The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 - Essay Example

The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 Name Institution Affiliation The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 Beginning from late 1200s and stretching through multiple centuries, and through 36 generations with no breaks until 1918, the Ottoman dynasty constitutes the longest dynasty in the history among all dynasties that whose reign occurred before, in the course and shortly after WWI (Trumpener, 1962, p.371). Occurring in 1908, the Young Turk Revolution constituted the only first attempt to exert considerable limits on the power of the then Ottoman sultan (Ahmad, 1969, p.5). In fact, it would then be a relatively short period before the reign of sultan Abdul Hamid II was subdued and abolished completely (Ahmad, 1993, p.126). This essay attempts to explore the reasons, aims, ideology and the resultant consequences of the Young Turk uprising of 1908. Reasons and Aims of the Revolution There were several primary aims of staging the Young Turk Revolution. First, the uprising sought to overthrow the Sultan Abdul Hamid despotic and autocratic regime by the upper class Turks (Wheatcroft, 1995, p. 198). Second, the revolution aimed at the restoration of the Ottoman Empire’s first constitution introduced in 1876, but which had been undermined during the exploitative power of the then ruler (Lewis, 1963, 212). This aim was to see the introduction of a constitutional system that support multi party politics as opposed to the then monarch system. The third important aim of the revolt was to establish a parliamentary government under the control of the Turk that would, in the long run, liberate the entire country from the semi-colonial dependence (Shaw & Shaw, 1985, p. 215a). The fundamental roots for the conception and intensification of the revolution can be traced back in the late ninetieth century and stretches to the early twentieth century, particularly a period in which imperialist powers sought to convert the Empire into a semi-colony (Shaw & Shaw, 1985, p. 216a). More than three decades earlier, the constitutional monarchy was created in 1876 during what is termed as the First Constitutional Era (Hanioğlu, 2001, p.305). However, the constitutional monarch lasted for only two years before it was suspended (Macfie, 1998, p.24). Through the modernization ideology, the imperialist powers managed to transform the dynasty into a semi-colony reliant on imperial powers (Quataert, 1979, p.27). During his regime that was characterized with poor governance engraved in endemic corruption, Sultan Abdul Hamid II indulged in heavy taxation, conscription and misuse of state revenue spending almost 60 percent and 30 percent of state fund on the military personnel, administrative functions, and interest repayment to the imperial financial institutions, respectively (Dawison, 1991, p. 108). From the year 1905 stretching to 1907, the Armenian subject faction of eastern Turkey was inspired by the Russian to upsurge against new taxes coupled with military conscription. The Empire failed to subdue the revolt against the new levies leading to their cancellation and granting of amnesty. Nonetheless, prior to the empire’s reaction, the revolution spirit had already spread to other sections of the empire. These events led to the formation an underground movement called the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) established by junior military officer serving in the Balkans with its heart at the Ottoman-ruled Salonika (Lew, 1967, p.287). Furthermore, despite earlier attempts by factions in the Ottoman Empire to introduce a constitutional government, all were unsuccessful as they were often realized and subdued by the despotic regime of the then sultan. For instance, such attempt that was linked to the name of Midhat Pasha and which led to the establishment of the constitution of December 23, 1876 failed to secure a constitutional system. The major reason was because the majority of the masses among the ruling caste did not perceive it to be more necessary especially at that moment. Moreover, the young Turks were discontent with Sultan Abdul Hamid’s autocratic power and despotic regime (Karpat, 1972, p. 249). For close to thirty years of the sultan’s regime that orchestrated espionage transforming the life of many people into misery, coupled with unwarranted assassinations or executions and exile of the majority of those who expressed discontent towards the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II. In addition, the Sultan’s regime was characterized with unprecedented loss of territory and prestige of the local people which further fueled the course of the Young Turk uprising (Dawison, 1991, p.112). Another significant reason for the revolution was the increasing consciousness that the economic penetration of the imperialist powers could only culminate into the dissolution and, in turn, the total collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This realization influenced the young Turks of all classes and ethnic backgrounds to turn to and fight for the restoration of the constitution as their only salvation from the regime (Karpat, 1972, p.245). As a consequent, the leaders of the Turk revolution who had been forced to exile in countries such as France studied in depth the previous excellent and successful uprisings like the French Revolution, bridged their ideological differences as between radical and conservative, recruited more and more other nationalist revolutionary groups, particularly the Armenians, with the goal of overthrowing Sultan’s regime (Shaw & Shaw, 1985b, p.275). The majority of the young Turks comprised Ottoman military officers who had been fortunate to receive better formal education, were trained in the application of military skills in a number of aspects of the military experience, and were extremely unsatisfied with the misconduct and poor governance of the sultan and the executive officials of his empire. Following his despotic regime, one after another of the Ottoman Empire had plotted secession and created revolutionary groups and states (Finkel, 2006, p. 503). The young Turks made their mind that time had come for them to take action in order to introduce their own nation state and realized that the only way to achieve their ambition was doing away with the multinational Ottoman dynasty (Sohrabi , 2002, p.51). Abdul Hamid II ruthless governance resulted into widespread dissatisfaction among the popular masses, which bred an active and resilient uprising among the young bourgeoisie intellectual circles, and particularly among the young soldiers serving in the empire’s army. As a group, they felt that their interests were never considered. The particularly interests that were brought forth by the young and still weak Turkish bourgeoisie could be depicted from this uprising that was championed by the unionist CUP. CUP was an underground movement that was opposed to Sultan Abdul Hamid’s regime and committed to introduction of a constitutional system in the empire (Ahmad, 1993, p.127). Nonetheless, the immediate reason that triggered the upsurge was the June 1908 encounter of monarchs representing Russia and Britain that took place at Revel. One of the fundamental outcomes of this meeting was the reference that directed the reformation of the city of Macedonia whose consequence would be the separation of the region from the mainland Turkey (Quataert, 1979, p.24). The announcement of Austria in February, 1908 fueled the course of the uprising. The announcement proclaimed that a railway line was to be built to stretch across Novibazz, and connecting up the Bosnia and Salonika fronts. The resultant outcome of building the railroad would see all the western side of the Balkan peninsula brought under the control of Austria, and by the Reval interview (Quataert, 1979, p.28). The disturbance experienced in Macedonia led large numbers of Turkish soldiers coming together. The common troops received little or no pay and perceived their service as merely a waste of their time, hence they could not maintain order in the region. Moreover, these officers were discontent with the existence of the imperialist officers, who always made them perceive that the dissolution of the Empire was inevitable (Shaw & Shaw, 1985b, p.281). As a result, emissaries, which were communicated from young Turks exiled in Paris were welcome leading to the proclamation of the Young Turk Revolution on July 6, 1908. Ideology in the Revolution The major ideology in the Young Turk Revolution was Ottomanism. Developing prior to the First Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomanism ideology was heavily used by the young Turks as they contented that it was an effective tool to help them address social and political concerns experienced during the reign of Abdul Hamid II regime (Kayali, 1997, p.1913). The ideology was grounded on the thoughts on great philosophers, including Montesquieu and Rousseau, as well influenced by the French Revolution (Sohrabi , 2002, p.48). Through Ottomanism, the young Turks sought to ensure equality among the millets and the acceptance of the diverse ethnic/religious factions in the Ottoman society irrespective of their respective any (Kayali, 1997, p.1910). They young Turks believed that they were all “Ottomans” hence deserved to enjoy all and equal rights and freedoms. Although the idea had declined due to competing interests between several factions, it was revived during the young Turk uprising and played a central role in the removal of Abdul Hamid II. The Emperor used his personal influence to create autocratic power, applied excessive power to suspend parliament with the goal of securing his position, he abolished many military and institutions of the empire due to fear of being overthrown. This led to the junior officers dissatisfied with the current regime’s autocracy and oppression because of their strong conviction in Ottomanism wage a revolt and successfully overthrow him. Besides Ottomanism, the young Turks also inclined on other significant ideology included nationalism and liberalism (Karpat, 1975, p.281). After increasingly gaining political relevance in the Ottoman Empire, the young Turks exhibited a strong focus on nationalism. However, unlike in the previous application of the concept of nationalism, the Young Turks started to anchor the concept on the pseudo-scientific race perspectives of Europe (Karpat, 1975, p.279). This change in focus was heavily influenced by the Japanese victory over Russia and other previous events in Europe. To rise on the occasion and save their empire, the Young Turks often perceived the various challenges confronting the Ottoman Empire from the perspective of the state as a whole rather than placing a lot of stress or focus on the interests of individual citizens. In fact, their base on authoritarian theories was never a coincidence as the majority of the thoughts they took particular interest in, including biological materialism, Social Darwinism, positivism, as well as the enlightenment of Gustave Le Bon helped them take a firm stand against the idea of supposed equality among fellow Ottomans (Karpat, 1975, p.280). From a liberal viewpoint, the Young Turks did embrace liberal thoughts and ideas too. Under the inspiration of ideas of Gustave Le Bon, the Young Turks perceived the Monarch together with its institutions as an oppressive hence the need to substitute it with a constitutional system. Consequences of the Uprising The major consequence of the Young Turk Revolution was the overthrow of sultan Abdul Hamid II. Unable to depend on the Ottoman Empire army the sultan bowed to the pressure the revolution had relentlessly mounted against his regime, capitulated and subsequently announced the restoration of the 1876 constitution that he had suspended barely two years of existence (Macfie, 1998, p.36). Pressure from the groups led the sultan return to the constitutional framework of 1876, and more important relinquish his power as the leader on the Ottoman Empire. Shortly after overthrowing the emperor, the Ottoman general election was announced and put straight in effect the very same year, CUP, the underground unionist movement that had immensely contributed to the formation and facilitation of the upsurge, assumed majority in the parliament (Ahmad, 1968, p.29). Besides that, the formation of the parliament saw the Senate of the Ottoman Empire reconvened on December the same year with the living members derived from the first constitutional era. This was the first time in over three good decades. In a nutshell, the Young Turks had succeed in introduction of a constitutional system which was their primary aim of staging the revolution. However, sharp ideological differences was a serious barrier to effectively run the newly established constitutional government until 1913 when Talat Pas, Cemal Pasa and Enver Pasa became more influential in the Ottoman politics (Macfie, 1998, p.29). The new government enforced several reforms in administration that resulted into more centralization. Besides promoting marked industrialization in the empire, the new system facilitated marked secularization of the Ottoman system and society at large and increased accessed to more education opportunities for women and improved elementary schools (Kayali, 1997, p.1915). Additionally, these developments ushered in a series of internal upsurge. In 1909, the Islamist conservatives stage massive demonstrations against the newly established system. To suppress this upsurge, the Young Turks unleashed powerful forces to suppress all the proletarian and peasant uprising in the entire empire, including Serbs, Greeks, Bulgars, Arabs and Armanians. The Ottoman empire became immersed in a series of demonstrations and civil unrest that particularly commenced in 1911 and stretched to 1923, whose impact saw the long-standing empire dissolved and followed by the establishment of a brand Turkish Republic (Macfie, 1988, p.136). There was extreme and rapid destruction that saw the empire lose influence of Libya and Macedonia in 1912 and 1913, respectively (Ahmed, 1968, p.33). Moreover, the revolution open the door for the World War I. Particularly, the increased dependence of the new government on Germany particularly for capital and military advisors resulted to an underground alliance with Berlin (Macfie, 1988, p.129). The growing inclination to the German support was a significant risk not only to the local opposition that existed in the Ottoman Empire, but also to the interests of the Tsarist Russia particularly in Central Asia (Trumpener, 1962, p.372). The increased mistreatment of the minority groups was perceived to be pro German imperialism. This tendency towards the German led the new government to compromise neutrality and eventually joining and fighting on multiple fronts with the Central Powers during WWI (Macfie, 1988, p.130). In 1915, the Young Turk regime directed the Ottoman Empire to commit the Armenian Genocide in which Armenians were killed in the Adana district ((Trumpener, 1962, p.377). References Ahmad, F. “War and Society under the Young Turks, 1908-18” in The Modern Middle East, ed. By A. Hourani, P. Khoury & M.C. Wilson, London and New York: I.B. Tauris 1993, pp. 125-143. Ahmad, F., 1968. The Young Turk Revolution. Journal of Contemporary History, 3(3), pp.19-36. Ahmad, F., 1969. The Young Turks (pp. 40-3). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dawison, R.H. “From Autocracy to revolution: The Era of Sultan Abdulhamid II, 1878-1909” in Turkey: A Short History, Huntington, U.K: The Eothen Press, 1991, pp. 105-125. Finkel, C. “The Islamic Empire” in Osman’s Dream: The Story of Ottoman Empire 1300-1923, London: John Murray 2006, pp. 488-504. Hanioğlu, M.Ş., 2001. Preparation for a revolution: the Young Turks, 1902-1908 (p. 305). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hanioğlu, M.Ş., 2010. A brief history of the late Ottoman empire. Princeton University Press. Karpat, H.K. “The Transformation of the Ottoman State, 1789-1908” in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3 (July 1972), pp. 243-281. Karpat, K.H., 1975. The Memoirs of N. Batzaria: The Young Turks and Nationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 6(3), pp.276-299. Kayali, H., 1997. Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1918. Univ of California Press. Lewis, B. “Union and Progress” in The Emergence of Modern Turkey (2d ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 207-238 Lewis, B. The Emergence of Modern Turkey London & Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 254-283 and 286-293. Macfie, A.L. “The Ottoman Empire in the First Wold War, 1914-1918” in The End of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923, London and New York: Longman, 1988, pp. 128-160. Macfie, A.L.“The Young Turk Revolution of 1908” in The End of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923, London and New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 20-38. Quataert, D., 1979. THE 1908 YOUNG TURK REVOLUTION: OLD AW NEW APPROACHES. Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, 13(1), pp.22-29. Shaw, S. J. & Shaw, E. K.“The Young Turk Period, 1908-1918” in History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985b, pp. 273-287. Shaw, S. J. & Shaw, E.K.“The Structure of Autocracy” in History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985a, pp. 211-226. Sohrabi, N., 2002. Global waves, local actors: what the young Turks knew about other revolutions and why it mattered. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 44(01), pp.45-79. Trumpener, U, 1962, “Turkey’s Entry into World War I: An Assessment of Responsibilities” in The Journal of Military History, Vol. 34, No. 4, December 1962, pp. 369-380. Wheatcroft, A. “Abdulhamid II” in The Ottomans: Dissolving Images, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1995, pp. 191-207. Read More