Islamic Political Identity in Turkey

40 islamic political identity in turkeythe key role in the expansion of the empire, making it an essential element inthe survival of the state. A military career was one of the most prestigious professionsin the state, and the Janissary tradition of being a force unto itself, abovesociety and even above the direct control of the state’s bureaucratic apparatus,was a tradition that continued into the Republican period.A second important institution was the millet system, the organization andincorporation of the population in terms of confessional ties for administrativepurposes. 4 With the millet system, the state developed a quasilegal frameworkfor controlling diVerent religious communities by recognizing a large degree ofautonomy in their intracommunal aVairs. 5 Each religious group, known as amillet, was organized as a corporate communal legal entity under its own religiousleadership. This system helped to institutionalize a “tolerable” minoritystatus for diVerent religious groups. 6 However, it also placed rigid restrictionson individual freedoms within each millet. This system not only allowed the stateto control communities through religious institutions but also allowed religioushierarchies to control internal dissent and combat heterodoxy.A third institutional source of state autonomy was the guild system. Thissystem, which was engineered by the state, provided some degree of governmentcontrol over economic activity and prevented the emergence of an independentmerchant class. The guilds functioned as an administrative link betweenthe state and the merchant class. 7 The existence of the millet system and guildsdemonstrates that power was structured vertically from the ruler to the ruledand that there was a dearth of horizontally integrating institutions. The communitiesof Ottoman society managed to live together by living apart. One ofthe main reasons for this peaceful coexistence was the lack of horizontal integrationand limited interactions between diverse communities. When communalboundaries were sundered in order to create a citizen state, there was littleleft to mediate personal relations with the state. Thus Ottoman citizens in thenineteenth century “stood in a direct rather than a mediated relationship to supremeauthority.” 8Islam was not only the source of social cohesion and an important organizingset of norms for the horizontal ties of diverse Muslim communities but alsoa reference for the rulers in their relations to the ruled. Religious scholars ofIslam (ulema) served a vital role as an informal bridge between state and society.As the guardians of the “high Islamic tradition,” they both legitimized thestatus of the sultan and his state and ensured that Islamic injunctions of justiceand obligation toward the sultan’s subjects were upheld as much as possible,mitigating any tendencies toward unbridled despotism. Ruling classes “includedthose to whom the sultan delegated religious or executive power through animperial diploma, namely, oYcers of the court and the army, civil servants, andulema.” 9 The ulema were integrated into the state system along with other administrativeelements, and the primary task of this bureaucracy was “the preservationof the integrity of the state and the promotion of Islam.” 10 In short, thestate, even though it derived its popular legitimacy from Islam, strictly organizedand controlled religious institutions and scholars (ulema). There was no tensionbetween the state and an independent “church” similar to that which existed