Tanzimat and the nineteenth-century reforms were a tragedy - Essay Example

? Critical Analysis of the Failures of Tanzimat Your Lecturer 31st October, Introduction The Tanzimat reforms were put in place to protect the rights of citizens of the Ottoman Empire. This was to encompass both Muslims and non-Muslims resident in the Empire. The reforms were initiated in the late 1830s and lasted until a constitutional monarchy was established in the mid-1870s. These reforms did not fare too well and several reasons can be assigned to this. Scholars have given different descriptions for the Tanzimat reforms. One of the common conclusions drawn by most historians is that it was a complete failure. Several theses are put forward to explain this failure. One of them asserts that: Tanzimat and the nineteenth-century reforms were a tragedy. Turning towards the West was an imposition, not a choice This paper examines Tanzimat into great depth. In doing this, the research will begin by assessing the background of Tanzimat. The research will go further to view the position of Tanzimat in Ottoman history. This will provide the position of the reforms in the history of the Empire and set the framework for the discussion on whether it was a tragedy. It will also assess whether Tanzimat was based on some kind of imposition or a mimicry of Western political structures. Inherent Elements of the Tanzimat In order to examine the successes and failures of Tanzimat, this section of the essay will examine the inherent elements of Tanzimat and show its position in the Ottoman Society. This will give an understanding of important indicators and yardsticks that can be used for further analysis. “The word tanzimat means 'reforms', 'rearrangement' and 'reorganisation' and in Ottoman history, the Tanzimat period refers to a time of Westernizing reforms from 1839 until 1876”1. Tanzimat is a period whereby the Ottoman Empire made a conscious effort to shift from its old traditional Islamic-based systems and military-oriented governance to a pro-Westernised system of running the state. Prior to the period of Tanzimat, the Ottoman Empire was mainly inspired by war and military styled colonisation of nearby territories within its domains. The rules for governing the Ottoman Empire were mainly Islamic in nature. As a policy, rebellious states defeated by the central Ottoman authority. In investigating the origins of Tanzimat, Kadduri and Liebesny state that “reforms wrere began in the army in the late 18th Century but met strong resistance that led to the assassination of Sultan Selim III in 1807. In 1826, during the reign of Mahmud II, reforms were revived (this time extending beyond the military field) and in the year of 1839 when Abdulmecid was on the throne”2. In the era prior to Tanzimat, power in the Ottoman Empire was centralized and remained in the hands of the Sultan. Sultan Mahmoud II (1800 – 1839) had full and absolute control over state affairs. The conquered territories within the domain of the Ottoman Empire were forcibly integrated into the union and rebellions were not tolerated. “Mahmud II expended considerable efforts to smash the power of local strongmen and in some parts of the empire, including north-eastern Bulgaria, he was successful”3. Tanzimat was meant to move the nation from this military oriented governance that was steeped in the use of force and imposed standards to a more liberal approach that characterised modern nations in that time. Parallels can be drawn from the French Revolution and the American Revolutions which had led to the recognition of civil liberties of individuals and freedoms to citizens. Mustafa Resit Pasa is described as the Father of Tanzimat by many historians. In investigating his rise to power, Shaw identifies that Mustafa Pasa was born in Istambul in 1800 and had began by studying administration, however he cut his service and served his uncle who took him onto an expedition in Moreia4. Pasa witnessed the defeat of the old Ottoman army to Greek rebels who used modern military regimes and due to this, he saw the worth of modernising the Ottoman military5. He learnt more about the Porte [Ottoman Central government and civil service] and Europe. After the Ottoman war with Russia which led to the destruction of the Janissaries between 1826 and 1828, Pasa got the opportunity to rise rapidly in the public service and became a seal bearer to the Grand Vizier6. Mustafa Pasa was part of the diplomatic mission that was sent to Cairo in 1830 and later became Ambassador to Paris in 1834 – 1836 where he learnt English and French. He later became Ambassador to London where he conversed with Palmerston, the English statement about reformations in the Ottoman Empire7 He returned to Istanbul in 1837 and served as foreign minister. He tried to convince Sultan Mahmud II to abandon his suspicion of the British and undertake reforms. He drew the blueprints for administrative changes, agricultural, industrial and economic reforms. However, the Grand Vizier was against those reforms and modernisation. In the second Egyptian Crisis of 1838, Mustafa Pasa moved to Britain as ambassador to seek British cooperation in the matter. On return, Pasa argued for the reforms to be put in place and this led Sultan Mahmud to begin making arrangements for the reforms8. Once Sultan Abdumecid (r 1839 – 1861) took over power from Mahmoud II, he issued the first Gulhane Imperial Rescript which was the primary instrument in use between 1839 and 18569. That law was meant to create an European styled government structure, establish a council of ministers, create local government structures, promote the publication of newspapers, increase interaction with Europe and maintain a standing army10. The Grand Vizier of 1839 announced that the reason for instituting the Tanzimat was due to the decline in the economy which he claimed was a direct result of the neglect of Sharia Law and State Law and the concentration of power in the Sultan and governors11. Thus, the idea was to shift power from the ruling elite who belonged to the old regime and vest more power in the new generation of the leaders. The proposition of the Tanzimat was there to show that there was a commitment to decentralize and enhance the rights of all citizens. This made it popular. However, in reality, the introduction of Tanzimat shifted power from the Palace to the Porte, which was the central government led by the new Chief Vizier12. Based on this, the old Grand Vizier, Husrer Pasa was dismissed. This showed that the Tanzimat achieved an insider agenda with the support of the masses who were generally inclined to accept it. So to answer the question of whether Tanzimat was imposed from the West or not, it is quite conclusive that the young Ottomans led by Mustafa Resit Pasa and other colleagues of Sultan Abdulmecid [who became known as the Men of the Tanzimat] supported the reforms because it gave them power ahead of the old administration. Hence, it is not right to say that it was imposed from the West. Rather, the first Tanzimat was imposed by the new generation of Ottoman leaders to push their internal agenda. This is evidenced by the fact that they failed to make adequate effort to institute it amongst the masses. Once the old regime was changed, Tanzimat was not pursued any further. After laxity and lapses saw the practical rejection of Tanzimat by the 1850s, the reforms were re-established after the Crimean War (1853 - 1856). The Crimean War, which involved the forces of France and Britain teaming up with the Ottoman Empire created the impetus for the Ottoman government to strengthen its alliance with Britain and France. Due to this, the Second Imperial Rescript of Reforms (Islahat Ferman) was reinstituted in 1856 after the war13. The reinstitution of the Tanzimat in 1856 was clear evidence that the leaders of the Ottoman Empire were doing that to enhance their cooperation with Allies with little consideration for the realities on the ground. This was to present the Ottoman Empire as a favourable grounds where the British and French could undertake trading and promote cooperation with the Ottoman Empire. Although there is little evidence to prove that there was a direct imposition from the West, it is apparent that the need to please Britain and France had an indirect hand in inducing the leaders of the Ottoman Empire to pursue the reforms. The rise of Memhud Amin Ali Pasa who had criticized the Tanzimat gave way for the changes which removed power from the Porte (or Central Government) and vested it in the Sultan14. This paved the way for the creation of a constitutional monarchy which happened in 1876 and ended the power of Tanzimat. Itzkowitz and Shinder state that “the motivations of Tanzimat statesmen have not been probed beneath the surface, although we recognize that those men had to contend with hostility from both an internal and external audience”15 It is conclusive that the Ottoman government was plagued with a lot of politics, which included foreign alliances and the balance of power within the Empire [which oscillated between the Palace and the King]. Thus, the Tanzimat was influenced strongly by these two issues. First of all, it was meant to create a system of transferring power from the old regime to a new one in 1839. Hence, it can be said that the first rescript was issued by choice. However, since it failed, it was not pursued any further. From the assessment of the second rescript of 1856, it can be said that there is evidence that the need to please the British and French in order to maintain some alliance that could ward off the Russians played an indirect role in forcing the Ottoman government to institute Tanzimat. Reasons for Failure “The declaration of Tanzimat initially received strong support from certain domestic factions and from European States. Nonetheless, the initial positive attitudes towards Tanzimat reforms was slowly eroded as different groups tried to interpret it based on their own interests”16. Clearly, the idea was acceptable and sounded good to all and sundry when it was introduced in 1839. However, after its implementation proved to be a threat to some components of the Ottoman society, there were issues and other resistances that were raised against Tanzimat. The first group of detractors are identified by Cakir as the people who benefited economically from the tax policies of the old regime. Tanzimat provided amongst other things, the abolishment of tax farming in favour of a unified tax regime and the creation of a tax administration authority in the Ottoman civil service. However, the old tax farming system was producing a lot of money to some sections of the population. Tax farming involves the state privatisation of the tax collection system to individuals and organisations who collected taxes and paid a percentage to the government17. This practice had been common with different governments in history. Notable amongst them is the Roman government. In likewise manner, the tax collectors of the Ottoman Empire who were making a fortune from levying taxes on the masses lost their right to do so after the Tanzimat. However, the new tax administration system was not well planned and structured. Due to this, the taxation system failed to yield enough money for the Ottoman government. Also, the tax farmers who lost out became very upset with the new system. This included the bankers and people who collected the taxes. Due to this dissatisfaction, they rose up against the new system and criticized it. The people who benefited from the old tax farming system argued that the unified taxation system, which required Christians, Jews and other minorities in the Ottoman Empire to pay equal taxes was against the Quaran. Quaran 9:29 states that Christians and Jews [People of the Book] can only live in peace in Muslim lands if they agree to pay a special tax that would support the Muslim government18. The detractors of the new tax regime spread the propaganda that the new taxation system was instituted by kafirs or infidels and this led to protests against the government19. This is because they deemed the government to be corrupted by anti-Islamic standards and hence, unfit to run affairs of the state. Besides, the proposition to conscript and maintain a standing army was not in the best interest of the masses. This is because they had to sacrifice their young men to serve in the army based on the population of the area. The army was supposed to be ran with regular provisions and this was to be financed by the taxpayer. This was obviously going to increase taxes and it was going to be transferred to the masses. The only real benefactor was the Porte or Central government who were going to earn praise from the British and the French as a modern nation and a reliable military ally that could stand up against the Russian threat. To the average Ottoman citizen, maintaining a standing army meant nothing more than paying more taxes and sacrificing more young people to serve in the army. The next issue of granting equal rights to all members of the society was also seen to be contemptuous by some Muslim scholars. This is because it was seen as the elevation of non-Muslims to the level of Muslims on lands they considered to be Muslim lands. Hence, these groups of Islamists expressed various degrees of dissatisfaction to the Tanzimat reforms. Amongst the minorities, there were also issues. First of all, the Greeks, who enjoyed the most privileged position after the Muslims in the Ottoman Empire showed some degree of resentment to the privileges being offered to Jews and Armenians and other minorities under Tanzimat20. This is because in that time in history, Jews were oppressed in most parts of Europe and other parts of the world. Thus, elevating the Jews and other minorities to the level of Greeks was viewed with disdain amongst the Greeks. The minorities also took the opportunity to abuse their rights and privileges. After Tanzimat was introduced in 1839, there were two major uprisings in Nish and Vidin in 1841 and 185021. This shows that these minorities were not satisfied with the level of equality granted to them and they sought to get a higher degree of autonomy. Another indicator that the Tanzimat was doomed to fail was that the Ottoman Empire did not set out clear guidelines for the implementation of the reforms22. There was no census to ascertain the population and property to support a fair and objective tax system23. There was no civil service to fill the gap that was going to be created by abolishing the tax 'farmers'. This meant that there was no clear way of attaining their objectives through the right means. The lack clear goals and roles of the nobles and provincial elites (Ayan) also contributed to downfall of the Tanzimat. This is because there was no constitution that set out their obligations and responsibilities under Tanzimat. Also, the taxation system left out these nobles and elites. Thus, the tax burden was supposed to be borne by the masses which was the selfsame problem that caused the French people to begin the French Revolution half a century earlier. Also, the lack of control over the aristocracy contributed to the Russian Revolution which occurred a century later. This shows that the Tanzimat was not fit to be a final end in its time. As expected, people continued questioning it and it ceased function three years after it was proposed after 1839 until it was revived in 1856, only to be abolished in 1876. This is because in reality, most of the citizens were against it and were not willing to abide by the Tanzimat rules and regulations. Positive Impact of Tanzimat In spite of the many issues and challenges that were faced by Tanzimat, some writers concede that it had some positive sides. First of all, it accelerated the integration of the Ottoman economy into the world economy24. This is because Tanzimat prepared the country to set up internal structures that were at the level of other leading economies and nations around the world in that era. Also, it created a propitious grounds for foreign investors and foreign merchants from Western Europe to enter the Ottoman economy and support in building it up. This modernized the nation to a high degree within a short time. As compared to other nearby lands like Sub-Saharan Africa and some parts of South-East Asia, Tanzimat paved the way for quicker development in the area of the Ottoman Empire. This put them at the same levels as other countries in Western Europe. Ever since then, the gap has been bridged fairly easily between the Ottoman Empire and the developed world. Also, Tanzimat promoted decentralization in the Ottoman Empire. This is because it helped the nation to develop systems and structures of local government. This was evidenced by the local councils (Ayan) and at the town level administrations (Majlis)25. This created the structures needed for proper administration and the maintenance of modern systems and structures in the Empire over the next century. Herschlag argued that although tax farming could not be abolished in the time of the Tanzimat, it was identified as a threat to nationhood. This gave the impetus for the creation of blueprints for better tax administration systems and public finance which took the centre-stage over half a century afterwards26. Conclusion From the research, it is apparent that the first rescript of Tanzimat was issued by choice and it served an internal purpose for the new government of 1839. It is discovered from the research that Tanzimat was initiated by Mutafa Pasa and the Men of the Tanzimat who had connections with Europe. It was used as a tool by this young Westernised ruling class of the first months of Sultan Abdulmecid to wrest power from the elites who ruled with Sultan Mahmud II in the period between 1839 and 1840. The second rescript of Tanzimat was however issued with so much influence from the British and French. The paper finds no evidence that the British and French imposed Tanzimat and Westernisation directly on the Ottoman government. However, there is proof that there was some indirect pressure exerted by the need for the Ottoman Empire to maintain its alliance with the British and French to ward of the Russian threat after the Crimean War. This indirect pressure caused the government to issue the second version of the proposed Tanzimat reforms. This was to support in creating strong economic and social ties between the Ottoman Empire and Britain and France. The lack of planning and the inability to integrate important variables like a plan for the abolishing of tax farming and set up good administrative structures and a clear constitution led to the failure of the first Tanzimat. Thus, instead of promoting equality, Tanzimat provoked the Muslims, made the Greeks unhappy and made the minorities like the Jews, Bulgarians and Armenians demand more. Tanzimat was an imposition of Western ideas of social contracts between the state and the people. However, the empire was not ready for it, thus, the whole thing was doomed to fail. However, Tanzimat was not all bad. It set the footprints for future development of the Empire and improved decentralization and administration. Bibliography Abu-Manneh Butrus. “The Sultan and the Bureacracy: The Anti-Tanzimat Concepts of Grand Vizier Mahmoud Nedim Pasha” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 22 (3) (1990) pp257 – 274 Cakir, Coskan. “Tanzimat” in Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009). Cottrell, Pierre. East Meets West: Banking, Commerce and Finance in the Ottoman Empire (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. 2008). Davison, Roderic. Reform in Ottoman Empire 1856 – 1876 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963) Edeloff, Ben and Bushnell, John. Russia's Great Reforms 1855 – 1881 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994). Herschlag, Zvi Yehuda. Introduction to Modern Economic History of the Middle East (New York: BRILL, 1980) Itzkowitz, Norman and Shinder, Joel. “The Office of Seyh-ul-Islam and the Tanzimat: A Prosopograhic Enquiry” Middle Eastern Studies Vol 8 No 1 (January 1972) pp93 – 101 Khadduri, Majid and Liebesny Herbert. Origin and Development of Islamic Law (London: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2010) Maoz, Moshe. Ottoman Reform in Syria & Palestine, 1840 – 1861: The Impact of the Tanzimat on Politics & Society (7th Edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Pinson, Mark. “Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period: The Revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850)” Middle Eastern Studies Vol 11 No 2 May 1975 pp103 – 140 Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Sultan Shohaib. The Koran for Dummies. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011) Weissmann, Itzach and Sachs Fruma. Ottoman Reform: A Muslim Regeneration (New York: IB Taurius, 2011) Read More