Young Ottomans

The period Naim focuses on in this book was one of transition
from empire to nation. It was marked by a struggle between the
men of the old order and a new generation, described as the ‘Young
Turks’, men who were determined to drag the Ottoman empire into
the twentieth century. The politics of these years are extremely
complex and the sources difficult to use and analyze. Perhaps that
is the reason why most historians have tended to stay away from
the Young Turk decade. There is next to nothing in English on the
subject and very little in Turkish. The only recent book that comes
to mind is Ahmet Turan Alkon, Ikinci Mesrutiyet Devrinde Ordu ye
Siyaset (‘Army and Politics during the Second Constitutional Period’)
published in Ankara in 1992. Though a competent study, it lacks
the analytical complexity of Naim’s work. Naim in his study
examines the politics of the constitutional era in detail and shows
that the army officers who were members of various Young Turk
parties were not simply led by the civilian politicians. They maintained their independence of thought and action at all times and often determined the outcome of events.

Along with the reforms of the Tanzimat, in order stop the decline of the Empire, Ottoman statesmen of the time developed new form of national identity (namely Ottomanism) that would include the Christian elements of the Imperial population. For the Muslims, who until that time had been the dominant element within the empire, this was seen as profoundly negative and many began to feel that their tradition position was under threat. However, blame for this lamentable situation lay in the eyes of many Muslims not with the Sultan but with the high level bureaucrats. The result of this discontent was the formation of the “Young Ottoman” movement from amongst the Ottoman Muslim population.
In traditional historiography, the Young Ottomans have either been regarded as the beginning of the revolutionary movement in Turkey or the Islamist movement.  It is this point that these views that this thesis will attempt to question. The basic premise of this work is that conservative which is a modern political ideology within the Ottoman context has its origins in the works of Ziya Pasha who was a member of the Young Ottoman movement.

THIS book first appeared in 1962. It was the product of a suspicion
that the story of the nineteenth-century reform movement in Turkey, which one could retrieve in the work of Turkish historians of the 1950s provided us only with the thinnest surface of the process of change undergone by the Ottoman Empire. I suspected that the discourse of those historians deliberately blotted out items in the process of change which did not accord with the official Republican storyline. A more generous supposition was that the distortion had not been deliberate but
could have em.erged as a result of the self-censorship, which, until recently, was an adjunct of the patriotic code of honor of Turkish republican intellectuals.

Title: The British Approach Towards the Young Turkish Revolution of 1908.

The Ottoman Empire suffered from the nationalist movements that prevailed throughout the 19th century. During this period, the Ottoman minorities became an instrument for the imperialist powers to interfere with the Ottoman internal problems. This was, according to the Young Turks, a threat for the lasting of the Empire and the only way preventing her, was to introduce a constitutional government, embracing all the Ottoman subjects. In achieving a constitutional government, they were relying on Britain and France. Although, they did not receive the firm support of the British Consul Heathcote in Monastir, the insurrection for a constitution began on 3rd July 1908, and Meşrutiyet was declared on 23/24th July. As expected, the reaction was positive in Europe, and particularly the King of England, Edward VII, personally send a greeting letter to Abdulhamid II. Although Britain officially welcomed the new regime, they were vigilant. Because, if the constitutional government would success here, Egypt and the Muslim subjects of India could also demand a constitution, which will embarrass Britain. But as to Grey, despite this fact, if there is a hope for this country, the Ottoman Empire should be supported in her new regime.

As time went on, there occurred a deep disappointment in Britain, since the Young Turks did not give up their secret activities and ruled behind the parliament. For the Englishmen, the constitutional government existed in name, but the practice was a martial law. Equality of the Ottoman subjects were frequently mentioned, but always violated during the daily life. “Turkification” policy of the Young Turks had brought the European Turkey near the point of bursting into flame. And even the close relations to Freemasonry and the Jews were criticized. The leaders of the new regime were accused for, failing in following the main principles of constitutional government, and failing in showing the required merits for more general approval in England. As a result, these British approaches towards the Young Turks, and since the hope of support of the Young Turks were not fulfilled by Britain, especially in foreign policy, inevitably pushed them to the side of Germany.

The book is composed of the presentations in the symposium held on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the death of Sultan Abdulhamid II, in Istanbul. Other papers in the book are focused on the topics of Politics, Economy, Foreign Policy, Culture, and Educaton of the time.
The basic emphasis of my presentation is to capture the major conjunctural developments before the Great War. Although Sultan Hamid was not at the center of the internal politics (when he was only a crown prince), the de-thronement and murder of Sultan Abdulaziz and the mental sickness of his brother Sultan Murad changed all imperial and internal plans in a couple of months.
The presentation examine both internal and external intrigues and power relationship in a comparative approach. In this respect, the economic, fiscal, military, administrative, educational and political measures of Sultan Hamid were evaluated under the light of the contemporary documents.
Since most of the publications cannot be considered to be impartial, I would have liked to be objective to reflect the major developments of the time.
Most of the publications, unfortunately, are either pro or harshly against Abdulhamid II. The presentation should be considered to be a pioneer as an objective approach after 100 years of his death.

Sultan Abdülaziz’in döneminin en göze çarpan özelliklerinden birisi özel basının ortaya çıkmış ve yayılmış olmasıdır. 1860’dan itibaren açılmaya başlanan özel gazeteler ve dergiler, İstanbul’da büyük ölçekte kamu oyu oluşturmuş, siyasi sistemi ve geleceğini tartışmaktadırlar. 1867 Âlî Kanunnamesi ve 1873 gazeteci sürgünleriyle muhalif basının kamu oyu üzerindeki etkisi dindirilmeye çalışıldıysa da, bu, yine muhalif devlet adamlarının da korumasından ötürü, tam anlamıyla başarılamamıştır. Batıda kamu oyu tartışmalarının önemli ismi Jürgen Habermas, modern anlamda kamu oyunun ortaya çıkmasının ve halk kitlelerince siyasi tartışmaların gazetelerde ve halka açık yerlerde yapılmasının sonucu olarak, bu tartışmaları ve halkın konuşma özgürlüğünü garanti altına alacak yeni modern kanuni düzenlemelerin getirilmesini ve nihai olarak da, halkın ortak kararının alınacağı ve sesinin duyulacağı parlamentonun açılmasını göstermektedir. Sultan Abdülaziz zamanındaki gelişmeler bu teoriye büyük uyum göstermektedir. Ben, sunumumda 1877-78 parlamentosunda konuşulacak konuların bir provası olarak 1870’ler basınında tartışılan konulardan bahsetmek istiyorum. Tüm gazetelere yayıldığında büyük bir proje olarak bu tartışmayı, bu makale için önde gelen mizah dergilerine hasredeceğim. Tirajı yüksek olan Kahkaha, Çıngıraklı Tatar, Diyojen, Medeniyet, Hayal gibi mizah dergilerinin yazarları, gazetelerde yazan fikir adamlarıyla büyük ölçüde aynı olduklarından kamu oyunu etkilemekte olduklarını, ve de parlamentonun açılmasında ve işlemesinde payları  olduğunu, bu haliyle de basın ve kamu oyu açısından Sultan Abdülaziz döneminin Sultan Abdülmecid ve Sultan Abdülhamid dönemlerine kıyasla bir özgüllüğü olduğunu  savunuyorum.

ÖZ Halk kavramının kullanımı hem XIX. yüzyıl Avrupa'sında hem de Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda çeşitli aşamalardan geçmiştir. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda kavramın içerik ve kullanımı Tanzimat Fermanı'nı takip eden dönemlerde önemli bir biçimde farklılaşmıştır. Osmanlı Klasik düzeninin kav-ramı olarak reaya yerini halk kavramına bırakmaya başlamıştır. Bu süreç özellikle dönemin muhalif aydın, bürokrat kesimlerinin halk kavramı üzerine düşünmesine de neden olmuştur. Böylece ilkin Tanzimat bürokrasisine karşı mücadele eden Yeni Osmanlılarda ardından da II. Abdülhamid'in yöne-timine muhalefet eden İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti'ne mensup kişilerin yazdıklarında halk en önemli konulardan biri haline gelmiştir. Ancak birbirini takip eden bu iki muhalefet hareketinde halkı al-gılama, tanımlama, ona yakıştırılan içerik, onunla kurulacak ilişkinin niteliği gibi konularda çeşitli farklılıklar mevcuttur. Halk, Yeni Osmanlılar için siyasi, kültürel ve edebî bir zemin ve kaynakken; İttihatçılar için daha çok kendi mücadelelerinde doğrudan dayanılacak bir zemindir. Başka bir deyişle halk kavramı siyasi içeriğinin yanında folklorik bir içerik ve değer olma halinden neredeyse sadece siyasi bir içerik ve değere doğru evrilmiştir. Bu dönüşüm beraberinde halk kavramının tanımlanması, anlaşılması ve ardından da adlandırılmasını gündeme getirmiştir. İttihatçılar Osmanlı toplumunun çeşitli tezahürlere sahip bir toplum olduğunu düşünmüştür, bundan dolayı toplumu halk, millet, avam, ahali gibi kavramlarla tanımlamışlardır. Bu tanımları çoğu zaman bilinçli bir şekilde hiyerarşik ve nüanslı kullanmaları ise yukarıda anlatılan dönüşümün bir sonucu gibi durmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler Yeni Osmanlılar, İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti, Halk, Millet, Avam ABSTRACT The uses of the concept of the public were passed through various stages, not only in Europe but also in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Inparticular, the content and use of the public differed significantly in the periods following Tanzimat Edict. The concept of reaya in the Ottoman Classical Period started to leave the notion of the public and this process gave rise to antagonist intellectuals and bureaucrats of the period to considering the concept of the public. Thus, Ottoman Public became the most important issues in the writings of the Young Ottomans, who fought against the bureaucracy of the Tanzimat and then the members of the Committee of Union and Progress, which opposed to the rule of Abdülhamid II. However, in these two successive opposition movements, there were differences in the perception and the definition of the public, the content approached to it, and also the nature of the relationship with it. The Public was of a political, cultural and literary source for the Young Ottomans; For the Unionists, it was a pillar to bear directly in their own struggle. In otherwords, the concept of public was evolve from a folkloric content and value to a political content and value. Along with this transformation, the notion of the public was come to be defined, understood and then named. The Unionists thought that the Ottoman society was a society with various manifestations; therefore, the definition of society with the concept such as public, nation, vulgar, community and the use of these definitions in a hierarchical and nuanced manner in a conscious way is a result of the transformation described above.

The paper briefly analyzes the main aspects of the interest in Ottoman agenda in the Russian intellectual environment during the 19–20th centuries. It pays attention to the Orientalist nature
of this interest and its interrelation to the application of Orientalist models of description to the Russian agenda when an “internal observer” identified her/himself with “the West” (whereby, when external point of view was faced, a conflict arose as a reaction to objectifying and homogenizing description which emerged where the “internal observer” has accomplished differentiation).
The comparison of the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire in Russia rarely went beyond oppositions, whereas describing the Ottoman Empire Russian observers allowed convergences and analogies built, however, on the essential mal-synchronization: the position of the observer in this case appealed to Russia’s past (which was at least typologically correlated with the Ottoman Empire), whereas in the present Empires were treated as incommensurable. Turning to the history of “Young Ottomans” we are able to emphasize the closeness of issues related to the formation and status of “imperial nation”. The paper mainly focuses on the development of the conceptual apparatus (“motherland”, “nation”, “freedom”, etc.). The transit of concepts in the Ottoman Empire during 1850-1870’s is characterized by the simultaneous presence of a wide range of alternative options to form a new political unity, which in the case of Western European social thought evolved over a considerable period of time and were consistent. In the Turkish thought these conceptions were present not only almost concurrently, but often in the works of the same author.

Contrary to the general tendency in intellectual history, where a past intellectual is usually portrayed as having a coherent thought system with minor deviations, there are various and even contradictory depictions of Ali Suavi. He was a Turkist intellectual and revolutionary, sacrificing himself to stop Abdulhamid II before the latter turned into a ‘despot’, but also an Islamist with political views akin to those of the Muslim modernists, responsible for the later regional instability in the Middle East. This article argues that, instead of a selective reading of his work to fit into one of these portrayals, a better understanding of Ali Suavi’s thought should benefit from intellectual context. It aims at reading his history of the ‘Turks’ intellectual work’ and discussion of sovereignty and ideal government as part of an ongoing conversation with the European intellectual context. This way, his praising of Turkish history and language does not merely point out a nascent Turkism, nor does his utilization of Islamic terminology and history in his formulation of ideal government only signal his Islamism, but rather they prove his conscious engagement with the European intellectual context and attempt at appropriating and translating European ideas for the late Ottoman context.

The nineteenth-century Ottoman state occupies an ambiguous place in modern world history as both an imperial power and an object of European imperial designs, fueling a corresponding ambivalence toward Ottoman authors in the history of political thought. Were they for empire or against it? The state's admission to the Concert of Europe in 1856 coincided with a growing hostility toward the notion of Islamic rule over Christian populations and toward the legitimacy of Islamic governance in general. To address these concerns and persuade fellow diplomats of their legitimacy, Ottoman state ministers sought to replace the stereotype of a despotic state governed by sultanic prerogative with the model of a liberal empire, dignified in its command of complex modern bureaucracy and firmly in control of its vast and heterogeneous territories. Against this model, the Young Ottoman movement that arose in the 1860s sought to refashion Ottoman politics in a more populist vein, locating the true source of political authority not in the sultan or his ministers but in the Ottoman people. Much of the scholarship on Ottomanist political thought has tended to minimize the ideological divisions between the state ministers and their Young Ottoman rivals, emphasizing their shared preoccupation with " reform " at the expense of their fundamental disagreement over the role of the governed in justifying and perpetuating the Ottoman political enterprise. This paper aims to excavate the crux of this disagreement by focusing on the populist strain of Ottomanist thought as exemplified by two leading figures in the Young Ottoman movement, the Islamic cleric Ali Suavi (1839-1878) and the Greek Orthodox journalist Teodor Kasap (1835-1897). The juxtaposition of these two figures is rare, given their obvious differences, and yet their writings bear traces of a populist strain of thought that was in fact widely resonant in late nineteenth-century Ottoman public life, as evidenced by the popularity of both figures. And while the Young Ottoman movement aligned itself publicly with European movements for democratic reform throughout Europe, both figures harbored reservations about the institutions and ideals of liberal democracy, particularly as embodied by Britain and France.

This article examines the interests of the Ottoman Turks in the Central Asian region in the geopolitical system of the XIX century, in particular, trade, economic and diplomatic relations with the Bukhara emirate, Khiva and the Kokand khanates, the exchange of ambassadors.

The Young Ottomans were a secret community (est. 1865) that consisted of men of literature, journalists and activists, and aimed at transforming the Ottoman Empire into a liberal constitutional monarchy by establishing a parliament. They struggled for the creation of public space through publishing newspapers and literary works, since they saw the public space as the basis of a democratic society. Although they were united in their demand for a parliament, they differed to a great extent in their approach to how to realise it, because they had different social backgrounds and political opinions. Thanks to the great amount of works they produced, such as letters, articles, memoirs, political poems, theatre plays, we are now able to discern their individualities and the differences in how they conceptualized their community and Ottoman society.

Namık Kemal had the most consistent and developed ideology among the Young Ottomans, thus his ideas were the most influential ones during and after his time. He chose newspapers as the primary arena to influence, change, create or reaffirm certain social values, varying from political to personal, such as Ottomanism and citizenship to parenthood and family values. In my paper, I will analyse Namık Kemal's newspaper articles in order to show how he was able to put forward his individuality in a political community. I will also compare his personal letters and his son's memoir with his artistic production in order to distinguish between his personality and his intellectual identity. This way, I hope to exemplify the personal motivations behind the actions of an author in a politically active group.