Sir,
I was reading the article called ‘No democratic miracle in Lebanon’ by Gwynne Dyer in the Cyprus Mail on June 10, 2005, when I came across with a bizarre statement.
While referring to problems caused by different ethnic sectors of Lebanon, the article states that “It comes from the Ottoman Empire, which habitually divided its subjects up according to religion (“millet”) so that their community leaders could be held responsible for their actions. This divisive legacy is shared by Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel, but it is most crippling in Lebanon.” When I read these statements, I could not control my feelings and decided to write to you to express my personal disappointment in what seems to be an ongoing attempt to slur Turks in general.
It seems that Gwynne Dyer is blaming the legacy of Ottoman Empire as the main source of problems in the Middle East. The fact that different religions and peoples of such a variety of ethnic origins retained their identities for hundreds of years under Ottoman rule is testimony to the regime’s fair and just system, and not what is described as a divisive strategy. Various Sultans of the Ottoman Empire appointed persons of different ethnic origins to the highest offices who successfully represented and fought for the Empire during its glorious periods.
I would invite Gwynne Dyer to explain what he means by “divisive legacy” since I had difficulties interpreting what he is referring to.
The Ottoman Empire never treated people of different origins in any different manner. We know that other countries such as Communist Russia tried hard to assimilate different ethnic groups into their societies forcing them to change their names, stop talking in their own languages and ban practicing their religions etc. I am sure Gwynne Dyer is not suggesting that this was a better way of dealing with different ethnic groups in a society for the sake of avoiding divisions within the society. It is a well-known fact that during the Ottoman Empire, every person was free to practice his or her own religion and language and nobody was forced to change their names. Identical opportunities were available to all different ethnic groups and it is fair to say that persons of European origin were more affluent, being engaged in more successful businesses than peoples of Anatolia and the Middle East. I believe the Ottoman Empire’s treatment of different ethnic origins was essentially the same as is now adopted largely in modern democracies like the UK.
One can get the impression from the article that the current system of governing in Lebanon was inherited from the Ottomans, which is far from the truth, and this is why I could not understand the kind of insinuation put forward by the article. Indeed, as acknowledged by the writer, it was the French who introduced the system of governance to enable their preferred groups of population to rule. This was part of a systematic effort put forward by Western countries when they occupied the whole of Middle East and can simply be described as part of “Divide and Rule” procedure.
I could not help considering Gwynne Dyer’s article within the context of the ongoing anti-Turkish hysteria. His article is symptomatic of a widespread and seemingly systematic attitude within the Western media, currently trying to run down the Ottoman Empire and by extension aiming to demean the Turkish nation as a whole. We all know how negatively Turkey’s accession to EU was presented to citizens of France and Netherlands and such articles seem unintentionally to serve a similar purpose.
Contrary to its intended purpose of running down the Ottoman Empire, in my opinion Mr Dyer’s statement should be considered as proof that it provided a very tolerant system of governance, which should be praised instead of being used as an excuse for today’s ills. We need more understanding and better appreciation from our neighbours and Europeans about the Turkish nation and the Western media has a vital role to play in this regard and should stop running a very negative campaign.
Kubilay M. Ali, London
