Conclusions

Between 1912 (the year of the Albanian independence) and 1918 the Albanians struggled to crystallize their country’s frontiers, to establish an independent country, to form a national government and to build a national identity. The main obstacle to this effort was the fact that the Great powers (Britain, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, Serbia) played with Albania as they pleased with the intention to satisfy their expansionist appetites. The fact that they masterfully limited the country’s sovereignty⁵³ immediately after its recognition as an independent state, was a clear message to the Albanians that they would not be left alone.

The matter provoked ideological divisions and political juxtapositions over the matter of national independence: with or without protection and from whom. These divisions created an environment appropriate for the rise of a “new” cleavage: the ideological cleavage, which formed its basis on differences over the matter of national independence.

Two main currents of opinion were formed. On the one hand, there was the new generation of Albanian nationalists, which was struggling for an Albania that would govern itself, quite independent from foreign powers. On the other, there were other groups which advocated the old kind of nationalism; politicians and official diplomats who considered the “help” and “protection” of some foreign power as a vital condition for any viable Albanian state. But these groups were divided as regards the choice of a

“benevolent” power; some preferred Italy, others the United States.

53 They did not recognize the Albanian national government (Qemal’s government 1913), they decided who should be the Albanian prince (the German Prince William of Wied), they divided the country into zones of influence (in the end of 1916 Albania was divided into three zones: the Austro-Hungarian, the French and the Italian) etc.

Emergence of a Quasi-Independent State 1912-1918 44

The outcome of the Paris Conference discredited the pro-Italian groups totally, and produced a wave of indignation in public opinion, leading to the denouncement of the Italian policy by the clubs and associations throughout the country, as the main source of danger threatening Albania’s future. Even the delegation in Paris split into two factions, one of which openly adopted an anti-Italian stance.

During the same period, apart from the newborn ideological cleavage, the continuity of older cleavages (feudal/anti-feudal, religious), whose roots are to be found in the Ottoman Empire, may also be registered.

In 1912 (the year of Albanian independence, which was followed by the formation of a provisional government) almost half the arable land belonged to the tchifliks (latifundia) of the feudal families, e.g. the Vrionis, Toptanis, Verlacis and Vloras, who owned more than ten thousand hectares each (Frasheri, 1964, p.180). So, when the government began to outline its programme in the second half of 1913, it knew that in order to model the Albanian society on the Western European countries, it had to destroy the landownership system. A number of lands that had been usurped by feudal lords were to come in the hands of the state. The perspective of an agrarian reform immediately provoked discontent on the side of the feudal princes and strengthened the wish of the landless peasants to go against the feudal system.

The divergence over the agrarian reform had political consequences. The process of consolidating a single national government was held up. The feudal/anti-feudal conflict, or to be more specific the fears of the feudal families for their future and status in case of an agrarian reform, was a fertile ground for the formation of a separatist movement and a separatist government which intended to replace the Vlore administration.

The cleavage became even deeper during the Wied regime. The over representation of the great landowners (Schmidt-Neke, 1987, p.36) in the Wied administration, the promises

Emergence of a Quasi-Independent State 1912-1918 45

given by the Valona government that the foreign capital (“Wiener Bankverein” and the

“Banca Commerciale d’Italia.”) would have the right to operate using the agrarian real estate (which raised fears regarding “loss” of land bought by the foreigners) (Kaleshi, 1976, p.131) and the cruel exploitation of the peasant masses by the great landowners were the main causes that the cleavage resulted in a conflict more than once between 1914-1918 (we refer to the revolt against the Wied regime⁵⁴ and especially against Esad Pasha -May 1914-, the violent eruption in June-July 1914 and the rebellion of October 1914 under the leadership of Haxhi Qamili).

But even though feudalism had been called into question between 1912-1918, it still maintained its power. The great landowners managed to keep their land and privileges, while the peasant masses and the landless people of the rural areas, deprived of collective identity, expressed their dissatisfaction through revolts that did not result in a change. The rebellions and violent eruptions were a lost opportunity when seen from the point of view of the establishment of a national and social Albanian state.

The religious cleavage is also one of the “old” cleavages registered in the years 1912-1918. Its roots also go back to the Ottoman Empire, when the Ottomans had achieved a

“peaceful” appearance in the Albanian territory through the exchange of islamization for privileges. That caused the creation of a net of social consequences of the religious preference, which also formed the strong social basis of the religious cleavage in Albania.

54 Among the causes of the revolt are also: a) the dissatisfaction with the “non-national”

regime and the need to maintain their national identity, b) the fact that some wished through this revolt to link the future of Albania with that of Turkey and c) the fact that for others this revolt was a strategic movement to protect Islam and get rid of the Christian Kind. (About the variety of reasons which lead to the revolt see: Frasheri, K., 1964, The History of Albania (A Brief Survey), p.192; Durham, M.E, 1920, “The Story of Essad Pasha,” p.213; P.A.A.A: (Telegramm) Nadolny –Durazzo- an A.A., 18.05.1914, Nr.22, R.4282; Kaleshi, 1976, p.131).

Emergence of a Quasi-Independent State 1912-1918 46

So when the Ottoman Empire was no more “in power” and Albania became a quasi independent state, the six Great Powers and the remainder of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey, being aware of the fact that the religious cleavage was deprived of any divisions over dogma and that it was closely connected to the scheme “social privileges and deprivation of”, realized that they had found a useful instrument in order to unite the country, each into its own influence sphere.

The social aspect of the religious geography of the country shows on the one hand Muslim landowners, who were the first to be islamized and received as a reward for their

“wise decision” numerous privileges. They enjoyed (in contrast to the remaining Christian population) financial privileges, they had the opportunity to study in the Sublime Porte and later, by having all the qualifications needed, they occupied administrative posts etc. In order to keep their privileges they would be willing to protect Islam and turn to Turkey and against the other Christians, who were seeking for a chance to change the status quo and were consequently providing the Christian Great Powers the opportunity to interfere in Albanian politics. At the same time the landless followers of Islam consisted a mass which could be mobilized in favor of one (Turkey) or the other (Great powers) depending on the effectiveness of their tactics and policy.

Restricted Independence, Authoritarian Rule and the Abortive Democratic Revolution, 1918-1924 47