Wikipedia

Tanzimat

(Redirected from Tanzimat reforms)

The Tanzimat[a] (Turkish: [tanziˈmat]; Ottoman Turkish: تنظيمات, romanized: Tanẓîmât, lit. 'Reorganization', see nizam) was a period of Western influenced reform in the Ottoman Empire that began with the Edict of Gülhane in 1839. Its goals were to modernize and consolidate the social and political foundations of the Ottoman Empire in order to secure territorial integrity against internal nationalist movements and external aggressive powers.[2] The reforms encouraged Ottomanism among the diverse ethnic groups of the Empire and attempted to stem the rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire.

Different functions of government received reform, were completely reorganized, or started from scratch. Among institutions that received significant attention throughout this period included legislative functions, secularization and codification of the legal system, crackdowns on the slave trade, education, property law, law enforcement, and the military, to name a few. The end goal was to establish a powerful and centralized national government. Ottoman statesmen also worked with reformers of the many confessional communities of the empire, millets, to codify, and in some cases democratize, their confessional governments.

The Tanzimat built on previous reform efforts of Sultan Mahmud II. During its height, the Porte's bureaucracy overshadowed the sultans. Leading "Men of the Tanzimat" included Mustafa Reşid Pasha in the period of 1839–1855, and then Mehmed Emin Âli Pasha and Keçecizade Fuad Pasha from the early 1850s to 1871. After Âli Pasha's death, the spirit of reorganization turned towards the imperial social contract, in the form of the 1876 Ottoman Constitution, written by Midhat Pasha. The Tanzimat Period is considered to have ended with the accession of Abdul Hamid II during the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1878).[3] However, it can also be said that reform efforts continued into the Hamidian, Second Constitutional, and Unionist eras until the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1922.

Origins

edit

The reforms emerged from the minds of reformist sultans like Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839), his son Abdulmejid I (r. 1839–1861) and prominent, often European-educated bureaucrats, who recognised that the old religious and military institutions no longer met the needs of the empire. Most of the symbolic changes, such as uniforms, were aimed at changing the mindset of imperial administrators. Many of the officials affiliated with the government were encouraged to wear a more western style of dress. Many of the reforms were attempts to adopt successful European practices. The reforms were heavily influenced by the Napoleonic Code and French law under the Second French Empire as a direct result of the increasing number of Ottoman students being educated in France. Changes included the conscription reforms; educational, institutional and legal reforms; and systematic attempts at eliminating political corruption.

Also, a policy called Ottomanism was meant to unite all the different peoples living in Ottoman territories, "Muslim and non-Muslim, Turkish and Greek, Armenian and Jewish, Kurd and Arab". The policy officially began with the Edict of Gülhane of 1839, declaring equality before the law for both Muslim and non-Muslim Ottomans.[4]

Examples of dress reform

Motives

edit
 
Cenab Şehabeddin was known for his liberal ideals and poetry influenced by French Symbolism.

The ambitious project was launched to combat the slow decline of the empire that had seen its borders shrink and its strength wane in comparison to the European powers. There were both internal and external reasons for the reforms.

The primary purpose of the Tanzimat was to reform the military by modernizing and taking inspiration from European armies. The traditional Ottoman army, the Janissaries, had fallen from grace in terms of military prestige and a European-inspired reconstruction was a necessary change to be made.[5] The Ottoman Empire consisted of a multitude of different cultures and the secondary priorities of the Tanzimat reforms were aimed at balancing the social structure that previously favoured Muslim subjects. Another vital section of these reforms was the abolition of İltizam, or land-tenure agreements.[6]

Internally, the Ottoman Empire hoped that abolishing the millet system would create a more centralized government, as well as increased legitimacy of the Ottoman rule, thus gaining direct control of its citizens. Another major hope was that being more open to various demographics would attract more people into the empire. There was fear of internal strife between Muslims and non-Muslims, and allowing more religious freedom to all was supposed to diminish this threat. Giving more rights to the Christians within the empire was considered likely to reduce the danger of outside intervention on their behalf.

Although the motives for the implementation of Tanzimât were bureaucratic, liberal ministers and intellectuals contributed to reform like Dimitrios Zambakos Pasha, Kabuli Mehmed Pasha, the secret society of the Young Ottomans,[7][8] and Midhat Pasha.[9][10][11][12] During the Great Eastern Crisis, government ministers lead by Midhat Pasha conspired to overthrow Sultan Abdul Aziz in a coup and introduce a constitution. This began the First Constitutional Era, which many historians agree represents the end of the Tanzimat,[13] even though reform continued uninterrupted at its end in 1878, and then into the Hamidian Era.

Reforms

edit

On November 3, 1839, Sultan Abdulmejid I issued a hatt-i sharif, or imperial edict, called the Edict of Gülhane. The edict gave guarantees to ensure the Ottoman subjects perfect security for their lives, honour, and property. This was followed by several statutes enacting its policies.

In the edict the Sultan stated that he wished "to bring the benefits of a good administration to the provinces of the Ottoman Empire through new institutions". Among the reforms thereafter included were the following:[14][15]

Edict of Gülhane of 1839

edit
Main article: Edict of Gülhane
 
Mustafa Reşid Pasha, the principal architect of the Edict of Gülhane

The Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane, was the first major reform in the Tanzimat reforms under the government of sultan Abdulmejid and a crucial event in the movement towards secularization. The decree, named after the rosehouse (gülhane) on the grounds of the Topkapi Palace, abolished tax farming. It also created a bureaucratic system of taxation with salaried tax collectors. This reflects the centralizing effects of the Tanzimat reforms. Additionally, the Edict of Gülhane imposed forced military conscription within the administrative districts based on their population size.

However, the most significant clause of the Gülhane decree was the one enforcing the rule of law for all subjects, including non-Muslims, by guaranteeing the right to life and property for all. This put an end to the kul system, which allowed the ruler's servants to be executed or have their property confiscated at his desire. These reforms sought to establish legal and social equality for all Ottoman citizens. The reforms eliminated the millet system in the Ottoman Empire. The millet system created religiously based communities that operated autonomously, so people were organized into societies, some of them often receiving privileges. This clause terminated the privileges of these communities and constructed a society where all followed the same law.

The new reforms called for an almost complete reconstruction of public life in the Ottoman Empire. Under the reconstruction, a system of state schools was established to produce government clerics. Ottomans were encouraged to enroll. Each province was organized so that each governor would have an advisory council and specified duties in order to better serve the territory. The new reforms also called for a modern financial system with a central bank, treasury bonds and a decimal currency. Finally, the reforms implemented the expansion of roads, canals and rail lines for better communication and transportation.

 
Mehmed Emin Âli Pasha, the principal architect of the Imperial Reform Edict of 1856.

Reactions

edit

The reaction to the edict was not entirely positive. Christians in the Balkans refused to support the reforms because they wanted an autonomy that became more difficult to achieve under centralized power. In fact, its adoption spurred some provinces to seek independence by rebelling. It took strong British backing in maintaining Ottoman territory to ensure that the reforms were instated.

Edict of 1856 and religious freedom

edit
Main article: Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856

The Reform Edict of 1856 was intended to carry out the promises of the Tanzimat. The Edict is very specific about the status of non-Muslims, making it possible "to see it as the outcome of a period of religious restlessness that followed the Edict of 1839". Officially, part of the Tanzimat's goal was to make the state intolerant to forced conversion to Islam, also making the execution of apostates from Islam illegal. Despite the official position of the state in the midst of the Tanzimat reforms, this tolerance of non-Muslims seems to have been seriously curtailed, at least until the Reform Edict of 1856. The Ottoman Empire had tried many different ways to reach out to non-Muslims. First it tried to reach out to them by giving all non-Muslims an option to apply for Dhimmi status. Having Dhimmi status gave non-Muslims the ability to live in the Ottoman Empire and own property, but this ability was not without special taxes (jizya).

For the "Ottoman ruling elite, 'freedom of religion' meant 'freedom to defend their religion'".[27]

Principle Men of the Tanzimat

edit
Offices held by the principal men of the Tanzimat, 1836–1876[28]
Year Mustafa Reşid Pasha Mehmed Emin Âlî Pasha Mehmed Fuad Pasha
1839 Foreign minister, 1837–1841
1840 Ambassador to Paris, 1840–1845 First translator of the Porte, 1838–1852
1841 Ambassador to London, 1841–1844
1842
1843
1844 Member of the Supreme Council of Judicial Ordinances, 1844–1846
1845
1846 Grand Vizier, 1846–1848 Foreign minister, 1846–1848
1847
1848 Foreign minister, 1848–1852
1849
1850
1851
1852 Grand Vizier, 1852 Grand Vizier, 1852 Foreign minister, 1852

Member of the Council of Reorganization, 1852–1855

1853 Foreign minister, 1853–1854
1854 Grand Vizier, 1854–1855 Foreign minister, 1854–1855
1855 Grand Vizier, 1855–1856 Foreign minister, 1855–1856
1856 Grand Vizier, 1856–1857 Foreign minister, 1856–1858 Chairman of the Council of Reorganization, 1856–1858
1857 Grand Vizier, 1857–1858
1858 Died, 1858 Grand Vizier, 1858–1859 Foreign minister, 1858–1860
1859 Chairman of the Council of Reorganization, 1859–1861
1860
1861 Grand Vizier, 1861–1863
1862
1863 Grand Vizier, 1863–1866
1864
1865
1866
1867 Grand Vizier, 1867–1871 Foreign minister, 1867–1869
1868
1869 Died, 1869
1870
1871 Died, 1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876

Impacts

edit
 
The 1876 Constitution: Sultan Abdul Hamid II, the Grand Vizier, and the millets grant freedom to an idealized female figure representing Turkey, whose chains are being smashed. The flying angel displays a banner with the motto of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity in Turkish (Arabic script) and in Greek. The scene takes place in a generic Bosphorus scenery. Reproduced from a 1908 postcard (the printed caption of 1895 is inaccurate) celebrating the re-introduction of the constitution thanks to the Young Turk Revolution of 1908.

Although the Edict of Gülhane and the Tanzimat provided strong guidelines for society, they were not a constitution and did not replace the authority of the sultan.

Still, the Tanzimat reforms had far-reaching effects overall. Those educated in the schools established during the Tanzimat period included major personalities of the nation states that would develop from the Ottoman Empire. The system was ultimately undone by negotiations with the Great Powers following the Crimean War. As part of the Charter of 1856, European powers demanded a much stronger sovereignty for ethnic communities within the empire, differing from the Ottomans, who envisioned equality meaning identical treatment under the law for all citizens. That served to strengthen the Christian middle class, increasing their economic and political power.[citation needed]

The reforms peaked in 1876 with the implementation of an Ottoman constitution checking the autocratic powers of the Sultan. The details of this period are covered under the First Constitutional Era. Although the new Sultan Abdul Hamid II signed the first constitution, he quickly turned against it.

Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser has argued that the reforms led to "the rhetorical promotion of equality of non-Muslims with Muslims on paper vs. the primacy of Muslims in practice" (see Tanzimat Dualism); other historians have argued that the decreased ability of non-Muslims to assert their legal rights during this period led to the land seizure and emigration.[29] Part of the reform policy was an economic policy based on the Treaty of Balta Liman of 1838. Many changes were made to improve civil liberties, but many Muslims saw them as a foreign influence on the world of Islam. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by the state.[30] During the Tanzimat period, the government's series of constitutional reforms led to a fairly modern conscripted army, banking system reforms, the replacement of religious law with secular law[31] and guilds with modern factories.

Some scholars argue that from the Muslim population's traditional Islamic view, the Tanzimat's fundamental change regarding the non-Muslims, from a status of a subjugated population (dhimmi) to that of equal subjects, was in part responsible for the Hamidian massacres and subsequent Armenian genocide. In their view, these were inevitable backlashes from the Muslim community to the legal changes, as the Tanzimat's values were imposed from above and did not reflect those of society.[32]

Effects in different provinces

edit

In Lebanon, the Tanzimat reforms were intended to return to the tradition of equality for all subjects before the law. However, the Sublime Porte assumed that the underlying hierarchical social order would remain unchanged. Instead, the upheavals of reform would allow for different understandings of the goals of the Tanzimat. The elites in Mount Lebanon, in fact, interpreted the Tanzimat far differently from one another, leading to ethno-religious uprisings among newly emancipated Maronites. As a result, "European and Ottoman officials engaged in a contest to win the loyalty of the local inhabitants — the French by claiming to protect the Maronites; the British, the Druze; and the Ottomans by proclaiming the sultan's benevolence toward all his religiously equal subjects."[33]

In Palestine, land reforms, especially the change in land ownership structure via the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, allowed Russian and Yemeni Jews to buy land, thus enabling them to immigrate there under the first Aliya. In order to boost its tax base, the Ottoman state required Arabs in Palestine, as elsewhere, to register their lands for the first time. As a rule the fellahin didn't trust the ailing regime, fearing that registration would only lead to higher taxation and conscription. Prevailing illiteracy among the fellahin meant in the end that many local mukhtars were able to collectively register village lands under their own name. Thus, they were able to later claim ownership and to sell the local peasants' lands out from under their feet to the new Jewish immigrants, as they themselves relocated permanently to Syria or Turkey.[34] Alternately, rich Christian or Muslim families, the class of the 'Effendis', were able to accumulate large amounts of land which they exploited by themselves or sold on.

In 1863 the Armenian National Constitution was approved by the Ottoman government. The "Code of Regulations" consisted of 150 articles drafted by the Armenian intelligentsia and defined the powers of the Armenian Patriarch under the Ottoman millet system and the newly formed Armenian National Assembly.[35]

Political consequences

edit

Despite progressive intentions, the policy of reform in the form of Tanzimat ultimately failed. The historical circumstances of the reforms, the reasons for this failure and the consequences of the reforms are of interest for historical analysis and are considered by historians all over the world. Zeynep Çelik wrote: "In summary, from 1838 to 1908 the Ottoman Empire staged its final but doomed struggle for survival."[citation needed]

edit

See also

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^ Currently, in French, the word "Tanzimat" is used as a plural, as in "Les Tanzimat". At the time, when French was a common language for the educated in the empire, the word was often treated in the singular, as "Le Tanzimat".[1] For why French is important, see Languages of the Ottoman Empire

References

edit
  1. ^ Strauss, Johann (2010). "A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the Kanun-ı Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages". In Herzog, Christoph; Malek Sharif (eds.). The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy. Würzburg: Orient-Institut Istanbul. pp. 21–51.
  2. ^ "Tanzimat Reforms". rpl.hds.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2024-05-23.
  3. ^ Cleveland & Bunton 2012, p. 82.
  4. ^ Deringil, Selim (1993). "The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 35 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1017/S0010417500018247. S2CID 145056061. (Jan. 1993), pp. 3–29
  5. ^ Kawtharani, Wajih (April 2018). "The Ottoman Tanzimat and the Constitution". AlMuntaqa. 1 (1): 51–65. doi:10.31430/almuntaqa.1.1.0051. JSTOR 10.31430/almuntaqa.1.1.0051.
  6. ^ Ayteki̇n, Atti̇la (August 2012). "Peasant Protest in the Late Ottoman Empire: Moral Economy, Revolt, and the Tanzimat Reforms". International Review of Social History. 57 (2): 191–257. doi:10.1017/S0020859012000193. S2CID 145729675.
  7. ^ Lindgren, Allana; Ross, Stephen (2015). The Modernist World. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-69616-2. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
  8. ^ Yapp, Malcolm (9 January 2014). The Making of the Modern Near East 1792–1923. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-317-87107-1. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
  9. ^ Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü (1995). The Young Turks in Opposition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535802-5. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
  10. ^ The Syrian Land: Processes of Integration and Fragmentation : Bilād Al-Shām from the 18th to the 20th Century. Franz Steiner. 1998. p. 260. ISBN 978-3-515-07309-7. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
  11. ^ Zvi Yehuda Hershlag (1980). Introduction to the Modern Economic History of the Middle East. Brill Archive. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-90-04-06061-6. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
  12. ^ Caroline Finkel (19 July 2012). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923. John Murray. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-1-84854-785-8. Retrieved 11 June 2013.
  13. ^ Selçuk Akşin Somel (2010). The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-8108-7579-1. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
  14. ^ a b Padişahı, İlklerin (July 2011). "Sultan Abdülmecid". NTV Tarih (in Turkish). pp. 46–55. Archived from the original on 2013-02-12.
  15. ^ Strohm, Frederic (2016). Istanbul im 19. Jahrhundert. Die Modernisierungsbestrebungen in der osmanischen Hauptstadt – lokale Faktoren und globale Einflüsse [Istanbul in the 19th century. Modernization efforts in the Ottoman capital: local factors and global influence] (in German). pp. 34–.
  16. ^ "PTT Chronology" (in Turkish). PTT Genel Müdürlüğü. 13 September 2008. Archived from the original on 13 September 2008. Retrieved 11 February 2013.
  17. ^ "History of the Turkish Postal Service". Ptt.gov.tr. Retrieved 6 November 2011.
  18. ^ The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History. (2023). Tyskland: Springer International Publishing. p536
  19. ^ The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History. (2023). Tyskland: Springer International Publishing. p536
  20. ^ a b Davison 1963, p. 98.
  21. ^ The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History. (2023). Tyskland: Springer International Publishing. p536
  22. ^ "History of the Ottoman Bank". obarsiv.com. Archived from the original on 2012-06-14.
  23. ^ "History of the Istanbul Stock Exchange". Archived from the original on 2012-02-25.
  24. ^ The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History. (2023). Tyskland: Springer International Publishing. p536
  25. ^ a b Cleveland & Bunton 2012, p. 84.
  26. ^ a b Davison 1963, p. 99.
  27. ^ Deringil, Selim (July 2003). "There Is No Compulsion in Religion': On Conversion and Apostasy in the Late Ottoman Empire: 1839–1856". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 42 (3): 547–575. doi:10.1017/S0010417500002930 (inactive 1 November 2024). S2CID 146795365.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  28. ^ Shaw & Shaw 1977, p. 62.
  29. ^ Maksudyan, Nazan (2019). "review of This Is a Man's World?: On Fathers and Architects: Talaat Pasha father of modern Turkey, architect of genocide, by Hans-Lukas Kieser, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2018". Journal of Genocide Research. 21 (4): 540–544. doi:10.1080/14623528.2019.1613816. S2CID 181910618.
  30. ^ Roderic, H. Davison (1990). Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923 – The Impact of the West. University of Texas Press. pp. 115–116.
  31. ^ Ishtiaq, Hussain. "The Tanzimat: Secular reforms in the Ottoman Empire" (PDF). Faith Matters.
  32. ^ Movsesian, Mark (2010-05-05). "Elusive Equality: The Armenian Genocide and the Failure of Ottoman Legal Reform". Rochester, NY. SSRN 1600745. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  33. ^ Makdisi, Ussama (2000). "Corrupting the Sublime Sultanate: The Revolt of Tanyus Shahin in Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Lebanon". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 42 (1): 180–208. doi:10.1017/S0010417500002644 (inactive 1 November 2024). S2CID 143901523.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  34. ^ Shafir, Gershon. Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1882–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. ^ Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.). The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. p. 198.

Cited sources

edit
  • Cleveland, William L.; Bunton, Martin P. (4 December 2012). A history of the modern Middle East (Fifth ed.). Boulder, CO. ISBN 978-0-8133-4833-9. OCLC 813691473.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Davison, Roderic (1963), Reform in the Ottoman Empire: 1856–1876, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Further reading

edit
  • Lafi, Nora. The Ottoman Municipal Reforms between Old Regime and Modernity: Towards a New Interpretative Paradigm. OCLC 695237486.
  • Lafi, Nora (2002). Une ville du Maghreb entre ancien régime et réformes ottomanes : genèse des institutions municipales à Tripoli de Barbarie, 1795–1911. Paris: L'Harmattan. ISBN 978-2-7475-2616-6. OCLC 52813928.
  • Lafi, Nora. Municipalités méditerranéennes. Les réformes urbaines ottomanes au miroir d'une histoire comparée. OCLC 695236822.
  • Finkel, Evgeny; Gehlbach, Scott (2020). Reform and Rebellion in Weak States (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108855112. ISBN 978-1-108-85511-2. S2CID 219497050.
  • Gelvin, James L. (2008). The Modern Middle East: A History (Second ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532759-5.
  • Indzhov, Emil (2017). The Bulgarians and the Administrative Reforms in the Ottoman Empire in 50-60 Years at the XIX Century (in Bulgarian). Vol. 56. Avalon. ISBN 978-0-8133-4833-9. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Creasy, Edward Shepherd (2011). History of the Ottoman Turks : from the beginning of their empire to the present time. British Library, Historic. ISBN 978-1-241-43206-5. OCLC 942693443.
  • Costanza, Maurizio (2010). Le mezzaluna sul filo : la riforma ottomana di Mahmûd II (1808–1839) : politica, società, arte e cultura di un grande impero euro-asiatico all'alba della modernità e del confronto con l'Occidente. Venezia: Marcianum Press. ISBN 978-88-6512-032-3. OCLC 722436035.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzimat&oldid=1265517715"
  NODES
admin 5
chat 1
COMMUNITY 1
Idea 2
idea 2
inspiration 1
INTERN 11
Note 4
Project 1