一八六〇年代オスマン帝国の議会論 : ハイレッティン=カルスキの思想を中心に

The Young Ottomans (Yeni Osmanlilar) began their constitutional movement in the late 1860s, but it was in Europe after their exile that they launched their full-blown arguments on constitutionalism and parliamentarianism. For any comprehensive study of the Young Ottoman movement in the broad context of the modern history of the Empire, it is necessary to understand trends within critical circles at that time. From this point of view, the present article focuses on the Polish journalist, Hayreddin-Karski, who fled to the Ottoman Empire and while residing in Istanbul, attempted a systematic critique of the Young Ottomans' assertion for the immediate need to establish a national assembly. First, the author examines Hayreddin's career in Ottoman journalism and confirms that he wrote a number of political articles in several Ottoman Turkish, as well as non-Ottoman Turkish, language periodicals published in Istanbul. Secondly, the author analyzes Hayreddin's Ottoman Turkish articles dealing with parliamentary institutions, including those appearing in Istanbul (1867-1869), Mecmu'a-i Ma'arif (Journal of Education, 1868) and Terakki (Progress, 1868-1870). In these articles, Hayreddin asserted that 1) it would be impossible to immediately establish a national assembly in the Ottoman Empire because of the current low level of sophistication among the Ottoman populace, and 2) it was much more urgent to establish local assemblies through the reformation of existing provincial councils, then gradually form a national assembly. Finally, the author compares Hayreddin's opinions to those of the Young Ottomans, revealing opposition regarding the timing of national assembly formation and how to evaluate reform policies implemented by the Ottoman government. The above analysis shows that there existed at least two currents of thought in the debate over parliamentarianism in the Ottoman Empire during the late 1860s, i.e. an idea that the immediate establishment of a national assembly was required as the Young Ottomans insisted, and another idea that put establishing local assemblies before a national assembly as Hayreddin asserted. One of the main causes of the differences between the two currents may be attributed to different ways of evaluating present reform policies initiated by the Ottoman government. If so, such a fact would be of help in understanding the real, substantive arguments in the parliamentarianism debate during the 1860s. Therefore, the heretofore little studied ideas of Hayreddin-Karski would make it possible to reassess the existing historical evaluation of the Young Ottoman movement and to re-examine its significance in the context of intellectual diversity in the debate over parliamentarianism during that time.