Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria left around a quarter of a million documents that testify to the decisions taken in his day-to-day government. Your evaluation now reveals that the emperor tended to micromanage and attached importance to bureaucracy and formalities. At the same time, however, they also reveal that his style of government was more consensus-oriented – he was more of the Merkel type than the Trump type.
Emperor Franz Joseph I ruled Austria from 1848 to 1916 – for 68 years. At the beginning of his rule he was still an absolutist and centralist ruler of the old school, but the political and social upheavals of the 19th century and increasing conflicts between different ethnic groups forced him to adapt too: From 1867, Franz Joseph I ruled over Austria as a constitutional monarch. Hungary.
Documents from the emperor’s desk
About 250,000 written notes, so-called “lectures”, which are documented in log books of the cabinet office and kept in the house, court and state archives in Vienna, testify to what the emperor’s everyday government was like at that time. These three to five-page documents were intended to aid the emperor in his decision-making and contained a brief summary of the topic or question, including a proposal for a decision by the responsible minister, written by the cabinet office. The “lectures” give an exciting insight into which decisions Franz Joseph I had to make in the course of his government and how he decided.
But for a long time this corpus of imperial “lectures” remained largely unexplored – the sheer volume of documents alone made the investigation into a mammoth task. However, the historians Jana Osterkamp from the Collegium Carolinum in Munich and Peter Becker from the University of Vienna have now set themselves this task and used a special method for this: “With the historical-statistical policy field analysis, we can evaluate the log books of the cabinet office statistically and qualitatively. In doing so, we not only consider components in terms of content, but also time components such as the processing time, ”explains Osterkamp. Now there are the first interim results.
From the individual case to the bill
A surprising finding: the Austrian emperor apparently thought little of delegating and rather displayed a style that today would be called “micro-managing”. “More than 90 percent are individual decisions, a figure that blew us away,” says Becker. The range of topics ranged from requests for a survey to a higher level via bills and ordinances to individual decisions. “The topics landed on his desk in a mixed bag,” explains the historian. “For example, a gift of 50 cruisers was followed by a railway concession. We were fascinated how little they were processed in a coherent manner. That must have been incredibly exhausting for him. “
Nevertheless, the emperor processed the decisions surprisingly quickly despite this enormous amount and breadth: “He was a highly efficient bureaucrat who left nothing behind or burned,” reports Becker. “He made 68 percent decisions within a day and he did most of the rest within a week.” Franz Joseph I apparently attached great importance to compliance with formal processes, as the analyzes showed. However, this claim, coupled with micro-management, also had a downside: The emperor often reached the limit of his resilience and sometimes lost sight of the bigger picture – including the major social changes of his time that were linked to the arrival of modernity .
More Merkel than Trump
The evaluations of the imperial “lectures” also give interesting insights into the basic attitude with which the emperor ruled. “It is fascinating, for example, that the Kaiser always shows a strong consensus orientation,” says Becker. “We were looking for a contemporary comparison and in this respect one could see him as a male counterpart to Angela Merkel, while the German Kaiser Wilhelm II reminds us of Donald Trump.” However, this pursuit of consensus was not always an advantage, like historians explain: “In times of mass politics and in the specific case of nationality conflicts, this was not an appropriate control instrument,” said Becker.
The documents also show who influenced or at least tried to influence the imperial decision-making process. Who exerted influence, and how, depended on whether he decided on his own, such as in requests for a promotion, or whether ministers were involved. Only in a few cases, such as symbol politics, did members of the upper class try to exert an informal influence through the cabinet office.
Source: Austrian Science Fund FWF; Professional article: The emperor and his chancellery. Reflections on the ruling system of the Habsburg Monarchy, in: Political and cultural historical considerations, Hermagoras