Tweet
STRANGERS IN THEIR OWN LAND
by Dogu Ergil
Today's Zaman
July 11 2012
Turkey
We Turks are pretty sure that the Ottoman system was close to being
perfect because it was just. That is why a rejectionist or, better,
revisionist, historiography has appeared over the last few decades
that has downplayed the republican history and exalted the Ottoman.
Both histories are ideological fabrications to serve the purposes of
two different power groups to legitimize their rule.
Republican history was the making of the bureaucracy that wanted to
put a general amnesia into effect to cover the trauma of losing an
empire as well as to build state machinery that would carve a nation
to its liking out of the heterogeneous population of the empire lost.
The ruling bureaucratic elite wanted no competitors to share its
power and privileges and shaped a state structure that kept all
competitors out.
Those who were left out criticized most of the qualities of
the republican regime, with the exception of its nationalism and
authoritarianism, but addressed its secularist stance. They began to
develop their own understanding of statecraft and historiography. The
incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP) is both the product
and follower of this line.
In revisionist historiography, the Ottoman state was not an empire
for the simple fact that empires conquer and dominate peoples. Their
policies are imperialistic. The new political power holders are
upwardly mobile conservative parochial social cohorts. While they
exalt the Ottoman system they deny its imperial character. They call
the Ottoman state, "the Grand State" (Devlet-i Ali).
Their ideological preference of the Ottoman state over the republican
leads them to mistaken inferences. The first of their mistakes is that
the Ottoman Empire fell apart because of the concerted efforts of its
subjugated peoples and Western imperialists. However, its economy was
incapable of keeping up a colossal political structure. The empire
collapsed largely because of economic entropy. Secondly, the central
authority never allowed subjugated nations to govern their affairs
except for intra-communal relations. A sort of commonwealth system
was never allowed to develop into a "United Ottoman Nations." Thirdly,
Ottoman justice, which is so often praised, was based on a hierarchical
relationship between the Muslims and the rest. As long as the Muslims
were the "dominant nation" (millet-i hakime) and the rest accepted this
reality, they were allowed to govern their intra-communal affairs. It
was not an equal system. When the hierarchy that worked to the benefit
of the ruling Muslims was challenged, bloody reprisals took place
that ended in civil strife, deportation or elimination of peoples
that had lived together for centuries.
What replaced the quality of being Muslim was being Turkish in the
republican era. Justice was not defined as the way minorities were
treated (as equals) but in the way they accepted and adapted to the
reality that they were unequal to the Muslims or the Turks.
The biggest reason why these facts are not commonly known is the
"national education" and the laws that make it virtually impossible
to discuss these issues. That is why hate rhetoric uttered even by top
government officials, labelling Armenians and Greeks as traitors, Kurds
as terrorists and subversives and Alevis as heretics, act with impunity
and set the tone of ongoing discrimination against the minorities.
Alevis are not granted their basic rights that boil down to three
demands: 1 - Acknowledgement of their cemevis as places of worship; 2 -
exemption of their children from Sunni religious education in secondary
education; 3 - either abolition of the Religious Affairs Directorate,
which is a Sunni institution, or inclusion of the representatives of
all religions and sects into this institution.
The usurpation of property, especially of Christian citizens in
Turkey, has been a part of a shady past but still persists. The Supreme
Court of Appeals of Turkey, namely the Yargitay, is on record calling
non-Muslim citizens of Turkey "resident a liens" in the 1970s while
endorsing the official confiscation of their property.
If you believe that this is all in the unsavoury past, you are wrong.
The fields (276 acres) owned by the Mor (Saint) Gabriel Monastery
of the Aramean Christians near Mardin, which date back to the first
centuries of Christendom (before the advent of the Turks and the
creation of the Ottoman state) is under the attack from the local
villagers.
The local court has examined the evidence and ruled that the property
belongs to the monastery, which has presented its title deed,
receipts of tax payments, etc. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals
has overturned the local court's judgment and decided in favour of
the local claimants. However, in the meantime all the supporting
evidence presented by the legal representative of the monastery has
disappeared from the court's files.
Can we claim to be a just nation if we treat our minorities who
have placed the responsibility of protecting their lives, rights
and freedoms on us, the Muslim Turkish majority? Can we be the right
model for the post-revolutionary societies in the Middle East seeking
a democratic future where the rule of law will shape their political
systems?
by Dogu Ergil
Today's Zaman
July 11 2012
Turkey
We Turks are pretty sure that the Ottoman system was close to being
perfect because it was just. That is why a rejectionist or, better,
revisionist, historiography has appeared over the last few decades
that has downplayed the republican history and exalted the Ottoman.
Both histories are ideological fabrications to serve the purposes of
two different power groups to legitimize their rule.
Republican history was the making of the bureaucracy that wanted to
put a general amnesia into effect to cover the trauma of losing an
empire as well as to build state machinery that would carve a nation
to its liking out of the heterogeneous population of the empire lost.
The ruling bureaucratic elite wanted no competitors to share its
power and privileges and shaped a state structure that kept all
competitors out.
Those who were left out criticized most of the qualities of
the republican regime, with the exception of its nationalism and
authoritarianism, but addressed its secularist stance. They began to
develop their own understanding of statecraft and historiography. The
incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP) is both the product
and follower of this line.
In revisionist historiography, the Ottoman state was not an empire
for the simple fact that empires conquer and dominate peoples. Their
policies are imperialistic. The new political power holders are
upwardly mobile conservative parochial social cohorts. While they
exalt the Ottoman system they deny its imperial character. They call
the Ottoman state, "the Grand State" (Devlet-i Ali).
Their ideological preference of the Ottoman state over the republican
leads them to mistaken inferences. The first of their mistakes is that
the Ottoman Empire fell apart because of the concerted efforts of its
subjugated peoples and Western imperialists. However, its economy was
incapable of keeping up a colossal political structure. The empire
collapsed largely because of economic entropy. Secondly, the central
authority never allowed subjugated nations to govern their affairs
except for intra-communal relations. A sort of commonwealth system
was never allowed to develop into a "United Ottoman Nations." Thirdly,
Ottoman justice, which is so often praised, was based on a hierarchical
relationship between the Muslims and the rest. As long as the Muslims
were the "dominant nation" (millet-i hakime) and the rest accepted this
reality, they were allowed to govern their intra-communal affairs. It
was not an equal system. When the hierarchy that worked to the benefit
of the ruling Muslims was challenged, bloody reprisals took place
that ended in civil strife, deportation or elimination of peoples
that had lived together for centuries.
What replaced the quality of being Muslim was being Turkish in the
republican era. Justice was not defined as the way minorities were
treated (as equals) but in the way they accepted and adapted to the
reality that they were unequal to the Muslims or the Turks.
The biggest reason why these facts are not commonly known is the
"national education" and the laws that make it virtually impossible
to discuss these issues. That is why hate rhetoric uttered even by top
government officials, labelling Armenians and Greeks as traitors, Kurds
as terrorists and subversives and Alevis as heretics, act with impunity
and set the tone of ongoing discrimination against the minorities.
Alevis are not granted their basic rights that boil down to three
demands: 1 - Acknowledgement of their cemevis as places of worship; 2 -
exemption of their children from Sunni religious education in secondary
education; 3 - either abolition of the Religious Affairs Directorate,
which is a Sunni institution, or inclusion of the representatives of
all religions and sects into this institution.
The usurpation of property, especially of Christian citizens in
Turkey, has been a part of a shady past but still persists. The Supreme
Court of Appeals of Turkey, namely the Yargitay, is on record calling
non-Muslim citizens of Turkey "resident a liens" in the 1970s while
endorsing the official confiscation of their property.
If you believe that this is all in the unsavoury past, you are wrong.
The fields (276 acres) owned by the Mor (Saint) Gabriel Monastery
of the Aramean Christians near Mardin, which date back to the first
centuries of Christendom (before the advent of the Turks and the
creation of the Ottoman state) is under the attack from the local
villagers.
The local court has examined the evidence and ruled that the property
belongs to the monastery, which has presented its title deed,
receipts of tax payments, etc. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals
has overturned the local court's judgment and decided in favour of
the local claimants. However, in the meantime all the supporting
evidence presented by the legal representative of the monastery has
disappeared from the court's files.
Can we claim to be a just nation if we treat our minorities who
have placed the responsibility of protecting their lives, rights
and freedoms on us, the Muslim Turkish majority? Can we be the right
model for the post-revolutionary societies in the Middle East seeking
a democratic future where the rule of law will shape their political
systems?