The Role of External Threat on Internal Structure: The Origins of Political Unity and Diversity in Europe.

This paper aims to bring in the international level to the study of domestic unity and diversity. More precisely, the aim is to explain the level of internal political centralization by highlighting the role external security concerns play. The paper is an extract from the author's ongoing comparative research project on West European politics during late 19th century. The paper seeks to explain how international factors influence the outcomes of political conflicts at the national level. The focus of the project is on the political divisions in Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland around the turn of the 19th century. However, the particular emphasis of this paper is on France and the Netherlands; the two cases that represent two ends of the comparison: one that started the 19th century with remarkable diversity but faced centralist pressures due to external threats; and one that started the 19th century with a fair amount of unity but came to recognize and institutionalize internal divisions in an environment characterized by international security.The main argument is that interstate rivalry that dominated European politics at the time had a direct impact on domestic politics. For countries participating in the interstate power struggle, domestic uniformity was seen as a precondition for strength. Germany, Austria and France thus needed internal political unity to project state power. Historical evidence shows that the presence of external threat intensified the quest for internal unity. In this small continent with exposed national borders, internal unity and external strength were seen to be inextricably interrelated. In addition to the constitutional configuration, pressures towards unity were reflected in public policies towards national unity. In particular, during late 19th century all three countries introduced nation-wide public education policies and conscription. Not only was this the case for France and the Austria proper, but despite its federal constitutional shell, the pressures for political centralization existed in Germany as well - best symbolized by the Kulturkampf. These countries could not afford the perceived international weakness of internal divisions and domestic plurality. In this context, in addition to the degree of constitutional centralization, the project uses the degree of public policy centralization as an indicator of the degree of political unity.For Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland on the other hand, international neutrality - recognized and guaranteed by international law and the Great Powers - brought external security. Consequently, this provided a domestic environment conducive to compromise settlements creating political diversity. In addition to the level constitutional decentralization, all three allowed the coexistence of various ideological and religious school networks. Furthermore, contrary to Austria, Germany, and France, no national conscription was introduced. As a result, the politics of the three neutral countries came to reflect a high level of diversity both in constitutional and public policy terms. As it is the case with the first three cases, historical evidence supports the argument.The historical evidence the paper builds on relies on the archival research the author has carried out in the six countries under focus. At the core lies a macro-level deductive argument applied to particular events where the analysis seeks to combine general theory with historical contingency and human agency. The comparative historical analysis used in this research allows for a combination of historical accuracy and generalizability through the method of focused comparison. In this context, the research can be seen as part of the recent (re)discovery of comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]