The first concentrates on the last century of the Ottoman Empire. The other reviews the political developments between 1923 and 1950. We need to acknowledge the serious similarities between these two periods. Reforms and modernization efforts, which started in the Ottoman Empire in particular, allowed the development of a great heritage for the republic period. In this period, when the administrative and legal system of the society, economy, and the state was transformed in a fundamental way, the staff that established the Republic were formed and a suitable ground was established for building the Republican reforms.

If we exclusively consider the administrative structure of the Ottoman State during its classic period, the administrators representing the ruler’s authority are located at the top layer of the stratification. These are soldiers, bureaucrats, and clergymen. The other major element of the stratification system consists of the rayah (reaya). The peasants, merchants, and artisans are the components that create this layer.

During the classical period, the economic structure of the Ottoman Empire is mainly based on agriculture. Hence, the villagers are the very basis of this structure, based on agriculture. The fact that they continue to cultivate their land and give some of the products they produce each year to the center in kind or in cash is of crucial importance in preserving the economic balances. In this structure, the peasants are not the principal owners of the land but they have the right to use the land as long as they fulfil their responsibilities. Furthermore, they can transfer this right to their children.

The most significant signs of the disintegration of the classical order are the revolts. One of the most
well-known of these is the Celali rebellions, which developed under the leadership of the rulers who
lost their importance and values in the system. With these rebellions between 1556-1650, the Sipahi
took action in order to compensate for their loss. On the other hand, the Patrona Halil uprising of
1730 represents the reactions to the capitalization process in agriculture. In other words, Patrona Halil
rebellion is a clear reaction of the traditional urban production system to the big investments and the
investor class that were created with capitalization.

Firstly, reform initiatives were mainly launched in the military field. Secondly, the reform initiatives that were launched in the military field were implemented in other problematic areas.Thirdly, we may generally observe an effort towards the centralization in the reform initiatives launched by Selim III. Forthly, every reform initiative primarily aims to restore the existing order. 

The Deed of Alliance is a treaty signed between ayans and the Ottoman State at the end of a meeting organized in the Ottoman capital with the invitation of Alemdar Mustafa Pasha. During the meeting, it was decided to reform the Janissary corps, to empower ayans with the authority to exert power on the bureaucratic officers assigned by the state, to guarantee the safety of the goods and privileges of the ayans and to include them in their heritage. In return, the ayans promised to show full respect to Sultan, to provide armed power and pay their taxes.

In its most general sense, the Edict of Tanzimat promised four basic reforms. The first of these is that the Edict guarantees the life, honor, and property of the subjects of the ruler. The second is the establishment of a regular taxation system that would replace the tax farming system. The third one is the compulsory military service. The latter signifies the promise of equality before the law for all the subjects, regardless of religion.

Eastern Question: Eastern Question, diplomatic problem posed in the 19th and early 20th centuries by the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, centring on the contest for control of former Ottoman territories. Any internal change in the Turkish domains caused tension among the European powers, each of which feared that one of the others might take advantage of the political disarray to increase its own influence. This question arose periodically during the 19th century— e.g., during the Greek revolution of the 1820s, in the Crimean conflict (1853–56), the Balkan crisis of 1875–78, the Bosnian crisis of 1908, and the Balkan Wars of 1912–13. The eventual distribution of the Ottoman territories was as follows: the Balkan provinces emerged in the course of the century as independent states, often under the influence of Russia or one of the other great powers; Britain ocİTCied Cyprus in 1878 and Egypt in 1882 and acquired Palestine and Iraq as mandates after World War I; and France took over Syria and Lebanon in 1920. Turkey, the heart of the Ottoman state, won recognition as an
independent republic in 1923.

The Edict of Islahat of 1856 was published at the end of a series of controversial meetings held with the grand vizier, the foreign minister, Sheikh ul-lslam and the representatives of the Western European states. The basic purpose of the Edict is to fulfil the commitments of the Edict of Tanzimat.

The opposition of the Young Ottomans about the Tanzimat Era was based on several ideas. First of all, the Pashas built a regime of despotism during the Tanzimat Era, which was not acceptable to them. Secondly, the Pashas in question adopted the
most superficial parts of European culture. Simply, this is a clear deviation from the ancient culture of the Ottoman Empire. Again in relation to this, the Pashas of the Tanzimat Era totally ignored the great opportunities brought by the enormous sea of
sharia. However, the concepts that are parts of the Islamic religion, such as consultancy (meşveret), submission (biat) and agreement (misak) are the concepts that considerably remind the Western values such as democracy, parliament, democratic representation, and social convention. Forthly, the Edict of Tanzimat is a missed opportunity and a major capitulation to Western states. Fifth, the Edict of Tanzimat required the continuation of reforms without explicitly limiting it according to
the principles of sharia. Hence, it led to a regime of oppression. Sixth, setting Western institutions as an example caused confusion and chaos among bureaucrats, who hitherto had difficulty in implementing the new regulations that they had no knowledge about. Finally, the reforms particularly had an impact on a limited environment. While
the reforms were influential around the Palace, they didn’t reach the masses.

When we study the social background of the Young Turks, who acted with the central motivation to oppose Abdülhamid, we can distinguish some major characteristics. First of all, they were exclusively men. The majority was Muslim. Again in this Muslim majority, the number of Turks was higher than the Kurdish, Arab, Circassian, and
Albanians. Although there were a few Dönmehs (Who converted publicly to Islam), in practice, there were no Christians among them. Almost all of them lived in the cities. The majority were of Macedonia or İstanbul origins.

First of all, they believed that the strategies adopted by Abdülhamid in the administration of the state, such as the suspension of the parliament, would trigger the separatist movements. They, accordingly, pioneered an opposition for the adoption of the constitution once again and for reopening the parliament. Secondly, they had a
hard time finding a place in a system that was just partly modern after receiving a modern education. That was why they opposed to Abdülhamid II. Finally, attempts to build institutions and values that would enable them to achieve their goals of establishing a strong state were often contrary to the realities during the reign of Abdülhamid II.

Main reasons behind the 31 March Incident: First of all, because of the rationalist policies of the post1908 bureaucracy, some people who were seen abundant were removed from the offices, which was a serious reason for discomfort. Many people
lost their jobs because of these policies. Secondly, the measures taken by the İTC to pave the way for the officers who studied at the Ottoman Military College to reach higher positions in the bureaucratic hierarchy led to a great dissatisfaction among the uneducated military staff. Thirdly, Ulama was aware that it would not be easy to maintain its effectiveness within a state structure controlled by the İTC. Hence, it may be stated that the ulama acted together with the opponents because they wanted to keep their position. Finally, the Ahrar opposition contributed significantly to the 31 March Incident

Between 1913 and 1918, significant innovations took place in our political life under the leadership of the İTC management. To shortly list some of these, it is essential to remember the steps taken to improve the army under the control of Liman von Sanders. In this context, the elderly commanders were purged. Secondly, steps were taken to make the provincial administrations effective on the one hand, while on the other hand, decentralist tendencies were encouraged in order to overcome the separatist Arab movements. Thirdly, judicial and educational systems are secularized and the Ulama lost their traditional roles. In this context, sheykh ul-islam was removed from the Parliament in 1916 and the power of sheykh ul-islam was restricted. In addition, the religious courts were attached to the Ministry of Justice. It is essential to
mention the attempts to attach the Madrasahs to the Ministry of Education, to revise the curricula and eventually to establish an Evkaf Ministry for managing the foundations. The fourth one relates to reforms in the legal field. The adoption of a new
law of inheritance was the first major initiative in this context. Furthermore, legal arrangements that extended the right of divorce of women in relation to family law, that prohibited polygamy, that encouraged women’s participation in social life, and made it compulsory for girls to finish primary education could be listed among legal reforms. Another development that concerns women is related to encouraging women to work. The negative effects of long-lasting wars on male employment were certainly influential in this. Apart from all these, encouraging the political participation of the public was another characteristic point of this.

The major resolutions of the Erzurum Congress: i) The unity and integrity of the fatherland are in danger; the mother-land is undivided. ii) By no means nobody will emigrate from the region; the minorities’ destructive and dividing deeds will not be permitted. iii) Every kind of national struggle is going to be fulfil to protect the independence and integrity of the mother-land. iv) Mandate and protection are not acceptable 

The first indicator of the political polarization to be seen in the new period was the establishment of the People’s Party (Halk Fırkası-HF) on 9 September 1923 by Atatürk. During the same period, some news about the proclamation of the Republic was heard. In one respect, it was intended to prepare the public for the idea of the Republic.

The establishment of the Progressive Republican Party triggered the government to
take some measures to maintain its power. First, Prime Minister İsmet (İnönü) Pasha, known for his rigid opinions, was replaced with Fethi Bey (Okyar), a liberal person. Through this change, the government aimed to prevent people from transferring to the newly formed alternative party. On the other hand, there were also some people
within CHP who argued that any opposition should not be tolerated and an authoritarian management should be implemented. The political agenda and developments that took place in 1925 caused those ideas to be taken into account by the government.

The main purpose of Kemalism was to achieve the ‘contemporary civilization level’.
To this end, six principles were introduced by Kemalists. These were Republicanism, Secularism, Nationalism, Populism, Statism, and Reformism.

The regime continued to implement reforms in the 1930s. In line with this, one of the reforms introduced was that women were granted the right to vote and be elected.
In 1935, 17 women deputies entered the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Another significant progress was the enforcement of the Surname Law. In accordance with this law, the use of certain titles and names such as Efendi, Bey, or Pasha was prohibited.  significant steps were taken in the name of developing a consciousness of history and language. Turkish Language Association was established with the purpose of working on the etymology of Turkish language. Simultaneous with the reforms in the language,
an effort was initiated to write a new history. For this purpose, ‘Turkish History Thesis’ was proposed.

The most significant external development during the presidency of İsmet İnönü was certainly the Second World War. Turkey chose to be neutral in World War II, and it refrained from taking a distinctive side between the parties of the war. The biggest reason for this was that the country’s economy was still underdeveloped despite all efforts. Even though the country did not participate in the war, defense expenditures increased so much that the economy got in an unbalanced and turbulent state. Therefore, dissatisfaction from CHP power grew in public.