THE YOUNG TURKS AND OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Name:
Course:
Date:
The fall of the Ottoman Empire: What factors facilitated the rise of the Young Turks Revolution?
Introduction
Social actors are groups or organizations that act and participate in the running of the country in international relations. The actors have enough power to cause an impact to change even though their organization is not legalized in a state. One of social actors is the group that existed during the Ottoman Empire during in the late 18th century and early 19th century called the Young Turks. The Young Turks were American Genocide perpetrators. This movement was active to the absolutist ruling of Abdul Hamid in the between the year 1876 and 1909. However, in the year 1878 when Ottoman constitution was suspended, the movement was organized underground and overseas. The movement mainly comprised of the young men who were uncomfortable with the declining power of Ottoman. The Young Turks were successful as they worked secretly in groups which were not connected under the leadership of Hamidian who acted as their watchful police. This research seeks to discuss the factors that facilitated the overturn of the Ottoman Empire by the Young Turks. The paper will also focus on the administration of the Young Turks and the reaction of people towards Ottoman administration era.
Research Question
The research seeks to answer the following research question. What are the factors that enabled a successful revolution organized by the Young Turks to overthrow the Ottoman Empire?
Research Objectives
The primary objective of the proposal is to identify the cause of the development of Young Turks Revolution as well as its administration. As a secondary objective, the research also identifies the people’s reaction towards Ottoman’s administration era and the impact of the Young Turks during the Ottoman’s era.
Methodology
The main method used in the term paper is the historical-sociological analysis. The term paper focuses on the development of the society through the history of Turkey. It explains the administrative changes as a result of the Young Turks leading to effective governance[1]. It also uses comparative historical sociology which is closely related to the historical-sociological analysis. However, this methodology helps in analyzing the social revolutions and the rise of a democratic nation-state. Comparative historical sociology helps in the analysis of societal transformations including social revolutions, non-state democratization, and the birth of welfare states.[2] The two methods are thus ideal in developing an understanding that would meet the objectives and answer the research questions based on the available evidence.
Argument
There was a bitter relationship between the Young Turks of Turkey and the Ottoman ruling that was in power at that time. In the early 20th century a group of army officers, civil servants, students, and some people who were exiled by the Ottoman Empire joined forces to form the Young Turks. [3] The Young Turks was a coalition of many groups that were formed to lead change against the Ottoman Empire because their rule was an authoritarian one led by Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid the Second. This revolutionary movement led to the establishment of a government that favored the rule of law and adhered to the constitution. After the emergence of the Young Turks, they came up with a program that promoted the new spirit of nationalism in Turkey and transformed the Ottoman Empire. Even though the Young Turks were inspired by the wave of nationalism that was slowly sweeping through Europe, their motivation was their collective vision of a democratic multi-national state. Therefore, with support from Arabs, Armenians, Jews, and Greeks, the group converged in 1906 and formed the Committee on Union and Progress (CUP), which would later govern the Empire from 1908 to 1918. The key motivation for the existence of the Young Turks was to attain polyarchy, where there were free and fair elections, freedom of expression, right to run an office, elected officials, associational autonomy, and alternative information.[4] Notably, the Young Turks sought to submit the Empire to a constitutional regime that would restore the parliament and the associated institutions, which in itself is a polygarchic move.[5]
The Young Turks changed the handling of the foreign policies that led to the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The development of the movement raises arguments as the ruling body ought to have been careful on the actions or behavior of the people who were in their exile. These people are believed to be always against the government. One important question that still remains is whether the ruling party was infiltrated with spies who fed the Young Turks information that eventually led to the demise of the Empire.
This revolutionary movement that became the Young Turks began in 1889 where a group of students planned to overthrow the Ottoman Empire. The plan was uncovered forcing these students to go into exile in Paris. Paris was the main place where the reformed groups met to organize on how they can bring down the Ottoman Empire that was ruled by a dictator Abdulhamid. One of the leaders of the Young Turks was Ahmed Riza, who acted as their spokesman and was the head of the Committee of Union and Progress that was an organization within the Young Turks.[6] The organization fought for a change in the constitution. It also agitated for a central government that is strong and not being influenced by foreign countries because the Ottoman Empire was often being supported by countries in the Middle East also known as Arab Nations. Another group was also formed within the Young Turks headed by Prince Sabaheddin. This group was known as the League of Private Initiative and Decentralization and favored assistance from European countries instead of the Arab countries. A look at the revolution’s leadership reveals that the leaders were all young people. These young people were organized and determined to have the Empire out of power. The cause of this determination is still unclear since some contend that the young leaders wanted to benefit themselves. They could not have abandoned their duties and responsibilities for the movement thereby risking their lives without an end goal in sight.
Reinforcement was required for the success of the movement. The two groups, Committee of Union and Progress and League of Private Initiative and Decentralization, played a significant role in stimulating and disseminating revolution in Turkey, but their actions were not enough to force the Ottoman Empire to adhere to the demands of people. The Empire continued to mistreat its citizens and assassinate others, leading to the rise of Young Turks Revolution in 1906.The Turks were led by an association of unhappy citizens within the empire. All the three groups forces to liberate Turkey from the authoritarian rule of the Ottoman Empire. The rebellion was too much for Abdulhamid to bare forcing him to recall the parliament and enacting the constitution that was written in 1876.[7] This action was an achievement for the Young Turks because they had longed for a government that adhered to the country’s constitution. However, some ideological differences still existed that prevented the Young Turks from gaining full control of the government. The formation of these groups under the Young Turks could have caused rumblings within the groups as to who the actual leader. Having many people leading different factions of the same organization would mean that there would have to be infighting when it came to picking the mantle from the Empire.
The new leadership under the Young Turks was effective. More centralization was realized in Turkey after the Young Turks took over power from the Ottoman Empire. They laid down policies of administrative reforms, particularly in the provincial administration. They became the first reformers of Ottoman to promote industrialization in Turkey. Additionally, the programs of a regime of Young Turks led to the improvement of the court system and offered for the empowerment of women in the sector of education more so, the primary education. The revolution and demands that the Young Turks made led to developments that pleased everyone. This, however, sheds light into the Young Turks ability to form a government with little know how in governance. The elderly are believed to be more knowledgeable in management as they have more experience in the same.
Counter Argument.
The Young Turk movement was not entirely a secret. In fact, the major reason it existed underground and was based in colleges and officer corps was so it would get some protection from sultan’s secret police that would prematurely abort its missions. [8] Some of the top leadership officials in the Ottoman leadership were aware of the movement. They could provide vital information to the movement which led to their success. They remained a secret because of the repressions in the hands of the state, which drove most of the groups to exile. [9]I also believe that some of the citizens in Turkey knew of the movement, but they remained silent to enable the movement to succeed in the takeover. I also believe that the elders coordinated the young people. In accordance to the story, the Young Turks were self-governing and were grouped differently without any connections among the groups. I differ with this as for a successful turnover; some coordination is required as different groups have different plans hence confusion when they all meet to accomplish a particular related goal. The division in the movement was too much for its success without any form of coordination. The movement was divided into three groups as earlier stated which were led by Ahmed Riza, Prince Sabaheddin, and the overall Young Turks Revolution.
Measures of Success and Failure.
Upon the failure of identification that the movement was a secret, then I would believe that the group was well organized with the member motivated and dedicated to saving their country. The members of the Young Turks must have undergone through much pain through the ruling of Ottoman Empire and were ready to sacrifice their lives as they rebelled the ruling hence taking over governance. The counter-argument would, therefore, be eliminated and support the literature review further by providing additional information in support of the success of the movement. I would expect that the movement was led by the Turks who had been exiled by Ottoman Empire for many years and had, therefore, learned all his leadership details hence inform the other members on the techniques to be used during the rebellion.
Conclusion
The authoritarian rule of Abdulhamid of the Ottoman Empire caused the rise of the Young Turks group whose aim was to change the country and bring back democracy to Turkey. There was a bitter relationship between the Young Turks of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire that was in power at that time. In the early 20th century a group of army officers, civil servants, students, and some people who were exiled by the Ottoman Empire joined forces to form the Young Turks. This group was a coalition of many groups that were reformed that led to a change movement that was against the Ottoman Empire because their rule was an authoritarian one led by Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid the Second. This revolutionary movement led to the establishment of a government that favored the rule of law and adhered to the constitution. The movement achieved its goals by forming a constitutional government in Turkey. However, the Young Turk Revolution failed to deliver its promises. Instead of the promised democracy and decentralization of power, there was more authoritarianism and centralization. Furthermore, they deviated from the millet system and imposed a single identity on every one regardless of their race thus not delivering their promise on
Bibliography
Adalian, Rouben Paul. “Young Turks and the Armenian Genocide”. Armenian-Genocide.Org, 2017. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html.
Ahmad, Feroz. The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908-1914. Hurst & Company, 2009.
Akçam, Taner. The Young Turks’ crime against humanity: The Armenian genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press, 2012.
Bowering, Gerhard, Patricia Crone, Wadad Kadi, Mahan Mirza, Devin J Stewart, and Muhammad Qasim Zaman. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Kayalı, Hasan. Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1918. Univ of California Press, 2007.
Prasad, Monica. “Comparative Historical Sociology”. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets, 2011. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0009.
.
[1]. Rouben Paul Adalian, “Young Turks and the Armenian Genocide”, Armenian-Genocide.Org, 2017, http://www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html.
[2]. Monica Prasad, “Comparative Historical Sociology”, Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets, 2011, doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0009.
[3]. Hasan Kayalı, Arabs and Young Turks (Univ of California Press, 2007).
[4]. Gerhard Bowering et al., The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2013), 409.
[5]. Chalcraft, John. Popular politics in the making of the modern Middle East. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[6]. Ahmad, Feroz. The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908-1914. Hurst & Company, 2009.
[7]. Akçam, Taner. The Young Turks’ crime against humanity: The Armenian genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press, 2012.
[8]. Chalcraft, John. Popular politics in the making of the modern Middle East.
[9] Ibid.
