User:Dr Gangrene/political history

Significantly delayed start
Political life in the modern sense of the term, with political parties with manifestos, official member lists and supporters, appeared late in Luxembourg compared with its neighbours. What were the reasons for this delay?

1 — The long geographic isolation of the country: the poor development of the tracks of communication within the country, and the major international axes of transportation bypassed the minuscule country of 2,589 km2. The consequences were obvious: a backward economic development and a feeble cultural life. This state of affairs would not change in a meaningful way until the second half of the 19th century.

In the course of this half-century, a violent dispute took place in Luxembourg over transportation. The fight was first caused — and finally won — on the international stage by Luxembourg's entry international railway network. It was a heated dispute, as the danger of a diversion of the major railway axes was real at certain points in time. If the Guillaume-Luxembourg network brought to Luxembourg the wind of the open sea (with its new ideas), the improvement of internal communications brought Luxembourgers closer, created the conditions for a national consciousness to take hold and for a political life worthy of the name: this rail network was served by a regular service, the construction of the Prince-Henri network (the famous "belt line") and the establishment of local railway lines, the most picturesque of which were the famous "Jangli" and "Charli".

It is no doubt more than a pure coincidence that the first political parties appeared at the beginning of the 20th century at the moment when the creation of the country's railway network was completed.

The opening of the country to the modern world, rapid change in the conditions of production with obvious consequences: social transformation, broad increase in wealth albeit very unequally distributed, penetration of new ideas. An interesting phenomenon then appeared, strongly pronounced in Luxembourg, the delay in mentalities compared to economic and social realities. Economic and social changes — in the 20th as in the 19th century — did not bring about an immediate and equivalent change in the domain of mentalities. Here, persistances and gravities were at play which were calculated in terms of generations. There were two terrains on which they appeared clearly: religious practices and electoral behaviour.

2 — The late creation of a Luxembourgish state: a public administration and set of modern legislation had to be created from scratch. Who could deny the political impact that would have, in the short or long term, p. ex. the agricultural service, or the farmers' syndical associations — created in 1883 —, various school laws, or social insurance? It was a long and arduous task, mostly accomplished using foreign models, since such a small community — only 200,000 in 1870 — by necessity only had limited creative capacities. This late creation of a state was connected to the equally late development of a Luxembourgish nation. Until the crisis of 1914-1919, Luxembourgers had doubts over the viability of the state and the vitality of the nation. In their distress, certain of them then turned towards the two biggest neighbours. Behind the sympathies and cultural preferences that every Luxembourger has for France or for Prussia/Germany, one often finds vague desires for annexation. The line between legitimate aspirations other inadmissible ones was rather blurry for contemporaries, but it was over-stepped when, after 1848, expressions appeared such as «parti prussien», «parti allemand», «parti welche», «parti français», «fransquillons» etc. S'il faut distinguer ces partis-là des tendances politiques du moment, il existe néanmoins des corrélations à la fois significatives et mouvantes. In 1848, the Catholics were classed on the side of Germany, and the liberals on the side of France. During the grave crisis of 1867-1872 and also the dynastic change (1889-1890), it was liberals who were termed the "German party" and the Catholics described as the "French party". A new reversal happened in the early 20th century, when the Catholics were once again seen as Germanophiles, and the liberals as Francophiles. « Engem de Preiss unhenken » a longtemps été une méthode un peu facile mais payante du combat politique de chez nous. Inutile d'expliquer longuement qu'elle a brouillé les pistes et retardé l'éclosion d'une vie politique moderne.

Political life dominated by notables
When it comes to describing political life in Luxembourg in the late 19th century, different terms present themselves. The opposition "left-right" is no doubt the first to come up. Still frequently used today, this formula had its golden age from the start of the 20th century to the Second World War. It was barely in use before this time. Politicians of the second half of the 19th century instead used the dichotomies of "clericalism-anticlericalism" or "conservatism-progress". The opposition which best describes realities, since it is less laden with emotions and passions, is that of "movement-resistance". It is undeniable that in Luxembourg, after the brief democratic interlude of 1848 and before the emergence of Christian-social tendencies in the early 20th century, the Catholic forces aligned themselves with the resistance. The deeper reasons of this are external to the country: the Papacy, faced with the Italian movement of unification and the rise of new ideas (positivism and modernity), reacted by going on the defensive. Whether on the question of the temporal power of the Pope or the condemnation of modern freedoms by the Syllabus of Errors (1864), Luxembourgish Catholics showed an unfailing ultramontane loyalty, over which the Luxemburger Wort kept a watchful eye. The idea of progress therefore passed into the camp des libertés, c'est-à-dire celui des libéraux. Leur ouverture plus grande se limite toutefois au monde des idées et des institutions, car ils n'envisagent aucunement de changer les structures d'une société qui leur convient bien.

The world of politics is not however limited to ideas; there are also interests. Here, cleavages were in motion. Countryside and city did not have the same concerns and interests and, with the industrialisation of the country, agriculture and industry started to be opposed. Without oversimplifying, one can say that the countryside represented clericalism, and the cities liberalism. On the eve of World War I, the Deputies of the cantons of Esch-sur-Alzette and Luxembourg (City and Rural) faced off against the other cantons' Deputies.

It is important to not reduce everything to the cleavage between clericalism and anticlericalism. When it came to distributing the windfall of subsidies to communes, or the establishment of railway lines, electoral calculations won out over all other considerations. The constitution of 1868 may have said that "Deputies vote without referring to their principals", but the election by majority vote by canton clearly indicated the horizon of the Deputies. Michel Rodange a à leur égard des mots très (trop) durs : Se schmiren d'Vollek ëmmer mat sengem eg'ne Fett Se schreiwe grouss Artikeln an des an déi Gazette: Do wessen se ze plangen fir d'Land bal dët an dat, an hun um Enn dach ëmmer fir d'egen Täsch geschwat. (Rénert, XI, 221-228).

Beyond interests and interests were temperaments, that is to say humans. All sorts of agreements and conflicts were conceivable when the time for debates and votes came round. Here, the force of personalities intervened. An exchange in the Chamber in 1881 is revealing in this respect. Alexis Brasseur (liberal-leaning) threw the accusation at the head of Jean Knaff (Catholic-leaning): "It is your bosses who wrote it", while the latter protested so hard that the President of the Chamber invited Brasseur to withdraw the word "bosses". Knaff went back over the incident to dot the i's: "You obey a boss! I have not understood was this was meant do mean and reply to Mr Brasseur: I have never obeyed a boss, and feel myself my own boss. If I have a boss, it is my heart which dictates my conduct ...".

All the same, not every Deputy could or wanted to be a leader himself. Personalities imposed themselves through their charisma and their skills (experience and parliamentary eloquence). Their role in the three generations extending from the constitution of 1848 to the First World War was fundamental. In the absence of political parties they were the centres of attraction, sometimes respecting, sometimes transcending the opposition of "movement-resistance". It was around these strong personalities, figureheads in this small political environment, that Deputies gathered. The boundaries of these groups remained hazy and realignments were numerous: one could be for or against a movement on a case-by-case basis, and the dividing lines saw frequent changes back and forth; the Deputy J.J. Brincour was perhaps the most striking example of this.

It is a fact that the most attractive personalities of the period were situated mostly on the side of movement: Norbert Metz (in the Chamber from 1842 to 1885 with some interruptions), Alexis Brasseur (1867 to 1899) and Robert Brasseur (1899 to 1925). Before Émile Prüm's arrival in the Chamber (1892 to 1913), the Catholic forces had not been able to produce any personalities of the same calibre. This personalisation of political struggle could be found in expressions such as the parti-Metz, the Guss-Partei ("cast iron party"), or the parti-Brasseur.

When there was a vote of a political or philosophical nature (the best example being relations between church and state), the groupings happened along familiar lines; for the rest, there was a continual coming-and-going. This mechanism was described well by Norbert Metz in 1869 on the subject of mining concessions:

"Dans cette question, Messieurs, je ne fais pas de question politique, de question de parti, c'est une question dans laquelle chacun doit conserver son libre arbitre; quand nous arriverons à des questions politiques, je ne serai pas aussi réservé; si nous avons a discuter une loi électorale ou une autre loi politique, je dirais à mes amis, serrons les rangs, mais aujourd'hui à chacun sa liberté d'action". Rather curiously, Robert Brasseur would use the same argument in 1925 in an open letter to his constituents, which shows that Brasseur remained a politician from the era before political parties with their voting discipline.

The "parties", in this view presented by Metz, had no permanent existence, and would re-form themselves around every ad hoc political question. There was then, in the Chamber, no permanent government or opposition parties. For that, one would have to wait for the early 20th century.

The idea that in the parliament there were political questions and others that were of a more technical nature, and that these two should not be confused with one another and consequently the one should not weigh on the other, was quite characteristic of this world of notables. It was also fitting for the political chessboard of the time. In and of itself, this distinction is still conceivable nowadays, but the formation of more and more crystallised political parties and the hardening of fronts rendered it inoperable in practice. This political life advanced at a different rhythm to that of today. There were two highlights: elections, and votes on laws of an ideological nature. Elections were more frequent than today, since the Chamber was partially renewed every three years. In between, there was occasionally a by-election, such as in the case of a Deputy's death. It is striking to note that between 1875 and 1914, it was only 2-3 weeks before an election that the press started to campaign and that the issues were discussed. With the announcements of the results, the fall was brutal, and newspapers barely devoted one or two commentary sections. It is true that as one advances through time, the pre-election period tended to get longer, but there was nothing comparable to the situation today. Great debates and ideological votes were also not commonplace. Public life, then, was clearly less politicised. Entre ce rythme plus faible et l'absence de partis politiques il y a évidemment des rapports de cause à effet, mais dans les deux sens.

At the beginning of the 20th century, a change came about in the political rhythm that can be dated around certain key events: the founding of the Left Bloc (1908) and the passing of the Education Law (1912). The political forces that were still unorganised had sensed these changes and responded with an attempt at organisation. The socialist movement organised itself in 1902-1903 into the Social Democratic Party, the liberals founded the Liberal League in 1904 and the Catholics formed the Party of the Right in 1914.

On the government bench, Paul Eyschen, a politician long in tooth — he had entered politics in 1867 — followed these developments with unease. He addressed the topic with the Deputies in January 1914, ten days after the creation of the Party of the Right: "Je crois que quand nous aurons des partis politiques tout à fait tranchés dans le pays, ce sera le plus grand malheur qui puisse arriver à notre pays». Il s'est même expliqué sur sa motivation profonde. Avec les partis politiques entrerait à la Chambre le principe de la «majorité», notion absente de ce parlement de notables. Écoutons encore Eyschen: «dans toute ma vie, vous retrouverez le même esprit qui m'a guidé, je n'ai voulu me laisser inféoder nulle part pour conserver mon entière liberté, et voilà pourquoi je peux donner quelquefois raison à l'un ou l'autre. M. Eyschen, dit-on — et c'est son grand crime — n'a jamais voulu avoir de véritable majorité, il s'en crée. Oui, c'est vrai absolument ...». Constitutional theory and practice proved him right. The constitution of 1868 made no mention of political parties and no government was toppled by a parliamentary majority before the fall of the Loutsch government on 11 January 1916. All changes of government before this date had been due to the Prince. If the prime minister enjoyed the latter's confidence, most Deputies were always ready to follow them. This world of notables showed a remarkable homogeneity on the fundamentals. The arrival on the scene of the political parties therefore seemed like a veritable irruption.

Clericalism and anticlericalism: long-standing antagonism
Until the 1840s, the classic antagonism of "clericalism-anticlericalism" barely applied to the facts in Luxembourg. Due to factors going back far in the Ancien Régime, the Luxembourgish clergy was, by tradition, submissive to the temporal powers. The Orangists in power in 1840 were filled with the philosophical conceptions of the 18th century, but remained mostly within Catholic orthodoxy. These men saw religion as a factor of order, and the clergy as its natural gardian; their attitude could still be best described as adhering to the tenets of "Josephinism", the domestic policies of Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor.

In the language of the Orangists, this was merely a "good relationship", while to the ultramontanes, it was "scandalous subservience"; either way, it was rather brutally put into question by the arrival of the Apostolic Vicar Johann Theodor Laurent in 1842. The ideas of this churchman, a personality of stature, were to have an explosive effect. Originally Luxembourgish, but educated abroad, he worked with all his energy to the transform the Josephinist priests into an ultramontane clergy. While this was his legacy, research has shown that the way had been prepared, and a part of the clergy — especially younger priests — had been won over by ultramontane ideas long before his arrival.

Laurent gathered, galvanised and pushed forward. Henceforth, and for more than 80 years, the state and the church would live in a suspicious relationship and, at times, in direct opposition (the education laws of 1881 and 1912, the Pulpit Law of 1879).

The repercussions of this new orientation, instituted mostly from 1842 to 1849, would determine the political history of the country, at least until the Second World War, with after-effects lasting to the present day (such as subsidies for private schools).

The struggle between Church and State in the late 19th century, which was particularly ntense around the turn of the century, was not unique to Luxembourg. It did however take on a particulary here force which must be explained. Ici interviennent des modalités propres à notre histoire.

Before the claims to Josephinism of William I, the Belgian clergy, after much hesitation, had opted between 1825 and 1830 for the system of freedoms, thereby coming closer to the programme of the liberals. In all logic, the Belgian constitution of 1831 gave the church total freedom (opening of private schools, establishment of religious congregations, ecclesiastical appointments).

Laurent, shaped by a Rhineland clergy in opposition to unsympathetic authorities (Prussian and Protestant), and influenced by the Belgian example, dreamed of a similar system in Luxembourg. The Orangist leaders, but also the progressive liberals who came to power in 1848, were not inclined to grant this, heavily influenced as they were by the old Luxembourgish Josephinist tradition. Even the constitution of 1848, based on the Belgian mode, denied the church those liberties that it enjoyed in Belgium. Laurent had also changed tactics and, before his departure on 1 May 1848 imposed by the government, had demanded and obtained broad religious guarantees within the school system, as part of the 1843 law on primary schools and the 1848 law on middle schools. If it could not have, like the Belgian Church, a free school network, entirely devoted to it, the Luxembourgish Church desired a large degree of control over public education. Another constraint on the free development of the church provided by the constitution concerned the establishment of religious congregations. These would not be able to establish themselves as legal entities, without prior approval of the authorities. Thus, it was schools (especially primary schools) and religious congregations that would constitute the terrain on which State and Church would clash, the temporal and the spiritual.

In fact, the State, as it had refused the Church the broad freedom on the Belgian model, was obliged to make wide-ranging concessions. A concordat was meant to define church-state relations in greater detail, but, for various reasons stemming from both sides, this never came about. The issue of the concordat was considered a major problem during the 1850s and 1860s.

However, a certain way of co-existence between the two entities established itself after a fashion, during these years, but this was permanently under threat. The control that the State had granted the Church over schools appeared, over the course of the years, less and less compatible with the evolution of ideas, that is the gradual secularisation of society.

Teachers were in fact placed under the thumb of the local priest who, by means of certificates of morality, kept an eye on their religious devotion. Other subjects of confrontation would present themselves, but none as long-lasting and bitter as this "school war". This struggle over education was both very different and very similar to that in France and in Belgium. Different because in Luxembourg it was not a battle between public and private schools, but one for control over state schools. Similar, as spiritual and temporal claims were clashing openly.

It is important to grasp the importance of schools in the 19th century. This was the establishment — for the first time in Luxembourgish history — of a coherent school network (law of 1843) and including all young people (law of 1881). It was a defining moment in the country's history, since the "communal" school, the only school for all children in the country, would become the crucible of a national consciousness. It was in and through primary school that farmers of the 19th century understood what the national community was, it was there that the fundamental links of solidarity were forged. Without there being a question of denying the antagonisms of social classes, it was in this way that the country escaped the violence that marked Belgian and French history from 1870 to 1914. The Church had obviously understood the stakes of primary schools, a space allowing them to indoctrinate the entire population. While the absence of a secular or neutral school system (such as existed in France or Belgium) was an enormous opportunity for the Church, the downside — the absence of a school network dependent on the Church hierarchy — weighed heavily. This relinquishment must be appreciated in its sociological context, since at the time, almost the entirety of the country were still observant Catholics. The thesis of André Heiderscheid is eloquent in this regard. From 1872 to 1910, that is at the height of the Industrial Revolution, the rate of those who observed Easter merely sank from 99,6% to 99%. These numbers, however, poorly hid the lapses that were appearing, since the observance of Sunday church services was already seeing a significant decline in these years.

Birth of political parties
The early 20th century witnessed a hardening of the fronts and the birth of Luxembourgish political parties. This was a belated occurrence, as solidly constituted parties already existed, not just in all neighbouring countries but also neighbouring regions (Liège, Saarland, Lorraine).

While retaining the dates that follow, it is nevertheless advisable to remember that these political leanings existed before the official birth of the parties. The Social-Democratic Party was thus created in 1902-1903, at a moment when several socialist Deputies were already sat in the Chamber. The expression "Catholic party" already appeared 15 years before the formal creation of the party.

The parties will be described in chronological order of their formal foundation.

Social-Democratic Party
The Social-Democratic Party is the one whose origins are most well-known, due to the publications of J. Wehenkel-Frisch and Ben Fayot.

In January 1902 a "Social-Democratic Association" (Sozial-demokratischer Verein) was created in Luxembourg. Behind its foundation were men such as Jacques Thilmany, Georges Droessart, Jean Schaack-Wirth (the future editor of the newspaper Der Arme Teufel), and François Merens. These were craftsmen, rather than factory workers. Due to workers' unorganised state, the impetus logically had to come from the workers of the suburbs, already organised by occupation. The doctor Michel Welter was included among the founders. Other social-democratic associations were founded in the main villages of the mining basin and in 1903 the Social-Democratic Party was formally founded. Since the elections of June 1902, the number of "democratic" Deputies had increased to 5. They were all intellectuals, primarily lawyers, which was logical in an electoral system of census suffrage. Intellectuals and craftsmen-workers became closer in this organisation that was resolutely labelled as socialist by its opponents. It should be noted that until World War I, some Social-Democratic intellectuals occasionally preferred the term "democratic". The first worker, Jean Schortgen, entered parliament in 1914.

From the beginning, the two trends could be made out that would, from the start to the present day, underlie the party. It is natural that any large party contains within it diverse tendencies, one left and one right, but in no other Luxembourgish party is this the case so clearly or with such continuity.

Moreover, since its origins, these two tendencies provoked such tensions that the party saw its first split two years after is founding.

Besides the natural opposition between intellectuals and workers with all the resulting disagreements and misunderstandings, an important question of tactics posed itself already: should one fight alone against all in a desperate struggle to change society, or contrarily, should one seek electoral alliances, and in this case, with whom?

In any case, from 1904, the radical faction split off and founded the Social-Democratic Workers' Party. At the legislative elections of 1905, two socialist lists were on the ballot in Luxembourg City, where the Worker's Party received 3,9% of the vote and the Social-Democratic Party 34,8%. At the elections of 1911, the Worker's Party received only 0,6% in the capital. In 1912, the few still remaining in the Workers' Party returned to the Social-Democratic Party.

Despite census suffrage, the Social-Democrats achieved good results. In 1908, it sent 7 Deputies to the Chamber, all intellectuals. In 1905, it received 34,8% of the vote in the capital in the first round; in 1908, in Esch-sur-Alzette it only achieved 24,8%. This rather mediocre result in Esch, the centre of the mining region, can be explained by the hurdle of census suffrage. The positive result obtained in the capital shows that the Social-Democratic Party had made progress with the middle-class electorate. By comparison: in 1951, the party received 39,3% (at the communal elections); in 1963, 37,6%. By 1975, by contrast, this had sunk to 21,9%.

One observation can be made: from the beginning, the Social-Democratic Party intended to surpass the stage of being only a workers' party, from the beginning it aimed also at the middle classes, as proven by its rhetoric and electoral tactics.

Liberal League
In January 1904, the Liberal League (Ligue libérale) was founded. The name was symptomatic in more than one respect. Liberalism, which emphasised the virtues of individualism, had long had difficulties in to bow to the needs and discipline inherent to the functioning of a true political party, and it remained for many years the party least cluttered with structural encumbrances. With the liberals, groupings came about around a few strong personalities. Due to this fact, they also were affected by splits. The grave defeats in the elections of 1918 and 1919 would shatter Luxembourgish liberalism and in the course of the 1920s and 1930s, it was more or less constantly experiencing splits. The cohesion of the Democratic Group, later Democratic Party, since the Second World War, is all the more remarkable in light of this.

The liberal alliance of 1904 was due to essentially two factors. The first was a defensive reflex against the rising clericalism. The liberals had the sense of facing a veritable offensive by Catholic forces, of which the Christian-social faction appeared especially dangerous. Deciding that the best defence is a good offence, the liberals decided to move to the counter-attack by placing the fight on a philosophical grounds.

The second factor lay in the tensions inside the liberal camp. In 1903-1904 one of the radicalisations took place which occurred periodically among the liberals. In other words, from time to time, some liberals, generally the younger ones, felt the need to assert more strongly their attachment to the left, and to prove this by rewriting their manifesto and installing a younger leadership. The young liberals, led by Robert Brasseur (1870-1934), challenged the authority and ideas of older liberals, of which Léon Metz (1842-1928) was the most prominent.

There was, then both a changing of the guard between the generations, and an attempt to group together the various liberal tendencies threatened with defeat. The President of the Chamber, Charles-Jean Simons, presided over the founding meeting of the League, but withdrew from political life the following year. While in 1904 he had still situated liberalism in the centre, between what he saw as the two extremes of socialism and clericalism, the young liberals wanted to intensify the battles against a clericalism that they saw as growing bolder. Between the socialist left and the clerical right, they chose resolutely, taking up the war cry of French politician Léon Gambetta "Clericalism? There is the enemy." 1908 saw the foundation of the Left Bloc. Gathering the forces of the left together to block the path of the ascendant right wing: this was the batte plan of the young liberals, who succeeded in convincing the intellectuals of the Social-Democratic party to accept their plan; priority was to be given to ideological, not economic, issues.

It is interesting to note that some young liberals would push for another agreement with the socialists 20 years later, in 1925. Ironically, this was directed this time against Robert Brasseur, who had led the offensive in 1904, but who, in 1925, appeared elderly. Just like in the early 20th century, the radicalisation of the liberals led to an alliance with the socialists and forced the right wing into opposition: this led to the formation of the government of Pierre Prüm. This would only be of short duration, as its majority, based on the support of very different parties, was too fragile. The Left Bloc at the beginning of the century proved more stable, and lasted around 8 years before crumbling. The two alliances eventually fell flat due to the same pitfall: the tensions created on in the economic and social sphere by the agreement between socialists and liberals. In both cases, an economic crisis, such as that of 1916-1917, or an advanced social initiative, such as workers' holidays in 1926, accentuated the disagreements and made them forget their ideological points in common.

Party of the Right
The Catholics did not organise themselves formally until early 1914. This late date may be surprising. In fact, the Deputies who were declared supporters of the Church had for years already formed a more or less compact group widely called the "Catholic party". A vote such as that on the education law of 1912 allowed the contours of the group to me more precisely identified.

One can distinguish 3 constitutive elements: the Catholic press, that is the Luxemburger Wort (founded in 1848) and the Luxemburger Volk (founded in 1903); the "Volksverein"; and the group of Catholic Deputies. Paradoxically, the strong personality of the Deputy Émile Prüm (1857-1922) can explain the Catholics' lateness. After entering parliament in 1892, Prüm imposed himself in a short time as the uncontested leader of political Catholicism. Through his radiant qualities, he dominated the group of Catholic Deputies from on high, a bit like Michel Welter did the socialists.

Émile Prüm represented the conservative wing of the Catholics, as well as the interests of agriculture. Prüm had hardly any interest in party structures, which could only hinder his freedom of action. However, Prüm was removed in 1913 from the political scene, for private reasons. Consultations on founding a new party did not start until he had been brushed aside. The choice of Philippe Bech (1851-1914), a Deputy for the canton of Grevenmacher, as the first president was a compromise solution between the various strands inside the party. The conservative faction won out. Most of the party's Deputies came from rural cantons. The conservative ideas of Luxembourgish Catholicism had, at this point, a long tradition behind them. However, the awakening of Luxembourgish Catholics to political life had occurred in the late 1840s, in the wake of Laurent, under the flag of liberties, both religious and political. During the events of 1848, Luxembourgish Catholics advocated, without success, for universal suffrage. In the social sphere, their ideas were similarly ahead of those of the liberals.

It was at the beginning of the 1850s that this Catholicism that was very open to new ideas, retreated in favour of a conservative ideal; in that sense it was only following the general trend towards political reactionism in neighbouring countries (Napoléon III, re-establishment of the Frankfurt Parliament). The Papacy appears to have been a major cause of this turn; after a brief opening to the modern world, the Holy See too turned away from it, in favour of a return to the past. The minister Charles-Gérard Eyschen (1800-1856) perfectly symbolised this evolution. With Leo XIII (Pope from 1878 to 1903), Rome instituted a new "aggiornamento"; the impact in Luxembourg would be great. The country was going through its Industrial Revolution, and the Church's new social doctrine (Rerum novarum, 1891) appeared to many Catholics as the most adequate solution. With the turn of the century, two tendencies appeared within Luxembourgish political Catholicism with growing clearness:


 * the old conservatives, often called agrarians, Deputies from the cantons of the centre and north who, like Émile Prüm, had only a limited interest in the social question and saw the solution in moral renewal
 * the Christian-socials, adherents of the new social doctrine which should block the path of socialism and who, like Pierre Dupong, sought a solution more in the form of social reforms (collective agreements, for example).

These two streams can evidently be found in the Party of the Right, founded in 1914; they continued to exist for many years, with transformations and adaptations, occasionally creating tensions but never threatening party unity.

One should note the fervour and promptness with which Luxembourgish Catholicism followed Rome's directives. Here, Laurent's vigorous actions in favour of ultramontanism bore fruit. This remarkable loyalty to Rome remained the Luxemburger Wort 's guiding line throughout its history.

By way of this newspaper, one can also evoke the difficult problem of relations between the clergy and politics. The Church could not disassociate itself from politics, at the risk of failing in its perceived mission. For all that, did it have to directly be involved on the political field? The response varied depending on the time. In the 19th century, when political forces were not yet really organised, the presence of a priest in the parliament could appear useful, all the more so as a large number of debates were of an ideological nature. With the appearance of political parties in the early 20th century, politics became more and more a matter for "politicians" and parliamentary debates more and more technical.

Very often, these priest-Deputies (such as Nicolas Breisdorff, Jean-Baptiste Fallize) were simultaneously editors of the Luxemburger Wort, sometimes even directors of the Imprimerie Saint-Paul (such as Jean Origer). Luxembourgish political Catholicism was profoundly marked by the Luxemburger Wort, whose veritable founder had been Laurent, the renewer of the Luxembourgish Church.

Impact of World War I
This war represents, without a doubt, the most profound break in the contemporary history of the country. The pre-1914 Luxembourg and that of post-1919 were two different countries in many ways. The crisis that shook the country to its core and almost brought about its fall, was simultaneously economic, social, political and biological, as seen in the sharp fall in the country's birth rate.

The pre-1914 political world was headed by notables, the post-1919 one by political parties. Before 1914, the left dominated the parliamentary field, and the Catholics were left in an opposition with no end in sight. After 1919, the right wing was firmly established in power for more than a half-century. Before the war, workers were absent from political debates (as they were still not able to organise themselves on the trade union level); after the war, thanks to trade unions founded in 1916, they were able to make their voice heard and, gaining a greater audience over the yearss, they could weigh more effectively on political decisions.

Unlike the Second World War, during the occupation of 1914-1918 the Germans respected the sovereignty of the Luxembourgish State, as far as possible, and did not meddle with its political structures. Regular pollitical activity could therefore continue. The liberals and socialists, united since 1908 in the Left Bloc, dominated parliamentary life. The elections of June 1914, six weeks before the invasion, had confirmed the domination of the left, backed by the votes of three constituencies with a decisive political weight: Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg-Ville and Luxembourg-Campagne.

The electoral failure of 1914 strongly affected the Catholics. They felt shut out from power, in a political system that seemed to leave them no chance. The electoral alliance of their opponents (the Left Bloc) crushed them completely in these three consituencies which, by themselves, represented a near-majority in parliament, 25 of 52 seats, thanks to a majority electoral system of two rounds by canton. The canton of Esch-sur-Alzette had 13 Deputies. At the elections of June 1914, the Left Bloc gathered up all seats of this key canton, while the Catholics were left empty-handed despite their 38% of the votes in the first round (35% for the liberals and 23% for the socialists).

The Right's bitterness can also be explained by the persistence of the census suffrage system which kept a large part of the population away from the ballot box. Before the war, the authorities had gone as far as the constitution of 1868 allowed in lowering the electoral census (10 francs), but they body of electoras still only counted 34,171 people, in a population of 265,800. By comparison: in 1892, the proportion was 13,304 to 215,670. However, the Right not only believed that it was under-represented in the Chamber but also felt that it would have a full majority in a system of universal suffrage, especially in the case of votes for women. The Catholics had not always been in favour of universal suffrage; it had no interest for the agrarians and notables such as Émile Prüm or Philippe Bech. However, the early 20th century saw the appearance of a Christian-social stream within the Catholic camp, which expressed itself through the "Volksverein" and the weekly newspaper Das Luxemburger Volk and which had high-profile representatives such as Émile Reuter or Pierre Dupong. The appearance of the Christian-social tendency on the basis of the Church's social doctrine, represented a major fact of Luxembourgish political life. It had explosive potential, but was still contained by the restrictive voting law. The liberals and social-democrats had perceived its danger and the formation of the Bloc was, in many ways, a defence reflex against the rise of political Catholicism. The alliance of the two movements had to block the right's path to power, in the first instance. Anticlericalism provided the glue that held the Bloc together; the political struggle would therefore take place on ideeological grounds, not over economic and social reforms. It seems that the liberals had managed to impose the tactical conditions of the struggle, and the Right were fuming with impatience.

Subsequenty, World War I broke out. The country's division into two camps who fought each other to the death, proved to be stronger than the awareness of the danger that the country's independence was in. There was no national union government, and no involvement of the opposition in power. The later then attempted a desperate manoeuvre, with the imprudent but efficient support of the Crown: the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies after the establishment of the clerical-supported government of Hubert Loutsch (6 November 1915). The manoeuvre almost succeeded, since the Right missed out on a majority by a hair, but even in the case of success, the situation would not have been better: whether the right or left were in power, the division would be the same, as well as the negative effects.

While Luxembourg was spared from the war operations which had so severely affected the population of Belgian Luxembourg, it was hit hard by the economic and social crisis: unemployment, unprecedented price increases for food supplies, deterioration of living conditions for workers low-level employees. The authorities, obliged by the occupiers to take actions they would prefer not to, proved themselves incapable of mastering the situation. With a feeble governing power, and a lack of solidary among the governed, the situation did not cease to get worse. And whereas the masses demanded bread, politicians engaged in the fight over schools, constitutional disputes, and anticlerical slogans.

The weariness became widespread. In August-September 1916 the workers gathered to take their fate in their own hands. Those of the mining basin were so discontent with the politicians that they formed a large neutral trade union, without links to the political parties, the "Luxemburger Berg- und Hüttenarbeiter-Verband". Overtaken by events, the socialists, obviously worried by this development, founded a second trade union in the capital, the "Metallarbeiterverband". The idea of a large neutral union, equally distant from all political parties, is undoubtedly based on an illusion, but it well illustrates the distrust of the working masses towards the political world. From 1919, these two unions merged into a new organization ("Berg- und Metall-Industriearbeiter-Verband"), linked to the socialist party. There was great disappointment among Catholic circles trying to reclaim workers from the former 'Catholic Workers' Associations,' who were sent somewhat hesitantly by the clergy in 1916 to swell the ranks of the neutral union: this led to the foundation of the LCGB in late 1920.

There are two characteristics to be pointed out here. From the outset, there was trade union pluralism, and the "long-term antagonism: clericalism-anticlericalism," which deeply marks our contemporary history, provides an explanation. This trade union pluralism became ingrained in the customs. Later 20th-century to group all workers into a single trade union association failed.

The second characteristic is that trade unionism would now weigh heavily on political life, and its influence would profoundly shape the socialist party and, to some extent, the Christian Social Party.

The population's disenchantment with political parties was to affect liberals and socialists more harshly, as the right benefited, during these difficult years, from its position as the opposition party.

The Left Bloc did not resist the tensions created by the economic and social crisis. Anticlericalism no longer sufficed to maintain the alliance of two parties one of which represented workers and the other mostly business owners. Two phenomena signposted the way leading to the break-up of the Bloc: the resignation of the Social-Democratic leader Michel Welter, Minister of Agriculture (read: of food supplies) in December 1916 after a vote of no confidence in the Chamber and the elections of Spring 1917, which were a failure of the socialist-liberal alliance.

The disintegration of the Bloc opened a new period in the contemporary history of Luxembourg. Ultimately — in the long term — it marked the end of the "classic antagonism: clericalism-anticlericalism," at least on the political level; on the ideological level, it would survive much longer. The political landscape, no longer frozen by the Bloc, regained new mobility.

The political landscape would now revolve around the three classic poles represented by the three major political families in the country: Christian social, liberal, and socialist. Except for the interlude from 1919 to 1925, where the right had an absolute majority, none of these three families could govern the country on their own. Therefore, periodic regroupings, i.e., coalitions, would be necessary. From 1926 to the present day, none of these coalitions have lasted more than 12 years (Bech government from 1926 to 1937: right and liberals).

The break-up of the Bloc was also due to a realignment of the social-democrats, which has been illuminated by Ben Fayot. While anticlericalism did not disappear — since there would always be an anticlerical current within socialism — it became of secondary importance, with the priority being the desire to transform society through economic and social reforms. The path towards a reconciliation with the Christian-social tendency of the right appeared possible; however, it could only materialize on the political front after the failure of Joseph Bech ("Muzzle Law" of 1937) and the assumption of the government leadership by Pierre Dupong, one of the founders of the Christian Social movement in Luxembourg. On the trade union level, this rapprochement had already occurred in 1934 in the wage commission ('Lohnkommission'). This evolution was inherently present in the disintegration of the Bloc in 1916-1917, but it was restrained by Bech, who represented the socially conservative trend of the right and, with the help of liberals, kept the socialists in opposition until 1937.

The Right came out of the war considerably strengthened, as shown by the absolute majority obtained in the first legislative elections under universal suffrage in October 1919: 27 seats out of a total of 48.

This electoral success can be explained by various factors. The introduction of the proportional vote by party lists, imposed during the constitutional revision of 1918-1919 by an alliance of convenience of socialists and the right, worked in favour of the parties with large popular bases. The right profited from it more than the socialists, thanks to the simultaneous introduction of the vote for women, 25 years before Belgium and France. The socialist party, true to its principles, advocated for women's suffrage, even though it knew it might backfire in the short term. Contrary to a common prejudice in public opinion, political parties do not always determine their positions solely based on electoral considerations.

The Right's clear and energetic stance during the 1918-1919 crisis certainly paid off electorally. By strongly advocating for the preservation of the dynasty, it was sure to strike a chord, even in the subconscious of rural populations. Perhaps we are facing an atavism that dates back to the Ancien Regime. In the elections of 26 October 1919, the right continued the momentum of the referendum (28 September) and benefited from the dynastic trend (a majority of 78% in favor of maintaining the dynasty).

Finally, there is the role of propaganda. There is no doubt that the clergy threw its full weight into the balance. The Luxemburger Wort, very courageous throughout the war, unleashed itself in 1918-1919. This newspaper achieved its definitive breakthrough in the context of the war. At the beginning of this century, it was more or less on par with the Luxemburger Zeitung (4,000 against 5,000), but surpassed it on the eve of the war in the climate of intensified political struggle — the prohibitions issued by Bishop Koppes against rival newspapers played a role in this.

The war also brought about a redistribution of forces on the left wing of the political landscape. The end of the Left Bloc gave the socialist party a freedom of movement which it had cruelly lacked in the face of the rising forces of the Right. During the 1920s the party, reorganised on the basis of a more strictly worker-focused programme, regained strength after the rather disappointing results of the first universal suffrage elections in October 1919 and after experiencing a new split.

At the party congress of January 1921 the left wing of the party split off to form the Communist Party. This is the only party split that, from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day, has been successful. This is because the new party was not the result of personal quarrels and internal power struggles. Its creation reflected the Russian Revolution and corresponded to the emergence of a new ideology. The new party developed very slowly, and it was only after the economic crisis and especially the Second World War that it emerged on the electoral scene. From this point on, the socialist party would have to fight on two fronts and guard against any leftward overflow.

While the disputes of the First World War were deep and enduring on the political level, the same was true on the social level. The war witnessed the first mass movements within the framework of the Luxembourgish state—numerically much larger than those of 1848. One has to go back to the Peasants' War of 1798 to find such crowds on the move.

The popular demonstration of left-wing movements against the threat of a personal regime on 2 January 1916; turbulent meetings of hungry consumers in the capital and the mining basin from 1916 to 1918; the first major strike by mine and steelworkers in May-June 1917; the republican movement of 9 January 1919; the siege of the Chamber of Deputies by angry workers on 13 August 1919; the major strike in March 1921 in the steel industry: never had the Luxembourgish people been so restless as in these difficult years. On two occasions, foreign soldiers intervened, the Germans in 1917 and the French in 1919 and 1921.

Rulers and the ruled drew lessons from this. The former would try to mitigate the impact of class struggle by envisioning bodies for consultation and conciliation (e.g., Chamber of Labor, collective contracts, National Labor Office), while the latter would learn to demonstrate and show their strength within the system, as they did during the famous "manifestation of the 40,000" on 12 January 1936. Luxembourgish trade unionism would no longer allow itself to be overwhelmed by grassroots movements.

To any reader who might think that on this page I have spoken a little too much about the forces of the right, I would point out that the rise of this right to power for long decades is the major event in our parliamentary history, and its repercussions extend to this day.

Les partis politiques luxembourgeois et le poids du passé. In: d'Letzeburger Land, 31. Jg., nº 10 (09.03.1984), p. 8.

[Digitised by the National Library of Luxembourg, https://persist.lu/ark:70795/z5n2q5/pages/8/articles/DTL157 ]