PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

evolutions and social revolutions. Constitutional revolutions aim to seizepower within a model of parliamentary government vvhose legitimacy isaffırmed. Social revolutions aim to destroy a form of government whoselegitimacy is denied. They acquire their "social" character from the needto neutralize or eliminate the defenders of the old order 3 . To quote theFrench, who had a good bit of experience in this kind of thing, you haveto crack eggs to make an omelette. Of course, there is more to the characterizationof revolutions than the mere distinction between "constitutional"and "social". In countries that are dominated, or threatened with domination,from outside, there is the need to sever or at least minimizeexternal dependency ties. Some societies also attempt cultural revolution,which theorists of revolution have generally neglected. Finally, whatabout countries that do not exactly fit our analytical categories, or that areambivalent about whether the changes they live through should beclassed as revolutions or not?Where does Turkey's national independence struggle fit into thesecategories? If we think of the national independence struggle of 1919-1922 as part of a terminal crisis of the Ottoman empire, a crisis that lastedfrom 1908 until the founding of the republic in 1923, then it is easy to seethat Turkey belongs to the constitutional revolution category, if Turkeyhad a revolution. Even the abolition of the imperial government inİstanbul and the establishment in its place of a republican government inAnkara does not change this; what mattered was the revolutionaries'long-term loyalty to the model of parliamentary government. However,Turks of the period clearly differed among themselves över whether theyhad a "revolution" (ihtilal) or only a non-violent change (inkilap). Between1919 and 1923, they often used the term "national struggle" (millimücadele). Most Turks specifically did not want social revolution, althoughthey did opt in the 1920s for cultural revolution, which is usuallyan even-more-violent out-growth of social revolution. How does one explainthis puzzle?It may help to begin with the question of Turkey and imperialism.The Ottoman empire was a doubly imperial state. That is, terms like "empire"and "imperialism" applied to it in two senses, which were very differentfrom each other and implied very different levels of legitimacy.One imperialism, endowed with strong historical legitimation, was the indigenousOttoman-Islamic imperialism: rule över a multinational empire,which the Ottomans tried until the last possible moment to preserve. Theother imperialism was the European one: the attempt, based on inequalitiesin power, to reduce the Ottoman Empire to semi-dependency, to colonizeoutlying parts, and to suppport anti-Ottoman national liberation3. Nader Sohrabi, "Historicizing Revolutions: Constitutional Revolutions in the OttomanEmpire, Iran, and Russia, 1905-1908", American Journal of Sociology, 6 (1995),1383-1447.93