Page:Diplomacy and the War (Andrassy 1921).djvu/218

 debate. His downfall, however, did not involve necessarily a change of party in Parliament or a fall of the old party, but it only meant that the party obtained a new leader as president—a process which only added a new and evil element to the diseased condition of public life. The majority which remained unchanged displayed the same obedience, the same faith to the new leaders, and thereby lost its sting and its respect. It is a natural condition of a well functioning Parliamentary system that the leader is chosen by the confidence of the party. This, however, did not occur before Stefan Tisza. The Government was led by Szápary, Bánffy, Száll, Khuen-Héderváry, Wekerle, and only by nomination of the King. Every new crisis, every new formation of the Cabinet, meant a new humiliation and difficult situation. A politician who but yesterday was a leading general becomes a common soldier to-day in his own old troop. A politician who but yesterday was his subordinate, or who even attacked him, became a leader overnight. The supporters of the majority displayed a new enthusiasm from one day to another for a different politician, and saw in him the providential statesman. This applied as much to the Members of Parliament as to the press.

The real historic trait of Hungary is decentralization. Ever since 1867, however, everything became centralized gradually. The economic life, the administration, and the railway communication, all lead to Budapest and emanated from there. The whole of the political power rested in the hands of the Government. Party interests