Propuneri de descentralizare în favoarea Moldovei după unirea cu Valahia. Memoriul generalului Teodor Balș (1867)
Moldavian Proposals for De-Centralization after the Union with Wallachia. The Memorandum of General Teodor Balș (1867)

Summary/Abstract: The issue of the structure and architecture of the newly established common state following the union of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859/1862 gave birth to a series of internal debates between the supporters of the French, Jacobin-inspired, centralist model and the advocates of an alternative vision, focusing on the preservation of certain forms of local and regional self-government. Moldavia, in particular, featured numerous supporters of de-centralization. Starting from 1866, this group adopted the political strategy of a tactical retreat. The struggle for the protection of Moldavia’s rights, for the fulfillment and application of the initial agreements reached between the Moldavians and the Wallachians, was waged both within the Parliament in Bucharest and through the emergence of a vigorous petitionary movement. Among the many documents falling under the latter category, one could also include a Mémoire sur lʼadministration actuelle de la Moldavie, 1867, elaborated by Teodor Balș. Being a scion of one of the great Moldavian boyar families, Balș had been Great Logothete (Chancellor) and Great Hatman (Commander) of the Moldavian army during Mihail Sturdza’s reign. The memorandum, submitted to Prince Charles I during his visit to Iași, in January 1867, represents a clear argument for the de-centralization of the Romanian administration. The memorandum denounced and rejected the ultra-centralist model which had been established during the previous several years and which had placed Moldavia in a visibly disadvantageous position within the new Romanian state. The reasons invoked in favor of introducing a different, fairer and more equitable administrative regime, according to certain blueprints also present in some neighboring countries, were based on historical, geographic, economic, and financial arguments.

• Details
• Contents