AHC: Ottoman democracy

Well they'd stop being the Ottoman Empire after the revolution, yeah. :p

This is an interesting question though. I expect the cultural changes you'd need would be so far back as to change many other aspects of history, but it doesn't seem there's any reason why the Ottoman state couldn't fall to a popular, democratic revolution as part of a broader wave of revolutions or even perhaps by itself with the right PoD.

Something involving mass printing and higher literacy would be a good start, I expect, especially mixed with a rich middle class more involved in Indian Ocean trade.
 
This is actually very possible if the Ottoman Empire is able to fully centralize everything around Istanbul. The issue was how the Ottomans spread its empire thin with highly decentralized beys. Also another reality, is the issue with demographics, the slight majority of the empire was non Sunni Muslim and the vast majority (70%+) was not Turkish.

However, if one finds a way to unite the empire under ethos not of the Khilafah better, then certainly it would be possible. Expect a series of wars similar to the French Revolution, and interventions from all over, especially Russia and Iran.
 
Last edited:
This is actually very possible if the Ottoman Empire is able to fully centralize everything around Istanbul. The issue was how the Ottomans spread its empire thin with highly decentralized beys. Also another reality, is the issue with demographics, the slight majority of the empire was non Sunni Muslim and the vast majority (70%+) was not Turkish.

However, if one finds a way to unite the empire under ethos not of the Khilafah better, then certainly it would be possible. Expect a serious of wars similar to the French Revolution, and interventions from all over, especially Russia and Iran.

Yep. I'd argue the biggest problem was that the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century had reached the point of essentially being a mishmash army of a king and his warlords whose entire bureaucratic structure was dedicated to the benefit of these stagnant warlords. It's why the sultans had such a difficult time reforming; trying to carve a state and a nation out of an army is a very daunting task. The average person in the Ottoman Empire has all of zero civic participation. I'm not seeing how you could change this either unless you have a reformist Sultan that's very intent on resurrecting the legacy of Ancient Greece and go way, way back.
 
With a POD of 1299, have the Ottomans undergo a 'democratic' revolution (à la the French Revolution) before 1789.

Well, England underwent some kind of democratic revolution driven my a fanatic army (Cromwell's new model army). Maybe the Janissaries (or some kind of other Ottoman elite unit) are indoctrinated with some kind of fanatic Islamism including democracy (Sahabah, Consultation, Elections) and decide to implement control of the Sultan. The Janissaries were often the real power behind the throne, so it won't be hard to convince them that such an ideology would be helpful to legitimate their power.
 
Worth noting that in this era "democracy" almost always excluded the lower classes... but this would be problematic in the Ottoman Empire, given that their Christian and Jewish populations were disproportionately wealthy. Same problem applies to using literacy tests. Perhaps non-Muslims would be excluded, or have their representation limited by a quota.

Also, most electoral systems were geographically discriminatory(that's true in many places even today, see the American senate). What sort of representation, if any, would the more backwater/sparsely populated/loosesly controlled territories have in the Ottoman "parliament"? John7755's post has me thinking that their system might be heavily skewed in favour of citizens in Istanbul/Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
Worth noting that in this era "democracy" almost always excluded the lower classes... but this would be problematic in the Ottoman Empire, given that their Christian and Jewish populations were disproportionately wealthy. Same problem applies to using literacy tests. Perhaps non-Muslims would be excluded, or have their representation limited by a quota.

Also, most electoral systems were geographically discriminatory(that's true in many places even today, see the American senate). What sort of representation, if any, would the more backwater/sparsely populated/loosesly controlled territories have in the Ottoman "parliament"? John7755's post has me thinking that their system might be heavily skewed in favour of citizens in Istanbul/Constantinople.

If the "democracy" operates along those lines, I wonder if they would combine it with the millet system. Thus the electoral districts would not be divided solely by territory and the empire would have not one set of electoral districts, but 5-6 partially overlapping sets - one for each of the legal religious communities. A Christian in e.g. Thessaloniki would be voting in the "District of Western Rumelia (Orthodox - Patriarchate of Constantinople)", while his Muslim neighbor would be voting in the "District of Selanik (Islamic)" or whatever.
The districts may be heavily gerrymandered to increase the overall representation of Muslims and reduce the representation of either Christians in general, or certain specific communities.

Another plausible twist could be that Christian populations have to participate through the millet institutions. So the non-Muslim electors etc. aren't directly chosen by the population themselves, but fully or partially drawn from the ranks of their clergy - which is more or less controlled and appointed by the Ottoman government.
 

Deleted member 97083

Worth noting that in this era "democracy" almost always excluded the lower classes... but this would be problematic in the Ottoman Empire, given that their Christian and Jewish populations were disproportionately wealthy. Same problem applies to using literacy tests. Perhaps non-Muslims would be excluded, or have their representation limited by a quota.

Also, most electoral systems were geographically discriminatory(that's true in many places even today, see the American senate). What sort of representation, if any, would the more backwater/sparsely populated/loosesly controlled territories have in the Ottoman "parliament"? John7755's post has me thinking that their system might be heavily skewed in favour of citizens in Istanbul/Constantinople.
If the "democracy" operates along those lines, I wonder if they would combine it with the millet system. Thus the electoral districts would not be divided solely by territory and the empire would have not one set of electoral districts, but 5-6 partially overlapping sets - one for each of the legal religious communities. A Christian in e.g. Thessaloniki would be voting in the "District of Western Rumelia (Orthodox - Patriarchate of Constantinople)", while his Muslim neighbor would be voting in the "District of Selanik (Islamic)" or whatever.
The districts may be heavily gerrymandered to increase the overall representation of Muslims and reduce the representation of either Christians in general, or certain specific communities.

Another plausible twist could be that Christian populations have to participate through the millet institutions. So the non-Muslim electors etc. aren't directly chosen by the population themselves, but fully or partially drawn from the ranks of their clergy - which is more or less controlled and appointed by the Ottoman government.
Along with gerrymandering electoral districts, the Ottomans could administer literacy tests that are offered only in Turkish and Arabic (in Turkey proper and the Christian Balkans) and Turkish without Arabic (in Arab territories). In less literate, but Sunni areas they want to enfranchise, the Ottomans could offer an oral citizenship test as an alternative; in areas they wanted to disenfranchise, such as Shi'ite, Kurdish, or other separatist regions, they would only offer the written test so that only the pro-Ottoman wealthy classes would vote.
 
This is actually very possible if the Ottoman Empire is able to fully centralize everything around Istanbul. The issue was how the Ottomans spread its empire thin with highly decentralized beys. Also another reality, is the issue with demographics, the slight majority of the empire was non Sunni Muslim and the vast majority (70%+) was not Turkish.

However, if one finds a way to unite the empire under ethos not of the Khilafah better, then certainly it would be possible. Expect a series of wars similar to the French Revolution, and interventions from all over, especially Russia and Iran.

Maybe the decentralized power of OTL somehow leads to regional assemblies?
 

Czar Kaizer

Banned
Perhaps an Ottoman democracy would revolve around the millet system? So perhaps religious and ethnic groups are chosen to represent their interests.
 
Perhaps an Ottoman democracy would revolve around the millet system? So perhaps religious and ethnic groups are chosen to represent their interests.

Or the Kaisar i rum goes fully Byzantine and decides to restore the Senate. This Senate then develops in a more democratic sense and this leads to a revolution.
 
Yep. I'd argue the biggest problem was that the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century had reached the point of essentially being a mishmash army of a king and his warlords whose entire bureaucratic structure was dedicated to the benefit of these stagnant warlords. It's why the sultans had such a difficult time reforming; trying to carve a state and a nation out of an army is a very daunting task. The average person in the Ottoman Empire has all of zero civic participation. I'm not seeing how you could change this either unless you have a reformist Sultan that's very intent on resurrecting the legacy of Ancient Greece and go way, way back.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the case for Prussia as well?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the case for Prussia as well?

I don't know much about Prussia, but I imagine that the Prussians aped their neighbors. Fellow monarchs have an outline for absolutism and/constitutionalism, the people identify as Germans as well as Prussians, there's some degree of a national consciousness(I'd imagine), etc. The Ottomans in contrast, have none of that. They're the captains of their own boat, so to speak since they're a very unique state compared to all of their neighbors.
 
Top