When the notion of the modern state entered politics along with the Tanzimat era, there became a need to build a community and create an identity. Thus the political tradition of the Ottomans was gradually abandoned; the role of those who were behind the political steering wheel changed accordingly, as well. There were three arms to the Ottoman administration: soldiers, bureaucrats and the ulama (Islamic scholars). Both the soldiers and bureaucrats changed their worldview following the shift to modern history, and the ulama were eliminated. The equivalent of the bureaucrats in modern Turkey is the civil service (Mülkiye); in the Sultani Schools, the administrative civilian bureaucrats created by Galatasaray High School and various political sciences faculties are a continuation of the Ottoman bureaucrats. When we look at the classical and modern administrative classes, we see that not much in the way of their roles has changed in terms of their status within the state. The military is continuing along its way with its effective status. An establishment called the Enderun trained Ottoman bureaucrats. A large portion of those taken into the Enderun were recruited via the devshirme method -- the practice by which the Ottoman Empire conscripted boys from Christian families, took them from their families, converted them to Islam and trained them. Children, particularly from the Balkans, were trained from a very young age and educated to become soldiers or civil bureaucrats. Following the reforms that took place in the 19th century, universities replaced the Ilmiye class, while the ulama were replaced with laic intellectuals.
During the initial years of the 20th century -- in the 1910s -- the emergence of İttihat and Terakki (Committee of Union and Progress) as the leading power caused rejuvenation in politics. So much so that one of the most important factors determining Turkish politics today is still dominated by the tradition brought on by “Unioner” politics. Sait Halim Pasha, one of our intellectuals, pondered upon this effect, saying that there is a fundamental cultural difference between Islam and the West. In the West, the roots of culture are “socioeconomic,” while in Islam they are “sociocultural.” He also noted that the division of people in the West is based on the notion of class. In Islam and for the Ottomans, classes emerged based on the notions of “religion and identities.” In the “nation system” of the Ottoman Empire, people existed within communities based on their religious identities: the Islamic society, the Christian society, the Jewish society, the Russian Orthodox society, the Armenian Orthodox society or the Protestant society. There are classes in the West such as the bourgeoisie, the working class, the aristocracy, etc. Sait Halim Pasha would say, “If we want to understand the politics of the Ottomans of the modern Islamic world, we need to take into consideration these basic criteria.”
In Turkey, we see that financial classification does not play a role in the behavior or preferences of voters. In order for a social layer or group to be defined as a “class,” it needs to have three attributes. Firstly, the financial income difference that it possesses needs to provide it with the privileges of political and legal support. Secondly, it needs to come from a tradition. If a group like this emerges suddenly, then it's not considered a class. In order for it to be a class, it has to be traditionally continuing within society, having followed a historic course. Thirdly, the transition between classes needs to be very difficult. This is not possible in Turkey as there is transition and mobility between social classes. Furthermore, people in Turkey don't value the class difference between people very much; you can easily see a boss and a worker praying alongside one another during Friday prayers. The key to “politics based on value” is “justice.” And justice is the delivery of rights to each rightful owner of rights. As such, the Messenger of Allah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) described justice as the union of the owner of rights with their rights; for them to take possession of their rights. Similarly, following the implementation of a multi-party system in Turkey, words such as “rights and justice” began being highlighted by leading parties: Bülent Ecevit's “Equitable order” of the Republican People's Party (CHP), Süleyman Demirel's Justice Party (AP), Necmettin Erbakan's “Just order,” the central program of his Welfare Party (RP) and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AK Party.)
