Local Governments from the Ottomans to Turkey: The Historiographical Issue of Local Governments

Historical accounts have often been wielded by those in power, regardless of their intentions. So what does history actually tell us? A historical narrative of a community’s established structure and everyday life in a defined geographic area can be informative. By comparing how institutions have been reorganized over time to better serve the practical needs of the community, one can make judgments about progress or regression. However, when two communities with vastly different experiences come into conflict and one gains an advantage over the other in a field of the other community’s life practices, it’s unclear whether the victorious community is necessarily more mature.

***

When considering conflict, it becomes tempting to judge the qualities of the victor as evidence of their superiority. However, it’s important not to overlook the context in which communities evolve. This context is inevitably economic and political, just like the ground where conflict occurs. Thus, our basic criterion for comparing societies should be this ground.

The Ottoman reform process was based on the belief that the old way of life was no longer viable. It was concluded that the institutions of the past were no longer meaningful, which led to the transfer of Western institutions. However, attempting to transform through institutions, despite social realities, is where the Ottoman modernization debates become complicated. The source of the argument that the institutions produced by Western society are being constructed by the state is also rooted in this issue.

Thus, “local administration is considered a component of society, while central administration is considered a component of the state” (Güler, 1993) becomes the natural inference of the narrative. An approach that involves searching for Western practices in Eastern societies and considering their absence a problem is not only problematic in the context of history writing, but it also demands a rethinking of how history is used. The call to extend the range of history that can be traced back to 150 years to 600 years is also a demand to reconsider what to do with this history.

A Short History of Local Government Structures in the Ottoman Empire

In the Ottoman Empire, law derived from Sharia rulings and customary practices that had solidified as traditions, and thus there was no need to establish a uniform legal system in all lands under the rule of the state until it emerged as part of the systematic transformation of the state in the 19th century. Historian İlber Ortaylı points out that the uniqueness of the Ottoman Empire is often presented as an argument in common historical writing due to the inability to make a proper comparison with the typical feudal institutions and social hierarchy of Western Europe. Ortaylı notes that until the 12th century in Western Europe and until the 15th-16th century in Central Europe, the management of cities was carried out by officials equivalent to the qadi, who operated at the level of kaza (and remained relatively unchanged until the Tanzimat). These officials were responsible for civil, administrative, and municipal activities. Officials such as Ayak Naibleri, Muhtesib, Mimarbaşı, and Subaşı, who were appointed to meet needs, assisted the qadi in carrying out these activities. Although their duties seemed defined, qadis did not have fiscal autonomy. Taxes were collected on behalf of the central government, and the expenses of the activities carried out were also covered by the central government.

Institutionalization, defined as the means of reproducing every nucleus of social life, was not solely provided by the structure embodied in women. Other services necessary for the full functioning of urban life could be provided by other structures. Guilds, as an organization of tradespeople, were complementary to women’s supervision of commercial life in this respect. Guild kethüdaları were responsible for this task. The institution of the vakıf was one of the fundamental and widespread elements of the economy-politics upon which classical Ottoman society was built. The restrictions on capital accumulation and the transfer of accumulations to the next generation can be considered the reason for the prevalence of such an institution. Moreover, vakıfs can be understood through goals based on religious-moral principles such as communal assistance. Imaret sites, which could be regarded as social service centers and also constituted the core of cities, were formed through vakıf institutions. Thus, it can be claimed that the total activities performed by an institutionalized municipality today could be carried out by different structures that can be evaluated as institutions due to the distinct and valuable behavior patterns they contain, and shared through a balance created by unique conditions.

When the issue is approached at the individual level, it can be seen that the tendency to involve local leaders in works carried out in the name of the central authority was present. This attitude was not motivated by democratic reasons but rather to overcome practical difficulties, such as financial, personnel, and technical issues.

The central government’s re-evaluation of the provinces was driven by the state’s concern to extend its representation to regions where minorities were concentrated, and to counteract the trend towards decentralization. This was compounded by unique conditions such as the shift of production and control centers in the 19th century, the establishment of new transportation networks, and the obsolete role of the Qadi (a judicial office) due to administrative powers being transferred to the Governor, Muhassil, and District Director. The Ministry of Public Works and Directorates, established in 1826, collected charitable foundations that could not perform municipal functions under the Ministry of Endowments in 1836. This further marginalized the Qadi office, which struggled to perform its functions after the abolition of the Janissary corps. Consequently, ministers of public works with extraordinary powers were appointed in Istanbul and the provinces to centralize power. Although efforts were made to revive guild organizations, this was primarily driven by centralization rather than local empowerment. The establishment of the Istanbul Municipality in 1854 was a step towards modern municipalism, but financial autonomy and effective election systems were lacking. The Ottoman Empire also established central control over local governments during this period.

The inadequacy of municipal activities due to increasing foreign populations during the Crimean War and the perceived complexity of Ottoman cities by the sultan and Istanbul intellectuals in European cities, revealed the need for new institutional structures. Consequently, a City Council was established after the dismissal of the Istanbul Municipality, and non-Muslim individuals were appointed to the council to prepare its legal infrastructure. The proposal for dividing Istanbul into fourteen districts was made, and pilot applications were planned in the Sixth District, covering Galata-Beyoğlu.

Center-Local Dialectic

“Today, if the town is reborn, it is because it is necessary for the general interests of the state …” (Onar, 1941: 61).

In his evaluation of the relationship between the central and local authorities, Ortayli attributes the reason for the legalization of local government institutions by the central administrators of the period with the Tanzimat reforms to the aim of strengthening and expanding the sovereignty of central power (1978: 6). In other words, “all the institutions of Ottoman modernization have been realized to strengthen central administration” (Tekeli, 2009: 331). This situation parallels the general discourse that local governments were instrumentalized as the main complementary element in the process of centralization after feudalism (Güler, 1998: 92). Moreover, according to Güler, the instrumentalized nature of local governments is historically valid for both Western and Eastern societies.

The tremendous social, economic, and political transformations brought about by post-industrial capitalism required the elimination of obstacles to the functioning of the system, and therefore demanded a “centralized state power” (Güler, 1998: 92) that would establish a unified, example-internal market, a single measurement system, free labor freed from individual-feudal ties, equal rights for buyers and sellers, and so on. The limitations of achieving this with the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages resulted in the organization of local governments horizontally by modernizing them and generating the will to define a strong center. This new organizational model emerged with the purpose of directing people through local groups, collecting taxes, providing good services, and establishing law and economic power. The dialectical relationship between central and local shows that the widespread belief that two power structures must be in a zero-sum balance is fundamentally flawed. According to Güler, “there is no logical or factual explanation for the antagonism between centralization and local government institutions” (1993: 91).

Although there are many authors who define the history of local government as a concept that emerged simultaneously with the existence of the state, this definition contradicts the general view that local governments historically existed before central governments. For example, “the expansion of the right to vote was first applicable to central elections, and then to local governments” (Güler, 1993: 94) can be cited as evidence of this. However, while this question of which power institution came first historically may have had significance in the past, it is now irrelevant in light of the fact that these institutions have been redefined in modern times. Moreover, it is difficult to claim that “today’s Western municipal institutions are a continuation of the site and municipals” (Yayla, 1977: 975). The discourse of local-central government opposition is still prevalent…

Sources

Alada, A. (1988) Bir Erken Büyük Şehir Yönetimi Denemesi, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, cilt: 43, sayı: 3, sayfa: 135–142

Güler, B. (1993) Yerel Yönetim Tarihine yaklaşım Sorunu, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, cilt: 26, sayı: 1, sayfa: 87–96

Onar, S. S. (1941) Hukuk Bakımından Şehir ve Hemşehri, 13–19 Temmuz 1940 Üniversite Haftasında Sunulan Tebliğ, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, yayın no: 143, İstanbul

Ortaylı, İ. (1978) İmparatorluk Döneminde Mahalli İdarelerin ve Belediyeciliğin Evrimi, Türkiye’de Belediyeciliğin Evrimi / Birinci Kitap içinde (editör: Türkcan, E.), Türk İdareciler Derneği Yayını, sayfa: 3–24, Ankara

Turner, J. (1997) The Institutional Order: Economy, Kinship, Religion, Polity, Law, and Education in Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective, New York: Longman.

Ünal, F. (2011) Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyete Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Yasal ve Yapısal Dönüşümü, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sayı: 30, sayfa: 241–248

Yayla, Y. (1977) Türkiye’de Belediyelerin Temel Sorunu, “Ord. Prof. Dr. Sıddık Sami Onar Armağanı” içinde, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, ya yın no: 197, sayfa: 951–1019, İstanbul