1908-1920 Yılları Arasında Osmanlı Meclis-i Mebusanında Millet Tanımı Tartışmaları
Sadık Sarısaman, Yusuf Cihat ZorbacıMillet tanımı konusunda filozoflar, sosyologlar ve tarihçiler kendi anlayışları çerçevesinde görüşlerini ortaya koymuşlardır. Kimileri milleti meydana getiren ana unsurun soy olduğunu iddia etmiştir. Kimileri ise bunun tersi olarak ortak kültür oluşturma ve birlikte yaşama isteğinin millet haline gelmede belirleyici olduğunu savunmuşlardır. Osmanlı Devleti’nin son döneminde anayasal açıdan vatandaş Osmanlı olarak adlandırılsa da mecliste millet tanımı üzerine tartışmalar yaşanmıştır. Milletvekillerinin bir kısmı aidiyet duyduğu etnik kökeni ve dili korumak ve varlığını kabul ettirmek gayesiyle mecliste açıklamalarda bulunmuştur. Bir kısmı ise bu açıklamalar dolayısıyla oluşan millet, milliyet meselesine dair tartışmaların ayrışmaya neden olacağını öne sürmüştür. Gayrimüslim milletvekillerinin kendi aralarında Osmanlılığa bağlılık hususunda da tartıştıkları görülmektedir. Zaman zaman birbirlerini yeterince Osmanlı olmamakla veya Türkçeyi bilmemekle suçlamışlardır. Balkanların kaybedilmesinin ardından bir kısım Türk milletvekillerinin kendi etnik kimliklerine ve kültürlerine öncesine nazaran daha çok sahip çıktıkları ve ön plana çıkardıkları anlaşılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı Osmanlı meclisindeki millet tanımı tartışmalarını objektif ve bilimsel bir şekilde ortaya koymak ve değerlendirmektir.
Debates on the Definition of Nation in the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies between 1908 and 1920
Sadık Sarısaman, Yusuf Cihat ZorbacıPhilosophers, sociologists and historians have expressed their views on the definition of “nation” within the framework of their own understandings. Some have claimed that the main element constituting a nation is ancestry. Others, however, argued that the desire to create a common culture and live together is also decisive in becoming a nation. In the last period of the Ottoman Empire, although citizens were constitutionally called Ottomans, there were debates in the parliament regarding the definition of nation. Some deputies made statements in order to protect their ethnic origin and language and to have their existence recognized. Some argued that these debates on nation and nationality could lead to separation. It is observed that non-Muslim deputies also debated among themselves about loyalty to Ottomanism, occasionally accusing each other of not being Ottoman enough or not knowing Turkish. After the loss of the Balkans, some Turkish deputies embraced their ethnic identity and culture more fervently and brought these issues to the forefront. The aim of this study is to objectively and scientifically reveal and evaluate the discussions on the definition of “nation” in the Ottoman Parliament.
While some intellectuals who expressed their views on the definition of a nation highlighted the importance of culture, the desire to live together and historical awareness, others emphasized lineage. Some intellectuals claimed that states create nations, arguing that a nation emerges only when it can be organized into an independent state. In contrast, Ernest Gellner argued that nationalism creates the nation by reviving dead languages and inventing traditions. During the deliberations of various draft laws in the parliament, it is understood that minority deputies in Ottoman society aimed to highlight their own identities and cultures and have them accepted by other communities. It was emphasized that, particularly in the parliament’s early period, efforts in this direction were curtailed by the president of the parliament, asserting that everyone should unite under the name “Ottoman” regardless of ethnic identity. Additionally, the speaker of the parliament frequently warned deputies not to engage in debates on the definition of a nation. While some minority deputies advocated for uniting under the Ottoman umbrella, others were accused of attempting to disrupt this unity. For instance, Filip Mise Efendi claimed that the Vlachs were proud of being Ottoman, while the Greek deputies made attempts to disrupt this unity.
Fierce debates also occurred during the discussions on the Law of Associations. Deputies expressed differing opinions on whether societies bearing ethnic identity names could be established. Minority deputies argued that such associations were crucial for minorities to preserve their culture and would not lead to the state’s disintegration. Tekfurdağı Deputy Adil Bey disagreed, warning that such associations could fuel separation. Serfiçe Deputy Yorgo Boşo argued that minorities were known to be part of the Ottoman subjects, and such societies would not aim for separation. He suggested that if associations with ethnic identity names were not allowed, changing the names of Turkish and non-Muslim deputies like Ohannes and Yorgi would also become a topic of discussion. As a result, the establishment of societies with the names of tribes was prohibited.
After the Balkan Wars, it became apparent that Turkish deputies increasingly emphasized Turkish identity and language in their parliamentary speeches. Following the minorities’ independence from the Ottoman Empire, deputies such as Istanbul Deputy Şefik Bey, Karahisar-ı Sahip Deputy Ağaoğlu Ahmet Bey, and Antalya Deputy Hamdullah Suphi Bey frequently emphasized Turkish identity and the importance of the Turkish language from the parliamentary rostrum. Trabzon Deputy Mehmet Emin Bey highlighted that minorities had strengthened their national feelings through the nationalist movement, and Turks could no longer ignore this situation, choosing instead to assert their own identity and culture. This issue gained prominence in parliament after Şerif Pasha’s efforts to establish Kurdistan at the Paris Peace Conference. Telegrams sent by Kurds to the parliament indicated that they did not see themselves as a separate nation from the Turks and disapproved of Şerif Pasha’s activities. Although some deputies increasingly emphasized Turkish identity, the term “Ottoman” continued to be used as the name of the nation, claiming it was inclusive.
