HIST 303 MODERNISATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST I

FINAL EXAM
HALİL İBRAHİM BOZATLI
17011011036

Q1: Why did the Ottoman nationalities have an enthusisasm about the Constitutional regime in
1908? Explain with reference to the meanings of liberty fort he different social segments of the
Arab Middle East.

The emergence of the constitutional model prompted many states to adapt to this system. In
Tunisia, Egypt, Iran and the Ottoman state, this constitutional system created the need to
assemble itself. After the first world war, these new ideologies attempted to change the existing
political order. The reflections of this new political order that took place in the Ottoman Empire
are seen in the Tanzimat edict, the First Constitutional Monarchy and the Second Constitutional
Monarchy. The nahdawis in Tunisia made many attempts for this purpose. On the other hand, in
the 1908 revolution in the Ottoman Empire, often referred to as the "Young Turk Revolution",
constitutional representation inspired political imaginations in the Middle East and beyond. In
this study, I will try to explain the effect of the regime change efforts in the Ottoman Empire on
the Middle East with the concept of liberty.

Let's start by looking at the regime change efforts in the Ottoman Empire. The most important
principle of the Constitution (musavvat) was the idea of equality. The Young Turks were making
this regime change for freedom. This freedom or liberty consists of basic human rights. The
second constitutional monarchy is both a military coup and it is not. The reason for this was that
Abdulhamid declared the constitutionalism by force, we can call it a kind of coup, but on the
other hand, we cannot say it as a coup in terms of saving his own situation for a while by
declaring the constitutionalism. The 1908 second constitution and the concepts of Ottoman
Nation brought by it aim to unite other nations living under Ottoman domination. The Young
Turks wanted all taxpayers to have a say in a legitimate constitutional government, regardless of
ethnicity. Nader Sohrabi observes that the Young Turks decided that 'a constitutional
government is the best political system in existence'. According to Shlomo yellin, the metaphor
of the noble ottoman nation supported this inclusive idea. It should not be forgotten that this
concept of Ottoman citizenship is not related to pan-Islamic ideas and that pan-Islamic policy is
internal politics. This Ottoman public sphere spread with telegraph, steamboat, railroad and
books in different languages. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, is generally accepted as a
doctrine of political liberalism, but constitutionalism was "more of a doctrine of political,
administrative and legal rationality" for the Young Turks. At the turn of the century, the meaning
was still largely in effect both in Continental Europe and in the Middle East, where elites carried
out legal reforms under the guise of liberalism and constitutionalism.

For the first example of a rule of law state in the Middle East, we need to look at Tunisia. The
Nahdawis tried to spread the idea of enlightenment. Fundamental enlightenment ideas, such as
freedom of thought, the belief that this will lead to responsible social and political action, and the
ability of people to learn and improve their lives, were discussed and assimilated by the
Nahdawis from the time of the first Ottoman Constitutional Monarchy. Filled with modern
knowledge and science, the Nahdawis formed a bourgeois space, society's educators and guides
to a better future. On the other hand, the terms "Constitution" are a good example of the semantic
ambiguity that prevails. There were three major expressions for this, and they overlapped in
Arabic: qanun al-dawla or scepter of law, al-dudur and al-mashrutiyya. During the Young Turk
Revolution, Arab Nahdawis debated whether society was ready to introduce a constitutional
government.

As for the reflections of the concept of freedom and why it was attractive, Hurriya or Hurriyet or
Liberty was an important element of the new age. This concept could be a new hope for the
Ottoman Empire. In this way, he could keep those under his dominion. First, liberal reforms
promised a solid administrative structure and a thriving economy. The press was an influential
commodity in this system. Giving people the opportunity to represent themselves in government
was an important step. Ottoman citizenship had therefore sprouted. Ottoman's flag was another
reflection of this. On the other hand, many reasons made it necessary. Corruption, bribery and a
weak government were a problem for any society. Ruhi al-Khalidi claimed that this corruption
could be overcome by legitimate revolution rather than rebellion.

In general, the constitutional system found a response in the Ottoman Empire and in other
societies for a common reason. Interaction with each other is of course possible. However, it is a
wrong assessment to see the revolution that took place in this period as an effort to Turkify the
Ottoman Empire and as a separatist policy among the Arabs. We see these reflections in Adip
Ishaq, Yellin and other researchers.
Q2: Why did the Ottoman Empire collapse? Explain with reference to the Arab nationalism,
military expeditions and the “Arab revolt”.

We can count many reasons that caused the Ottomans to withdraw from the stage of history.
Arab nationalism, military failure, or Arab revolts. Unless these arguments are underlined, they
just remain cliché. Therefore, in this essay, I will try to reveal the background of why the
ottoman was destroyed.

If we look at the general evaluations about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans
carried out unsuccessful reforms, the Arabs followed a separatist policy and betrayed the
Ottoman Empire, or finally the Ottomans harmed themselves by being Turkish nationalism.
Leaving all of these aside, in fact, the Ottoman Empire was a state whose lands were captured by
the British, French, etc. forces, some of which were won through struggle and established a state,
while the rest was a mandated state. The event that caused the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
was its defeat in the First World War. Coming to the reasons for this, first of all, the Ottoman
Empire suffered a heavy defeat in the Balkan Wars. The reason for this was not the lack of
reforms within the army, but internal strife. There were supporters and opponents of the Union
and Progress for the army. These organizational problems resulted in the loss of Macedonia. It
was a trauma. In order to eliminate the trauma here and with expansionist goals, the Ottoman
Empire entered the first world war. We see the success of the Ottomans in military reforms in
Çanakkale, Kut'ül Amare and Gaza. This refutes the first assessment. Before the World War II,
the Unionists, who seized power with the Babı Ali raid, eliminated the imbalance in the army.
The loss of Macedonia, the spread of nationalism and the expansion of European powers
contributed to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, as for the theory of the Arab revolt,
the Arab movement was not actually a separatist policy. The Arab opposition wants the
Ottomans to leave it more liberal. Arabs are eager to play a more central role in the Ottoman
Empire. We can actually think of this group as a political movement. The social impact of
Arabism should not be overstated. requests; more freedom in Arab geography; Arabic-speaking
officials want Arabic to be taught in public schools, etc. The paris arab congress took place in
this context. They declared that there was no thought of leaving the Ottoman Empire, and they
visited the office of the Ottoman ambassador and reported the decisions they took. The
government took the demands seriously. He said demands would be met. For example, officers
who spoke Arabic were appointed instead of those who did not speak Arabic. Here, too, a more
civic nuance stands out rather than an ethnic distinction.

On the other hand, it would not be wrong to say that the so-called Arab revolt consisted of Sharif
Hussein. This rebellion that broke out in Mecca had nothing to do with the loss of these lands,
such as Lebanon, Syria, Urd, Iraq, etc. The most active role in the disposal of these places was
the British military action and power. In these regions, not an Arab state, but a French and
British mandate was established. We cannot show the Saudis or the Shammar tribe, the Anizah
tribe and such tribes as support for the Arab revolt. This revolt is not an Arab revolt, as it did not
come out with a nationalist aim. The British have to support this movement because of the
success of the Ottomans in the jihat policy. The Ottomans defeated the British in Çanakkale and
Kutu'ül Amare, so they needed to support the rebellion of a prophet's grandson in Mecca. Sharif
Hussein and the CUP government tried to legitimize their own movements by publishing two
newspapers, Al-Sharq and Al-Qıble.
To summarize in this context, we can accept the events that caused the Ottomans to withdraw
from the stage of history as the loss of the world war. Other side effects may be viewed as a
consequence rather than a cause.

Best luck!
M. Talha Çiçek