Empire’s Echo: How the Past Shapes Europe's National Identities Today

Lejla Cavcic | Europe and Eurasia Fellow

Image sourced from Drago Rapovac via Pexel.

In Sarajevo’s old town, an Ottoman-era Mosque shares the city’s skyline with the Austro-Hungarian Vijećnica (‘Town Hall’), fringed by socialist-modernist buildings. Likewise, in Budapest, imperial-era buildings reflect Hungary’s national identity and political identity. In Romania, the contrasting legacies of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule continue to divide regions.

The legacies of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires continue to shape national identities, political structures, and interethnic relations in modern European states. These imperial influences are manifested in today’s systems of governance in Bosnia-Herzegovina, nationalism in Hungary and institutional legacy in Romania, demonstrating that the past remains deeply entangled in the states’ present and future.

Ottoman millet system lives on in Bosnia-Herzegovina’s contemporary governance

Bosnia-Herzegovina, a former centre of the Ottoman Empire, holds the imprint of imperialism through the lasting influence of the millet system. The Ottoman system of millet, meaning “nation” or “people”, granted groups a level of self-governance. Identity was group-based, creating parallel societies within an empire. In Bosnia, this resulted in Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Catholic, Jewish, and Roma millets, and shaped the country’s contemporary political framework. The millet system’s Bosnian legacy is evident in the country’s consociational government structure under the Dayton Peace Agreement, which divides power among the three constituent peoples: Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.

Today, the country is governed by an equally and ethnically divided tripartite presidency, mirroring the millet system. Accordingly, political representation and participation are based on ethnicity rather than Bosnian national identity. Today, the Muslim millet is Bosniak, the Orthodox Christian is Serb, and the Catholic is Croatian. Political deadlock remains a common occurrence, which some pinpoint attributes to continual success of ethno-nationalist parties. However, the millet legacy demonstrates that reform in in Bosnia-Herzegovina is stymied not by a 30-year-old peace agreement, but rather the persisting imperial framework for managing diversity.

The structure present in Bosnia today not only entrenches division but sets a precedent for others in the broader region: governance by ethnic identity, not equal, national identity. This limits the country’s ability to reform, hinders its possibility for EU integration, and reinforces the idea that post-imperial pluralism exists through division.

Budapest: imperial memory and post Trianon nationalism

Similarly, Budapest, once the heart of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, remains steeped in imperial memory. The collapse of the Empire and the Treaty of Trianon resulted in Hungary losing more than two-thirds of its territory and a third of its population.

Today, Hungary’s national narrative draws upon this past. The current Orbán government has been actively accused of ‘rewriting history’ and ‘engaging in historical revisionism’ in strategically invoking historical trauma surrounding the Treaty of Trianon to frame Hungary as a besieged yet proud nation. Consequently, Orbán successfully fuels nationalist policies – particularly the notion of Greater Hungary – by granting citizenship and voting rights to ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries.  The Trianon Memorial of National Unity constructed in 2020 further entrenches the imperial connection between Hungary’s past and present. Here, empire is not a relic of the past, but a living force in contemporary European politics.   

Orban’s utilisation of Hungary’s imperial losses creates tension with neighbours such as Romania and Slovakia, where large Hungarian minorities reside. Granting citizenship and voting rights to ethnic diasporic Hungarians has sparked sovereignty concerns in these countries. Moreover, Orban’s utilisation of historical maps depicting a ‘Greater Hungary’ fuels nationalist sentiments in the region, aligning with broader trends of memory-driven nationalism across Europe, and challenging the EU’s principles on minority rights and political unity. Orban’s approach exemplifies how imperial nostalgia can be weaponised to affect not only national politics, but transnational cohesion. 

Post-imperial institutional divides in Romania

Finally, Romania’s experiences under both Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule have left lasting institutional divides. The Habsburg monarchy prioritised bureaucracy, legal-rational authority, and administrative standardisation, traits that persisted in areas like Transylvania. In contrast, under the Ottoman Empire, regions such as Wallachia and Moldovia were marked by patrimonial rule, weaker bureaucratic institutions, and a reliance on personal networks.

The uneven institutional foundations in the regions previously under Ottoman and Habsburg rule continue to fragment Romania’s political landscape. In Transylvania, once under Habsburg rule, surveys show higher institutional trust, civic participation, and support for reformist politics. Contrastingly, southeastern regions shaped by Ottoman governance display persistent scepticism toward state institutions and lower levels of political participation. This enduring regional divide highlights how imperial rule continues to shape governance and political behaviour in modern Romania.

These regional disparities create challenges for the central government’s balancing of competing local interests and addressing uneven development. The divergence in government trust and civic engagement between the Habsburg and Ottoman-ruled regions complicates policymaking and stalls reform, as policies that resonate in one region may be resisted elsewhere. This leaves institutional gaps that political actors can exploit by amplifying regional grievances. Such exploitation may take the form of fuelling distrust in government or mobilising support through appeals to regional identity and nationalist agendas. Over time, this weakens the sense of national unity and undermines effective governance across the country.

Imperial legacies continue to shape the political realities of modern European states. Bosnia-Herzegovina’s ethnically divided power-sharing, rooted in Ottoman governance, Hungary’s nationalist revival and Romania’s institutional divides demonstrate how empires persist in the ways nations govern, remember and define themselves. As Europe contends with rising nationalism and democratic backsliding, reckoning with these imperial inheritances is essential for building more cohesive, inclusive societies.

Lejla Cavcic is the Europe and Eurasia Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. Lejla holds a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts from the University of Adelaide, majoring in Politics and International Relations. Her passion for Europe and Eurasia is influenced by her Bosnian heritage. She is fluent in Bosnian, having earned two Awards of Excellence in the language during her senior school years. As the Europe and Eurasia Fellow, Lejla is excited to leverage her knowledge to contribute to discussions on international affairs, human rights, and their implications for the region.