Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary History Middle Eas A History of The Modern Middle East PDF
Summary History Middle Eas A History of The Modern Middle East PDF
PART ONE
The development of Islamic civilization to the eighteenth century
The religion of Islam is often viewed in terms of its origins in the barren, sparsely settled
Arabian Peninsula. To be sure, it was in the Arabian city of Mecca that Islam was
revealed to the Prophet Muhammed. However, during the century following Prophet
Muhammed s death, the Arabs expanded out of the Peninsula and conquered a world
empire.
-Islam means submission, and the followers of the faith, Muslims, are those who have
submitted to the will of God.
CHAPTER 2
The development of Islamic civilization to the fifteenth century
Abbasid Empire (750-1258)
In an attempt to conceptualize the stages of Islamic history, we should think in terms of
a group of regional empires, each of which developed a particular synthesis of local and
Islamic practices, rather than viewing the Abbasid Empire as the core around a series of
lesser Islamic states revolved.
Islamic societies were dynamic and diverse, not static and monolithic; they
included areas as different as India and Syria, Egypt and Spain.
Because Islam has been universal, a period of stagnation in one segment of the ummah
((the Islamic Nation), and it is commonly used to mean the collective community of Islamic
peoples) might be reversed by an infusion of intellectual, economic, or military energy
from another.
There is no question that the destruction of the Abbasid Empire and the death of the last
caliph were significant historical events, but we should not conclude that they marked
the decline of Islamic civilization.
>From the eight century onward, Islam became a global civilization in which knowledge,
technology, and artistic tastes were transported back and forth across a vast domain.
Because of the very diversity and extent of the territories in which Islam became a
prominent religious force, a variety of regional practices and interpretations imparted
special characteristics to Islamic cultures in different parts of the world. What has to be
kept in mind is that no single political or cultural unit embraced the totality of Islam.
Jihad
The basic meaning of jihad is striving in the path of God. This can refer to an individual s
inner struggle against sinful inclinations or to an exceptional effort for the good of the
Islamic community. In addition to its spiritual connotations, jihad means armed struggle
against non-Muslims for the purpose of expanding or defending the territory under
Muslim rule. Jihad then, is a nuanced doctrine, and rendering it simply as holy war is
incorrect and should be avoided.
Shari’ah
The all-embracing sacred law of the Islamic community.
Four sources for the Shari ah
1.The Quran
2.The tradition of the Prophet (Sunnah/Hadith)
3.Qiyas, when there direct precedent in the Quran or hadith literature, they assessed it
on the basis principles previously accepted for a similar situation.
4.Ijma, the consensus of the community
Ijtihad, the exercise of applying informed human reasoning to points not covered in the
Quran. It represented the right of learned scholars to interpret the intent of God s
revelations and provided Islamic jurisprudence with an evolutionary capability.
The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad,
and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni
Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the
new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was
done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first
Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning
"one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."
On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed
within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among
Imams appointed by God Himself.
The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership
should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. Throughout
history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders,
choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by
the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or
supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical
"Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or
"People of the Household" (of the Prophet).
By the middle of the eleventh century, a confederation of Turkish tribes known as the
Seljuks had established domination over Iran, and in 1055 the Abbasid caliph invited
the Seljuk leader to assume administrative and military authority in Baghdad. The
Seljuks became the lieutenants of the caliph and the defenders of the high Islamic
tradition. Despite the Seljuks early success at empire building, by 1157 their empire had
broken up. But their period had lasting importance. It demonstrated the absorptive
qualities of Islam, as the Turks adjusted quickly to urban life and adopted the high
cultural traditions of Islam, such as patronage of the arts, sponsorship of architecture,
and respect for the shari ah and the ulama.
In the first half of the 13th century the Mongols constantly threatened the Islamic lands.
In 1220 the Islamic lands were attacked under the leadership of Genghis Khan, and in
1256 again, but this time under the leadership of his son Hulagu.
In 1260 the forces of the Mamluks, a new Turkish military sultanate based in Cairo,
defeated the Mongols in a battle fought north of Jerusalem. As a result, the Mamluks
became the Master of Syria and ruled it and Egypt until 1517.
The Mamluk defeat of the Mongols did not stop the invasions from the East. From 1381
to 1404, the armies of Timur Lang laid waste large portions of Iran and defeated the
Turkish princes of Anatolia. Altough Timur conquered vast territories, he did not
succeed to construct a stable empire. Following his death in 1405, Anatolia and the
Arab lands were once again fragmented into several small dynastic states.
CHAPTER 3
THE OTTOMAN AND SAFAVID EMPIRES
A New Imperial Synthesis
The Ottoman Empire originated as one of over a dozen Anatolian principalities that
came into existence in the wake of the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century. The
tradition of Gaza, warfare against non-Muslims for the purpose of extending the
domains was a driving force among the Muslim frontier warriors (Gazis). The
beginnings of the Ottoman Empire are traced to the achievements of a Turkish cieftain
called Osman. The growing military power of Osman s disposal enabled him and his son
Orhan to expand their domains in northwestern Anatolia. In 1326, Orhan captured the
city of Bursa, and he affirmed the Islamic impulse behind his conquests by founding a
madrasah and constructing a mosque that bore an inscription describing him as gazi.
One of the most important military campaigns that can serve to illustrate the
transformation of the Ottoman state into a world power was the conquest of
Constantinople by sultan Mehmet II in 1453 (Istanbul).
The creation of a navy enabled the Ottomans to conquer the principal strategic countries
in North Africa. At the heart of the Otoman military superiority was the development
and extensive use of gunpowder weapons.
Altough the Ottomans concentrated to conquer regions in Christian Europe, they also
had to send armies to the Safavid Empire in order to repel their advances.
The conquest of the Arab lands established the sultans as the supreme rulers within the
Islamic community.
According to the Ottomans: the death of a prince was less regrettable than the loss of a
province.
The Military
The Janissary Infantry Standing infantry corps, disciplined and professional. Forbidden
to marry.
Sipahi Cavalry The provincial cavalrymen, were freeborn Muslims who fulfilled an
administrative as well as a military function. Awarded by timars, income from
agricultural lands.
In 1514, the Ottoman and Safavid forces met at the battle of Chaldiran, the
Ottoman gunpowder army crushed the mounted archers of Isma il and consolidated
Ottoman dominance in eastern Anatolia.
Isma il claimed to be descended from the seventh Imam in Shi ism. Therefore, Shi ism
became firmly embedded as the religion of the vast majority of the Iranian population.
At Isma ils death in 1524, the Safavid Empire was in a stage of transition from
tribal military regime to absolutist bureaucratic empire.
From the Reign of Shah Abbas I (1587-1629) to the collapse of the Safavids
A problem for the successors of Isma il were the Qizilbash tribesmen and their
resistance to the imposition of state control. In the East Turkish tribal incursions
threatened and in the west Ottoman advances.
Abbas reversed the decline in Safavid fortunes, he recovered the lost territories.
In 1598 Abbas designated Isfahan as the new capital of his empire, Isfahan flourished
enormously under Abbas, at that time people said Isfahan is half of the world .
Although after Abbas there came one successful ruler in the Safavid Empire, the
centralized machinery government enabled to survive his successors icompetence and
provided Iran political stability for one century.
Finally in 1794 mainly because of the lack of an effective military force, a Turkish tribal
chieftain named Fath Ali Shah established the Qajar dynasty in central Iran. Altough the
Qajars were the nominal ruling dynasty of Iran until the 1920s, they never succeeded in
recreating the royal absolutism of the Safavids.
PART TWO
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ERA OF TRANSFORMATION
For the Ottoman Empire the eighteenth century marked a period of political and
economic disintegration brought about by a combination of declining central
authority and intense external pressures.
The most prominent feature of this decay was a process of decentralization both
within the administration and in the Ottoman state s ability to control its territories.
The decline of central authority also brought opportunities for local leaders to
acquire a greater measure of regional power. Throughout Anatolia and the European
and Arab provinces of the empire, local valley lords gained increasing degrees of
autonomy from Istanbul, setting up what were essentially small principalities.
These autonomous rulers did not seek to overthrow the Ottoman state, only to
distance themselves from its authority, to collect and control the revenues generated
by their territory, and so to pass their autonomy on their heirs.
CHAPTER 4
FORGING A NEW SYNTHESIS
The Pattern of Reforms, 1789-1849
Whether it was Muhammed Ali, the autonomous governor of Egypt, or the reforming
Sultan Mahmud II in the central Ottoman Empire, the rulers in the era of transformation
sought to expand the central state and to eliminate the customary intermediaries- the
ulama or the Millet leaders, for example- between the population and the state. In the
course of pursuing their goals, the rulers of this period confronted, and in many cases
destroyed, elements of the old order that opposed them. By so doing, they
unintentionally undermined the Ottoman system as a whole and opened the doors to a
process of transformation that extended far beyond the military.
Selim most ambitious military project was to create a new infantry corps. This unit
called the nizam-i jedid, was formed in 1797 and adopted a pattern of recruitment that
was uncommon for the imperial forces; it was composed of Turkish peasant youths from
Anatolia, a clear indication that these men were raised through the devsirme method.
Napoleon tried to colonize Egypt for its grain. But a joint British-Ottoman expedition
entailed that the French evacuated in 1801. An important reason for the invasion was to
impress Middle Eastern traders with the technological capabilities of Europe, and
penetrate to the very heartlands of Ottoman domains.
Muhammed Ali s political objective was to secure independence from the Ottoman
Empire and to establish in Egypt a hereditary dynasty for his family.
Iltizam: a taxfarming system in which tax farmers remitted a fixed annual sum to the
treasury and retained whatever surplus they could extort from the peasants under their
control.
income and direct any surplus to the state rather than allowing it to go to the religious
establishment. Mahmud II invested in Europe scholars.
CHAPTER 5
THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND EGYPT DURING THE ERA OF THE TANZIMAT
THE TANZIMAT: CONTINUED OTTOMAN REFORM UNDER THE BUREAUCRATS
The period from 1839 to 1876 is known in Ottoman history as the Tanzimat, literally,
reorganization. During these years, the inspiration for reforms came not from the sultans
but from Europeanized Ottoman bureaucrats, the French knowers, who were shaped by
the institutions established by Mahmud II.
Ali Pasha, Fuad Pasha, and Rashid Pasha examples of bureaucrats who attained
knowledge in Europe.
Nationality law (1869), this law reinforced the principle that all individuals living
within Ottoman domains shared a common citizenship regardless of their religion.
After the death of Ali Pasha in 1871, Sultan Abdul Aziz reasserted royal authority. His
chaotic rule led to his deposition in 1876 and, after a few troubled months, to the
proclamation of an Ottoman constitution that the new sultan, Abdul Hamid II, pledged
to uphold. In 1878, he dissolved the assembly, suspended the constitution, and
inaugurated thirty years of autocratic rule.
Treaty of Paris (1856): When war was finally declared, it was fought on Russian territory in the
Crimea, where the British, French, and Ottoman allies bungled their way to an indecisive victory
over the Russian forces. While the armies of the four powers were fighting it out in the Crimea,
Austria occupied the principalities. The Treaty of Paris brought an end to the hostilities and
arranged for the readjustment of boundaries. Among other things, the signatories pledged to
respect the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, a pledge that came rather late in that, as a
result of the war, the principalities were well on their way to becoming independent as a united
Romanian state. The treaty further arranged for the demilitarization of the Black Sea and the
withdrawal of Russian troops from the Danube.
With the eliminiation of Muhammed Ali s monopoly system and the abandonment of his
policy of industrialization, Egypt s economic development came to be shaped by the
needs of the European market. In effect, the country became integrated into the
international economic order as a virtual plantation economy, exporting raw materials,
most notably cotton, and importing European manufactured goods.
CHAPTER 6
EGYPT AND IRAN IN THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY
The British show of force was a miscalculation that intensified Egyptian demands for an
end to the occupation and hastened the departure of Lord Cromer, who submitted his
resignation in 1907.
After the outbreak of WWI, Britain declared Egypt a protectorate, imposed martial law
on the country, and deposed Abbas II in favor of his more malleable uncle, Husayn
Kamil.
Nasir al-Din Shah, caught in the middle of this rivalry, sought to play the two powers off
against one another through the use of the only leverage he had: the granting of
economic concessions.
In an effort to recover Middle Eastern military strength, the rulers of Egypt and
the Ottoman Empire started to purchase European technology. But the
expenditures exceeded their capacities, and so both became bankrupt. In the case
of the central Ottoman Empire, bankruptcy led to European control of the
distribution of Ottoman revenues but not to European occupation of the Ottoman
capital city.
CHAPTER 7
THE RESPONSE OF ISLAMIC SOCIETY
By the end of the 19th century nearly all of the major political units of Islam, were under
some of European control. The general Muslim consensus was/is that the divine
message revealed to the Prophet Muhammed remained valid. It was not Islam that was
flawed; rather, the flaw lay with Muslims themselves and their failure to follow the
commands of God.
degree that his followers accepted his claim, he was regarded as directly inspired by
God.
CHAPTER 8
THE ERA OF THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE IRANIAN CONSTITUTIONALISTS
The Young Turk era from 1908 to the Ottoman defeat in 1918 marked a period in
which all the trends of the preceding century met in a head-on collision. Adding to
the turmoil of these years were proposals for new forms of cultural and political
identification that were at odds with the dominant ideology of Ottomanism.
Within the empire itself, students in the military-medical academy founded a secret
protest society in 1889. Known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it
soon attracted other students and some civil servants. In common with the exiles,
the participants in the CUP were largely the products of European style schools and
viewed the Hamidian repression as an impediment to the reforms needed to
preserve the empire.
The new Shah Muhammed Ali, approved the Supplementary Fundamental Laws in late
1907, it appeared that the long tradition of authoritarian Iranian monarchy had come to
an end.
The constitutional revolution had the objective: to preserve the state from internal
collapse and external aggression.
CHAPTER 9
WORLD WAR I AND THE END OF THE OTTOMAN ORDER
THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE WAR
Most Armenians remained loyal to the Ottoman state, but there were nationalist
organizations in who looked upon the war as an opportunity to create an independent
Armenia.
The CUP instituted a systematic policy of forced evacuation of Armenians from
eastern and southern Anatolia.
In the Gallipolli campaign, a young Ottoman colonel, Mustafa KeMal, the future Ataturk,
gained a reputation as a resourceful military commander.
On October 31, 1918, the government in Istanbul signed the Armistice of
Mudros, a document of unconditional surrender that brought an end to the war
in the Middle East and with it the end of the Ottoman Empire.
the principle only when it furthered their own interests. The Allies also agreed that the
Kurdish regions of Anatolia should have a semiautonomous status.
Provinces were divided into mandates, the mandate system was little more
than nineteenth-century imperialism repackaged to give the appearance of self
determination.
The Rise and Fall of Faysal’s Syrian Kingdom -1920
When the treaty of Sevres was signed in Paris, Amir Faysal was forming his own
government in Syria. Faysal endeavored to open negotiations with the French
commander in Beirut, General Henri Gouraud. But Gouraud was in no mood for
compromises and ordered his troops to march on Syria. On July 24, 1920, the French
forces easily defeated Faysal s army, occupied Damascus, and forced the king of Syria
ino exile in Europe.
The Arab provinces, once part of an imperial whole, were divided into a group of
regional states administered by Britain and France.
CHAPTER 10
AUTHORITARIAN REFORM IN TURKEY AND IRAN
Both Ataturk and Reza Shah promoted an unprecedented degree of secularism in
public life, and both tried to buttress their reforms by the promulgation of new symbols
of national identity.
A fervent admirer of European institutions and attitudes he was determined to mold the
new Turkey in the image of the West.
Reforms:
Kemalism meant: reformism, republicanism, secularism, nationalism, populism
and etatism (state capitalism)
Secularization:
The office of shaykh al-Islam was abolished
Religious schools were closed
Ministry of Religious Endowments was eliminated
Wearing a fez became prohibited because your forehead could touch the ground
if you were praying with a fez
Ataturk s goal was to reduce the influence of Islamic organizations on political and social
life and to redirect popular loyalties toward symbols of nation and state. He sought not
to abolish Islam as a personal belief system, but, rather, to remove it as an
institutionalized regulating agent in the affairs of state and society.
On February 21, 1921, Reza Khan, a colonel in the Cossack Brigade, led a contingent of
3000 men into Tehran, arrested a number of prominent politicians, and requested that
the shah appoint a young civilian reformer, Sayyid Zia Tabatabai, as prime minister. The
Shah agreed, and Sayyid Zia formed a new cabinet and named Reza Khan to the post of
army commander. In May Reza Khan forced Sayyid Zia to resign and over the next four
years consolidated more and more power into his own hands.
Ataturk was an established member of the Ottoman ruling elite who sought
enshrine the principle of popular sovereignty in the new Turkish constitution,
whereas Reza Shah was a military usurper whose political objective was to
consolidate his own power and to secure his son’s succession to the throne.
CHAPTER 11
The Arab struggle for independence
Egypt, Iraq, and Transjordan from the Interwar Era to 1945
-When the British attempted to contain them by force, the intensity of the
demonstrations increased, eventually exploding into a nationwide upheaval known as
the revolution of 1919.
-Discussions were held later on the future of the Anglo-Egyptian relationship. The
negotiations dragged on for two years, largely because the Wafd demanded full and
complete independence, whereas the British insisted on imposing conditions that would
restrict Egyptian sovereignty.
-In the declaration there were points reserved that made a mockery of the term
independence. By these points, the British government remained responsible for the
security of imperial communications in Egypt, the defense of Egypt against foreign
aggression or interference, the protection of foreign interests and foreign minorities in
Egypt, and the Sudan and its future status. The British military presence in Egypt was
thus ensured, the Capitulations continued to be enforced, and Egypt still did not control
its own foreign policy.
Beginning in the late 1920s, disaffected elements of the population began to seek
practical solutions to their economic problems and sustenance for their spiritual needs
by joining organizations that operated outside the structured party system. This popular
reaction against the foreign-inspired parliamentary regime was also a reaction against
the secularism it represented. Many of the voluntary organizations that sprang up in the
1930s were associated with one form or another of Islamic activism. By far the most
significant of them – and one of the most significant organizations in recent Egyptian
history was the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Isma iliyya in by Hasan al-
Banna. In al-Banna s view the restored shari ah would be subject to interpretation and
would hence be fully compatible with the needs of a modern society.
EGYPT DURING WORLD WAR II:
PIVOT OF THE BRITISH DEFENSE SYSTEM
At the outbreak of the war, a coalition cabinet headed by Ali Mahir, a known Axis
symphatizer and a close personal adviser to King Faruq governed Egypt. When Mahir
resigned in 1940, the British decided that a Wafdist government under longtime party
leader Mustafa al-Nahhas woul be the most likely to cooperate during this period of
crisis.
Over the course of the next decade, the Wafd continued to suffer from the fact that in
1942 it took office under the protection of British tanks.
The Wafd also took the initiative in encouraging the formation of a loose federation of
Arag states, commonly known as the Arab league, which came into existence in 1945.
As the war in Europe wound down, politics in Egypt stayed unstabilized. The Wafd could
not get widespread support because it was regarded as a corrupt and bloated party that
had been co-opted by the British. In the absence of credible parties, the monarchy and
the extra parliamentary organizations, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, moved to
the forefront of Egyptian politics in the immediate postwar years.
-The British set out to identify a ruler with whom they could work and who was likely to
be acceptable to a broad cross-section of the Iraqi population. Their choice was Amir
Faysal, the field commander of the Arab revolt, the son of Sharif Husayn, and the
monarch of the recently dismembered Syrian kingdom.
-To let it s influence retain, Britain signed a series of treaties with Faysal, the first in
1922 and the last one in 1930. By the terms of the 1930 treaty, Iraq was to gain full
independence within two years, whereas Britain was to retain military and security
privileges similar to those that prevailed in Egypt.
-One additional influence of Britain s attitutede was because of the contest for the
control of oil resources. Europe s scramble for colonies in the late 19th century became a
scramble for oil concessions in the 1920s.
In the absence of leadership from the palace, the government came to be dominated by a
narrow clique of individuals without previous experience. The most durable of them
was Nuri al-Sa id ( -1958), who was prime minister five times during the 1930s
and was again holding that office when the monarchy was overthrown in 1958.
In Iraq because of the political leaders were Sunni, the Shi a were exluded from power,
while they constituted a majority.
In 1933, general Bakr Sidqi gained a dubious reputation for protecting the national
interest by engaging in a systematic massacre of the members of the Assyrian Christian
community.
General Sidqi, brought the army into political life by leading a coup d etat that overthrew
the government in 1936. This initiated a round of military coups-there were six more of
them through 1941.
As Britain prepared for war with Adolf Hitler s Germany in 3 , a politically unstable
Iraq was gripped by a wave of Fascist-inspired paramilitary youth movements and
increasing anti British sentiment. Britain s empire by treaty would be severely tested in
the ensuing world conflict.
The British Middle Eastern command put together a relief force that marched from
Palestine across the Transjordanian desert to Iraq. By the end of May 1941, the Rashid
Ali revolt was defeated, and its leaders had fled Baghdad.
Britain moved quickly to reestablish the old pro-British ruling coalition by bringing Nuri
al-Sa id again to dominate Iraqi politics.
CHAPTER 12
The Arab struggle for independence
Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia from the Interwar Era to 1945
The British ensured their Middle Eastern position by means of indirect rule; the French
employed a different policy. From the moment General Gouraud s forces drove Faysal
from Damascus in 1920, French control of Syria and Lebanon was supported by the
presence of a large military contingent of French civilian administration.
In contrast to mandates of Britain and France, Saudi Arabia managed to achieve full
indepencence during the interwar era. Like Turkey, the Saudi state was shaped in the
image of its dominant ruler, Ibn Sa ud. However, whereas Ataturk imposed a relentless
secularism on interwar Turkey, Ibn Sa ud founded his new state on the doctrines of
Wahhabi Islam.
The French claim to Syria was based on a combination of religious, economic and
strategic interests.
French adopted a policy of divide and rule that emphasized and encouraged the existing
religious, ethnic, and regional differences within Syria. Thus, rather than promoting
national unity, France promoted regional and ethnic fragmentation.
Great revolt (1925-1927), beginning as a localized rebellion, the revolt soon engulfed
most of Syria and became a symbol - one of the few- of the common Syrian objection to
the mandate and all that it represented.
France paid a high price in lives and money; the revolt convinced French
policymakers to revise, but not to renounce, their plans for controlling Syria.
The Nature of Syrian Politics from the End of the Revolts in 1939
In the aftermath of the great revolt, prominent Syrian leaders formed a new political
organization, the National Bloc that became the focal point of Syrian political life for
the remainder of the mandate.
The leaders of the National Bloc were from the same families, and in many cases
were the same individuals, who had exercised authority during the Ottoman era.
1936, treaty signed between France and Syria, the treaty provided for an alliance
between the two countries and granted France the right to defend Syrian sovereignty
and to maintain air bases and military garrisons on Syrian oil.
The French legacy to Syria was almost a guarantee of political instability.
In Lebanon there had to be ensured collaboration between the Muslim and Christian
community in order to construct a distinctly Lebanese polity. Emile Edde and Bishara
al-Khuri held the attitudes.
Eventually Edde was elected and he chose Khayr al-Din al-Ahdab (a
muslim) as his prime minister. This pattern of power sharing remained an integral part
of the Lebanese political system until the late 1980s.
The combination of popular unrest and British pressure finally compelled the French to
restore the constitutions of both countries and to hold elections in 1943. The results
were resounding victories for anti-French, pro-independence forces.
In Syria the old National Bloc was returned to power and Shukri al-Quwwatli
was elected president.
In Lebanon Bishara al-Khuri became president, and also selected as well as Emile Edde
as prime minister a Sunni Muslim Riyadh al-Sulh.
National pact (1943) agreement between Shukri al-Quwwatli and Riyadh al-Sulh:
attempted to assuage the Christians fears of being absorbed into a larger Araber-Islamic
state by recognizing Lebanon as a distinct entity, the pact sought to satisfy Muslims by
proclaiming that Lebanon had an Arab identity and that it would exist as part of the
Arab world.
France inaugurated a round of confrontations that did not end until 1945.
As late as May 17, 1945, several days after the war in Europe had ended, France began
to reinforce its garrisons in the Levant.
Syria was evacuated in spring 1946, and in December of that year the last of the French
troops finally left Lebanon.
Treaty of Jiddah (1927) recognized Ibn Sa ud as the sovereign king of the Hijaz and
sultan of Najd and its dependencies; he in turn, acknowledged Britain s special
relationships with the coastal rulers and pledged to respect their domains. In 1932 the
name of the state was officially changed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By that time, it
had received international recognition from the community nations.
Ibn Sa ud had won his kingdom through his own efforts and was not tainted, as were his
Hashimite rivals, by association with European support. Nor could he be accused of
allowing an imported European secular constitution to be imposed on his domains.
CHAPTER 14
DEMOCRACY AND AUTHORITARIANISM
Turkey and Iran
Turkey and Iran embarked on different courses of political development in the three
decades following World War II. In Turkey the authoritarian single-party rule of the
Republican People s Party RPP gave way to a multiparty system in which elections
were openly contested and voters eagerly participated. Although Turkish democracy
had its moments of crisis during this period, they were resolved in favor of a continued
commitment to political pluralism and freedom of expression. In Iran, in contrast,
Muhammed Reza Shah, after narrowly surviving an oil nationalization crisis in the early
1950s, consolidated an authoritarian monarchy in which political activity was severely
restricted. The shah was not without reformist ambitions, but he was unwilling to
tolerate challenges to his power; he therefore established a system of government that
rested on the narrow base of royal authority supported by the army and the secret
police.
The United States, as part of its policy of containing the Soviet Union, provided economic
and military assistance to the two states. In so doing, the United States inserted itself as
an influential force in the domestic and foreign policy considerations of Turkey and Iran.
The Soviet Union was seen as an aggressively expansionist power devoted to the single-
minded mission of spreading communism throughout the world.
Truman Doctrine (1947) was a formulation of the domino theory. It was based on the
belief that unless the United States intervened, the Soviet Union was likely to gain
control of Greece and Turkey, and, once this occurred, the other states of the Middle East
would quickly fall under Communist influence.
Between 1947 and 1960, US aid to Turkey and around $3 billion, enabling the Turks to
maintain an armed fore of 500,000 men as a deterrent to Soviet designs. This is also one
of the main reasons why Turkey obeys the US and why Turkey is still so dependent on
the United States.
The Democratic Party pledged to reduce the interventionist practices of the Kemalist
state, portraying itself as the representative of the common Turk. The elections of 1950
demonstrated the attractiveness of this message to the voters. In what is often referred
to as a revolution in modern Turkish politics, the Democrats won 408 seats in the
national assembly, the Republicans only 69.
The Democratic Party applied anti-secularization measures, such as the call for prayer
returned to Arabic, religious instruction was offered to all students on primary schools;
and considerable government expenditures were devoted to the repair of existing
mosques and to the construction of some 5000 new ones.
The anti-secularization measures were applied by Menderes, Menders was actually not
a religious man, but in contrast to Ataturk he honored religion.
The economy was the other principal issue on which the Democrats differed from the
Republicans. Menders was committed to reducing the role of the state and allowing
more scope for private enterprise and the forces of the marketplace.
The trials lasted nearly a year ad resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of some
450 individuals for terms ranging from one year to life. Menderes and two of his cabinet
ministers were sentenced to death and were hanged in September 1961. This execution
was seen by his followers as a political act, not as an act of justice, and tarnished the
otherwise credible reputation the military earned during its eighteen months in power.
After the coup d Etat in , the RPP ruled for four years. The new Justice Party won
the elections of 1965, but it could not effectively deal with the mounting wave of
violence and social unrest within the country and was removed from office by the
military in 1971. Two years later the military returned Turkey to civilian rule, but by
1980 the country was once again faced with domestic turmoil, and once again the
military intervened to restore order and uphold the principles of Kemalism.
Groups and movements that gained freedom and power during the reign of the
Democrat Party, did not want to lose their favored status. And so started to organize
political parties to represent their particular interests. Thus, by 1969 the number of
parties represented in the national assembly had grown to eight.
In 1971, the Turkish High command sent an ultimatum to the government charging it
with driving the country into political anarchy and economic chaos and demanding the
resignation by Prime Minister Demirel. In contrast to the coup in 1960, the armed forces
behind the scenes and did not seize power.
The breakdown of civil order was compounded by two additional elements of discord.
The first was increased activity on the part of Kurdish separatists. The second was the
rise of Islamic revivalism led by the National Salvation Party. In September 1980 the
party held a massive national rally during which the crowds demanded the return of the
shari ah and refused to sing the Turkish national anthem. Both of these developments
threatened the secular and nationalist principles of Kemalism, principles that the officer
corps regarded as the cornerstones of the modern Turkish state. On September 12,
1980, the Turkish High Command, for the third time in twenty years, stepped into the
political arena.
The 1983 elections were won by a new political organization, the Motherland Party led
by Turgut Ozal. The Motherland party was composed of Islamic revivalists and secular
liberals. The party gained another victory in 1987. For the time being, democracy was
restored and politics was back in the hands of civilians.
After Ozal, Necmettin Erbakan came in power in 1995 with his Islamist party. He
functioned as prime minister for two years (1996-1997). In 1997 he was pressured by
the military to step down as prime minister because he was against the law that state
and religion had to be seperate.