Myth of the Unionist triumvirate The formation of the CUP factions and their impact in Syria during the Great War
M. Talha ÇİÇEK Talha Çiçek medeniyet.academia.edu independent.academia.edu
There is little doubt that the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) was the single most influential political organization of the Second Constitutional Period (1908–23). As the party played a leading role in the significant events of that period,
There is little doubt that the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) was the single most influential political organization of the Second Constitutional Period (1908–23). As the party played a leading role in the significant events of that period, scholars have generally viewed it as a united political organization that tackled reform within the Ottoman Empire. This view underestimates factional struggles within the organization. A closer look at the writings of contemporary political leaders and the extant archival record, however, shows how the party's multi-leadership structure created conflicts and divisions that shaped government policies. The shared goal of the CUP leaders was to arrest the empire's loss of territory and to restore its heyday. While at times the CUP allied itself with politicians who advocated decentralist policies, it had embraced an ideology that strongly advocated a centralist government. But this did not mean that the party was a mono-lithic organization or that there were no struggles among its members regarding the political direction it should take. During its period of dominance, the multi-leadership structure of the CUP redefined the nature of Ottoman politics. This brought about two interrelated results. Firstly, the party's idiosyncratic structure brought about interventions in government by prominent Unionists who were not part of the bureaucracy. This created conflict between committee members and bureaucrats. Secondly, once in official positions, CUP leaders acted as if they were independent rulers rather than subordinate to the central government. The Unionists' failure to maintain a distinction between party and government dismantled the Ottoman Empire's bureaucratic traditions. It also gave rise to factional struggles among followers of prominent Unionist leaders who entertained opposing views about the realization of their ideals. Scholars have regularly presented Enver, Talat, and Djemal Pasha as a " tri-umvirate " position within the CUP. In doing so, they imply that they formed a harmonious team. Although the three party leaders had some shared political goals, such as the centralization of the empire and the end of foreign interference in internal affairs, this did not prevent the emergence of different factions, each of which followed its own agenda. As opposition to its own ideology and policies was viewed—and also treated—as " treason, " opposing political views could