Skip to main content

Erdogan Abelhamid II



The Ottoman constitution of 1876 was the first constitution of the Ottoman Empire, drafted by the Young Ottomans when Sultan Abedlahamid II acceded to the throne. However, Abdelhamid’s iron-fist rule meant that the Constitution was only in effect for two years, from 1876 to 1878 during the First Constitutional Era, and Empire’s hopes for political opening were shattered. For years, the Sultan exercised absolute power and controlled a ring of a ruling oligarchical elite. The Constitution was reinstated in 1908 following the Young Turk Revolution. The Constitution allowed for the respect of minorities and their right to be represented in regional assemblies, democratizing the Ottoman institutions and ceding representative rights to the disenfranchised. What Abdelhamid II planned to carry out with his absolute monarchy and autocratic rule by burying the Constitution was trumped by the courage, vision, and justice of the Yong Ottomans.
 
It is important to revert to this historical era of Turkey when it served as the centre of the Ottoman Empire, and underline the dichotomy between the actions taken by the young Sultan and their underlying reasons. The promulgation of a Constitution in 1876 under the Sultan’s nascent rein was hailed as an achievement and as a promise to political development and opening. Nations embedded in the Ottoman fabric of multi-confessional, multi-ethnic, and multi-continental Empire were thrilled to learn that their voice would be heard. Nonetheless, reality proved different, and nations were subject to further discrimination and control of freedoms.  
 
History seems to repeat itself. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’ ruling Justice and Development Party unveiled a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would change the political system, from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. The envisaged amendments include the abolishment of the prime minister's office and the cabinet; the appointment of the president as the head of the executive branch; and the preservation of the President’s ties with his (ruling) political party.
 
Presidential system and semi-presidential system has proven effective and democratic, taking the American and French systems as an example. However, the balance of powers and the accountability of the president and his team before the parliament are guaranteed in both systems, considering that the legislative body needs not be composed of a majority of the President’s party. Furthermore, the president is not necessarily the party’s leader but one of its figures, allowing therefore the party to oppose presidential positions and policies.
 
In other words, what the present Turkish constitutional amendment suggests is that the President will be elected by the public, who will simultaneously select the parliament. The party that will form the majority of the latter will logically and deductively be the party that backs the President. Consequently, the parliament, the president and his cabinet will be subject to the whims of one figure: the president.
 
So what Erdogan is proposing to do does not differ much from what Abdelhamid II did briefly back in the late 19th century. However, while in the latter’s case the abolition of the Constitution lead to absolute monarchy, in the former’s case, the amendment of the Constitution will lead to a legalised autocracy. Time will only reveal what this ‘opening’ will lead to in the Turkish scene, and what it would mean for minorities and opposition powers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and ...

Kaftar

Muaawiya Bin Abi Sufyan was the first Umayyad Caliph, who ruled as a just and jovial leader until his death in 683 AD. Known for his sense of humour and his love for women, Abi Sufyan was famous for a story that took place in his own harem. While escorting a woman for the Khorasan region in modern day Iran, a beautiful woman entered the harem and mesmerised the Leader of All Believers. With his pride in his manhood and prowess in the bed arena, Abi Sufyan did not hesitate to engage in a brazen and manly sexual act in front of the Khorasani woman, who was patiently waiting for her turn. After he was done, he turned victoriously to his first concubine and asked her how to say ‘lion' in Persian - in a direct analogy to his sexual performance.  The Khorasani woman, unamused, told him slyly, that lion is kaftar in Persian. The Caliph went back to his Court ever so jubilant and told his subjects – repeatedly – that he was one lucky kaftar. His...

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate be...