baptizing territory
Post on 02-Jun-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
1/85
8
BAPTIZING TERRITORY:
RECONSTITUTING RUMELAFTER 1878
byAye avdar
Dissertation submitted to the History Department
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in History
Boazii University
2004
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
2/85
9
Baptizing Territory: Reconstituting Rumeli after 1878
A dissertation prepared by Aye avdar
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Arts at
the Department of History.
This dissertation has been approved and accepted by:
Prof. Dr. Huricihan slamolu (advisor)
Prof. Dr. Selim Deringil.
Assis. Prof. Ycel Terzibaolu
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
3/85
10
to Lale
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
4/85
11
zet
1878de Byk Gler ile Osmanldevleti arasnda imzalanan Berlin Anlamas,
Balkanlarda Romanya, Bulgaristan ve Srbistan devletlerinin bamsz birer
uluslararasaktr olarak domalarnsalamann yansra, Osmanlynetimini yine
Byk Glerin onay yetkisi altnda yaplmasngrlen bir dizi reformu uygulamak
zorunda brakyordu. 1880de hazrlanan ve Avrupa Komisyonunun onayndan
geen Rumeli Vilayetleri Kanunu, Osmanlmerkezi devletini Rumelide bir smrge
imparatorluuna dntryordu. Osmanlynetimi bu tasarybizzat kendisi
hazrlamolsa da, asla uygulamad. Blgede i karklklarn, ayaklanmalarn
kmasOsmanlhkmetinin bu yasayla ngrlen reformlaruygulamadiin
eletirilmesine neden oldu. Byk Glerin blgedeki istikrarszlnlemek iin
bulduklar
yntem dorudan mdahale idi. 1903te Mrzsteg, 1908de de Revaltasarlargndeme geldi. Avrupa devletlerinin temsilcileri de bizzat reformlarn
uygulamalarnda grev alacaklard. Reformlar, 1908 Jn Trk devrimiyle tamamyla
ortadan kalkt. 1912deki Osmanlkabinesi, Balkanlarda savaittifakkurulurken
yaklaan savanleyebilmek iin 1880 tarihinde yaplan kanunu bir kez daha
gndeme getirdi. Ne var ki stanbul kamuoyu yasann tartlmasna bile karyd.
Kaldki Balkan devletlerinin de savatan vazgemek gibi bir eilimleri yoktu.
Balkan Savalarnn ardndan Ege MakedonyasYunanistan snrlariinde kald.
Blge bu defa da Yunan modern merkezi ulus devletinin izdii bir merkezilemesreci ierisine girdi. Yunanistan nce mbadele ve zorunlu g ya da ge zorlama
yntemiyle blgedeki Yunan olmayan unsurlarsrgn ederek, buradaki demografiyi
deitirdi. Blgedeki yerleim yerlerinin isimlendirilmesi politikas, bu topraklarn
bundan byle Yunan merkezi devleti tarafndan Yunan ulusu adna ynetileceinin
gstergesi idi.
Tezin ilk iki blmnde Rumeli vilayetlerinin AvrupalByk Glerle Osmanl
mparatorluu arasnda nasl bir mcadele alanoluturduunu ve Osmanl
ynetiminin Byk Glerin mdahalelerine direnme biimleri yer almaktadr. Bu
iki blmn amacise Osmanlynetiminin merkezileme abalarile, Avrupa
mdahalesinin blgeyi merkezsizletirici etkisinin ortaya kardgerilimi ifade
edebilmektir. Tezin nc blmnde ise Yunan ulus devletinin Ege
Makedonyasnn hangi politik aralarla merkezi ynetimin bir nesnesi haline
getirdii aklanmaya allmtr. Bu blmn amacise, zellikle isimlendirme ve
kimlik politikalarnn yalnzca sylemsel politikalar olmadklar, aksine ulusal
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
5/85
12
kimliin aslnda uluslararasalanda ina edilmesi nedeniyle yasal ve ekonomik
pratikler temelinde ekillendiklerini ortaya koymaktr.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
6/85
13
Summary
The Berlin Treaty of 1878, which was signed between the Great Powers and the
Ottoman Empire, not only created new nation states in the Balkans, such as
Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia, but also ordered the Ottoman administration to
implement reforms under the supervision of the European Commission. The Law of
Rumelin Provinces of 1880 was prepared to implement the Berlin Treatys
provisions on reforms. Since the Ottoman administration never applied these
reforms, it was criticized for causing the instable environment in the Balkans. The
resolution of the Great Powers was direct intervention to the Ottoman affairs in
Rumeli. According to the Mrzsteg reforms of 1903 and the Reval reforms of 1908,
the European diplomats would directly involve in the implementation of the reforms.
All these reforms were dismissed with the Young Turk revolution of 1908. The
program of the Young Turks was based on the centralization of administration
without any concession. The Ottoman government of 1912 took the Law of 1880 one
more time in order to prevent the possible war in the Balkans. However, the public
opinion in Istanbul was against even the discussion of the law. On the other hand, the
Balkan states would not withdraw from war.
The Aegean Macedonia passed under the Greek rule after the Balkan Wars. The
region was centralized by the Modern Greek nation state. The Greek administration
changed the ethnic composition of its territory by means of policies of forced
migration and population exchanges. The policy of renaming inhabited places was
one of the most significant identity politics of the Greek nation state. It was the sign
that the Greek nation state would rule over this territory on behalf of the Greek
nation.
First two chapters of this study focus on the tension between the Great Powers and
Ottoman administration, because of the intervention policies of Great Powers and the
resistance of the Ottoman administration. The centralization of the Aegean
Macedonia by the Greek central state is mentioned in the third chapter of this study.
The main goal of this chapter is to show that the policies of renaming and identity are
not only discursive policies; on the contrary, since national identity is a product of
the balance of power in international relations, the identity policies are formed on the
basis of legal and economic practices.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
7/85
14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First I would like to thank my advisor, Prof. Huricihan Islamoglu, for her kind
encouragement and guidance. I should appreciate also to Prof. Selim Deringil and
Asst. Prof. Yucel Terzibasoglu for their comments and suggestions. Thanks to Nil
Mutluer, Volkan Aytar and Tracy Lord; they helped to me to write this thesis in a
more understandable way. Thanks to Ayegl Okan and my sister Hatice avdar for
their emotional support in every level of this thesis. Special thanks to Melek Taylan,
Nurdan Arca and Sevgi Sevgin, they were very patient and supportive while I was
writing this thesis. I appreciate to my father, Yaar avdar, because his ethical way
of understanding people and events is my main guide to understand events and
people in my life, he taught me to stay on my own feet, while I am seeking for
success that I desire. In addition, special thanks to ahin Utar, who listened to and
encouraged me patiently every time while I was trying to organize my ideas about
the naming and authority.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
8/85
15
Baptizing Territory: Reconstituting Rumeli after 1878
CONTENTS
zet iv
Summary v
Acknowledgements vi
Introduction 8
Chapter I
Reconstituting Rumeli: The Law of Rumelin Provinces of 1880 12
I.1. Legal Status of the People of Rumelin Vilayets 19
I.2. General Councils as Provincial Parliaments 22
I.3. Election Procedure 26
I.4. The Status of Governors and Other Officials of Central Government 27
I.5. Religious Communities and Education 30
I.6. Courts 34
I.7. Security 35
Chapter II:
The Resistance of the Ottoman Administration to Reforms,
and the Restoration of the Law of Rumelin Provinces in 1912 37
II.1. Mrzsteg Reforms 39
II.2. The Resistance of the Ottoman Bureaucracy and Officers: 1908 42
II.3. The Law of Rumelin Provinces of 1912 45
Chapter III:
Greek Administration in the Aegean Macedonia After 1912 49
III.1. Greek Position until the Balkan Wars 52
III. 2. General Consequences of the Balkan Wars 55
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
9/85
16
III.3. Greece in Macedonia: Changing Demographic Composition 56
III.4. Centralization of Macedonia: Local Practices 62
III.5. Baptizing Territory 65
Conclusion 72
Bibliography 78
Appendixes
Rumeli VilayatKanunu (Layiha) 84
Maps
Kosova Viyalet at Beginning of the 20
th
Century 132Selanik (Thessalonica) Viyalet at Beginning of the 20thCentury 133
Manastir (Monastir) Viyalet at beginning of the 20thCentury 134
The Balkans in 1878 135
The Balkans in 1913 136
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
10/85
17
Introduction
sim dediin, Hz. Ademden bu yana, kendini tayankh usul usul yourur,kh efsunlu iplerle skskbalard.sim dediin, yksekte uann belini bkecek,
alaktan geenin bandorultacak; pervasza perva, korkusuza korku katacak kadar kudretli idi.
Elif afak, PinhanAccording to a story in the Quran, God honored the first human, Adam, when he
learned all the names of the creatures in the universe. Therefore, Adam became the
representative of God on earth. After Adam came to the earth with Eva, only he held
the authority to name the creatures of God. This story always makes me think that
naming has strongly been related with authority. Naming or baptizing somebody or
something is a kind of declaration that the name-giver or baptizer has authority over
the existence of the baptized human or the thing.
My thesis is inspired by a suspicion of renaming policies in the context of the
construction of nation states. For a very concrete example of this issue, we have an
ongoing debate over the Armenian Genocide. Clearly, if international community
accepts the concept of Armenian Genocide, Turkey would have a right to fear
compensation from the descendents of the Ottoman Armenians. Similar to this
problematic was that experienced between Greece and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Greece opposed the usage of the name
Macedonia by the FYROM, because of the countrys potential claims over Aegean
Macedonia (or Northern Greece). Obviously, there are large national interests at
stake in the naming of territories.
My general context is the period of the transition from empire to nation state.
Specifically, I focus on the dissolution process of the Ottoman Empire into discreet
nation states, and crucial in this process was the imbalance of powers between the
Ottoman Empire and the European Great Powers. In this thesis, I am interested in the
naming policies within the context of the conflicting interests between these two
major blocs.
The naming policy was one of several tools for nationalizing former imperial
territories. Although, the renaming policy of the nation states is generally perceived
as largely an aesthetic issue, in fact my research suggests that the stakes in territorial
names are multiple and determining, including cultural, social, economic, and
political aspects. Indeed, it seems that renaming practices are one of the defense
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
11/85
18
mechanisms used by nation states in their formation processes since renaming a
particular territory in a given nations language constitutes a declaration of
possession of that nation and thus implies the right of that nation state to establish
hegemony over it. In short, naming makes territories into political possessions.
While the naming had been unproblematic feature of local cultures, in this
transitional period we observe that the authority to assign territorial names became a
tool of the formation of nation states. Among the stakes listed above, I am most
concerned in this study with the emergence of new social reality carried out by the
legal processes involved in renaming policies.
Interestingly, while the nation state concept was widely acknowledged as a universal
political organizing principal, in the case of the transformation of the OttomanEmpire, the determination of the right to nation-statehood was mainly undertaken by
seven nations (the Great Powers of Europe). This they did for Ottoman Rumeli by
reconstituting it an autonomous region as preliminary to a maze mature nation-
state configuration, in the Berlin Congress of 1878. The second half of this process
of regularization handled by the Great Powers was their forced decentralizing
reforms in the autonomous region to the Ottoman administration. On the other
hand, those same seven powers authorized the nation states of the Balkans, to
establish a new social reality for that same region, which Greece did in a holistic
fashion, including the application of Greek names to former Ottoman lands and for
former Slavophonic peoples.
The historical context that this study focuses on includes three main developments in
the Balkans related to each other. First is the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire,
the second is the formulation of national identities and the third is the formation of
new nation states. All of these developments were in correlation with each other.
The Berlin Treaty was the most important text of that period, because it crystallized
and legitimized the claims of Balkan nations. On the other hand, the treaty
reconstituted the region as a contested territory between these nation-states, because
there was no way to satisfy their irredentist claims. The period was the age of
nationalism (Gellner, 1996; 115): In other words, the construction period of national
imaginations (Anderson, 1995: 20).
The Berlin Treaty created states, and freed them to figure their nations from their
imagined history and legendary events, and replace them into the limits that was
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
12/85
19
determined according to romantic historical memories, instead of demographic, ethnic
or linguistic realities (Karpat, 2004; 7).
However, this study does not focus on the abstraction process of these
imaginations in discursive level. Rather, it focuses on the institutionalization
process of nationalism as an administrative preference in practical level. Hence, themain analysis object of this study is legal texts of this process.
Indeed legal instruments were one of the most important instruments of creation of
social realities, in this case nations, clearly based on the ultimate results in new
balance of power configurations. As a methodological inclination, I was guided by
Islamolus suggestion to read laws the main textual resources of my research- as
constitutive of social reality (slamolu, 2004). In this case the Berlin Treaty seems
as the main constitutive text of the new international social reality, including, ofcourse, that in the Balkans. Thus, in my reading of the laws, I tried to consider, in
what context, for which reason, and by whom these laws were proposed or imposed.
Thus, I try to discern and describe the power relations behind these legal texts.
It is striking that in the historical or political literature on these issues, legal texts are
used primarily as secondary and supportive, and not to be evaluated as the central
materials for historiography. For instance, Balkan economic historian Michel Palairet
builds a historiography on the base of statistics and purely economic categories, witha very limited help from the highly determining principles of the legal context.
Perhaps the most well-known Balkan political historian L.S. Stavrianos, while
sometimes interested in the international treaties and regulations, bases his
historiography on military and political struggles among the Balkan States.
Ahmed Selahaddin, an Ottoman intellectual from the Istanbul Darulfnun,
emphasizes legal regulations in the formation of the new Balkan context of the
period around the Balkan Wars. I find his work important for two reasons, one, hisdetailed analysis of legal documents, and two, his providing in Ottoman perspective
on these events.
Finally, of great importance to this thesis for assistance in developing definitions of
social reality in cultural history was Anastasia N. Karakasidou. Her work sometime
based on oral accounts of the contemporary inhabitants of Aegean Macedonia,
reveals much about the process of identity formation under the influence of the
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
13/85
20
Greek Hellenization program, from the formation process of the Greek nation state to
the present.
In this study, specifically, I have tried to find the linkages between the centralization
of processes of the administration and the policy of renaming places in AegeanMacedonia. As a disputed territory, Aegean Macedonia passed through mainly two
different centralization processes. First one was the Ottoman Empire, and the second
one was the Greek nation state. The Ottoman Empire was transforming itself into a
centralized state. On the other hand, Greece was a modern nation-state, which had
Ottoman imperial legacy. Thus, this study focuses on the dissolution of the Ottoman
Empire and the formation of the Greek central administration in Aegean Macedonia,
after the Berlin Treaty of 1878.
In the first chapter, I elaborate on the Law of 1880 to show what sort of concessions
Ottomans had to give to the non-Muslim inhabitants and their European protectors.
In the second chapter, I tried to expose the resistance of the Ottoman bureaucracy to
these reforms, or decentralizating interventions of the European Great Powers. These
two chapters show why and how the Ottoman administration failed in the
centralization of the Rumeli Provinces.
The third chapter focuses on the centralization practices of Greece over Aegean
Macedonia in the period soon after the Balkan Wars. The Greek nation-state never
respected the multi-lingual and multi-religious social structure of the region. On the
contrary, it exiled the non-Greek peoples not only from administrative posts, but also
from the territory. With several ways of forced migration, it made its territory the
property of the abstract Greek nation. Renaming territory was one of the most
significant identity politics of the Greek nation-state until 1970s.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
14/85
21
Chapter I
Reconstituting Rumeli: The Law of Rumeli Provinces of 1880
The Berlin Treaty was a classic demonstration of Great Power diplomacy. The major
accomplishment of the congress was the re-establishment of the balance of power in
order to solve Eastern Question. However, the context and the realpolitik, which
was created by the Berlin Treaty, became national politics of the Balkan states
(Farrar, 1996).
If one accepts the premise that laws or rules are constitutive of social reality
(slamolu, 2004), it could be suggestible that the international treaties have been
constitutive of an international social reality. As the case with national law and rules,
international treaties represent different configurations of power.
the Macedonian Question was rooted in the diplomatic arrangements thatcollectively settled the Great Eastern Crisis of 1876-78. Macedonia was not only the
primary target of Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian expansionism, but also a source ofconsiderable consternation for the Great Powers. Then the Treaties of Berlin andConstantinople, which were concluded in 1878 and 1881, respectively, dramaticallyaltered the geopolitical situation in the Balkans. The redistribution of Ottoman territoryleft Greece and Serbia in possession of areas that bordered the three Ottoman
provinces that made up Macedonia(Gerolymatos, 2002: 190).
Gerolymatoss paragraph can be rephrased as the Berlin Treaty represented a
configuration of national/ethnic/international power balances in the Balkans. The
parties to the treaty tried to realize their own interests through deliberations,
contestations and compromises. In this sense, articles of the Berlin Treaty reflected
the configuration of interests in the Balkans at the end of the 19thcentury.
What were these power configurations? In order to answer this question, we have to
remember the consequences of the Russo-Turkish War of 1876-77. Since the
Ottoman Empire was defeated by Russia, the Treaty of San Stefano gave Russia
considerable influence in the Balkans, causing much dissatisfaction among the
Balkan States (Stavrianos, 1958: 408-10). Unavoidably, the Great Powers decided to
hold a new congress in Berlin to solve the problems over the Balkans.
The participants at the Berlin Congress, held on 13 June-13 July 1878, were the
representatives of different interests over the region. The treaty was prepared and
signed for defining the new political environment of the Balkans, which the Great
Powers of Europe; Great Britain, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Russia, and
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
15/85
22
Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, since the young states of the peninsula, Serbia
and Greece, did not want this region to remain under Russian influence, they wanted
to have a say in the Balkans, to avoid from the formation of the Great Bulgaria.
According to the Berlin Treaty, the Rumeli provinces would remain under Ottomanrule. Bulgaria would extend from the Danube River to the Mount Stara Planina.
Eastern Rumeli (today Southern Bulgaria) would remain as an autonomous region.
Bosnia and Herzegovina would be annexed by Austria-Hungary, and Montenegro
and Serbia would gain their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Obviously, this
new configuration of interests pointed to many conflicts in the region. Firstly,
Bulgaria could not realize its Greater Bulgaria dream. It could not even send a
representative to the Congress. Secondly, although the Rumeli provinces remainedunder Ottoman rule, the treaty did not end the claims of the neighboring states.
Consequently, as Rumeli could not be shared between irredentist nation states of the
Balkans, the Berlin Treaty transformed Eastern Question into the Macedonian
Question. When this question was named as Eastern Question, it was pointing out
the issues between the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan nations, in which were trying
to gain their independence. However, with the Berlin Treaty these issues crystallized
with the scrambling of the Rumeli, or the only part of the Balkans that stayed under
Ottoman rule.
The Berlin Congress did not only establish an independent Bulgaria, but also
provided full independence to Romania and Serbia, while Austria-Hungary annexed
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Following the Congress, the Balkan states became the
independent political actors of the international arena.
From the point of view of this study, since it stated that the Ottoman government had
to implement several reforms, the most significant article of the Berlin Treaty wasarticle 23.
The Sublime Porte undertakes scrupulously to apply in the Island of Crete the OrganicLaw of 1868 with such modifications as may be considered equitable. Similar lawsadapted to local requirements, excepting as regards the exemption from taxation
granted to Crete, shall also be introduced into the other parts of Turkey in Europe(emphasis are mine)1 for which no special organization has been provided by the
1It is significant that the treaty mentions the region as the parts of Turkey in Europe. Doubtless, itwas the language of diplomacy. In this period the naming of the region was a highly contested one.Harris emphasizes the problem over the usage of different names for Macedonia: The term
Macedonia does not appear of ten on modern maps, but it is in common use in a variety of ways,some of which are very confusing The name is usually employed in its most restricted and
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
16/85
23
present treaty. The Sublime Porte shall depute special commissions, in which the nativeelement shall be largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in each
province. The schemes of organization resulting from these labors shall be submittedfor examination to the Sublime Porte, which, before promulgating the Acts for puttingthem into force, shall consult the European Commission2 instituted for Eastern
Rumeli.3
According to Aram Andonyan, who is an Armenian Ottoman intellectual, article 23
stated that Ottoman Rumeli an autonomous region was under the control of the
European Commission. In order to prevent this autonomy, the Ottoman government
offered a reform project, which was more substantial than Europeans had demanded.
Eastern European Commission approved the draft law inclusive of the reforms,
which was called Rumeli VilayatKanunu (The Law of Rumeli Provinces) on 23
August 1880 (Andonyan, 2002: 202).4Rumeli provinces included Uskub (Skopje),
Monastir (Bitolya), Kosovo and todays Northern Greece or Aegean Macedonia.From the Ottoman point of view, this reform project had two aspects. First, it made
concessions both to the Great Powers of Europe and to the non-Muslim population
most of whom were affected by the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian nationalisms.
probably its most correct- meaning to designate that region of the Balkans embraced within the threeTurkish vilayets of Salonika, Monastir and Kosovo... (1913B; 205). Never using the termMacedonia Ottomans instead referred to it as Rumeli. On the other hand, this region wasMacedonia for especially Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian nationalists, which were demanding
Macedonia as a part of their national territory. Consequently, the European diplomacy pointed out theregion as the European Turkey or the parts of Turkey in Europe refraining from offending any ofthe concerned parties.2With the Berlin Treaty, a new province was formed and entitled Eastern Rumeli in southernBalkans. It would be remain under Ottoman rule, with conditions of administrative autonomy (article13). A Christian Governor General would govern it. A European Commission would be formed withthe representatives of the Great Powers to arrange the new administration in the region, in concertwith the Ottoman government (article 15) (Aydn, 1992; 17-19). The same European Commissionwould also supervise the reforms in Rumeli vilayets. Eastern Rumeli unified with Bulgaria in 1885.This experience also affected the reform policies of the Ottoman government. Because of thisexperience, naturally, Ottoman governments were not voluntary to give such an autonomy to theregions were highly effected by the nationalistic policies of the Balkan states.3Treaty between Great Britain, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey for the
Settlement of Affairs in the East: Signed at Berlin, July 13, 1878, The American Journal ofInternational Law, Vol. 2, No. 4, Supplement: Official Documents, October 1908, p. 4124Another case for similar practice that Ottoman administration gave some privileges to a region isLebanon. In Lebanon the problems between Druzes and the Marronites had been turned into aninternational problem. With the British and French armed intervention in 1861, the Ottomangovernment accepted to implement similar reforms in Lebanon. With these reforms, Lebanon had aspecial semi-independent provincial status: Mount Lebanon would be organized into a specialOttoman governorate, or mutasarrifiyya. A Christian governor was to head the mutasarrifiyya. Hewould be appointed by and directly responsible to the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman government)(Akarl, 1993: 33). All religious communities of Lebanon would send a representative to provincialadministration. A central council would be formed with two elected representatives from thesereligious communities. Ortaylemphasizes that neither vilayetlaw of 1864, nor 1871 included thearrangement that these religious communities sent representative to local councils as electing among
their members. It was a privilege that Ottoman administration accepted as a diplomatic concession inLebanon (Ortayl, 2000; 51).
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
17/85
24
Secondly, it was a sort of diplomatic trick to gain time for a more advantageous
resolution in Rumeli.
The most significant characteristic of the Law of 1880 was its repeated emphasis on
the multi-lingual and multi-religious structure of the region. It constituted the regionas a kind of colonial province. There would be local parliaments in each vilayet.
These parliaments could negotiate the activities of the Ottoman central government
within their borders. The Ottoman central government would send a governor to the
vilayets, however, since he was only the representative of the central government on
the local autonomous administrative structure, that governor looked like a modern
colonial one. According to article 23 of the Berlin Treaty, the Ottoman government
had to take the approval of the European Commission, which was formed by thediplomats of the Great Powers of Europe. The Berlin Treaty also determined the
preparation process of the law. Several special commissions would be formed in the
provinces, and each would send their reports included local needs. The Ottoman
government manipulated these local commissions, and never applied the law of
1880. The law was a kind of diplomatic concession to the local rebels and the
European Great Powers. Obviously, such a reform project stated with the Law of
1880 was decentralizing the Ottoman administration in the Rumeli provinces.
The main problem of the Ottoman government was its inner conflict between the
required concessions for such reforms and its demand for the centralization of its
administration. It seems the multi-religious and multi-lingual social structure of the
region was a sort of legitimacy tool for the Great Powers to intervene to the Ottoman
affairs in the Rumeli. Since they advocated the rights of non-Muslims and tried to
provide an environment that the non-Muslims could take posts at the different levels
of administration.
However, especially under the reign of Abdulhamid II, the Ottoman bureaucracy was
trying to transform the empire into a modern central state on the base of being
Ottoman. They were trying to create an Ottoman identity (Deringil, 2002, 74).
The policy to provide equal rights for non-Muslims was emphasizing this demand.
However, giving privileges to the non-Muslims was damaging this idea. Thus, while
the Ottoman governments were giving diplomatic concessions with several reform
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
18/85
25
projects to the non-Muslims and their European protectors, at the same time, they
resisted to implementation of those reforms5
In this chapter, I will summarize and discuss the articles of Law of Rumeli Provinces
of 1880, which address the multi-lingual and multi-religious social structure of theregion. First, I will point to the significance of this text, which was never put in
effect: Both the Berlin Treaty and the Law of Rumeli Vilayets represented
imaginings on the part of European Powers about the way they wanted to see the
Balkans, as a multi-lingual, a multi-religious, civil society environment. This
construct remained awkward in the late 19th century environment of centralizing
states with rising nationalist sentiments. But then, for the European Powers the multi-
lingual and multi-religious social order may have provided space for intervention tothe Ottoman domains. Such an intervention aimed at transforming the Balkans in
such a way that it would be ungovernable by the modernizing, centralizing Ottoman
State.
The Ottoman bureaucracy and diplomats reacted both to the Treaty and to the Law of
Rumeli Provinces, which was formulated in compliance with article 23 of the Berlin
Treaty. They were aware of the Great Powers intentions and in the drafting of the
Law, an attempt was made to fashion the Law in such a way as to meet theexpectations of the Europeans. At the same time, as is evidenced, in the Ottoman
reluctance to the foreign interventions to the domestic affairs, the Ottoman
bureaucracy was caught between its needs to centralize its administration and the
effects of the European intervention, which had decentralizing effects. I will discuss
the reactions against the law and the foreign intervention, in the third chapter.
Article 23 can be summarized in 3 points: Firstly, it recast the administration in the
Rumeli provinces and established the autonomy of the region and as had earlier beendone in the case of Crete6. Second, the article established special commissions,
5In 1880, when this law was prepared, Sadrazam Mehmed Said Pasha (or Kk Said Paa) who wasSadrazam in 1912 July was Sadrazam as well. With the order of Abdlhamit II, he prepared a projectabout centralization of the Ottoman administration. This is meaningful to show the Ottoman
bureaucracys conflict between European intervention to decentralized Ottoman administration andOttomans own centralization needs. For a brief biography of Sadrazam Mehmed Said Pasha seeKuran, 1970.6Because of the revolts in 1841, 1858, and 1867 the Ottoman government accepted to implementsome reforms in Crete. The special condition of Crete was determined withHalepa Mukavelenamesi
(Halepa Agreement, 23 October 1868). According to this agreement, the governor general of Cretewould be appointed for 5 years by the Ottoman government among local Christians. His
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
19/85
26
consisting of local people represented, determined the details of the new
administration. Third, this article granted rights of approval to the European states. In
fact, a European Commission consisting of representatives of the Great Powers was
formed for Eastern Rumeli. This commission also set out to form a new
administration for the Rumeli provinces. It is obvious that, the provisions of article
23 took away the administrative abilities of the Ottoman central government. The
Ottoman government even lost the right to organize a new administration in the
Rumeli Provinces, because the government had to take into consideration the needs
of the local commissions and get the approval of the European Commission.
The Ottoman government prepared the Law of Rumeli Provinces under these
conditions. The government formed numerous local commissions while preparingthe law. However, it seems there were issues about the representation of the local
inhabitants of the provinces. The government appointed its own officials and the
people more loyal to the central government to these commissions, and, as I will
mention later, this situation caused problems in the preparation process of the draft
law. The local Christian inhabitants of the provinces sent petitions to the European
Commission complaining of the policies of the central government, which prevented
the local representatives taking part in the commissions (Bozhinov and Panayotov,
1978).
The draft law included many details that should normally be part of a constitution. It
began with a chapter defining the rights of citizens for this region alone, then it
constituted a provincial parliament, and then it defined other institutions of a state,
including a separate election procedure. The significance of the text of the draft law
is that it emphasized the multi-lingual and multi-religious character of the region.
The draft law called for representation of local Christians and other religiouscommunities at every level of the administration in Rumeli provinces.
Administration of these provinces was reorganized in hierarchically clustered local
commissions (from the level of nahiye to the vilayets, every district has a
undersecretary would be Muslim. A general council would be formed in the island with 80 members,49 of them non-Muslim. This council would decide on local issues and meet once a year. The generalcouncil had the authority for collecting tax and for controlling local incomes and expenditures. Theisland was divided into 5 vilayets. Each vilayetwould be administered by a Muslim or non-Muslimgovernor. If the governor was Muslim his undersecretary would be non-Muslim or vice versa. The
officers in Crete would be elected among local peoples. These reforms would be a kind of example forother parts of Ottoman territory (Tokay, 1995; 24).
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
20/85
27
commission), which the elected and natural members representing the local
inhabitants at every level. The natural members of the local commissions were
basically the religious leaders and the officials of the central state. Elected members
of the commissions came throughout the multiple-level constituency elections in
nahiyes, kazas, sancaks and vilayets. On top of the hierarchy of these commissions
was a General Council, apparently similar to a local or federal parliament at each
vilayet.
The draft law guaranteed the representation of the different lingual or religious
communities in the General Council. In addition, central government had to prefer
the people, knowledgeable in local languages and customs, to appoint to the
administrative positions. Every law to be applied in the region had to be translatedinto local languages. Similarly, in the courts, people could use their mother-
languages, and (if it was possible) the judges and attorney generals had to be
knowledgeable in local languages. In fact, the draft law reconstituted the Rumeli
administration within autonomous lingual and religious communities, since
administrative hierarchy in every district (throughout the local commissions) had its
own autonomy to manage its domestic issues, and the authority to monitor the
workings of its sub-districts commissions. Furthermore, as independent from those
administrative councils and commissions, the draft law regarded the autonomy of the
vakfs of the religious communities. These vakfs had the right to manage the issues
remained under their control, like charity works, education and the issues about their
places of worship.
All these points show that the Law of Rumeli Provinces constituted not only the
administrative scheme of the Rumeli Provinces, but also the relationships between
Ottoman government and the multi-religious and multi-lingual society of the region.
Apparently, these councils constructed a multi-level negotiation between local
representatives (power holders) and the central government, throughout local
councils. The elected and religious leaders as natural members of the General
Council represented the local inhabitants, while the officials, as natural members of
the Council, represented the government. It means theoretically, the central
government could not do anything without the approval of these communities in the
region.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
21/85
28
However, in this context, the new party of the negotiation process is the Great
Powers intervening into the Rumeli affairs of the Ottoman Empire throughout their
constituted legitimacy within international treaties. Especially the Berlin Treaty and
article 23 provided the authority to monitor Rumeli affairs of the Empire. The most
significant legitimizing tool of the Great Powers was the multi-religious and multi-
lingual social structure of the region. It means, there were Christian populations in
the region, and the Great Powers got their protection authority within the
internationally constructed rules of inter-state relations. Together with the provisions
of the Law of Rumeli Provinces, the logical consequence of this situation was the
decentralization of Ottoman Rumeli.
At this point, I want to summarize the basic points of some articles of the draft law,which outline the regions multi-lingual, multi-religious, decentralized social and
administrative structure.
I.1. Legal Status of the People of Rumeli Vilayets
The first chapter of the Law of Rumeli Provinces is entitled Ahali-i Vilayatn
Hukuk-u Umumiyesi, (the general legal status of the people of the vilayets). This
very formalization in the article suggests that a special status was given to the people
of Rumeli, since a vilayet law, and a constitution were already in place since 1864
(?). Moreover, the first article of the Law of Rumeli Provinces, declared that the
people of each Ottoman vilayet had legal status, which was granted by the
constitution (Kanuni Esasi, 1876) and the law of the provinces (vilayetlaw of 1864).
The second article of the layiha (draft), which was accepted, states that all people of
vilayets had equal rights and responsibilities under the law. The third article
guaranteed freedom of worship to all members of all religions, including officially
unrecognized ones, on condition that they did not violate the general customs and
public order. The fourth article guaranteed the personal freedom of all people of the
vilayets.
Articles 5-12 define the procedures for trials in the vilayets. According to these
articles, nobody could be arrested unless there was a call that shows because of
which crime, according to which law, he/she would be arrested, prepared by a judge.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
22/85
29
If someone was caught red-handed, he must be tried in court within 24 hours.
Everyone had the right to be released on bail, and showing a sponsor, except there
was a danger that he/she could escape from the city. Additionally, policemen or
gendarme could not conduct searches on personal properties, unless a judge had
authorized it.
In articles 13 and 14, taxation was limited by considerations of the public interests
and public security as specified by laws. Article 15 guaranteed the right of residence
in all territory of the Empire for all citizens. Article 16 guaranteed immunity of
private property from unlawful intervention by third parties. Confiscation and forced
labor were banned, and limited by public interest (this was an issue well covered by
article 17). Article 18 recognized the freedom of education under the supervision ofgovernment. Similarly, article 19 guaranteed freedom of press, and prohibited
investigation prior to publication.
Article 20 tried to distinguish properties of local and central governments. The
vacant places that belong to the miri would be left to the vilayet (valilik,
governorship, the representative of central administration) according to need, and the
empty spaces in cities and towns would be left to the municipalities.
Article 21 defined some particularities in regions, which were multi-religious and
multi-lingual. Firstly, this article declared that government could employ everybody
without regard to his/her ethnic origin, if there was need. More notably, in areas,
where the majority of population was Muslim, kaymakams (the head officials of
districts) and mutasarrfs (the governors ofsancaks) would be appointed from among
Muslims, while in areas, where the majority were non-Muslims they would be
appointed from among non-Muslims. Finally, persons, who knew the local languages
in addition to Turkish, were preferred for these positions. However, nobody could beappointed mutasarrif or kaymakam in his/her own district or township. Article 22
dictated that the official language was the lisan- Osmani (Ottoman). However,
people, who knew local languages, were preferred for the position of the judge
(hakim) and of the public prosecutor (mdde-i umumi). The mustantiks were
certainly appointed from among the people who knew local languages. The petitions
would be submitted to civil servants or judges, if it was necessary, could be written
in officially recognized languages of the country. The writs, official reports, court
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
23/85
30
records etc. were to be written in Turkish and the language that parties preferred.
Court procedures would be carried out in languages preferred by the parties. Laws
and other orders of governor in vilayets would be published both in Turkish and in a
principal language of that vilayet.
According to article 23,only either the government itself or the committees, which
were recognized by the central government, could accept petitions, which were
written by one or more persons, or a congregation. Article 24 declared that the
General Councils would be established in each vilayet. The majority of the members
of the councils would be elected by the people of a given vilayet (this articles details
are in the fourth chapter of the Law of Rumeli Provinces). Article 25 stated that in
vilayets government could use police and regular army to maintain public order andsecurity (It means irregular armies (babozuklar) could not be used, placing certain
restrictions on central government). Similarly, article 26 declares that the Circassian
(erkes) warriors would not be settled in those vilayets.
This chapter of the Law of Rumeli Provinces described the social environment of the
Rumeli vilayets of the Ottoman Empire. The most striking characteristic of the region
was that it was multi-lingual and multi-religious. No doubt, the articles and clauses
making it possible for persons of different religions to hold administrative positions,the religions of administrators were concessions made by government to the non-
Muslims of the region; the usage of local languages was more than a concession, but
also a way of establishing better administration.
It should be kept in mind that the Ottoman government recognized only the Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Exarchate at that time. Thus, this article
meant that only these churches and the languages of these churches are acceptable
officially. It meant that unrecognized churches could not be represented atadministrative levels, such as catholic or protestant missionary churches.
Additionally, it should be noted that Serbia also had territorial demands over
Macedonia and it also tried to Serbianize Macedonia by the use of churches and
schools. However, for the Ottoman administration, the Serbian population did not
have a legal political or religious existence (Lange-Akhund, 1998: 58). After 1890s,
IMRO (Inner Macedonia Revolutionary Organization) would also try to establish an
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
24/85
31
autonomous Macedonian Church. Thus, this article limited the number of Christian
communities to officially recognized ones.
I.2. General Councils as Provincial Parliaments
The text of the Law of the Rumeli Provinces makes a distinction between the
authorities of local and central governments, and I believe this is one of its most
significant points. Governors in provinces represented the central government, while
the General Councils took decisions on the domestic issues of the vilayet.
The fourth chapter of the draft established the General Councils for each Rumeli
provinces named Vilayet Meclis-i Umumileri (Provincial General Councils). There
were three kinds of members in these General Councils. Firstly, the appointed
members (aza-y tabii), which are mfts, nakibs, the leaders of non-Muslim
communities, undersecretary of governor, defterdar, the directors of justice,
education, and the public works, and the inspectors of finance and justice. Secondly,
General Councils had elected members (aza-ymntehibe). According to article 69,
each kaza (district) was accepted as a single electoral district out of which two
representatives would be elected to the General Council. Half of the members of the
Council would be subject to by-elections in two years. These members of the
General Councils would receive salaries from the vilayetbudgets. Thirdly, there were
various appointed members of the General Councils (aza-ymensube).The governor
would appoint those members from among the elites of the vilayet: primarily among
the most respected property owners, merchants, and tradesmen; secondarily among
experts of science and education, for four years (Law of Rumeli Provinces, article
72). The number of appointed members would be one out of four of elected members
at most.
The General Council met in the beginning of October each year, for two months. At
the end of two months, or when the topics of discussion were over, the governor
would adjourn the meeting. If there was a need for a longer time (a maximum of 15
days), the governor had to inform the central government. The governor could not
disband the General Council without the approval of the Council of Administration.
Under extraordinary conditions, the governor could decide to dispersal of the
General Council. In this case, the election had to be held within two months. The
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
25/85
32
General Council would decide with a simple majority of its members, and the all
votes were equal. According to article 78, no security personnel, except for
policemen, who were appointed for the security of the General Council, could enter
the sessions of the Council.
Articles 82and 83gave an autonomous status to the General Councils. According to
article 82, the General Council had the right to propose laws to the central
government, as to discuss the laws, which were sent by the central government. The
central government had to discuss the drafts sent from General Councils, and if the
central government could not discuss it in 4 months, it would be regarded as enacted
by central government. According to article 83, the governor was responsible not
only to the central government but also to the General Council, in the issues relatedto the budget of vilayet. The governor had to seek the approval of the General
Council, before submitting the provincial budget to central government.
Article 84 made a distinction between the revenues and budgets of central
government and the vilayet. According to this article, the local government did not
have to aid the expenses of the central government related to military affairs.
Reciprocally, the local government did not have to share the revenues of central
governments investments, in postal services, customs, telegraph, the monopoly ofsalt, the license of alcoholic drinks, official seals etc. However, all sources of
revenue of the vilayet,except the central governments investments were included to
vilayetbudget. The 15 percent of these revenues were left to the General Council.
The whole cash of the vilayetwas kept at the local branch of Bank-Osmaniin the
account A. This account was divided into two sub-accounts under the signs of B
and C. The cash in account B was spent for the needs of local administration, and
the C was left to the national treasury. However, the central government (the
Ministry of Finance) had to request to use the account C. In the vilayet, the governor
and the defterdar, in livas the mutasarrf and the accountant, and in sancaks the
kaymakamand the director of public property (mal mdr) were the responsible for
the expenditures. All of them had to report to the General Council in its first session.
Additionally, the expenditures for justice, gendarme and police services belonged to
the General Council.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
26/85
33
If the governor wished to spend more than his allocated budget line, he had to
consult with the General Council. Article 86 stated that the General Council, if it
wanted, could inspect the budgets of the Administration Councils of livas and inform
the governor. According to article 87, if it was necessary, the General Council could
earmark 1 percent of whole revenues of the vilayet for education and public
improvement (in addition to the vilayets portion of 15 per cent). According to article
89, councils of liva, and then the General Councils would solve the conflicts in areas
where the property survey (tahrir) was not completed; if there were a re-arrangement
in taxation, the General Council would inform the central government. Article 91
stated that if the central government wanted to levy new taxes, the General Council
would decide on how they would be collected.
Article 98 provided legal immunity for the members of the General Council, and
article 99 stated that the members of the General Council could submit the
documents about themselves in their own language.
All these articles show that the General Councils were, in fact, local parliaments of
the Rumeli Provinces, since they had the authority to enact laws on their own, and
propose laws in related to the local issues of vilayets- to the central government. All
vilayets had their own budgets. They were able to appoint civil servants.
These articles show that the General Council had complete autonomy on provincial
domestic issues. Moreover, the articles on the relations between governor
representing central government, and the General Council, show that this law defined
the negotiation process between the administrative center of the Empire and the
provinces. Basically, according to the draft law, the governor had to convince the
General Council while conducting his work.
Actually, these general councils can also be seen in the vilayet laws of 1864 (Vilayet
Nizamnamesi) and 1871 (dare-yi Umumiye-yi Vilayet Nizamnamesi). The main
difference of the general councils of the Law of 1880 is that these councils were
authorized in re-organization and implementation of laws of the Ottoman central
government. On the other hand, the definition of the general council in the vilayet
laws of 1864 and 1871 does not include that kind of authority, it had only a kind of
advisory role on the local issues of the vilayet: General council of vilayet discussed
about the issues relating to reparation of the roads and public buildings, and the
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
27/85
34
requests of local people about these issues. The council advised to governor about
the taxes that levied on people of vilayet. Then again, general council could not
decide about these issues. Members of general council could only explain their ideas.
However, the realization of these ideas and requests were depended on the policies of
central government. These councils did not have a judicial personality. Their
meetings did not have any practical reason, these meetings were shows (Ortayl ,
2000; 90-91). In the vilayet laws of 1864 and 1871 since general council did not have
any legislative and executive authority, the administrative council had a more central
role in the vilayet administration. It seems the Law of 1880 tried to provide
autonomy throughout strengthening general council as ornamenting it with
legislative and executive authorities, since the council were formed with elected
members, instead of appointed ones as administrative council.
I.3. Election Procedure
The election procedure, which was defined in the text of the law, gave substance to
the General Councils. According to the procedure, every religious and lingual
community had equal rights to send representative to the Councils.
The rules of the election were arranged in chapter 12. The first subtitle of this chapter
is about voter lists. Accordingly, to be eligible, a candidate had to be an Ottoman
citizen, and at least 21 years of age. He had to be a regular taxpayer. A conviction for
murder would make him ineligible. Eligibility would be limited to property owners,
merchants, craftsmen and their sons. Ulema (scholars), priests, members of the
clergy, teachers, doctors, judges, officials, and people who were educated at the
Darlfnunor a foreign university and received a diploma, were exempted from the
precondition of taxpaying and property ownership. Soldiers, gendarmes and
policemen were ineligible during their term of office. Additionally, the law brought
forth the literacy requirement, which would be valid after 15 years from the
enactment of the law.
Councils of Elders (ihtiyarheyetleri) would prepare the voter lists to be re-arranged
every September. These had to be displayed in a public place. The objections to the
lists had to be submitted to the ihtiyar heyeti within 15 days. The Community
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
28/85
35
Councils and the Councils of Elders were elected every year, and members could be
reelected.
After these general conditions, the law puts forth the rules of nahiyeelections. The
candidates of theNahiyeCouncils had to pay a minimum of 50 kuruin taxes and toreside at that nahiye. Ineligible people included those who were not subject to civil
law (in its entirety or partially), convicted of murder or ordinary crimes, or servicing
a foreign country and had applied for citizenship of a foreign country.
Then the law arranged the elections in kazas. Article 199 stated that the candidates of
kaza councils should pay at least 100 kuru (in addition to other conditions as
specified for nahiye elections). The nahiye councils would elect them for 2 years.
According to article 208, candidates for livacouncils should pay at least 150 kuruoftax. The members of nahiyecouncils would elect them. Each livawould send two
members to the General Council elected from among its own members.
Roles of the nahiye, kaza andsancak administrative councils were very important in
the administrative scheme of the provinces, because of the multiple-level election
process, which was defined by the draft law. Then, these councils structures
determined the structure of the General Councils. These local councils were to be
formed basically by the officials of central government and the representatives of the
local population. For instance, according to article 114, every liva has its own
administrative council, and the work of these councils were basically discussing and
deciding the mutasarrfs activities and the disagreements between the local people
and the officials. These councils were composed of the mutasarrf, his assistant, and
the accountant of liva, mft, the leaders of the non-Muslim communities, and the 6
elected members from the administrative councils of kazas. Similarly, every kaza had
its own administrative council, which was formed in the same way: The electedmembers of a given kazasent by the administrative councils of nahiyes depended on
the kaza.
Since religious leaders were the natural members of the local administrative councils,
one could claim that the multi-lingual and multi-religious structure of the provinces
was reflected in the councils by this election procedure.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
29/85
36
I.4. The Status of Governors and Other Officials of the Central Government
The second chapter of the Law of Rumeli Provinces was on governors (Valilere
Dair). Article 27 (the first article of this section) stated that the governors were the
chief administrative officials appointed for 5 years as Sultans deputy in the vilayets.Article 28 pointed that these governors were only responsible to the central
government in issues related to their mission.
Article 30 arranged the extraordinary situations: According to this article, the
governor could declare idare-i rfiye (state of emergency) in one or more districts
in his region. State of Emergency could be declared if the population disobeyed a law
or order, causing civil strife that could not be suppressed by regular means. The
governor had to send a written decree together with the reasons for declaring theState of Emergency immediately to the central government. Once the reasons for
declaration were over, the State of Emergency had to be abolished.
Articles 31and 32 highlighted the authority of the governor as the chief of the local
officials: Governors would oversee the application of laws and orders. They would
supervise the officials, which were either popularly elected or appointed by
governors. Governors could not create new official posts unless specified by laws.
All officials without exception were under the governors command. The
gendarmeries and the policemen of the vilayets were as well under the command of
governors.
Article 33 stated that the governor would call for election for the Provincial General
Councils, Councils of Administration, Municipality Councils and NahiyeCouncils.
Then the governor would call General Councils for meeting, and report to the
Council on his responsibility areas and activities, and adjourn the sessions.
However, according to article 34 governors were responsible also to the General
Council on provincial income and budget any issues. In addition, according to article
43, the authority of the governor to spend money from his budget was limited by the
determination of the General Council; the governor could use unallocated monies
only under extraordinary conditions to keep general security in a given province after
he convinced the General Council and the central government.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
30/85
37
The governor would manage the province together with the provincial
Administrative Council. The Administrative Council consisted of both
representatives of local inhabitants and central government. The third chapter of the
draft law, which arranged the central administration of vilayets, determined the
structure the Administrative Councils. According to the chapter, the erkan-vilayet
(Administrative Council) of the vilayetincluded mstear(undersecretary), defterdar
(the head of the financial department), adliye mdr (the director of justice),
mektupu (secretary), the directors of agriculture, commerce and the public works,
zaptiye alay beyi (the commander of security troops), mft (the leader of the
Muslim community), the leaders of the non-Muslim communities, and the 8
representatives of the General Council.
The Administrative Council could not intervene with the Governors daily work.
However, if the Governor seeks their opinion the Council could state its own take on
the issues. Additionally, the Governor had to confer with the Administrative Council
in the emergency issues not mentioned in the laws. The Administrative Council
could also discuss the Governors precautionary measures. In those cases the
governor had to inform the central government, as well. If the situation was too
critical to wait for the answer of the central government, the governor could take
precautionary measures by taking full personal responsibility. Article 53 stated that if
the central government did not answer the governors question in three months, it
meant that the application was accepted.
Following that point the draft law started to define members of the Administrative
Council in terms of their authority and responsibility.Mstear(undersecretary) was
similar to a deputy-governor. In ordinary periods, he would carry on the relationship
with the religious communities and would manage their issues. Thus, if the governor
was Muslim, he should be non-Muslim or vice-versa. Additionally, he was
responsible for collecting and keeping the statistical data on the population of the
vilayet.
Defterdar(the head of financial office) was in charge of the financial issues of the
vilayet, such as taxes and other financial claims of the central government, public
revenues, and the preparation of the budget of vilayet. He was responsible both to the
governor and the Ministry of Finance in the central government.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
31/85
38
Adliye Mdr (Director of Justice) was basically an intermediate person between
the laws and the local councils. He would declare the central administrations laws
and orders to the local appliers.
Mektupu(a secretary of sorts) was in charge of the written documents of the centraladministration of vilayet. Directors of agriculture, commerce, and the public
improvement simply would manage these sectors according to the directives of the
central government in line with the public interest.
Similarly, Maarif Mdr (the director of education) was responsible for the
education issues. In the section on the directors of general education, it seems the
most important item was article 63. According to this article, the revenues of the
religion-based community vakfs were allocated to these communities schools.These communities under the supervision of the director of education spent these
revenues.
Chapter 16 was on the civil servants of the vilayets. According to the general
principles of this chapter, every civil servant was responsible to the central
government in all their activities. If the citizens were to sue the civil servants, and if
the courts decide there was a misuse by them; the civil servants would compensate
the damages done by their acts. If he could not provide compensation, the citizen
could seek compensation from the government. In this case, the government would
pay only the material damages. According to article 292 the directors of the vilayets
could be elected from among the members of General Councils.
The situation of the governor seems very conflicted, since he was an in-between
situation with General Council and the central government. He was similar to an
appointed prime minister to a mostly elected local parliament. Because of his doubly
representative role, he had to convince both central government and General Council.
From the central governments point of view, he represented the local parliaments
demand. On the other hand he was the representative of the central government in the
province, which had even its own parliament. From this perspective he could be seen
as a colonial governor of sorts.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
32/85
39
I.5. Religious Communities and Education
Chapter 8 established the Community Councils. Article 141 establishes at each kaza,
Community Councils made up of each religious community (Muslim and non-
Muslim). The members of these Councils were elected from among the members ofthe communities. The trustees of the vakfs (which are founded by the communities)
could not become members of the Councils. The job of the Councils was basically
organizing the spending of the revenues of vakfs according to the communitys
needs. Although there was no limit for the community needs or services, the law
refers only the fields of schools, places of worship, funerals and charity functions.
The reference of the Community Councils was primarily the local administrative
councils, secondly the General Councils, and in the field of education theEducational Councils. In addition, the primary schools and the junior high schools
(rdiye) were under the authority of the respective religious communities. In
addition, the incomes of these schools ware left to these communities (article 266,
chapter 14).
Chapter 15 also organized the rights and responsibilities of religious communities. It
concerns the sects (mezahib). According to this chapter every religious community
had equal guarantees, immunities and privileges. Every officially recognizedreligious community could elect its own leaders and nobody could intervene with the
relationships between these communities and people. Every priest kept all his rights
while he traveled to Rumelis other vilayets. In addition, their rights were valid in all
Ottoman lands as well.
The property rights were respected for every officially recognized sect. These
properties could only be expropriated if there was a certain public benefit involved.
The residences of the clergy members (regardless of their position), and the buildingsused for charity were exempted from all taxes. These religious communities had to
provide for the needs of their own schools and temples. The places and the
investments of the religious communities, which were not used for educational,
religious or charity purposes, were subject of taxes like ordinary places and
investments.
Chapter 14 organized the educational system in Rumeli. According to article 265, all
schools of vilayet were subject to centrally instituted laws, implementation of which
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
33/85
40
was under the supervision of the vilayet director of education. The share of the
community schools in the budget was proportional to their original contribution into
the budget of vilayet. However, the primary schools and the junior high schools
(rdiye) were under the control of respective religious communities. As well the
incomes of these schools were left to these communities.
Article 267 organized the foundation of universities in vilayets. According to the
article, while the governor elected the teachers of the university, he had to consider
the proportions of religious communities in vilayet. In addition, although the official
medium of instruction of the universities was Ottoman, education could also be
carried out in different languages. According to article 268 every religious
community had the right to establish schools. Article 269 stated that every child of 6-13 years old either had to go to school, or go through home schooling. No child had
to learn the religion beyond his/her own. The inspectors of education were also being
appointed among the religious community, which was the founder of the school.
Primary schools students were educated in only their mother tongue.
The problem of education and churches had always been important in the
relationships between the Christian population of Rumeli and the Ottoman Empire.
These articles importance is based on one of the main problems (the problem ofschools and churches- Mektepler ve Kiliseler Meselesi) of the years following the
revolution in 1908. In fact, all churches of Rumeli were dependent on the
Patriarchate. When the Bulgarian Exarchate split away from the Patriarchate, many
of the churches of the Slavic communities preferred to be dependent on the Bulgarian
church. Churches were the main contested area of the Bulgarian and Greek
nationalisms in this period. Following 1908 revolution, the CUP government formed
a commission within Bulgarian and Greek communities to solve the problems
between these two churches. Then, the government decided that the majority of the
population had the right to establish church in a given town or village. The
Patriarchate resisted this decision. Then, the government decided that Bulgarian
Exarchate could found churches only those places the Bulgarian population had a 2/3
majority. Besides, government would found the church and school for people who
were not members to either church. (Selahaddin, 1914: 69-70). It seems there was no
way to satisfy those two churches, because of their competition over the Balkan
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
34/85
41
people. Churches were the most important spaces of propaganda for Bulgarian and
Greek nationalisms over Rumeli together with schools.
At this point, I would like to remember the special status of Orthodox Church in
Ottoman Empire, because this special status gave opportunity to Greek subjects ofthe Empire awaring their national identity earlier than other ethnies7 of the
Balkans.
By making all Romans (formerly Orthodox subjects of the Byzantine Empire)members of the Ottoman Rum millet, the Ottomans officially sanctioned the ChurchsOrthodox universalism, thus facilitating the legitimation of Grecophone ecclesiasticalelites over the Balkan ethnies. Additionally, after 1453, the Church assumed
jurisdiction over the civil affairs of the Orthodox communities (Roudometof,1998; 18)
This special status provided a great opportunity to the church to constitute itshegemony all peoples of the Balkans. First of all the Greek Patriarchate was an
Ottoman institution derived from its Byzantine counterpart. Moreover, Roudometof
mentions that the Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul gave a very important ideological
service to Ottoman Empire, especially in the era that liberal and nationalistic ideas
was raising. The Patriarchate of Istanbul did not support the Greek national
revolution, because of its secular position. Istanbul Patriarchate had always worked
together with Ottoman Sultan (Macar, 2003; 45). In 1833, the Greek Patriarchate had
been founded. However, the Istanbul Patriarchate would regard it 17 years later. The
conflict between ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and national church of
Greece did not end (Macar, 2003: 47). After Greek historiography re-invented
Byzantium Empire as historical root of Greek nation, the problems between these
two churches were softened. On the other hand, after Greek Revolution of 1821, the
power of Greeks in Istanbul reduced. Ottoman administration did not give them
important posts in state administration, and preferred Armenian and Muslim people
(Macar, 2003: 47)
Even though, the hegemony of the Istanbul Patriarchate in the Balkans was also
strengthened by the Ottoman administration to establish its supremacy over
7It is very hard to use the term nation for these groups in the Balkans, especially in this period.Roudometof uses the term etnie for these distinct groups of the Balkans: Contrary to modernsecular nations, characterized as they are by a mass public culture, common economy, and the legalrights and duties of their members, ethnies are predominately premodern social formations.Membership in an ethnie does not necessarily lead to attributing political significance to ethnic
differences. I would like to suggest that Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Romanians wereethnies in the Ottoman Balkans, and were clearly aware of their differences (Roudometof, 1998; 12).
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
35/85
42
Bulgarian or Serbian churches in the Balkans (Lange-Akhund, 1998: 26) in the
second half of the 18thcentury:
In 1766 and 1767, Patriarch Samuel, citing huge deficits as his reasons and theinvolvement of the local pashas in the election of archbishops, reluctantly subsumed the
autocephalous archbishops of Pec and Ohrid under the ecumenical seat. Thisexpansion of the Patriarchates authority has been interpreted as proof of Greek
domination over other Balkan peoples(Roudometof, 1998; 19-20).
Since, the role of Greeks changed in the 18thcentury, when Balkan ethniesbecame
aware about their national identities and claim national independence from the
Ottoman administration, they also wanted to found their national churches as
breaking away from the Istanbul Patriarchate.
The reception of Enlightenment into Orthodox Balkan society led to a growing trendtoward secularization and critical thinking The central place of ancient Greecewithin the Western Enlightenment led to a reconstitution of the relationship betweenmodern Greeks (Greek-Orthodox) and ancient Greeks (Hellenes) (Roudometof,1998: 32).
With these developments, the Greek identity started to be independent from
Orthodox Church and secularized itself. Thus it can be said that, Orthodox
Patriarchate of Istanbul (Byzantine legacy) lost its power, together with Ottoman
Empire:
modern concepts of secular statehood and nationality associated with the ideas of
the Enlightenment and Western rationalism came to disrupt and subvert both Ottomanrule and Orthodox unity in the Balkans. The eventual conflicting nationalisms which
sprang out of this ideological transformation were the forces that brought the hared
Byzantine legacy to an end in Balkan Society(Kitromilides, 1989; 152).
Naturally, the Istanbul Patriarchate resisted to this ideological transformation that
Kitromilides mentioned above (Kitromilides, 1989; 159). Hence, in the 19 thcentury
and more than ever after the Tanzimatreforms, the relationship between Patriarchate,
Ottoman administration and the Christian populations became very problematic,
because of the rise of the separatist Bulgarian and Romanian clergies. In fact, for
Bulgarians liberating themselves from the Ottoman Empire and liberating their
church from the Greek Patriarchate was the same. In 1870, the Ottoman Empire
allowed the formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate. It was the official beginning of the
competition between two churches. This struggle was also linked to the organization
of schools and to education, which was under the authority of the churches (Lange-
Akhund, 30).
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
36/85
43
On the other hand, because of the Greek initiative on the traditional Orthodox
Patriarchate of Istanbul, the relationship between Greek nation and the Istanbul
Patriarchate was the most problematic one among other Balkan nations.
The proclamation of the independence of the Church of Greece from the Patriarchateof Constantinople was urged in the very first year of the War of Independence Theindependence of the Church of Greece, which according to Orthodox canon law couldonly be granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, was proclaimedunilaterally by a local synod of Greek bishops in 1833 at the initiative of the Bavarianregency. This move was never recognized by the Patriarchate in 1850, with theeventual total conversion of the Church of Greece to the secular values of Greeknationalism and its transformation into an official arm of the civil state, to the pointthat the Church of Greece spearheaded all nationalist initiatives in the latter part of the
nineteenth and throughout the twentieth century (Kitromilides, 1989; 165-166).
Greek Church and the schools that were founded as dependent to the Church became
the main tools of the Hellenization of Orthodox population. This method would be
followed by also Bulgarian and Serb nationalists in the Balkans. At the end, the
issues about the schools and churches would continue and became one of the reasons
of the Balkan Wars.
I.6. Courts
According to the draft law, every nahiyehad a court of peace (Sulhmahkemesi). The
governor would appoint the head of the court, and the head of the court had twoassistants (one Muslim and one non-Muslim) elected by the nahiye council. The
courts of livawere arranged with articles 219-228. In every liva there should be a
judge, an interrogator judge, and two assistants. The governor would appoint the
judge for this court. In every livacourt, there should be an attorney general and few
interrogators.
With articles 229-237, the draft arranged the vilayetcourts of appeal. Every vilayet
had a judge, two advisors, and two assistants (one Muslim, one non-Muslim). Thecentral government would appoint the head of the court of appeal and advisors, while
the General Council would elect assistants (one Muslim, one non-Muslim) and
Ministry of Justice would appoint them. In every court of appeal there should be an
attorney general (basavc), and few interrogators.
The courts of livawould hold the appeal cases, which were sent by lower courts, and
the personal, legal, and commercial cases involving assets worth up to 5000 kuru. In
murder cases and cases involving assets worth more than 5000 kuru, the appeal
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
37/85
44
right was reserved. The appeals of the livacourts were hold in Istanbul. The appeal
courts of vilayetwould hold the appeals from livacourts and the murder cases. This
courts appeals could be hold only in Istanbul.
In the chapter titled Mevaid-i Mahsusa (The Special Conditions), the draft lawstated some details on the courts. According to article 243, contracts and the
privileges of the foreigners were reserved. The judge of appeal and the attorney
general should hold a diploma from Darlfnunor should have served as judge or
attorney general in Istanbul for a minimum of 5 successive years. The trials were
open to the public, if there was no need for closed meetings. Article 247 stated that
the testimonies of non-Muslims and Muslims were considered equal. Article 248
guaranteed the independence of courts; no civil servant could intervene to the courts.Additionally, article 251 stated that neither heads of courts nor the advisors of the
courts of appeal were dismissible. According to article 252 the authorities of the
justice and administration were certainly separated. The Nizamiye Courts could
accept direct petitions. The civil servants and the gendarmes had to help to the courts
to their decisions.
I.7. Security
Chapter 17 is on the gendarmerie and the police force. According to the chapter, in
cities and villages, primarily the gendarmerie, secondarily the police force was
responsible for public security. They were under the supervision of vilayet. The
vilayet kol aas (Director of Security) had the authority to appoint police officers,
but on the issues of public order, he was under the supervision of the Ministry of
Military Affairs. The gendarmerie was financed from the vilayetbudget (from out of
the A account of vilayet). Muslims and non-Muslims should be chosen for the
security offices in proportion to their population in the vilayets. The salaries of the
security personnel of the vilayet would not be less than the salaries of the central
army members. Article 310 stated that the foreigner (European) officers could be
employed in gendarmerie troops. Following that the draft detailed the responsibilities
of security troops and the hierarchy in these troops.
The law ended with the chapter entitled Fasl- Mahsus (the Special Chapter).
Article 327 stated that all laws, which were not comfortable with this law, would be
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
38/85
45
dismissed.
In summary, the concluding paragraph of the chapter says:
We, the members of the European Commission on Eastern Rumeli approved and
sealed this draft which was proposed to fulfill the requirements of article 23 of the
Treaty of Berlin on July 13th, 1878. This draft law sent by Bab- Ali consists of
administrative details of the Ottoman provinces of Rumeli8.
8 Babali 13 Temmuz sene 78 tarihinde Berlin'de akdolunan muahedenamenin yirmi nc bendi ahkamnicraen muahedename-i mezkurede kendileri
iin tekilat-mahsusa tasrih klnlan Rumeli'deki vilayat-ahaneye idhal klnacak nizamat hakknda Rumeli-i arki-i Avrupa komisyonunun rey ve
mutalaasnistifsar etmiolmakla muahedename-i mezkuri imzalayan devletlerin komiserleri bulunan muharririn imza ibu nizamname layihasnn canib-i
Babaliden tarafmza tebliklnan layiha zerine icra ettikleri tetkikatn neticesi ettiini beyan ederek tasdiken lil-mekal ibu nizamname layihasnimza ve
armalmhrlerimizle temhir eyledik.. The following have signed this draft on 23 August 1880, in Istanbul: Asm (Hariciye NazrThe Minister of
External Affairs- Asm Paa), Sahak Abro Efendi (ura-yDevlet Azas-The Member of ura-yDevlet), Msy Kuan from Austria, Broneoyan from
Germany, Obara from France, Fiy Moris from Great Britain, Vernoni from Italy, and Hitrov from Russia.
-
8/10/2019 Baptizing Territory
39/85
46
Chapter II
The Resistance of the Ottoman Administration to Reforms, and the Restoration
of the Law of Rumeli Provinces in 1912
In this chapter, I will try to explain the opposition of the Ottoman bureaucracy to the
law and the changes made in the draft law of 1880 to avoid the coming war in 1912.
The simple evidence for the fact that the Ottoman bureaucracy rejected these reforms
in Rumeli is that the law was never implemented. The central government attempted
to manipulate the text to suit its own purposes. Ahmed Selahaddin summarizes how
that manipulation took place:
In the light of the contents of article 23 of the Berlin Treaty, these reforms wereaccepted in 1880. However, it was not implemented as it was declared in the Treaty.
Despite reassurance that the reforms would be discussed in specially constructed localcommissions, in which local people would be fully represented, and presented to theBabalias separate nizamnames, Babaliset up councils with its own officials, whichwere responsible for gathering information about local needs in the provinces. On thebasis of the information gathered by councils, Babali then collected the information
from these councils and prepared the draft law, in Istanbul. Finally, the preliminarydraft had been approved by a special commission, which consisted of two membersrepresenting the Ottoman government and the representatives of Great Powers, on 23
August 1880.(Selahaddin, 1914: 204-205).
Petitions from the Bulgarian inhabitants of Rumeli show how the Ottoman central
government formed the local commissions and how the local inhabitants resistedcentral governments manipulation.
One petition, which was signed by the municipalities of Monastir (Bitolya), Prilep,
Ohrid, Veles and Lerin and sent to the European Commission in Istanbul, on 5th
April 1880, claimed that local people were not represented in the local commissions,
which were formed in order to discuss the content of the reform package. The
Petition reads as follows:
The
top related