Selected Books
Turkey in Europe & Europe in Turkey
Turgut Özal

From Abdülhamid II to the First World War

"Evening: old age of the day."
Empedocles

In 1875 the Ottoman Empire, confronted with a serious economic crisis, found itself unable to pay its debts. At the same time, a revolt erupted in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which then spread to Bulgaria. In the state of confusion which followed, words such as `constitution' and `parliament' seemed to promise magical results.

As a result of the efforts of Mithat Pasha, the first general elections in Ottoman-and Islamic-history took place. The first Parliament met on 19 March 1877 but, less than a year later, Abdülhamid II chose to dissolve it. This also marked the end of the Young Ottomans. There was a return to the authoritarian rule of the reforming Sultans and the diplomat Pashas.

Abdülhamid has been severely criticized in Turkish history as being a despotic ruler. However, I think that it would be a mistake to underestimate his role as a reformer. Contrary to popular opinion, the westernizing reforms undertaken during his reign had a much more widespread effect than earlier changes, from which Abdülhamid had learned the necessary lessons.

The reformers of the Tanzimat, under the banner of westernization, had opened the door to foreign intervention, and this had introduced colonialism into the Empire. The economy had been neglected and industry paralyzed. The financial policy had led to bankruptcy. Virtually all Islamic Ottoman culture had been rejected by the reforming élite. In fact, the Young Ottomans were justified in wanting a return to the Islamic heritage. Unfortunately the concept of liberty that they defended could only accelerate the foundering of an empire already in a state of disintegration. That is why Abdülhamid felt it necessary to return to the autocratic system of Mahmut II, where all power was concentrated in a single hand.

It was during the reign of Abdülhamid II that the judicial, administrative, and educational reforms initiated by the Tanzimat produced their best results. Priority was given to education. Colleges that already existed, such as the Military Academy (Harbiye), the College of Political Sciences (Mülkiye), and that of Medicine (Tybbiye), evolved their permanent structure. The number of students increased spectacularly. To these great schools were added eighteen new ones, and the first Turkish university was established in Istanbul. Primary schools (Rü?tiye) were opened in every province, and secondary education of seven years duration, known as I dadi, was provided in large provincial centres. The number of Teachers' Training Colleges was increased from one to thirty-one.

Another significant advance was made in the press and publications. During the reign of Mahmud,11 books had been published annually. The figure went up to 285 under Abdülhamid. The number of printing houses increased from 54 to 99 during his reign, and the circulation of Ykdam and Sabah reached 15,000 and 12,000 respectively, quite high levels for that time. Another interesting indicator is the output of religious publications. They represented 38 per cent of all books printed during the reign of Abdülmecid, 22 per cent under Abdülaziz, but only 14 per cent under Abdülhamid.

Foremost among the judicial reforms was the reorganization of the non-religious courts which, like the commercial courts, were attached to the Ministry of Justice. However, attempts to abolish the judicial Capitulations failed in the face of foreign resistance.

Abdülhamid encouraged the development of communications. The rail network, which covered only some hundreds of kilometres when he became Sultan, had been increased to six thousand kilometres by the end of his reign. Several lines linked Istanbul with Europe in one direction, and with the Hejaz in the other, completed by Turkish engineers and workmen. The telegraph network was extended to reach the most distant corners of the Empire during his reign.

Abdülhamid also placed much importance on agriculture, and introduced mechanization in the Çukurova region.

On the whole this Sultan, who has been misjudged by history, worked hard to introduce Western technology to his empire and to reform its economy. He brought about important advances in the areas of education and law. His reforms may be compared with those of the Meiji movement which during the same period modernized and westernized Japan. The reform movement in Japan bore fruit forty years later and proved its effectiveness during the war against Russia in 1905. Development in Japan has been pursued systematically since then, culminating in what is called the `Japanese miracle' of today.

Turkey's success, in contrast, has remained relatively modest. Why this difference? I shall dwell on this question later.

Abdülhamid believed that one of the major causes of the decline was the decay of religious feelings which the majority of the Muslim population shared. Christians were righting for independence in collaboration with the Empire's enemies. The conviction was spreading that in order to restore the greatness of the Muslim world it was necessary for all Muslims to unite and to turn back to their Faith, while at the same time taking all that the West had to teach them in the way of science and technology. If Islam were ever to unite it could unite only around the person of the Caliph. The title to which his ancestors had paid so little regard suddenly became a potent weapon in his armoury. His insistence on Islam in foreign relations turned into a Pan-Islamist movement which aroused enthusiasm especially among Indian Muslims. Domestically, it reinforced solidarity with the non-Turkish Muslim populations and facilitated the transfer of Western science and technology by neutralizing the religious reaction. Given the embryonic state of Turkish nationalism, it served as a sense of identity, and like the Protestant Calvinist ethic in the West, and to some extent Shintoism in Japan, it seemed to have a potential role in the industrialization of the country.

I think that Abdülhamid's ambition was to give the Ottoman Empire, by different means, a development similar to that of Japan. He failed for reasons I shall explain later.

The Young Turks; the Union and Progress Committee

The ideal of liberty preached by the Young Ottomans under the autocratic regime of Sultan Abdülhamid survived the short parliamentary experience. The new westernized teaching establishments produced an idealistic élite which saw the granting of political liberties as the prerequisite for recovery.

The universities and major colleges were soon riddled with clandestine movements. Among these a group of five medical students, not associated with the Young Ottomans or the Pan-Islamic movements, took the name of `Young Turks', after the title of a newspaper they published in Paris. The word 'Turkism' was pronounced for the first time by the Young Ottoman, Ali Suavi, although he was devoted to the Sultan and proud of the Islamic past.

Ahmet Ryza Bey, leader of the Young Turk movement from 1889, had previously been a director of the Ministry of Education, and was much influenced by the positivist philosophy of Pierre Lafitte, pupil of Auguste Comte. This is probably why the name of the Young Turk committee at Istanbul was changed from `Ottoman Union' to `Union and Progress'.

According to Ahmet Rza, in order to save the Empire it was necessary that the Turkish element of the population should dominate government policy and reinforce central authority. He advocated a constitutional monarchy.

Prince Sabahattin, adversary and rival of Ahmet Rza, drew inspiration from a book by a French writer, Edmond Demolins, on the superiority of the Anglo-Saxons. He admired above all the theses concerning federalism, and the creation of the entrepreneur, both industrial employer and artisan. The prince saw the salvation of the Empire in economic development based on private enterprise, within a confederation of all communities, including the Christian groups. Ahmet Rza, on the other hand, held that federalism would be fatal for the Empire.

This conflict was renewed under the Republic. Generally speaking, the ideology of Ahmet Rza influenced the Republican People's Party; a liberal economy, dissociated from federalism which had lost its appeal under the Republic, was preached by the Democratic Party and its successors.

Parallel with its activities overseas, the Young Turks' Union and Progress Committee pursued its work in the Empire, actively supported by the young officers. This élite of westernized officers, which had first appeared during the reign of Selim III, eventually became part of the political scene. It played an important role in the reforms, which it has continued to do almost to the present day.

The Young Ottomans had chosen a course of organized opposition against the Sultan. The Young Turks, for their part, chose the path of revolution.

Events began in Rumelia with insurrections and strikes, which were then extended to Anatolia. In the Far East, Japan (Asiatic but endowed with a constitutional monarchy) had defeated Russia (European but ruled by an autocratic regime). At Revel, where the British and Russian monarchs met, the destiny of the `sick man' of Europe was the main point of discussion. It became evident that rapid constitutional reform was needed.

With the armies of Salonika and Monastir threatening to march on Istanbul, the Constitution was restored on 23 July 1908.

The Ottoman Empire enjoyed a period of quasi-liberty from 1908 to 1913, when the State was completely taken over by the Union and Progress Committee.

The two most important political movements of the time were Pan-Islamism and the pro-Western Ottomanism of Union and Progress. For the latter, the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina by Austria, Bulgaria's proclamation of independence, and the seizure of Crete by Greece just when the Constitution was coming into force represented something of a reverse. The hopes of the Ottomanists perished for ever in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 in which Turkey lost the Aegean Islands and all her European possessions, except part of Thrace.

Henceforth the defence of an Ottoman Empire encompassing Christian communities was no longer a valid proposition. There remained two solutions: either Pan Islamism which would reunite the Muslim territories of Africa and Asia, or a State of the Western type, deriving its national character from the Turkish majority. However, these alternatives were not clearly defined. The line separating pro-Western moderates and Islamist moderates was scarcely discernible, while Turkish nationalism was growing in strength because of external and domestic developments.

Historians have severely criticized the Union and Progress movement. It cannot be denied that to come to power the organization employed methods inspired by the tactics of the Bulgarian committees. Subsequently it had recourse to repression and terror in order to hold on to power.

Nationalist ideology accelerated the fall of the Empire. The First World War, in which the Government of Union and Progress involved itself with total disregard for internal and external realities, finished it off. But could these men have acted any differently? It is difficult to decide today. All that can be said is that they acted in response to conditions which now no longer exist.

The Union and Progress Governments proceeded with westernizing reforms, this time giving priority to municipal development. They improved living conditions in Istanbul, reorganized the police, the fire brigade, communications, and services in general. The gendarmerie, which had been established in Macedonia by Abdülhamid, spread into all areas.

Before Union and Progress came to power, the economy and trade had been almost entirely in the hands of Christians. The Union and Progress governments undertook the creation of a Turkish bourgeoisie by providing it with State support. By entering the First World War they intended, among other things, to obtain the cancellation of the Capitulations. It is interesting to note that their allies, the Germans, later joined their enemies to defend the continuation of the Capitulations.

However, the greatest reform was achieved in education. It is to the Young Turks that we owe the secularization of primary and secondary education. They reorganized the University of Istanbul and founded institutes and teacher training colleges. Schools for girls were opened, albeit in small numbers, after the `Reorganization'. The Young Turks gave young women access to university studies. They extended the rights of women by modifications to family law. They did not, however, succeed in suppressing repudiation and polygamy.

I have indicated that the Young Turks drew inspiration from positivism, the influence of which had increased under the Republic. The ideology of the movement of Ziya Gökalp, on the other hand, derived from the sociology of Durkheim. Western philosophy and sociology were thus used as instruments of reform. Union and Progress, although showing an extreme sensitivity to the criticisms directed against the repression it exercised, had nevertheless established a general atmosphere of free discussion. Furthermore, in addition to subjects of a philosophical and sociological nature, for the first time questions of religion began to be openly discussed in public.

Above all, the work of the Young Turks made its mark by initiating the process of building the Turkish national identity. The pro-Western moderates believed that it was possible to acquire Western civilization and technology, while still retaining the Islamic component of our culture. The extremists, on the other hand, held that it was necessary to push westernization to its ultimate end, not to limit it, and they did not spare their criticism of previous reforms. Westernization appeared to them to be not just an option but a fundamental necessity for survival.

PREVIOUS PAGE                                                                                  NEXT PAGE