At the beginning of the 1830s, the long-festering unrest erupted in the shape of a powerful political movement. The agents of bureaucratic absolutism tried to isolate Transylvania, the empire's easternmost province, from Europe, but they could not suppress the evidence that a revolutionary wave, launched at Paris in July 1830, was undermining the structure of the supposedly perpetual Holy Alliance. In France, a monarch who reigned 'by the grace of God' was deposed, and a constitutional monarchy, based on liberal principles, arose on the ruins of absolutism. The secession of Belgium from the Dutch kingdom set a precedent for the emergence of new states, but the crushing of the Polish revolt by the czar's forces served as a reminder that national independence movements faced formidable odds. With regard to the 'Eastern question,' the combination of Ottoman weakness and czarist Russia's belligerence made people doubt that the termination of the Russo–Turkish War of 1828 would bring lasting peace.
In Transylvania, unease at the threatening developments abroad was only heightened by growing evidence that the internal balance of social forces was fragile, and that the prevailing socio-political system could not accommodate necessary changes. Change, so far, had come in the form that characterizes transitional periods, that is, 'development in stagnation.' The forces of change were less visible in Transylvania than in its environment, which encompassed Hungary (although Transylvania, with all its diversity, {3-94.} archaic features, similarities, and divergences, was a factor in Hungary's development), the Habsburgs' imperial edifice, and the two Romanian principalities, which had close economic, cultural, and ethnic links with Transylvania. Geographically-isolated Transylvania was touched only indirectly by the economic dynamism propelling much of Europe into the modern age of capitalism. That process carried the threat of major economic dislocation, particularly in the industrial sector; but, for the moment, western Europe's new-found prosperity only reinforced Transylvanians' consciousness of their backwardness and their desire to share in the historic transformation.
Individuals, and the society as a whole, found answers in the modern ideology of nationalism, which galvanized the burgeoning national movements. The champions of change would assert that people awoke, like Sleeping Beauty, to become conscious of their public duty and political commitment. Notions of human dignity and consideration for the oppressed masses had their roots in the Enlightenment, as did, to a certain extent, the recognition that peasants were the bearers of enduring, social and cultural values. Romanticism reinforced these notions and brought the promise of personal liberation. Liberalism turned the rationality of (civil) freedom into a creed. This was the ideological context in which the reform movement that had emerged, and been rudely interrupted, in the late 1700s, acquired new life and was simultaneously transformed.
An awareness spread that the moment had come to awaken the slumbering nation, or, indeed, to form a nation. The contemporary, liberal ideal was a community of people proud of their rights and obligations, of sovereign citizens exercising collective self-determination. Nationhood became the lodestar. It signified the physical reality of people speaking the same tongue, as well as all the conscious and subconscious factors that bound people together: 'Only nationhood can forge bonds that are truly solid, and which endure {3-95.} longer than mere political alliances.'[88] A national group 'may be small in number,' and 'its circumstances may make it appear weak, but it will be made great and strong by the affirmation of nationhood.'[89] Nationhood was founded on language, 'a chemical catalyst that binds the various parts into a purposeful whole.'[90]
The ideology of nationalism led people to believe that socio-economic divisions could be overcome on the way to radical change. Thus, in east-central and southeastern Europe, nationalism — founded on common language — conjured up the possibility of a radical transformation of the political system. The 'nationality principle,' which focused on the autonomy and self-determination of national-linguistic communities, became firmly lodged in European consciousness. To be sure, it aroused both enthusiasm and hostility. People who felt oppressed looked forward to liberation, a new order, and the collapse of a 'balance of power' that was supposed to preserve the peace. On the other hand, nationalism could be exploited for reinforcing crude political hegemony, especially in regions where several national groups lived in close proximity, and for the protection of essentially conservative interests.
To be sure, the more developed bourgeois societies suffered visibly from internal stresses, and some of the contradictions inherent in the national movements of eastern Europe were becoming manifest. Yet there was no questioning the appeal of a bourgeois-liberal, constitutional system of government, one that would guarantee political and economic freedom, and bring the promise of private property even to those who had lived in feudal dependence. The unleashing of productive forces would promote economic growth and benefit all of society.
Over their long history, Transylvania's peoples had gone through many crises and spurts of development, but they now entered an era of truly historic, radical change. The strongest stimulus to change came from the rigidity and archaism of the prevailing system. The issue was not whether, viewed objectively, conditions {3-96.} in Transylvania were ripe for the shift to a liberal-bourgeois system. Rather, there was a sense that if a liberal reform movement or revolution served to end feudalism in eastern Europe, Transylvania could not afford to stand aside. The distinctive features of Transylvania's historical experience would no doubt influence the nature of bourgeois transformation. Yet the shape of the new society, the prospects of its several constituent strata, the degree of autonomy enjoyed by individuals and national groups, all this would be determined in the political and social struggle for change. In such portentous and conflictful times, 'the mission and obligation of every civilian and soldier is to participate in the struggle; and he if really does his duty, he can leave it up to fate whether the outcome is victory or defeat.'[91]