L’influence De La Constitution Belge Sur La Loi Constitutionnelle Ottomane
Mehmet AkadLa Constitution belge de 1831 était une des constitutions qui avait été pris comme un exemple pendant la préparation de La Loi Constitutionnelle ottomane. La raison la plus importante était la prise de l’essence de la Constitution Belge qui avait rassemblé tous les pouvoirs sous la monarchie. Bien qu’inspirée de la Constitution Belge, la Loi Constitutionnelle ottomane portait les différences importantes en comparaison avec le document belge. L’objectif principal de cet article est d’identifier les convergences et les divergences entre les deux textes et de comprendre l’esprit de La Loi Constitutionnelle Ottomane. Pour ce but, on emploie une méthode comparative qui nous permette de voir les différences entre les dispositions de ces deux documents. C’est pour cela, on a particulièrement choisi les dispositions qui prévoient les pouvoirs du Roi, les corps législatif et exécutif, considérant que cette différentiation est évidente entre les trois forces. Quand on compare les dispositions de ces documents, la Loi Constitutionnelle ottomane avait manqué de certaines provisions permettant de construire une harmonie entre le Sultan, le cabinet et le parlement. Plus précisément, contrairement à la Constitution belge, la Loi Constitutionnelle ottomane, ne disposait pas les fondements nécessaires pour limiter les pouvoir du Sultan et s’établir une répartition équilibrée des tâches entre ces trois corps. Par conséquent, on voit que malgré les similitudes entre ces documents, la Loi Constitutionnelle Ottomane manque de certains éléments nécessaires et pour cette raison elle est considérée comme une charte constitutionnelle plutôt qu’une constitution.
The Influence of the Belgian Constitution on Ottoman Constitutional Law
Mehmet AkadThe Belgian Constitution of 1831 is one of the constitutions that set an example during the preparation process of Ottoman constitutional law. The most important reason for this was the spirit of the Belgian Constitution, which brought together the monarch, parliament, and executive branch. Despite being inspired by the Belgian Constitution, Ottoman constitutional law was significantly different. The main objective of this study is to identify the similarities and differences between the two documents and to understand the spirit of Ottoman constitutional law. Therefore, to clarify the differences between documents, a comparative method is adopted primarily centered on articles that organize the structure and authority of the monarch and legislative and executive bodies. The main differences can be observed in the relationship among these three bodies. When the necessary provisions are compared, Ottoman constitutional law lacks specific provisions that might allow the development of equitable harmony between the monarch, parliament, and cabinet. More precisely, Ottoman constitutional law did not have the foundations for limiting the sultan’s power and creating a balanced division of power among the three bodies. Consequently, despite their similarities, Ottoman constitutional law lacks certain elements that allow it to be called a constitution; therefore, it is instead referred to as a constitutional charter.
During the Ottoman Empire’s long crisis period, many answers sought to end the turmoil that reigned. Especially during the Tanzimat era, reforms were addressed to modernize the empire’s political and legal institutions; however, shortly afterward, these measures proved ineffective, and a new search for a solution began. The answer was to build a constitutional regime based on the representation of all ethnic and religious groups in the empire and create an “Ottoman Nation.” Contrary to the political and social development of the West, this formula was the work of a limited group of Ottoman elites. After the dethronement of Sultan Abdülaziz and Sultan Murad V, the ascension of Abdülhamid II to the Ottoman throne, with the promise of declaring a constitution, was a turning point.
A draft constitution was prepared by a commission appointed by the Sultan under the presidency of the leader of the constitutionalists and Grand Vizier Midhat Pasha. Various Western constitutions were examined during the preparation process, including the Belgian Constitution of 1831. The features of the 1831 Constitution, which unify the monarch, council of ministers, and legislative body (the Senate and Chambers of Deputies), were the main reasons for this. Despite this superficial resemblance, the Ottoman Constitution of 1876 lacks certain features compared with the Belgian Constitution of 1831. To show the similarities and differences between the documents, articles regulating the head of state, the council of ministers, and the legislative body and their relationships must be examined.
First, it should be noted that the Ottoman Constitution of 1876 was promulgated as the Sultan’s benevolence (ihsan-ı şahane). This means that the work of a small group of elites originated from the will of the Sultan without democratic principles or mechanisms, as will be shown later. Therefore, in this article, the term “constitutional law” will be used in preference to “constitution” in describing the Ottoman Constitution of 1876.
When the articles concerning the authority of the sultan and the king are compared, it is evident that, in contrast to Ottoman constitutional law, the Belgian Constitution declares that all powers derive from the “nation,” whereas the Ottoman document states that all powers belong to the absolute sultan. This is the first sign of the difference between constitutional and an absolute monarchies. Furthermore, while the Belgian Constitution defines the king as “inviolable,” the Ottomans add the term “sacred” to this designation. In addition, Article 63 of the Belgian Constitution states that the ministers are responsible for the acts of the king, and Article 64 introduces “countersignature.” Although the sultan was inviolable, Ottoman constitutional law did not require a countersignature. When it was read with the sultan’s absolute authority, it created an all-competent but irresponsible head of the state. In addition, in the Ottoman Empire, ministerial responsibility was directed toward the sultan and not the parliament.
Regarding the structure of the legislative body, at first glance, the organization of the legislative bodies appears similar. They consist of two bodies: a senate (Meclis-i Ayan for the Ottomans) and a chamber of deputies (Meclis-i Mebusan for the Ottomans). However, despite the structural similarity, the nation elected the two bodies of the Belgian parliament, while the sultan directly appointed the members of the Ottoman Senate for a lifetime. In any case, the powers of parliament regarding legislative proposals were significantly reduced, as stated in Articles 53 and 54 of the Ottoman constitution. As a result, it becomes a “consultative assembly” rather than a parliament. Notably, with the constitutional amendments of 1909, the parliament’s legislative powers were reinforced to become closer to the Belgian Constitution of 1831, although this shift had to wait 30 years after tyranny for the proclamation of freedom (Hürriyetin İlanı) in 1908.
In conclusion, compared with the Belgian Constitution of 1831, Ottoman constitutional laws lack regulations that balance the powers of the sultan and the executive and legislative bodies. Additionally, the Ottoman parliament was not entitled to monitor the executive branch or propose legislation in a democratic sense, as it was set out in the Belgian Constitution. Therefore, the regime envisaged by the Ottoman constitutional laws was neither democratic nor parliamentary. Instead of limiting the powers of the sultan, the constitution guaranteed his absolute powers, contrary to the understanding of a constitutional monarchy. As a result, despite their articles’ superficial similarity, as the work of a group of elites, Ottoman constitutional laws are best seen as a “constitutional charter” rather than a constitution per se.
