Local demands and state policies: general councils (Meclis-i Umumi) in the Edirne and Ankara provinces (1867–1872)

ABSTRACT

By comparing the decisions of various meetings of the General Councils of Edirne and Ankara provinces from 1283 to 1288 (1867–1872 AD), this study analyses social and economic dynamics of both provinces, the state vocabulary for handling local demands, and the boundaries of responsibility for the state and the local actors in provincial administration. Instead of reading the Tanzimat as a top-down imposition, this article defines General Councils as sites of negotiations between state and local actors and instruments for local development. This article challenges the conventional view of provincial councils as weak and unable to implement various policies. It contributes to a new generation of studies that challenges the separation between state and social forces and looks at how both interacted in provincial administration.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mehmet Polatel for his helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. R. Kasaba, ‘A Time and a Place for the Non-State: Social Change in the Ottoman Empire during the Long Nineteenth Century’, J. Migdal, A. Kohli and V. Sue (eds.), State Power and Social Forces (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp.207–30. Trade and bourgeoisie as driving forces for urban development are especially prevalent in Balkan cities. See T. Stoianovich, ‘The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant’, Journal of Economic History Vol.20, No.2 (1960), pp.234–313.

2. The example of Mehmed Ali Pasha of Egypt demonstrated the need to bring rebellious governors under state control.

3. A. Efe, ‘Tanzimat’ın Eyalet Reformları, 1840–64: Silistre Örneği’, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, Vol.6, No.22 (2009), pp.87–113. See also M. Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapıları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991), pp.224–227.

4. The most famous example of this type was Midhat Pasha. See Türk Tarih Kurumu, Uluslararası Mithad Pasha Semineri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1986), pp.1–388.

5. For example, the number of Angora goats, textile production, and ways to increase the number of goats were included in the report of the Ankara province. Diverse issues such as education and husbandry were included in the same report for identifying ways for socio-economic development in Ankara. BOA (Prime Ministry Archives, hereafter BOA), Ayn. Dft. 397, 1262.S.7 (1846 AD).

6. There were frequent inspection commissions sent to Anatolia and Rumelia. As an example, there was a sequence of inspection commissions in Rumelia: first after the Nish uprising in 1841, followed by 1850, 1854, and 1856; all following local uprisings in Bulgaria. See H. Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti'nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992), pp.11–123. In 1860, the Grand Vizier Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Paşa conducted a large-scale inspection tour in Rumelia. See Y. Köksal and D. Erkan, Sadrazam Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Paşa'nın Rumeli Teftişi (Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007), pp.1–579.

7. The entire text of the Provincial Laws of 1871 is available in Düstur (Dersaadet: Matbaa-ı Amire, 1279), pp.625–51.

8. Assistant to the governor (vali muavini), accountant (defterdar), head scribe (mektupçu), agriculture and trade director (ticaret ve nafia müdürü), education director (maarif müdürü), road director (tarık emini), director of land and cadastrate (defter-i hakani), endowment director (evkaf müdürü), property and population officials (emlak ve nüfus dairesi memurları), and military and gendarmerie officials (alaybeyi). Düstur, pp.625–51.

9. S. Shaw, Local Administration in the Tanzimat in H.D. Yıldız (ed.), 150. Yılında Tanzimat (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992), pp.33–50. The number of council members varied among the regions, where there was no well-formed local bureaucracy, only the governor and kadı constituted the state officials in the councils. Local representation also varied, depending on the size of the religious and ethnic communities.

10. A.C. Tunalı, ‘Aydın Vilayeti Umumi Meclisi'nin 1909 Yılı Kararları’, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Tarih Bölümü Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol.26, No.42 (2007), pp.127–40.

11. İ. Ortaylı, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri (1840–1880) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000), pp.89–92.

12. BOA, İ. ŞD. 10 (13 April 1868).

13. For an analysis of the Aydın General Council of 1909, see A.C. Tunalı, ‘Aydın Vilayeti Umumi Meclisinin 1909 Yılı Kararları’, pp.127–40.

14. M. Gençoğlu, ‘1864 ve 1871 Vilâyet Nizamnamelerine Göre Osmanlı Taşra İdaresinde Yeniden Yapılanma’, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Vol.2, No.1 (2011), pp.29–50.

15. These towns were Edirne, Gelibolu, Kumluca, Bergos, Zağra-ı Atik, Çorlu, Zağra-ı Cedid, Filibe, İnöz, İslimye, Yanbolu, and Tekfurdağı. See BOA, İ.ŞD. 10.

16. BOA, İ.ŞD. 10. and BOA, İ.MVL. 577 (3 June 1867) are used for Edirne.

17. In 1283 (1867), there were three members from judicial councils (Meclis-i Deavi), five from local councils (İdare Meclisi), and one from the construction council (İmar Meclisi) and another one from the commerce council (Ticaret Meclisi). In 1284, there were four members of judicial councils and four members of local councils in the Edirne General Council.

18. BOA, İ.ŞD. 14 (13 February 1869) is used for Ankara.

19. BOA, İ.ŞD.10, 14, 15, and 22 were used to articulate these data.

20. BOA, İ.ŞD. 19 (8 July 1870).

21. BOA, İ.ŞD.14.

22. Silme was a grain measuring cup. One silme was equal to 8 okka (10,256 kilos). Doğraklı was described as ‘dalya başı denilen’ in the document (BOA, İ.ŞD.10). This is a reference to setting a target number and counting each time this number is reached. For example, if the target number is 200, then one dalya is equal to 200.

23. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

24. BOA, İ.ŞD.14.

25. BOA, İ.ŞD.14.

26. BOA, İ.ŞD.14.

27. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

28. BOA, İ.ŞD.22 (25 August 1871).

29. Public benefits banks were established to finance infrastructural projects in provinces ‘with revenues coming from a small supplementary tax imposed on the tithe as well as from lending out the bank's funds to cultivators at reasonable rates of interest’. See S. Shaw and E. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey (Vol.2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp.1–518.

30. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

31. BOA, İ.ŞD. 1906–54 (25 May 1871).

32. BOA, İ.ŞD.19.

33. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

34. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

35. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

36. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

37. BOA, İ.ŞD.14.

38. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

39. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

40. BOA, İ.ŞD.19.

41. BOA, İ.ŞD.10.

42. İ. Ortaylı, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri, pp.119–32. Max Weber's definition of Occidental and Oriental city has been influential in this understanding. See M. Weber, Economy and Society, Vol.2, ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978), pp.1212–1374.

43. On the re-conceptualization of Ottoman municipal reform and its relation to urban space, see T. Sahara, ‘The Ottoman City Council and the Beginning of the Modernisation of Urban Space in the Balkans’, in U. Freitag, M. Fuhrmann, N. Lafi and F. Riedler (eds.), The City in the Ottoman Empire: Migration and the Making of Urban Modernity (London: Routledge, 2011), pp.26–50.

44. J. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985).

45. See also M. Petrov, ‘Everyday Forms of Compliance: Subaltern Commentaries on Ottoman Reform, 1864-1868’, Comparative Studies in Society and History Vol.46, No.4 (2004), pp.730–59.