THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF YOUNG TURK REVOLUTION & THE PROBLEM OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS ÖNDER UÇAR DECEMBER 2010 THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF YOUNG TURK REVOLUTION & THE PROBLEM OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY ÖNDER UÇAR IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER 2010 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha ALTUNIŞIK Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science/Arts / Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Raşit KAYA Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science/Arts/Doctor of Philosophy. Assist. Prof. Dr. E. Attila AYTEKİN Supervisor Examining Committee Members (first name belongs to the chairperson of the jury and the second name belongs to supervisor) Assist. Prof. Dr. Galip YALMAN (METU, ADM) Assist. Prof. Dr. E. Attila AYTEKİN (METU, ADM) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ferdan ERGUT (METU, HIST) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last Name: Önder Uçar Signature : iii ABSTRACT THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF YOUNG TURK REVOLUTION & THE PROBLEM OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS Uçar, Önder M. Sc., Department of Political Science and Public Administration Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. E. Attila Aytekin December 2010, 164 pages This thesis points to the existence of a bourgeois revolution in the history of the Ottoman Empire. Against all approaches of the historiography on the subject which employ outmoded criteria and point to a duality between the moments in 1908 and 1923; it employs contemporary arguments on bourgeois revolutions and argues that the Ottoman Empire witnessed a single revolutionary sequence which occurred between July 1908 and November 1922. The thesis also suggests the idea that this single revolutionary sequence of the Ottoman Empire was a bourgeois revolution. Keywords: Revolutionary sequence, bourgeois revolution, the Young Turk Revolution. iv ÖZ JÖN TÜRK DEVRİMİ TARİHYAZIMI & BURJUVA DEVRİMLERİ SORUNSALI Uçar, Önder Yüksek LisansSiyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. E. Attila Aytekin Aralık 2010, 164 sayfa Bu tez Osmanlı İmparatorluğu tarihinde bir burjuva devriminin varlığını işaret etmektedir. Geçerliliğini kaybetmiş kıstasları kullanan ve 1908 ve 1923’teki momentler arasındaki ikiliğe işaret eden tarih yazımının bütün yaklaşımlarına karşıt olarak, tezde burjuva devrimleri üzerine güncel olan tezler kullanılmış ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Temmuz 1908 Kasım 1922 arasında gerçekleşen tek bir devrimci süreçten geçtiği iddia edilmektedir. Tezde aynı zamanda bu tek devrimci sürecin bir burjuva devrimi olduğu fikri öne sürülmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Devrimci süreç, burjuva devrimi, Jön Türk Devrimi. v To My Family vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although this thesis has been written in a short time, it owes a great debt to many people. Above all, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Assist. Prof. Dr. E. Attila Aytekin, whose lecture inspired my inquiry on the subject, for his support, guidance and patience from the very beginning to the end of the study. This thesis would not come about without the support of my other examining committee members. I am grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ferdan Ergut not only for his invaluable comments but also for his teaching to be more open minded and to have a comparative perspective. I also would like to thank to Assist. Prof. Dr. Galip Yalman, without whose encouragement I could not have tackled with some big questions on the subject. I owe a great debt to some great men; Denizcan Soner, Alper Ömer Yonga, Sertan Kutal Gökçe, Sabit Sağır, Ahmet Borazan, Murat Atak and Kemal Kağan Kurt; none of whom ever told me “you are twisting my melon man” although I have been blagging their heads for more than ten years. Finally I want to thank to my family. From the beginning to the end of the writing of this thesis, my brother Sencer Uçar played a great part, showed a great patience at home. Also, during my whole education, my mother Selma Uçar never lost her belief in me and always gave her greatest support with an endless love. And I want to commemorate my father Ali Uçar here. I only hope that he will see the first work of his son from somewhere. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM .......................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ...……………………………………………………………………... iv ÖZ ..………………………………………………………………………………… v DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...……………………………………………………… vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...……………………………………………………… viii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................xii ABBREVATIONS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..…………………………………………………..…. 1 2. THE DEBATES ON THE REVOLUTION OF 1908 IN TURKEY ...….. 5 2.1. Continuity Paradigm ………..……………………………………. 5 2.1.1. Modernization Approach ……………………………….......... 5 2.1.2. World-system Approach ...………………………………….... 8 2.2. Revolutionary Paradigm ..………………………………………. 13 2.2.1. Incomplete Revolution ...…………………………………… 13 2.2.2. Complete Revolution ..…………………………………….... 18 3. CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTS ON THE CONCEPT BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS & THEIR IMPLICATIONS ….. ………………………. 23 3.1. Recent Debates on Bourgeois Revolutions Missed by Turkish Historiography……………………………………………………….. 23 viii 3.1.1. Bourgeois Revolution Debate: Marxisant Orthodoxy and Revisionist Challenge .. ………………..………………………….. 23 3.1.2. Reconstruction of Marxisant Paradigm ..………….………... 26 3.1.2.1. Charles Tilly and the Concept of Revolution ..……... 26 3.1.2.2. David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley: The Critique of “Sonderweg”…………………………………………………. 32 3.1.2.3. Colin Mooers: Historical Comparison and Focus on State Structure ……………………………………………..... 37 3.1.2.4. Heide Gerstenberger: Transformation to Impersonal Bourgeois State ……………………………………………... 42 3.1.2.5. Christopher Hill and the Case of England: An Example to the Transformation of Bourgeois Revolution Concept ….... 47 4. THE YOUNG TURK REVOLUTION ..……………………………….. 52 4.1. Hamidian Regime: Restoration of Personal Rule ...…………….. 52 4.2. Formation of the Challengers’ Coalition ..……………………… 57 4.3. The First Revolutionary Situation and Outcome (July 1908) ...… 64 4.3.1. Anatolian Revolts ..…………………… …………………… 64 4.3.2. Macedonia and the Execution of the July 1908 Revolution… 68 4.4. July 1908-April 1909: From the First Revolutionary Situation to the Second ..…………… ………………………………………………... 72 4.5. Revolutionary Situation without Outcome: April 1909 ...………. 77 4.6. From the Second Major Revolutionary Situation to the First Coup (April 1909- June 1912) ……………………………………………... 81 4.7. Two Coups of the Revolutionary Sequence (June 1912 – January 1913) ………..……………………………………………………….. 88 4.7.1. Revolutionary Situation in Albania (1912) ...………………. 93 4.8. Five Years’ Unionist Regime: War and Reforms (January 1913- October 1918) ...…………………………………………………...… 94 ix 4.8.1. Initial Steps and The Revolutionary Situation in Western Thrace……………………………………………………………… 94 4.8.2. Consolidation of CUP Rule…………………………………. 95 4.8.2.1. Economics ………………………………………...… 97 4.8.2.2. Politics: Subsequent Revolutionary Situations …..... 102 4.8.2.2.1. Arab Revolt ……………………………… 102 4.8.2.2.2. Revolutionary Situations in Caucasian Front ………………………………………………………. 103 4.9. The Final Revolutionary Situation ……………………….……. 106 4.9.1. Unionist Collapse and Fromation of Ankara Government ... 106 4.9.2. Ankara Government during the Revolutionary Situation …. 109 4.9.2.1. The Leftist Challenge and Repression: Thermidor of the Turkish Revolution (1920-1921 Winter) …………………... 110 4.9.2.2. The End of Third Revolutionary Situation and the Turkish Revolutionary Sequence …………………………... 115 5. A CRITIQUE OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF YOUNG TURK REVOLUTION…………………………………………………………... 119 5.1. Useless Must Conditions …………………………………...…. 119 5.1.1. Irreconcilabilities ………………………….………………. 119 5.1.1.1. Irreconcilability of Demands ……………………………. 119 5.1.1.2. Irreconcilability between Contenders and Sudden Change in Power ………………………………………………….…………. 124 5.1.2. Revolutionary Consciousness in Below …………………... 129 5.1.3. Liberal Democracy ………………………………………... 132 5.2. The Problem of Agency as an Intersection ……………………. 135 5.2.1. Presence of Bourgeoisie and Absence of Bureaucracy …… 135 5.3. Useless Must Not Conditions ………………………………..... 141 5.3.1. State Preservation and Instrumentalism …………………... 141 x 6. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….. 148 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………... 158 xi LIST OF TABLES TABLES Table 1. The Polity Model of Tilly ……………………...………………………... 27 Table 2. The Mobilization Model of Tilly ...…………………………………...…. 28 Table 3. Mutinies before the July 1908 Revolution ...…………………………….. 67 Table 4. Turnover Rates for Bureaucrats, 1906, 1906-1910 ...……………………. 73 Table 5. Revolutionary Situations during the Revolutionary Sequence of Turkey ……………………………………………………………………………………. 118 xii Abbreviations ARF: Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun)