Posts
Final events that led to the demise of the Caliphate Ottoman
state and the rise of the democratic Turkish state are specific to their own making,
as is the case for every fundamental change in a political system or
organization. Consequentially, the changes may be subject to different
political or legal interpretations. A brief legal assessment of the transformation
of the Turkish political foundations is presented here.
The Ottoman state was successful for about three hundred
years from its inception in the 13th century until the middle of the 16th, when
the European states were awakening from the darkness of the Middle Ages. The restrictions
of the Muslim religion introduced to the Ottoman rule upon its assumption of
Caliphate in 1542, at the time the Christian world was opening to worldly
advancements, caused Ottomans to fall behind in progress. Eventually in the
late 18th century, the Ottoman state became the “sick man of Europe”. Hence,
the Empire became the international political playing field by Russia for
territorial aspirations using the pretext of protection of Christian population
within the Ottoman Empire, or by Britain for colonial aspirations of economic gains.
As part of this power struggle between eastern and western powers, western
European powers nudged Ottomans several times during the 19th
century to modernize their state system to ward off Russian interventions.
Sultan finally agreed in 1876 to a Constitution of Parliamentary monarchy.
However, having reserved for himself the Constitutional authority to suspend
the Parliament, he did just that in a mere eleven months after he ceremonially
inaugurated it. He agreed to reconvene it only in 1908 under pressure from the
military seeking modernization.
We may thus say that the parliamentary system in the Ottoman
political life existed for all practical purposes as of 1908. However, the
Parliament’s work was interrupted with the intervening wars with Italy over
Libya in 1911 and 1912, Balkan wars over the Western Thrace in 1912 and 1913,
then WWI from 1914 to 1918, and finally forced to suspend its work in 1920
after a raid of the Parliament by the occupying WWI Allied forces. In other
words, it never had a chance to focus on anything to improve the political or
social life of the country, from dealing with the adversities of wars. Half-hearted
modernization efforts in thirty years since 1876 to keep the western powers
satisfied with their plans to ward off Russian dominance over Ottomans were too
little too late to vitalize a system glorious in its first 300 years but decayed
in the following 300 years upon assumption of Caliphate.
That Parliament’s naïve participation in WWI as a result of a ploy by Germany led the Ottoman state to a disastrous ending not only of the war but also of the state. The Ottoman Government agreed to the armistice of Mudros in 1918. A comparison of the provisions of Armistice agreements signed separately between one victorious and one vanquished power of WWI reveals an obvious bias by one power (Britain) against Ottomans. As may be seen from the comparative provisions highlighted below in yellow, there is no provision for occupation by the Allied forces in the other defeated countries Bulgaria and Austria, or there is limited occupation of only some defined territories in Germany. In contrast, there is the open-ended right to occupy any strategic point in Turkey. Likewise, there is the surrender of defined war materiel (highlighted in purple) in the armistice signed with other vanquished powers, while the agreement with Ottomans provides once again an open-ended “compliance with such orders as may be conveyed”. This arrogance typical to the British Empire sparked the long-simmering anti-autocracy and anti-occupation feeling among both the Ottoman military and public (Like the ominous Peace Treaty signed with defeated Germany later created the Nazism and WWII).
1. Mudros armistice of 30 October 1918 provisions with
Ottomans drawn by Britain contained the following differences from
the armistice agreements signed by other states who surrendered to Allied
powers: Allies have “the
right to occupy any strategic point” (Art. 7, without providing a
definition to the term Strategic point, or who and how would determine it), a “control”
of all railways (Art. 15), may demand “compliance with such orders as may
be conveyed (by
Allied powers) for the disposal of equipment, arms, ammunition”, and transport
(Art. 20), and that the Turkish prisoners be kept “at the disposal of Allied”
powers (Art. 22).
The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of Lausanne was concluded
on 24 July 1923 (signed by the new Turkish state), four years and nine months
after the Armistice, after a three-year liberation war ending with the victory of
a country on which a Peace Treaty (of Sevres) was served, in the first place,
to erase it from the map almost in its entirety. Lausanne treaty was the only
victorious peace treaty by a vanquished nation in WWI.
2. Salonica armistice of 30 September 1918 provisions
with Bulgaria drawn by France contained the following: Bulgaria will
evacuate all Greek territory it occupied; it will continue to administer all territory in Bulgaria;
demobilize army, except a force to maintain order; deliver all arms, ammunition and horses to Allied
powers; permit
passage of Allied troops through Bulgaria.
The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of Neuilly was
signed on 27 November 1919, within two months of the Armistice.
3. Villa Giusti armistice of 3 November 1918 provisions
with Austria drawn by Italy in consultation with other allied
powers, contained the following: cessation of hostilities; demobilization
and immediate withdrawal of Austrian forces from occupied territories; Austrian forces to be “reduced to
pre-war strength”; half
of Austrian “artillery” to be “ concentrated within localities to be designated
by the Allies”; evacuation of German troops within 15 days; freedom of movement for “Allied
armies”; surrender by
Austria all subs and navy ships.
The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of St. Germain was
signed on 10 September 1919, eleven months after the Armistice.
4. Compiègne armistice of 11 November 1918 provisions
with Germany drawn by France contained the following: cessation of
hostilities; immediate German evacuation of all territories occupied;
evacuation by Germany of Rhine lands; occupation of the same territories by Allies; surrender of a detailed list of
materiel to Allies; detailed conditions on the use of communications, railways,
etc. by Germans; the upkeep of occupying Allied troops at the cost of Germany; reparations for damages and
restitution of gold and cash taken by Germany during the war; prescribed limitations on German navy.
The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of Versailles was
signed on 28 June 1919, within seven months of the Armistice.
It is also noteworthy that while the armistice with Bulgaria
and Germany were signed by the Chief Commander of Allied forces, or by France, and
the one with Austria by the Italian High Commander in consultation with other
Allies, only the armistice with Ottomans was signed by a British local
Commander without consultation with other Allies (which in fact caused protests
from France and Italy). Over-the-top British actions following the armistice based
on its vague provisions, despite the French and Italian warnings, gave way to
the Turkish independence war.
Allied forces occupied Istanbul on May 15, 1918, and started intervening in the Ottoman administration’s daily decisions, especially those regarding the Liberation movement in Anatolia under the leadership of Atatürk. They occupied the Ottoman Parliament on March 16, 1920, on the premise that it was not willing or was incapable of stopping the Liberation movement. This action conveniently gave Atatürk a legal ground to call, three days later, on March 19, a National Assembly to convene in Ankara. The communiqué he issued on that day to all the commanders, officials and the press reflects how skillfully he presented to the nation the Parliament’s suspension as the end of the Ottoman state by foreign powers, which was his ultimate goal anyway, and which also helped his efforts to arouse survival feelings among people necessary for their morale to fight: “Finally, the occupation in Istanbul today brought to an end the seven-hundred-year existence and sovereignty of the Ottoman state. It is clear the Turkish nation is called to defend its potential for civilization, its right to exist and to independence, and its future”. (The Speech, Vol. I, p. 561, THS 3rd edition 1989). The closed Parliament’s representatives who could escape Istanbul to travel to Ankara, and those expeditiously elected by local high officials around the country met in Ankara 37 days later, on April 23, 1920. The Allied forces’ action in Istanbul on March 19, 1920 gave legitimacy to the national liberation movement and became the beginning of the transition of the state from a Caliph/Sultanate autocracy to a democratic republic.
Atatürk led an exhausted nation to reorganize and fight. He carefully and patiently observed the legality of the liberation. Although the declaration announced the end of the Ottoman state, the National Assembly did not rescind the Ottoman Constitution and not replaced it immediately with another. It modified only the nature of the state simply by adopting a law on January 20, 1921, which moved the ownership of the sovereign powers of the state from the Sultan to the people and placed in the Assembly the authority to govern while maintaining the application of Sharia laws. This refrain from rushing to introduce an entirely new Constitution was predicated by prudence to maintain unity around the cause of the liberation war against Allied occupation. However, the statement “Sovereignty belongs to the people unconditionally and without any limitation” was a subtle but stern harbinger of the abolition of Sultanate system, which later were to become the indelible principle of the new Republican Constitution. The Assembly also identified itself as the “Turkish” National Assembly for the first time, on February 8, 1921; this was likewise a subtle indication of eventual abandonment of the religion-based state in favor of the nation based.
It is important to note the way the sovereignty of people is
formulated in the Constitution. It does not say “The nation is sovereign”, or “People
are sovereign”, or “People own the sovereignty”, or “Sovereignty is reserved to
the people”, or even just “Sovereignty belongs to the people”. It makes clear
that the sovereignty is not that of the state but is that of the people. It is expressed
in the most categorical term possible: without any condition, qualification, or
prerequisite, and without limits, reservations, or restrictions. The intent of
this categorical dry language, without explanatory additions, was to keep the
focus of the people and of the world on the objective of the military action
being a people’s fight for freedom, no other entity’s. Rashness to an all-out
change of the system in the middle of the liberation war would have wasted
limited resources available and would have been difficult to achieve given the
prevailing sensitive legal, military, and public circumstances. To note, the
Ottoman Constitution provided that Sultan, being the Caliph is “holy and enjoys
immunity” (Art. 5), “He reserves the right to convene, suspend, or dissolve the
parliament…” (Art.7), “… Assembly members … take an oath to obey the
Constitutional provisions, the country, and the Sultan. …” (Art. 46).
The National Assembly abolished the Sultanate on November 1,
1922. The abolishment was made effective not as of its date of adoption, nor April
23, 1920 (the date of convening the National Assembly), but retroactively as of
March 16, 1920, the date the occupation forces raided the Ottoman Parliament. The
legal effect of this retroactivity was to nullify all Ottoman governmental
decisions taken against the National Assembly, legitimacy of which were
questionable for operating without a Parliament.
On the other hand, considering the pervasive religious
sensitivity and the on-going liberation war, Atatürk did not take this opportunity to abolish
also the Caliphate; the National Assembly designated the deposed Sultan’s cousin
as Caliph on November 18, 1922, after Sultan escaped under British cover on
November 17. As strange as it may be, the nominal Caliphate continued even four
more months after the adoption of the republican regime on October 29, 1923.
However, having been divested from any state and governing authority, it was
effectively downgraded to the religious representation of the majority of the
population. It was not until March 3, 1924 that Caliphate was finally abolished.
All this cautious and gradual approach was to allow time for
laying the groundwork for the understanding and acceptance of a system of
individual freedoms by a public who lived in servitude to Sultan/Caliph for
centuries. Atatürk did
not want the National Assembly act like the revolutions the world has been
accustomed to, an overnight change with forceful edicts and disruption of
national institutions. He was conscience of the historical fact that for any social
change to be successful it had to be truly and deeply understood, accepted, and
internalized by the people. A societal novelty must be the property of the society.
He personally travelled throughout the country several times to achieve this
and to converse with public directly.
The republican regime was declared on October 29, 1923. A
new Constitution was adopted on April 20, 1924, to replace the Constitution of
1876 and the law of 1921 discussed above. The Constitution introduced, among
others, non-discrimination on grounds of religion and race, equality of people,
independence of judiciary, freedom of individuals and of the press, privacy of
communications, and Turkish as the official language. Characteristic to Atatürk’s prudent, gradual, and persuasive
approach, Laicism was instituted as late as in 1928 amendment, even four years
after the abolition of Caliphate. The Constitution was amended once again in
1934 to include voting rights for women. Many laws promulgated between 1924 and
1934, like the adoption of the Latin script, and of international standards
from calendar to measurements were for the purpose of taking the state and the
people away from the grips of the obsolete religious world to the contemporary
world. The legal transformation to conform to a modern system took about ten
years.
Whether the accomplishment of a legal framework for
modernization in a short time was matched in the following eighty-five years by
a parallel and commensurate social modernization is not within the purview of
this article. March 2020
