Ion Mihalache - 1919-1920

1919-1920

Mihalache became Vaida-Voevod's Minister of Agriculture on December 16, 1919, in a cabinet replacing that of General Artur Văitoianu. Despite having led a populist movement, the People's Party, Averescu continuously opposed Mihalache's push for widespread land reform.

The new minister found himself at odds with the political establishment over the issue of land redistribution: promised by Ion I. C. Brătianu's National Liberal (PNL) government during World War I, and partly carried out in December 1918, the move viewed as incomplete - expropriations had not led to a redefinition of peasant property, and land had remained with provisional cooperatives instead of being allocated to members. Mihalache supported the fragmentation of all land property in a country of medium to small sized landowners. The Peasants' Party calculated leaving no landowner with more than on one square kilometre, which also included expropriating land for common pasture. At the same time, Vaida-Voevod's government created a conflict over its projects for constitutional reform, clashing with the PNL over the highly centralized government and support for the 1866 Constitution of Romania advocated by the latter. Mihalache is also known to have traveled incognito to various locations, as a means to observe first-hand abuse by government officials.

After a deadlock over these issues in Parliament, Averescu's group and the National Liberals began negotiation a new parliamentary majority; advised by Nicolae Iorga, who was president of the Chamber, Mihalache handed in his resignation (March 12, 1920), with the expectation that the land reform project was to be endorsed by parliamentary initiative. It was advanced later in the same day by the PŢ's Grigore Iunian. King Ferdinand I intervened in favor of the National Liberals, installing Averescu, who had reached an agreement with Brătianu, as Prime Minister.

A major factor in this move was pressure from the landowners to remove a threat to the system (notably, Constantin Garoflid filed a complaint with the king, while Mihalache caused scandal when he publicly assured peasants that the monarch's opposition was ultimately irrelevant. At the same time, the PŢ's politics had given way to fears that it was a Romanian equivalent of Aleksandar Stamboliyski's Agrarian Union of Bulgaria, or even a parallel to Bolshevism. To the latter accusation, Mihalache once replied indicating, as other leaders of his party had done, his belief that the peasant's needs identified with the national interest:

"Thus — after so many years of 'harmony', we arrive today as the 'agitators of social order' and clearly state:
Enough with the lie about social harmony. There is a conflict between social classes. We do not deny it, but rather bring it to light. We wish to take part in the fight in the name of an underprivileged working class, the peasantry. We wish to rally it in a class party. We shall not ask anybody for power, we shall fight to have the fair number of representatives of the peasant class in Parliament. May each class fight for this and parliament will give itself the government it sees fit.
As for "social harmony" — as this has been up to now — we demand a particular balance between producing classes and wish for the abolition of parasite classes such as that of untrained politicians.
'Bolshevism', cry the parasite politicians, accustomed to govern together with the highest power and their cries also alert the gentle folk, whose political judgment is chained in 'harmony'-related prejudice.
— 'Truth is not anarchy' — we reply."

The land reform that was ultimately carried out did however reflect the influence of some ideas supported by Mihalache, and was itself favorable to small holdings.