Was the French Revolution the beginning of the END

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

The Below article was written by a Osman Bilen at a Turkish University...

 

More than one decade after the French Revolution and in relation to an urgent political issue, the Ottoman Secretary of State had been instructed to prepare a report for the executive committee of state on the political situation in France. The interests expressed in this report were to take place in this country whose long tradition differed from that of France.

 

It is known by all well-informed persons that the conflagration of sedition, and wickedness which broke out a few years ago in France, scattering sparks and shooting flames of mischief and tumult in all directions, has been for many years in the minds of certain accused heretics, and had been a quiescent evil which they sought an opportunity to awaken. In this way, the known and famous atheists, Volt aire, Rous seau and other such materialists, had printed and published various works consisting, God preserve us, of insults and vilification against the pure prophets and the great kings, of removal and abolition of religion and of allusions to the sweetness of equality and republicanism, all expressed in easily intelligible words and phrases, in the form of mockery. . . .4

 

The style and the manner of the statements in these passages may sound strange to a modern mind. But it must be remembered that the author belonged to a tradition based on religious values. In spite of the fact that it was another religion and tradition which had been insulted, he seems to have regarded it as dangerous for all religions. Probably for this reason he did not mention the execution of Louis XVI, which had such an effect on Christian Europe, nor even the abolition of the monarchy. The Ottomans had been familiar for centuries with republican institutions in Venice; there was nothing in the mere establishment of a republic to frighten them. What now alarmed the ruling circles in Istanbul was the secularism of the Revolution. Their fears were well founded, for the whole subsequent history of the Middle East has shown how great is the seductive power of a Western revolutionary ideology when divorced from Western religion.

 

What were the main characteristics or consequences of the French Revolution which attracted Turkish intellectuals who in turn overturned the Ottoman Sultanate and the history of the nation? Under the Ottoman Sultans the ruling classes consisted of the military, the civil service and the Ul ama (traditional intellectuals). As the classical Ulama lost their position in the decision-making process of state affairs, a new group of intellectuals emerged. They either became ruling elite as the military or civil servants, or provoked and inspired new ideas among educated people.

 

The ideas of the French Revolution took deep roots in the minds of a group of people who strove to build the country. What is blamed in the above report, gradually became the central themes of the intellectual's agenda; the notions of equality, freedom, constitution and parliamentary system occupied the literature. It should be noted that the first stage, a constitution and a parliamentary system, was achieved in 1876 but did not last long. Before this period there was a preparation stage in which intellectuals played their role as a governing class. They tried to do their duty by imposing upon the system an entirely inappropriate system of government and administration. There may indeed have been no alternative. Since traditional patterns of ruling and social life had, to a large extent, been destroyed, but there was no question of restoring the status quo ante.

 

[Khayr]

Social theorists claim that to possess an identity a society must furnish criteria whereby its members can identify with one another, since their actions and attitudes towards one another will be different from those of outsiders. From this point of view citizens of the Ottoman Empire cannot be treated as a unique society in itself. The family of Sultans were Turkish as was the official language; the dominant ruling classes were Turks. At the same time there were peoples of different races, cultures and religions, though the majority were Muslims. The Western concept of the nation as a linguistic, racial and territorial entity was not known to the Islamic community of the Ottoman Empire. The primary basis of group identity was rather the brotherhood of faith within the religious community, reinforced by common dynastic allegiance. For peoples of other faiths the law and traditions of Islam, as well as the practice and polity of the Ottoman Empire, agreed in prescribing tolerance and protection for non-Muslims and in granting them a large measure of autonomy in their internal and personal affairs.

 

Despite this identity problem the ruling elite were optimistic about creating a common identity for all citizens of the state. The 1839 Rescript of the Rose Chamber proclaimed the principle of equality for persons of all religions in the application of the law. It guaranteed security of life, honor and property. The Declaration of the Rescript was called the beginning of a new era, called reorganization or in Turkish, Tanzimat. In the political history of the Empire, Tanzimat and the intellectual leaders of that movement mark a sharp turn. Tanzimat intellectuals became main representatives of the intellectual life of the country, and even today are the point of reference for whoever criticizes or praises westernization.

 

It was not the content of the Rescript--since not much in it was new--which intellectuals criticized in the press, but rather that it was not radical or it was made under the political pressure of European countries. In the years preceding Tanzimat many structural and visible changes had been made. Western style uniforms for officials become compulsory. State departments were reorganized according to western models. When French commercial law was adopted in its entirety only a weak protest came from the classical Ul ama, but the Tanzimat movement did not succeed immediately in putting it into effect. It was accepted, a few years later and in the eyes of the leaders of the movement, `Holy Law has nothing to do with it.' In Turkey this code was the first formally accepted system of law and judicature independent of Ulama. Despite the facts, in this period the general feeling expressed by the European press was that the ancient institution and structure of the Empire was barbarous and irretrievably bad. Only the adoption, as soon as possible, of a European form of government and way of life would admit Turkey to the rank and privileges of a civilized state.

 

Did the Ulama fail us during these crucial times?

[Lidia]

greeting!

 

The French Revolution mounted the first effective challenge to monarchical absolutism on behalf of popular sovereignty. So, the Revolution set the stage for the idea of a new form of political organization, to those who were still under a feudalist social and political structure. Also, Europe was gripped by ignorance, superstition and tyranny and religion was tainted by corrupt clergy men who solicited money from the public in return for god’s salvation. It was people like Locke, Voltaire and Rousseau who challenged the ruling class, the tyrants. The philosophes idea that the individual is free, equal, rational and good destroyed France’s three order or state political and social organization. Therefore, the basic principles of the freedoms which we enjoy today were articulated by these philosophes. So, to me the French Revolution was definitely not the beginning of the end and if I’m not mistaken, the brother maybe justifying the hobbesian idea of an absolute ruler.

[Lidia]

Hello Tolstoy,

 

I did not suggest that the French revolution started the march of the European Enlightenment, but rather that the Enlightenment ideas of, confidence in the self-sufficiency of the human mind, belief that individuals possess natural rights that government should not violate and the desire to form society in accordance with rational principles inspired the march of the French Revolution. Remember that in August of 1989, the newly created national Assembly adopted the declaration of the rights of man and of citizen, which expressed the liberal and universal ideals of the Enlightenment.

 

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the roots of the Revolution lay in the aristocratic structure of the French society. The third Estate resented the special privileges of the aristocracy, a legacy of the middle ages, and the inefficient and corrupt methods of government. To many French people influenced by the ideas of the philosophes, the French society seemed an affront to reason. Thus, reformers sought a new social order based on rationality and equality.

.

[Lidia]

For me the best example of ‘rule by the people’ comes in the form of the Unites states Constitution. If you read the US constitution you come to realize that the Constitution focuses on limited government interference and on individual rights. It illustrates that it truly is the people who give the government the right to act. The people determine the extent of the mandate that the government is allowed to exercise. People are the source of power here. So, i guess in my own opinion the United States represents the only true democracy.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Brother Tolstoy,

 

Gabadha hal Essey oo aad waahore qortay baad madaxa kaga dhifatay! Aloow Alle, war ka daa inanta.

[Animal Farm]

Tolstoy

 

Your post was rather long to read, but nonetheless, you have presented your view/argument with historical and academic references, although your conclusion was rather unclear, and your thesis within the post was hard to detect, perhaps there was more than one. But I must say it was worth reading your post, you’ve managed to produce interesting and rather challenging piece to the forum.

 

Here’s my question to you, are you giving legitimacy to the political elections that took place in Somaliland? If that’s the case, correct me I’m making an accusation here, but I thought your post advocated ontological reasoning, but when you say the elite should rule the mass aren’t you neglecting the relativist tradition.

 

I would understand if you are redefining Burke’s subjective aesthetics to selective entities, and abandoning postmodern theory all together, I think you’ve suggested in a previous post that postmodern ideals are corrupt as in the case for NGO’s and outsiders invading the social norms in Somaliland. In sum, are you saying that the people, the mass excluding the elite in Somaliland lack the capacity to reach universal standards of political judgments.

 

I think that people in Somalia lack political imagination, and if their universal ideals start and end with the warlords, I think it’s impossible for the people to accept change. They are clearly familiar with the institutional codes [roadblocks, illegal taxation, uncalculated deaths, etc] that are set up by those in power. The only thing they can do is function within the overall strategy, they can only make do, and they’re tactics are very much limited.

 

Why can’t use the French Revolution as blueprint for Somalia, the people are already accustomed to the misery that is their lives, and those who are caught rebelling by the slightest bit are doomed. For our purpose, I think poststructuralist theory should be applied to the rest of Somalia if not Somaliland in understanding the conditions that sustain support for anti-revolutionary attitudes and the warlord should be looked at as an institution of power.

 

Lidia the Somali Enlightenment is not going to emerge in this Century.

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Lidia and Tolstoy,

 

I haven't forgotten to respond to your 'ESSAYS',

 

its just that I have limited usage of internet

 

but inshallah, maybe after iftaar, time

 

permitting-inshallah!