Post by Bozur on Jan 29, 2010 1:15:23 GMT -5
The Ottoman Republic – Illusion, Panacea, Impasse or Necessity?
With the ongoing political – ideological – theological debate about Secular Democracy and Freedom of Religion remaining always vivacious in Turkey, it was only normal that an uncustomary title of movie like Osmanli Cumhuriyeti (Ottoman Republic) would generate ferocious debates and interminable discussions.
The hypothetical question "what if?" has always fascinated audiences and readerships throughout ages. The case with the eventual prolongation – under different political organization – of the Ottoman state is certainly perplex. The reason is that the Ottoman Empire was many things at the same time.
First, the Ottoman Empire evolved around a dynasty, that of Othman son of Ertugrul, who was the founder of the state. Quite indicatively, the authentic name of the state was in Old Ottoman Turkish ‘Devlet-e Aliye-yi Othmaniye’.
The Ottoman Empire was not a national empire, a Turkish Empire, and only Western bias, misunderstanding and/or difficulty to perceive the nature of the Islamic Caliphate led to expressions like Imperium Turcicum and Turkish Empire.
The Ottoman Empire may have been the successor form of the Eastern Roman Empire but the dynastic stamp on the political – ideological appearance and essence of the empire was far stronger.
It would therefore be very difficult for the term Ottoman to still remain in use in case the dynasty was demised.
In fact, the term ‘Ottoman Republic’ is self-contradictory; probably, there would never be a republic named ‘Ottoman’ because the rise of a republic heralds the end (fall) of a ruling dynasty. From the moment the Ottoman dynasty would fall, the state would eventually be called Republic but the adjective ‘Ottoman’ would rather fall in desuetude. Particularly, if – as it happened – vast parts of the empire were confiscated by the Anglo-French colonial pestilence and given to lewd and ignorant nomads (who were subsequently promoted to kings and princes).
Even if the Ottoman state became a democratic realm, with the sultans merely reigning and an elected government ruling, the state would not be called ‘Ottoman Republic’ but ‘Ottoman Kingdom’.
Of course, this would be difficult if not improbable even to imagine. The reason is simple; the Ottoman dynasty in 1517, after having ruled for 218 years (since 1299) as an Islamic reigning family, acquired the insignia of the Islamic Caliphate that had earlier been transferred from Baghdad to Cairo.
It was then that the Ottoman royal family was risen to worldwide pro-eminent position as the Sultan became Caliph of the Islamic Empire. Western historians make a terrible mistake when considering the fall of Constantinople (1453) as an important date in the History of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, it is of secondary importance if compared to the Ottoman invasion of Cairo (1517) when the insignia of the Caliphate were taken by the Sultan who thus was able to convert the Ottoman Kingdom into Islamic Caliphate (it is noteworthy that the use of the term ‘Empire’ reflects mainly the identification of the state with the Islamic Caliphate).
Consequently, an eventual transformation of the Ottoman Empire into a democratic realm with the Ottoman dynasty only reigning would mean either transfer or abolition of the Caliphate. Both cases are highly unlikely; transfer of the Caliphate would imply that another state, of Islamic character and essence, won over the Ottoman Empire and took control of the Insignia of the Caliphate. Only Iran would be in a theoretical position to achieve this, but as it happened, the Ottoman decadence in the last 150 years of its existence was totally reflected in the Iranian decay; this means that Qadjar and early Pahlevi Iran never truly had an opportunity for something like that.
If transfer of the Caliphate were extremely difficult to happen, abolition would be paranoid, as it would imply an act of self-cancellation.
At this point, one has to consider what would happen, if the Ottoman Sultan remained unchallenged in power in Istanbul, but the Entente – following the course of the events occurred during WW I – triggered secessionist movements among the barbaric Arabic nomads whom the colonial Anglo-French imposed on the pseudo-states of Syria, Jordan and Iraq, not to mention the Gulf states and Arabia.
Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey fully disregarded and thoroughly disdained all these dark colonial realms of the utmost misery and the foremost servility; but what would happen if the Sultan kept ruling in Istanbul, and these pseudo-kings and pseudo-emirs of the fake colonial states Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Arabia seceded from and betrayed the state in which they belonged, namely the Ottoman Empire?
The answer to this hypothetical question is simple; the Caliphate is a concept that translates - at the political reality level - to insignia. Without the insignia of the Caliphate, the shameful and parasitic trash-kings of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Arabia would not be in a position to demand the title of the Caliph. And no one would give them the insignia in Istanbul.
On the other hand, as concept the Caliphate is totally irrelevant of the size of the area that the Caliph controls; when the insignia were kept by the Mamelouks in Cairo, the Caliphate as state was limited in a small area (Syria, Palestine, Arabia and Egypt). In its very beginning, the Caliphate of Medina was also very small. Consequently, with the colonial powers controlling the areas that were illegally detached from the Ottoman Empire after the end of the WW I, and imposing there some local clowns as rulers, if Kemal Ataturk did not carry out his groundbreaking project, the Sultan as Caliph would probably rule the area of today’s Turkey – calling it ‘Ottoman Empire’.
Of course, there is a last case of possible use of the term "Ottoman Republic" – something totally forgotten by almost all. This option could have been even preferred by Kemal Ataturk. How and why, and under what conditions this would happen I will explain in a forthcoming article.
Here, I republish an interview with the brilliant film director Gani Müjde, the cinematographic father of the Ottoman Republic; the interview has been published in the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman (English version of the Turkish daily Zaman).
More about Gani Müjde one can find here: tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gani_M%C3%BCjde (in Turkish).
More about the movie can be found here: www.avrupagazete.com/avrupa.asp?Id=8252; www.turkishdigest.com/2008/11/ottoman-republic-glimpse-of-what-might.html.
The issue had indeed preoccupied modern academia and scholars, historians and political scientists, as the following link fully demonstrates: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3587/is_4_49/ai_n29427005/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1.
Ottoman Republic’ a glimpse of what might have been
www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=159686
The recently released comedy film "Osmanlý Cumhuriyeti" (Ottoman Republic), recently released, seems to spark new debates as it tries to imagine a Turkey without Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, with the assumption that the republic’s founding father died while chasing crows.
A tragicomedy, the film also narrates the story of a sultan who never lived in reality.
Screenwriter and director Gani Müjde emphasizes that "Osmanlý Cumhuriyeti" was never intended to be disrespectful to Atatürk. "I have roots both in the Ottoman Empire and in the republic. How can I dare to disparage it?" says Müjde, who also raises strong objections to prejudices about Ottoman sultans.
The director notes that he does not accept the official version of Turkish history. "It is a great insult to turn a blind eye to the Ottomans," he says. "But never can they [Ottoman sultans] be described as traitors." Müjde argues that because the country today lacks the tolerant atmosphere of the Ottoman Empire, Turks must deal with problems such as the headscarf issue. Müjde spoke to Today’s Zaman about his new film.
When did you first come up with a story in which Atatürk was never a leader, the War of Independence was never fought and an Ottoman Republic was established instead of a Turkish one?
Well, actually, since our school days, we have been hearing sentences that start with the assumption, "If Atatürk had not lived …" I wrote the script based on this assumption.
I am very excited. This film will be a turning point in my career as a director. Until now, I have been known as a writer of absurd comedies. This is my first dramatic comedy. It is my first. The topic is interesting both for me and for spectators. If the War of Independence had not been fought and the Treaty of Sèvres had been accepted, what would have become of the Ottoman Empire in the 21st century? In the beginning, I was writing a parody, but it turned into a drama as I progressed. I came to realize that the ability to select our rulers in an independent and free country is a precious opportunity.
Having heard the criticism against Can Dündar’s "Mustafa," are you worried?
No. This is because my film is built upon generally accepted facts. I had no ulterior motives in doing so, but I am a son of this country, and I have grown with my roots in the past of this country. For this reason, I have roots both in the Ottoman Empire and in the republic. I have tried to fuse them. My film cannot be criticized for its deficiencies or its narrative because it is based on my perceptions. Everyone may have different perceptions. Thus, if one says, "This is not the Ottoman Empire I would imagine," then I would reply: "It is OK. This is already a republic I imagined." This is what I had created in my mind. For this reason, I do not fear criticism. Yet, this approach is in my opinion quite unfair. A film should not be criticized in this way. One might question why "Mustafa" has been screened in movie theaters. I don’t think it is proper to watch a documentary in a movie theater.
"Mustafa" has been criticized for portraying Atatürk as fearing the dark.
In my opinion, this is utter nonsense. I have always perceived Atatürk as a human being, and this has not changed since watching the movie. My perception has never lessened my respect and love for Atatürk. Thus, I guess such criticisms will not be raised about my film. Nevertheless, I have my answers to any question that can be asked.
The Ottoman Empire is a soft spot for Turkey. We have ignored an entire era. Haven’t you ever hesitated in treating such a complicated issue in such a manner?
It is a great insult to turn a blind eye to the Ottomans. I am a child of a Kosovar family. I am a descendant of the Ottoman conquerors. I am an Albanian. The Ottomans represent a center of attraction for me, but this also applies to the republic. Currently, we are indebted to the republic for our democracy. Nevertheless, both are our culture. Culture is not what is written in the books. Accordingly, if these cultures are part of me, then I claim possession of them.
The official version of our history has been telling us that the Ottoman sultans were traitors. How is your sultan?
I object to this official account of history. Of course, sultans made their mistakes, as rulers are prone to errors. But never can they be described as traitors. I refuse to use the word "traitor." If a person is a traitor, he will not be buried with funeral services provided by a municipality. This is because traitors are paid abundantly in return for their treason. The word "traitor" does not fit the Ottoman sultans. In my film, the sultan is a patriotic one with good intentions.
Which sultan do you like the most?
My favorite is Mehmet the Conqueror. He was a perfect man with his achievements and vision. Imagine a sultan who, immediately after conquering Ýstanbul, ordered, "Do not harm the Christians as we will live together with them." This was a grand worldview.
We do not see such behavior in the 21st century, do we?
If only the today’s governments had such great visions. This mosaic of culture is what distinguishes us from other Middle Eastern countries. If only we could accomplish in republican Turkey what Mehmet the Conqueror accomplished in the past, we would be living in a very different country. We would not have secularism or headscarf issues, etc. I really miss this vision.
What will spectators feel about the film?
First, they will realize that independence is a precious thing. They will say that the right to vote and democracy are very important. They will understand that republican Turkey has achieved many things, but the Ottoman Empire, too, made a big impression on history.
Will the film’s diversity attract spectators from diverse groups?
This is what I believe. I even have a claim: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, Deniz Baykal and Devlet Bahçeli can sit side by side and watch and enjoy the film. Only the enemies of the republic would not like it as the film has all the colors of life. The bartender is a Kosovar, and one of the drivers is a Kurd, and one of the bodyguards is Bosnian. I tried to reproduce the diversity of life in the Ottoman era.
Note
Picture: the Ottoman flag until 1517.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Published: 11/25/2008
www.buzzle.com/articles/the-ottoman-republic-illusion-panacea-impasse-or-necessity.html