REFLECTIONS ON THE 1923 CONSTITUTION. ON THE PRINCIPLE OF DECENTRALIZATION

Abstract

This paper explores the principle of decentralization within the context of the 1923 Romanian Constitution and the subsequent challenges posed by the 1925 Administrative Unification Law. It examines the tension between centralization and decentralization, highlighting the evolving roles of prefects, sub-prefects, and notaries as representatives of central authority in local administration. The study argues that despite the constitutional emphasis on decentralization, the 1925 law reinforced centralization, leading to significant political and administrative controversies. Key debates from the period reveal how historical, cultural, and political factors influenced legislative decisions, particularly the preservation of Romania’s unitary state character. The article also discusses the implications of these administrative reforms on local governance, autonomy, and the efficiency of public administration. By analyzing parliamentary debates and legislative texts, the paper sheds light on the interplay between political power and administrative organization, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to decentralization that accommodates local needs while maintaining national coherence. KEYWORDS: administrative reform, decentralization, local governance, Romanian Constitution (1923) J.E.L CLASSIFICATION: H11, H83, N44 1. INTRODUCTION The principle of decentralization has been a pivotal theme in public administration, serving as a mechanism for balancing local autonomy with national cohesion. The 1923 Romanian Constitution marked a significant step in embedding decentralization within the legal framework, emphasizing the need for administrative organization laws at county and communal levels to uphold this principle. However, the implementation of the 1925 Administrative Unification Law posed considerable challenges, as it leaned heavily towards centralization, undermining the spirit of decentralization envisioned in the Constitution. This paper delves into the historical and political context of these reforms, analyzing the roles of key administrative actors such as prefects, sub-prefects, and notaries. It explores the legislative debates and societal implications of these changes, highlighting the centralist tendencies that dominated the period. By examining the intersection of political power and administrative organization, this study provides insights into the complexities of governance in interwar Romania, raising questions about the efficacy and sustainability of centralization as a model for state administration. 2. THE PRINCIPLE OF DECENTRALIZATION IN THE 1923 CONSTITUTION Decentralization was perceived by the legislator "not as an autonomous administrative body like in the Middle Ages, disconnected from other administrative bodies, but in close and continuous collaboration." The 1923 Constitution stipulated in Article 108, paragraph (2), that the administrative organization laws of county and communal institutions would be "based on administrative decentralization," as opposed to centralization (1923 Constitution of Romania). A decentralized administrative organization can be identified when "… administrative organizations are recognized as having legal personality and assets (the commune and the county had legal personality), when these organizations have authorities that are not part of the central hierarchy, when they are subject to a specific form of control called administrative supervision, and when certain public services are detached from the competence of central authorities (Tarangul, 1944). Administrative decentralization can be broader or narrower depending on how its defining components are regulated by law. The degree of administrative decentralization essentially depends on the number of public services entrusted to decentralized authorities (territorial decentralization) and the manner of organizing and exercising administrative supervision." (ibidem) Under the new Constitution, which was based on "preserving the national and unitary character of the country in the application of administrative decentralization," the draft law and subsequently the law established the county and the commune as administrative units, endowed with legal personality (Articles 1 and 2), while the territorial subdivision, without legal personality (Article 7), included several communes "to facilitate supervision, ensure the enforcement of laws, and provide proper administrative guidance." (ibidem) Decentralization was not easy to achieve politically, as it had to be implemented without altering Romania's national and unitary state character, while also accounting for the fact that, at the time of Unification, various forms of decentralization coexisted within the four administrative regimes of the united provinces. (Monitorul Oficial, 1925) Regarding this "cultural mosaic," during the Parliamentary Debates in the Romanian Senate on March 31, 1925, opinions were fiercely contested:"For instance, adopting laws from Finland, where the cultural level of the population is almost uniform, and where there are no differences in mentality, customs, or traditions, is not a difficult task. But it is challenging in our case, where the gap between the primitive shepherd in the mountain depths and the highly educated intellectual is so vast, perhaps even greater than the gap between a toddler just learning to walk and speak and a fully grown adult. It is difficult to create laws because they must apply to everyone, and even more challenging is to introduce an administrative law designed to organize numerous issues concerning individuals and society." Political opinions were outright irreconcilable, especially when considering the administrative territorial architecture proposed by the Liberals on one side and the National Peasants' Party on the other. 3. CENTRALIZATION AND THE 1925 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIFICATION LAW The draft law, developed by C. Stere in 1929, envisioned broad local autonomy, limiting the central government's right to intervene in the internal affairs of communes and counties. It also proposed the establishment of a new administrative unit—the province (Scurtu, 1983). During the debates on the Liberal government's draft law, Ion Vescan, speaking on behalf of the National Party in the Senate on March 22, 1925, stated that the current government lacked the political and moral authority to present the country with an organic reform proposal for its administrative organization. He argued that the current legislative bodies were unfit to enact laws that concerned the very existence of the State and its permanent interests. The National Party opposed the administrative reform proposed by the Liberal government, deeming it flagrantly at odds with the principles of a modern administration rooted in the democratic idea of local autonomy, which was, in their view, "the only means to mobilize all healthy and honest forces across Greater Romania." (Monitorul Oficial, P. III, 1925) A Transylvanian senator criticized the substance of the Liberal draft law: "An administrative organization based on the old centralist framework, which for over half a century has stifled the development of county and communal institutions and the growth of civic awareness—the sole foundation of a conscious democracy—can only serve the interests of party absolutism and culminate in the despotism inaugurated by the current government and prepared by all its present legislation." (ibidem) Analyzing the parliamentary debates on the draft law, it can be stated that few laws voted by the Romanian Parliament sparked as much uproar and unleashed such political passions as the Law on Local Administration Organization. The reasons for this interest were manifold, most stemming from the relations and rivalries between the major political parties. Each party, considering its historical contributions to the Great Union, felt obliged to promote such an important law, foundational to the organization of the State's administrative life, rightly called the country's second Constitution.The democratic behavior of opposition parties was not met with understanding by the ruling National Liberal Party. The Liberals rejected any argument referring to realities in the historical provinces, where aspects of administrative organization were recognized by experts as being even more advanced than those outlined in the new administrative organization law. The lack of political compromise between the majority and the minority was evident in statements such as: "First, they have not yet become accustomed to the purpose, role, and power of majorities; they fail to understand that a country where the minority does not recognize the majority, does not recognize the laws and actions of the majority, is a country—or rather becomes a country—that forfeits its right to exist." The 1925 law sparked numerous controversies and even harmed the State by repealing partially better provisions, motivated purely by unjustified pride or the opportunism of unification. Enormous difficulties arose due to the lack of continuity in legal norms, the population's overt distrust in the authorities tasked with enforcing the law, and, not least, the negative atmosphere created by the provisional nature of the system, including the constant threat of abolishing the institutions established under this law. Even C.D. Dimitriu, as the Rapporteur, paraphrased his party leader, I.I.C. Brătianu, during parliamentary debates, acknowledging the project's shortcomings but refrained from amending any article or paragraph in line with the opposition's views, stating: "The law is not perfect; it is perfectible. Who could ever imagine, who could ever claim, that I would come forward with a perfect law?" (Monitorul Oficial, P.III, 1935) The 1925 Administrative Unification Law also conflicted with the provisions of the 1923 Constitution. The principle of decentralization, stipulated in the fundamental law, was not realized because the county prefect, as a representative of the central authority and simultaneously the head of the county administration, restricted the activities of local administrative bodies and even dissolved them with little procedural formality and even less scruple. In its effort to enshrine the unitary character of the State, the law largely continued the centralizing tradition of the Old Kingdom of Romania. Centralization became the administrative system throughout the country, representing a significant regression compared to the existing organization in the historical provinces. Local and county interests were governed according to regulations and financed by resources provided by the central authority, administered by officials directly appointed by the central government. It was well known that this outdated system, already contested in the Old Kingdom before 1918, was being adopted. "Centralism implies the necessity for the State to hold in its hands not only interests of a general nature but also those of a local character, whereas autonomy means that the management and administration of local interests are entirely entrusted to the locals, to those primarily concerned with these interests." (ibidem)The Rapporteur, aware of the advantages of local autonomy, emphasized that it "can yield admirable results when used wisely," but "not when it enables various territorial divisions of a State or various parts or cells of its political organism to develop at the expense of the State's general interests." (ibidem) 4. POLITICAL DEBATES AND LESSONS LEARNED C.D. Dimitriu insisted that it was appropriate for the State, "always vigilant," to ensure the timely oversight of "the proper and correct fulfillment of the functions of the various bodies called to work for the benefit of the entire organism." (ibidem) He agreed that "every commune and county should have as vibrant and prosperous a life as possible," but stressed, "let us always remember that the primary goal is the life and prosperity of the entire organism, the life of the State." This, he argued, must be ensured through effective control over the functioning of the State's components—communes and counties—a task that must be carried out by the central authority (ibidem). In the liberal legislator's vision, the transfer of authority and administrative and financial responsibility from the central level to local public administrations had to be carried out "within the limits of general interests." (ibidem) Under the spirit of the 1925 Law, three actors represented central authority within local administrations: prefects, sub-prefects, and notaries. The prefect—a Napoleonic creation originating from the eighth year of the Great French Revolution—was maintained in the exact form outlined in the Civil Code until the modification of the French Constitution in 1958. Before 1958, the prefect was the government's representative and the head of the administration in the department where they served. After 1958, in France, the prefect became primarily the representative of the State and national interests, followed by their role as the government's representative and head of the department. In Romania, according to the Law on County Councils, No. 396 of April 2/14, 1864, Article 91, the prefect was the "head of county administration, directing all works of this administration and executing the decisions of the County Council." The 1925 Law, Article 3, paragraph 2, described the prefect as the government's commissioner attached to the County Council. In this role, the prefect oversaw the legality of acts adopted by the County Council and the Permanent Delegation. If the prefect identified any illegality, they had the right and duty to appeal to the government within ten days of the act's adoption (if they were present at the meeting) or from the date they were informed. The appeal was suspensive of execution.In both the draft law and the 1925 Law on Legislative Unification, the prefect became a political official rather than an administrative one. During parliamentary debates, it was suggested that the prefect should "have a career background" or be accompanied by a second prefect elected to lead the County Council. Representatives of the National Party supported and argued for the proposal of having two prefects, "one administrative and one political." (Monitorul Oficial, P. III, 1925). The idea was rejected on the grounds that coexistence between the two prefects "would be absolutely impossible—detrimental to good administration." (The 1929 Law, discussed below, later regulated the institutions of the political prefect and the administrative prefect.) Regarding the career prefect, concerns were raised about the irresponsibility of recruiting such a public official. (This position would later be introduced in the 1938 Administrative Law, Article 97, paragraph 2). From the pool of county administrators in the Old Kingdom and the annexed territories, out of 351 prefects, 129 held university degrees, 35 were officers, 51 were former notaries, and 46 were appointed based on exceptional laws without any educational qualifications. In Bessarabia, out of 54 prefects, only 7 held academic titles, 24 had no formal education, and 23 were former active-duty officers. Considering the method of appointing prefects, it is evident that they were designated politically and represented the government in the county through the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The distinction between political, administrative, or career prefects is highly significant, as their legally conferred powers allowed them to politically influence local administration. In the 1925 legislator's vision, the prefect "represents the entire government, corresponds with other ministers, and may inform various departments of the issues they identify and the improvements that need to be made." At the same time, the prefect was the head of the police in urban communes and the head of the gendarmerie in the county (Anuarul pentru toți, 1929). The legal instrument through which the prefect imposed the will of the central authority on local interests was established by the provisions of Articles 78 and 333 of the law. According to Article 78:"The mayor and members of the Permanent Delegation may be removed by a motivated decision of the communal council, adopted with a two-thirds majority of the total number of councilors. The council may only pronounce removal for reasons of ‘poor administration, evident acts of incompetence, bad faith, or culpable negligence that compromise the commune's interests, acts against the order and security of the state, or criminal acts.’" The council was notified by a motivated proposal from the Minister of Internal Affairs for urban communes serving as county capitals and by the prefect for other communes, or by at least one-third of the councilors. Decisions of the communal councils concerning the removal of mayors and members of communal delegations were immediately communicated to the prefect for rural and non-county-seat urban communes, and to the Minister of Internal Affairs for other urban communes. These decisions became final if, within ten days of their they were not by the central removed had the right to within the same a decision could only be based on the of the County Delegation or the Administrative the mayor or members of the Permanent Delegation acts against the security and of the State or to by the central authority, they were removed even the council was not notified by the proper If there was with this is by based on the motivated of the Minister of Internal Affairs with the of the Administrative Council." Article 333 of the law the prefect a both a representative of the central authority and as the head of county administration. the head of county administration, the prefect was the of all they appointed and in with the Permanent Delegation of the County Council (Article The prefect also held authority over these The was a representative of the central authority and a to hold with all to with key and simultaneously to become with the needs of various (Monitorul Oficial, P. III, the prefect, the was a career could also be appointed as they had of and held an academic degree or a from a administrative The as the representative of the central authority in rural communes. the notaries were in the Kingdom without However, the law established four for notaries, followed by two by The law notaries two of and the under certain to become the was also as being "within the administrative the representatives of the central (Article Administrative decentralization the of the as an with legal The was to communal administration and in its (ibidem). In a administrative system, the was in to the principle of it was as a territorial without legal by a The directly to the prefect and carried out the decisions of the the County and any other through laws and The prefect could part of their through decisions, but not on a permanent principle of administrative decentralization, in the draft law and parliamentary debates, only on Under the 1925 Law, centralization became the administrative system, county or local interests were governed according to the and regulations established at the central by institutions by the central authority, administered by officials appointed by the central government, and through financial resources from the one of the project's the lack of decentralization, time will come when administrative decentralization can be in a Senate and just as discussed it in our (ibidem) The 1923 Constitution marked a pivotal in Romania’s administrative the for a governance model that It the of local administrations with legal autonomy, and the to their However, the subsequent adoption of the 1925 Administrative Unification Law the difficulties of constitutional into of decentralization, the law reinforced a administrative that the of local the central control over and communal interests. The implementation of the 1925 law was influenced by a of historical, political, and cultural At its was the to the unitary character of the Romanian state, particularly in the context of with administrative This with the principle of decentralization, in a governance model that leaned heavily on sub-prefects, and notaries, as representatives of the central authority, were in enforcing this undermining local autonomy in of Parliamentary debates during this period political divisions the appropriate between centralization and the Liberal Party centralization as a means of national and administrative the National Party and other opposition for greater local autonomy, rooted in democratic These into legislative and a lack of the implementation of The of the 1925 Administrative Unification Law is one of for balanced By local interests to central authority, the law the development of local institutions of the needs of their It also a on central which stifled and local the administrative of the on this historical period provides insights for The challenges in the interwar period the of decentralization in a manner that local autonomy while national modern this as a of the need to administrative that local authorities without the of the The principle of decentralization, can more and to the of modern governance, the of the interwar period highly The between central oversight and local autonomy a yet of effective administration. the and debates of the period a historical on how to achieve this that governance are not only legally but also and to the needs of 23 a pentru pentru toți, 1929 Oficial, a a 1925 Oficial, a a Oficial, 1925, a Oficial, a a 7 1925 Oficial, a a 1925