Scenes of democracy from the Grand National Assembly in the founding years

What took place on April 23, 1920 consists simply of the relocation to Ankara, and the start of its activities there, of the Assembly, which was already active in Istanbul and had been rendered unable to work in Istanbul by a British raid. Undoubtedly it is very important that the Assembly continued its activities, even if by relocating under occupation conditions. But it is also one of the overlooked facts that its relocation to Ankara took place not in spite of the British but, on the contrary, through British intervention and compulsion. At that date, Istanbul's being directly and effectively under occupation in fact means that all Ottoman lands were officially under occupation supervision, so that in Samsun, Erzurum and Ankara too there is a British presence (if not an occupation).

The first law the TBMM took up on April 23, the first day it began continuing its activities from Ankara, was, for example, the Ğanem Law, which the Meclis-i Mebusan had left half-finished when it took it up in its last session. This too is a situation that shows the continuity of the two assemblies, both in legitimacy and institutionally.

Only 6 days after the founding of the TBMM, that is, on April 29, 1920, in the first article of the fourteen-article Law on High Treason, enacted then, the Assembly's allegiance to the Caliph and the Sultan was strongly emphasized, and thus, while these two offices were indicated as the sole source of legitimacy even of the Ankara government, it was also stated that any wrong done against these two offices would be considered within the scope of treason to the homeland:

"Persons who, by word, deed or writing, oppose the legitimacy of the Grand National Assembly, which was established to rescue the High Caliphate, the sultanate and the protected lands of the Ottoman State from the hands of foreigners and to repel attacks, who incite rebellion or engage in defeatism, shall be deemed traitors to the homeland." (İstiklal Mahkemeleri, vol. 1, TBMM, Ankara 2015, p. 43; Mehmet Ali Beyhan, 2024, Sultan Vahdettin; Traitor or Victim? İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları. p. 119).

Of course, the absolute authority secured by this law, which derived its legitimacy entirely from the struggle to be waged in the name of rescuing the caliphate and the sultanate from foreign occupation, an authority that did not exist even in the time of Abdülhamid II, who was so much criticized, would later constitute the most important source of power in the move to overthrow these two offices. For the authority of the Caliph and the Sultan would in effect have passed to the Assembly, and from there, with the Law on Supreme Command, to the Speaker of the Assembly. That is, step by step, with the Law on High Treason and then the Law on Supreme Command, the Assembly would in effect be sidelined from the very first stage, and all the decisions that toppled a 623-year-old state and changed the regime, that then abolished the caliphate, which concerns all Muslims, and that elected the President, would be decisions made suddenly one night by a "single man."

The only picture that emerges from this is that the first founding years of the TBMM, which began on April 23, present a scene of progress in terms of a parliamentary tradition.

AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, THE ABOLITION OF THE SULTANATE: when it came onto the Assembly's agenda in November 1922, it was met with astonishment as a shocking surprise by the great majority of the members. Moreover, was not the purpose for which this Assembly was founded, the oath it took and its whole aim the protection of the sultanate and the caliphate? Where had this subject come from?

The proposal was seen as a fait accompli whose intention was not at all viewed favorably, and for this reason it caused intense debates in the Assembly's committees. Nevertheless, the proposal to abolish the sultanate was made not as a move to put the Ottomans entirely out of action or against them, but rather on the view that the sultanate and the caliphate should be separated from one another as offices. That is, even the decision abolishing the sultanate positioned itself at first not against the Caliph but against the government in Istanbul, which in fact no longer had any authority, and thus took a measure that would sideline it. Of course, this was the argument put forward for the proposal to be accepted, but the great majority of the Assembly was still not persuaded by it, and even raised the possibility of adjourning the Assembly if necessary against this decision. Mustafa Kemal, who watched these debates for a while silently but uneasily, finally climbed onto a bench and gave the Assembly a speech along these lines:

"'Sir,' I said. Sovereignty and the sultanate are not given by anyone to anyone because science requires it, through deliberation or debate. Sovereignty and the sultanate are taken by force, by power and by compulsion. [...] The matter at hand is not whether we will leave the nation its sultanate and its sovereignty or not. The matter is merely the expression of a truth that has already become a fait accompli. This will come about in any case. If those assembled here, the Assembly and everyone, take the matter as natural, it would in my opinion be appropriate. Otherwise, the truth will still be expressed, in due procedure. But perhaps some heads will be cut off" (Nutuk pp. 690-691).

It is understood that this openly threatening language was quite persuasive to many deputies, for in the vote taken it was decided to separate the sultanate from the caliphate.

THE SAME SCENE IS ALSO AT ISSUE IN THE PROCLAMATION OF THE REPUBLIC. There too, in the name of national sovereignty, the representatives of the nation were sidelined and a decision of great importance in the nation's history and destiny was taken. The justification was expressed very clearly on various occasions: "If we had asked them, they would not have accepted."

A process took place in which even the foremost names of the National Struggle, figures such as Rauf Orbay and Kazım Karabekir, heard of the proclamation of the republic afterward. After the abolition of the sultanate a crisis of governance arose; the Assembly's oversight was slowing the Speaker's work. The proclamation of the republic as a way of resolving this is an idea, true, but the decision was taken on October 28, and without any constitutional committee work or any session at which everyone in the Assembly was present, it was announced in the night, "Tomorrow we will proclaim the republic," and the next day the decision was taken by the unanimous vote of only 158 deputies of the 334-seat Assembly.

It is not a simple law, for which even an absolute majority is required. It is not even a simple constitutional amendment, for which committee work, the informing of everyone and a calendar are required. A change of regime is decided on the night before, and the next day, with no one's knowledge, the decision passes in a ten-minute procedure. The 1923 Assembly, for which according to the standard of that day at least 223 deputies had to be present even for a quorum, met with only 158 members, amended the Constitution, and also elected and proclaimed the president.

In an article in which he explains that the transition to the republic was not as smooth as assumed and was not a great step awaited by the people, the famous historian Yılmaz Öztuna describes what happened as follows:

"... The republican regime was adopted. Atatürk wanted it so. No referendum or anything of the sort was held. Besides, the republic was voted on and accepted without deliberation, with only half of the deputies attending the night session of the assembly. As for the other half, besides being sent word not to attend that session, police were posted in front of their homes so that they would not come. That the number of deputies in the 1923 assembly was twice the number of those who voted for the republic is clear from the eloquence of the figures. Moreover, this is the second Assembly" (Öztuna, "The transition to the republic was somewhat painful," Türkiye Gazetesi, May 14, 2011).

Of course, the proclamation of the Republic and the election of the President by this surprise vote, carried out with special care to ensure that only a limited number of people were present so that there would be no debate or objection, caused serious discomfort and discontent among the pioneering figures of the national struggle itself.

The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne, the abolition of the caliphate, the unification of education, the closure of the Ministry of Shari'a and Foundations, the alphabet revolution all took place in this balance of forces. In this functioning that was identified with National Sovereignty, where is the nation, where is its sovereignty, who has looked for it, who has found it?