Chapter III). The political situation in Greece was quite different, which provides for an interesting contrast to the other two countries. In the 49 4. Intellectuals and Political Systems Greek case, it is rather the absence of radicalization of socialist intellectuals in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that is of interest. It is precisely this absence of radicalization that accounts, to a great extent , for their failure to unite as a pressure group and their inability to promote socialism as a substantial political alternative (see Chapter V). The existence of a functional and representative political system since the 1860s deprived Greek socialist intellectuals of the major motivation for early socialist critique as we will encounter it in the Bulgarian and Serbian cases. Indeed it might be considered the predicament of socialism in conditions of “underdevelopment” that it received its initial entry ticket as an ideological alternative in these societies due to the priority of the political factor over the social. In the case of Greece, despite similar socio-economic conditions, the “integrative” character of the political system made radical political alternatives appear relatively redundant, while the Greek diaspora networks provided intellectuals with a broader geographical space as a “terrain of activity” and professional integration than their Bulgarian and Serbian colleagues. Of course, a liberal political system was also in place in Romania, but it was rather the explosive agrarian situation in this country (big land ownership) that directly or indirectly motivated the early socialists /populists. Nineteenth-century Romania is perhaps the only case where we could argue for the primacy of the social factor over the political . The Romanian Socialists also naturally advanced demands of a political nature, like a more direct system of electoral and political representation, but in Romania, as in Greece, basic political liberties were guaranteed, and their respective political systems offered substantial protection of individual civil liberties. Moreover, the political systems in both countries achieved a high degree of stability in the nineteenth century. In the case of Greece, the political elites managed to effectively neutralize, in the process of the nineteenth century, the political influence of the Crown, reducing its constitutional dimensions and thus “stabilizing” the rules of the political game. Quite a different stabilization strategy was followed in the case of Romania. Here, stability was rather achieved through a tacit pact between the ruling elites (which were very different in their social composition than in Greece) and the Crown and their converging interests in maintaining the balance of the political system, which at the same time effectively secured their own control over politics. The reigns of both Carol I (1866–1914) [18.116.24.105] Project MUSE (2024-04-20 06...

Share