Search

The transition from empire to nation-state poses challenges in managing religious and ethnic pluralism. Empires, characterized by hierarchical structures and diversity, contrast with nation-states, which aim for uniformity and unity. As empires modernize administratively, they grapple with different approaches to pluralism. While Habsburgs were more in favor of a federal plurality, the Romanovs pushed for centralization and assimilation. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Ottomans vacillated between these two alternative paths. This vacillation is most evident in their approach to millet system which simultaneously followed the contradictory policies of undermining millet boundaries in order to promote a sense of unity across the multi-faith society and policies of promoting and safeguarding the privileges and group-specific rights of non-Muslim communities. Ottoman nationalism eventually shifted towards a homogenizing model, akin to the Romanov approach, leading to the exclusion of religious minorities. This process of homogenization continued in the nationalist policies of modern Turkey and resulted in the secular Turkish Republic being less tolerant towards non-Muslims than the Islamic Ottoman Empire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines why it was important to the modern republican Turkish state, which saw the non-Muslim minorities as a threat to its security and a potential source of fifth column activities, to propose their inclusion in the draft. In order to answer this question, the article explores the issue of the recruitment of the non-Muslim minorities as presented in the official protocols and in writings of the senior Turkish decision-makers who attended the Lausanne conference of 1922–23. The main argument of this article is that the introduction of non-Muslim conscription in modern Turkey was less an act of integration and more a contribution to two broader aims: demographic engineering to remove 'suspect' or 'unassimilable' national and religious minorities, and economic Turkification, which aimed to force transfer of property from non-Muslim into Muslim hands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey, in direct lineage of the Ottoman Empire, experimented a particularly violent nation-building out of the imperial ashes. Non-Muslims corresponding to one fifth of its population have been annihilated for the creation of a homogeneous nation State. These crimes have never been accounted for, giving way to a culture of impunity, self-righteousness, contempt for the rule of law and justice which, over years, pushed the polity towards an illiberal if not totalitarian essence and praxis, domestically against its own constituency and externally against neighbours through an extensive neo-imperial drive. Paradoxically, such an outcome seems to constitute a belated retribution for the unaccounted crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does literature engage with the legacies of Empire? This article examines how imperial decline and nation building are reflected in textual production after the First World War. With Turkey as a case study, it focuses on the post-imperial narrative as a form of narration dealing with the experience of imperial loss, political contingency and possibilities of national belonging. I argue that Turkey's post-imperial condition is shaped by coming to terms with the loss of the Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and a nationalising present embedded in the experience of Western-dominated modernity, on the other. Against this backdrop, I examine essays from the compilations Yaşadığım Gibi (1970, 'As I lived') and Beş Şehir (1946, 'Five Cities') by Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, a key intellectual of the early republican era. The analysis of these post-imperial narratives reveals how Tanpınar tries to root Turkey's national modernity in selected elements of the imperial past. For Tanpınar, continuity with (Turkified) imperial heritage is a prerequisite for a strong nation-state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the political and economic relationships between public utilities, companies, states and people that contemporary societies inherited from the age of imperialism, when new energy infrastructures and technologies started spreading across the world? Through a historical-anthropological exploration of kaçak (informal/illicit/smuggled) electricity use and exchange during the late Ottoman Empire, this article analyzes how the relationships between companies, state and consumers were negotiated at the outset of electrification and how the moral economic discourses established in this era continues to influence the current nexus. By examining the terms of formal and informal access to electricity in the Ottoman Empire, first as a privilege for the few and then as a public good, I show how people living in the periphery during capitalist markets' expansion to the Ottoman Empire related to electricity as a new commodity. Through examining kaçak use and exchange in the process of Ottoman electrification, I argue that the question of kaçak is a moral economic discourse on who is a citizen worthy or deserving of access to public utilities and infrastructure, extending to the relationship between economic privileges and political rights that is also at the center of the current global debates about neoliberalism and privatization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]