Traditionalists vs. Reformists

Traditionalists vs. Reformists: The Struggle for Leadership Within the Turkish Community of Cyprus Between the World Wars


Introduction

Up until now, Turkish Cypriot political life during the interwar years has not been a popular area of research. Historians have generally tended to focus on the post-World War II developments, particularly on the inter-ethnic strife that continues today. Despite this lack of interest, this issue is of great importance in explaining the development of the Turkish Cypriot leadership that has played one of the leading roles in the present day Cyprus problem. This paper will attempt to highlight some of the historical developments that were instrumental in shaping the Turkish Cypriot political life.

It will be argued in this paper that the internal splits within the Turkish Cypriot community were extensions of the splits that had dominated Ottoman political life in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The disputes and cleavages in the Turkish Cypriot community in the interwar years were the continuation of the ongoing conflict between the reformist and traditionalist elements within the Ottoman Empire. The establishment of the Republic of Turkey as a western-oriented and secular nation-state had put a definitive end to the political power of the traditionalists in Turkey. Existence of British rule in Cyprus put the Turkish Cypriots on to a different course of developments. The British had no intentions of secularizing or westernizing the Moslem communities they came to rule over. So, in Cyprus, as elsewhere, they enforced the existing power structure and supported the traditionalists. The Turkish War of Independence (1919 – 1922) and the establishment of the Turkish nation-state had the effect of spreading reformists ideas among the Turkish Cypriots and this led to the clash of the two groups in a bid for the leadership of the community. This work attempts to examine this clash and to explain the – delayed – disappearance of the traditionalists as a political body in the Turkish Cypriot community.


1. The British Administration and the Traditionalists’ Hegemony

The political splits in the Ottoman Empire reflected to the Turkish community of Cyprus during the British period. Although the dispute between the reformist movement -- dating back to the reformism of Sultan Selim III at the end of the eighteenth century and the tanzimat reforms of the early nineteenth century -- and the traditionalists were similar to those in Cyprus, the developments on the island took on a different form because of the British rule. The British and the traditionalists developed close contacts out of mutual interest. In the face of spreading reformist ideas in the 1920s, the British enforced the power of the conservatives, whom they thought would be more willing to cooperate with them. Open British support of the traditionalists exacerbated the dispute of the latter with the reformists and set the stage for the bitter political rivalry between the two groups in the 1930s.

Under the Cyprus Convention of 1878, whereby Cyprus was transferred to Britain, major Turkish Cypriot social institutions continued to exist, while both the British and the Porte had a right to say in their administration.[1] For example, the Sheri Courts continued functioning, with a Başkadı heading their operations. According to the setup in 1878, the Başkadı continued to be appointed by the Ottoman Government and the British recognized his right to perform his duties. Similarly, the Ottoman State controlled the administration of the Evkaf, which administered the various pious foundations in Cyprus and generated income that was used for public works that benefited the citizenry at large. Under the Cyprus Convention the pious foundations were put under the dual control of a Muslim resident appointed by the Ottoman Ministry of Evkaf and one Briton selected by the British administration. The British did not interfere in the office of the mufti, who was a jurist educated in Islamic laws and who monitored the religious life of the community.[2] The muftis were elected through a formal election in which the whole community participated, and they functioned without British interference up until the legal changes instituted in the 1920s.

The British introduced certain political bodies to the Cypriot life after they assumed the island’s administration. A Legislative Council and an Executive Council were established by an Order in Council in 1878. The Executive Council was established as a confidential advisory body for the High Commissioner, who was empowered to name three Cypriots to be summoned when he wished for their advice on policy questions. The Legislative Council advised the High Commissioner on laws and ordinances. Each community elected its own deputies and the Turkish Cypriots were represented in the Council with three members, along with nine Greeks, and six British officials. This setup was modified in 1925 and the Legislative Council came to be composed of twelve Greeks, nine Britons and three Turkish members. Membership of the Legislative Council, for which the individuals received no remuneration, came to acquire considerable social significance in the Turkish Cypriot community and the candidates spent large sums in their campaigns to secure a seat.[3] Owing to their material wealth and prestige in the community, these seats were invariably occupied by Turkish Cypriots who belonged to the traditionally privileged and long established political, social, and economic elites.

After the transfer of Cyprus to the British in 1878, relations between the Turkish Cypriots and the Ottoman State remained strong, owing to the fact that the island remained de jure an Ottoman territory until its annexation by the British in 1914. In such a context political movements in the Empire found an echo within the Turkish Cypriot community. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries an increasingly large number of Turks was being exposed to the writings of western intellectuals and particularly the ideas of the enlightenment. As a result of these ideas a reformist Turkish movement called Tanzimat was initiated by the Ottoman State in 1839. In the second half of the century, concurrently with the state-sponsored Tanzimat reformism, a dissident and rival oppositional movement, called the Young Turk took its place in the Ottoman life. Both movements started acting as a strong challenge to the traditional Ottoman establishment, especially the Islamic component. Although the general consequences of this movement are beyond the scope of this paper, it is necessary to draw attention to its crucial role in laying the foundations of a secular and western-oriented Turkish nation-state in the twentieth century.

The Ottoman Empire's entry into the First World War on the side of the Central Powers and in opposition to Britain marks a turning point in Turkish Cypriot history. In response, on 5 November 1914, Britain announced its annexation of the island, and the ties of Turkish Cypriots with the Ottoman state were forcibly severed. The Turkish establishment in Cyprus did not object to the annexation. It declared, rather, that the Turkish Cypriot community would continue its loyal stance to Britain.[4] This was the best stance it could adopt if its members were to preserve their privileged status on the island, considering that the Ottoman state was in no position to rescue Cyprus. The British responded favorably to this stance. Hamilton Goold-Adams, the High Commissioner in 1914, wrote that in Cyprus, just like in Turkey, there were two Turkish parties: the Young Turks and the traditionalists.[5] The High Commissioner stated that the traditionalists constituted the larger group and that he was trying to secure their support. As a result a close cooperation developed between the British and the conservative Turkish Cypriots, through whom the former started directly to govern the Turkish Cypriot community and to gain its acquiescence to direct British rule. The latter, on the other hand, must have seen direct British rule as an opportunity to maintain, even enhance, their leadership in the Turkish Cypriot community. The British authorities did not remove the Başkadı or the mufti, both of whom preserved their positions until 1927. They enacted an Order in Council on 30 November 1915 whereby the High Commissioner was given the right to appoint both delegates of the Evkaf.[6]

As a result of the British policies after 1914, the Turkish Delegate of Evkaf began to emerge as the dominant political figure in the Turkish Cypriot community, along with key religious figures, like the Başkadı and the mufti, and the members of the Legislative Council. The beginning of this development was the appointment of Musa Irfan Bey as the Turkish Delegate of Evkaf on 21 December 1903.[7] Irfan Bey was very popular with the British and he preserved his position after the island's annexation. With the encouragement of the British he broadened his sphere of influence and became a member of the Legislative Council. By this time the traditional Turkish Cypriot establishment had adopted a position of strict loyalty to the British in order to preserve its position. The British administration was content with this development, as they ignored criticisms of the power of the conservatives, criticisms they deemed to emanate from the belief by some Turkish Cypriots "that Irfan Bey is too pro-British." The British continued to support Irfan Bey, who "had never swerved in his loyalty to the Government" and kept "the Muslim population of the Island quiet at times of acute national feeling [during the First World War]."[8]

The close cooperation between the conservative Turkish Cypriots and the British continued after the death of Irfan Bey in 1925. That same year the Governor named as the Turkish Delegate of Evkaf Mehmet Münir, a traditionalist known for his being "100 per cent pro-British" and having "the mentality of the old Turkish pasha."[9] As they had done with Irfan Bey, the British encouraged Münir to amass great powers. After his appointment as the delegate of Evkaf in 1926, he was elected to the Legislative Council in 1926 and was appointed as an additional member to the Executive Council. The position of conservative elements was further enforced by the constitutional changes enacted by the British after proclaiming the island a Crown Colony on 1 May 1925.

With an Order in Council in 1928 the Evkaf was converted into a department of the government and the Governor kept the right of appointing both delegates. In the new setup the delegates were given more power in appointing the staff and in selecting and administering the trustees.[10] This further enhanced the power of the Turkish Delegate by the fact that the British appointee, who was always British, had little knowledge of or interest in the Islamic laws that governed the Evkaf. In the same year the Governor abolished the office of the mufti, and created in its place the office of fetva emini (Superintendent of Religious Rulings), whose functions were much more narrowly defined than the traditional ones of the mufti.[11] The fetva emini's authority was limited to issuing fetvas and he no longer had influence in the administration of mosques or of imams. The British transferred such duties to the Turkish Delegate of Evkaf, thereby boosting his status. The British also took some measures of judicial reorganization in this period. A new law abolished the position of the Başkadı and established Sheria religious tribunals that would be under the control of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, and not the Başkadı.[12] In a further move in 1930, the British Administration declared that the Sheria Court judges would draw their salaries from the Evkaf budget, thereby becoming the agents is this institution that was under the tight control of the Governor.

It appears that one of the main motives of these changes was to put a check on the reformist movement that had started to gain momentum, especially since the Turkish War of Independence. They wanted to do so primarily by having a firm grip on Turkish Cypriot social institutions and to have them administered by conservative elements, whose loyalty to the British was certain. However, the British policies served to exacerbate the conflict between the two groups, as an increasing number of people became disaffected by the hegemonic rule of the traditional establishment.

The power given to the Evkaf Department had the effect of turning the Turkish Delegate of Evkaf, who was to be appointed by the Governor, into the leader of the Turkish Cypriots. Mehmet Münir took full advantage of this situation and "absorbed into himself every office he could."[13] Although the position of Münir aroused protests from some Turkish Cypriots, the British took no notice of them in terms of modifying their policies or seriously considering any modification. The open and strong support given to Münir by the British served to spread dissatisfaction among the Turkish Cypriots with both the traditional establishment and the British administration. Because of its identification with the conservative elements governing Evkaf, the traditionalist and establishmentarian camp came to be called evkafçılar (those of the Evkaf). The section of the Turkish Cypriot community that was affected by reformist ideas and opposed the evkafçılar were initially known as the muarızlar (the opponents) and later adopted the name halkçılar (the populists), an appellation for those who supported Mustafa Kemal's Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican People's Party) in the new state of Turkey.

Although one can trace the roots of the progression in Cyprus that eventually led to the formation of a political body named halkçılar back to the pre-annexation period of the Young Turks, the foundation of this group was most definitely laid during and after the Turkish War of Independence. The struggle of the Turkish armies to rid Anatolia of occupying armies caused excitement among some Turkish Cypriots and hence alarm among the British authorities. Attempts to send financial assistance to the Turkish army, attempts that might have been just the tip of the iceberg, resulted in the imprisonment of several Turkish Cypriots, among whom were known Young Turks. Despite British repressive and preemptive measures some Turkish Cypriots continued to show an interest in the War. Extensive reports were given by Mehmet Remzi, the editor of the newspaper Doğru Yol, which appeared on 9 September 1919.[14] This paper was closed by the British because of its reports on the War, upon which Mehmet Remzi started publishing Söz. After a while, Ahmet Raşit, a lawyer from Nicosia resumed the publication of Doğru Yol, and the two newspapers initiated campaigns to raise money for Turkish refugees and relief projects.[15] Such activities were appreciated by the Kemalist government, as demonstrated by a letter written to Remzi. It thanked him for his “patriotic publications” and called them a valuable factor that evoked and maintained “the support of the world of Turkdom and Islam” for the Turkish War of Independence.[16] The letter was published in the issue of Söz dated 16 September 1922, followed by an article in which Remzi thanked the Ankara government for acknowledging the efforts of the newspaper and in which he promised to continue his support.[17] The views of Söz was shared by many people, as demonstrated by the fact that this newspaper was the second largest selling newspaper in Cyprus, with 1200 copies being published per issue, after the Greek Cypriot Eleftheria which had a publication of 1700 to 1800.[18]

The section of the Turkish Cypriot community whose views were represented by Söz developed a strong identification with the Republic of Turkey. The reforms instituted in Turkey found a strong echo in Cyprus. After open request by the Cyprus Turkish Teachers Association which was voiced in Söz, the British authorities were compelled to introduce the Latin script in Turkish schools, following the change from the Arabic script implemented by the Ankara Government.[19] Similarly, the ‘clothing reform’ was voluntarily embraced by many young men who started wearing hats instead of fez, and some Turkish Cypriot women began appearing in public without the veil.

By 1930 the halkçılar had gathered considerable popular support owing to the existence of a Turkish nation-state based on the principles they advocated, in addition to the recognition of the hegemonic rule of Münir Bey. Turkey acted as an emblem of national pride by its success in creating a nation-state by Turks, through primarily their own efforts and in defiance of the Western victor power. The Turkish nation-state acted as an inspiration, as well as a point of identification for the reformists, in its success in creating and maintaining Turkish independence by virtue of modernizing principles and goals defined by the Kemalists.


2. The Reformists Challenge

The halkçılar started emerging as a political force in this period, with an agenda that bitterly criticized the evkafçılar and the changes in the setup of the communal institutions, whereby the latter could preserve or even enhance their status with the support of the government. The Legislative Council elections of 1930 signify the emergence of the halkçılar as a strong political group in the Turkish Cypriot history. The biggest political excitement regarding these elections took place in the Nicosia- Kyrenia district, where Mehmet Münir and Mehmet Necati, the candidate of the halkçılar, competed. Mehmet Necati, who was a tradesman, had been elected to the municipal council of Nicosia in 1925 and had been enjoying increasing popular support within the Turkish Cypriot community ever since. Mehmet Remzi gave full support to Necati and Söz actively urged the Turkish Cypriots to vote for him. In the first half of 1930, Birlik, the newspaper of the evkafçılar, had stopped publication. For this reason they brough the press of Hakikat from Larnaca to Nicosia and started publishing the newspaper there, giving full support to Münir in the elections.[20] However, in spite of the traditionalists’ mobilization, Mehmet Necati won a political victory over their candidate.

The defeat of Mehmet Münir was celebrated by the halkçılar who announced in Söz the “demolition of Evkaf, which ha[d] given the biggest blow to the [Turkish Cypriot] existence for the past twenty five years” and he assured the readers that the happiness of Turkish Cypriots will emerge from among the ruins of Evkaf.[21] Indeed, the halkçılar were not slow to voice their demands, and on 20 October 1930 they presented a declaration to the Acting Governor that criticized the changes instituted by the British with respect to the office of the mufti, the Sheria Courts and the Evkaf. However, the forceful communication of the concerns of the halkçılar materialized in the Milli Kongre (The National Congress), which assembled on 1 May 1931.

Mehmet Necati made a call to the Turkish Cypriots to assemble for a national congress in Söz of 23 April 1931, and this call found an echo in the community. Turkish Cypriot representatives from all over the island and from 150 villages assembled in Mehmet Necati’s house. In the meeting, common concerns of the halkçılar were voiced. Generally the strict control of the evkafçılar and the British over the Turkish lycee, the office of the mufti, the Sheria Courts and the Evkaf were criticized. The Milli Kongre came to a number of decisions, each geared towards breaking the monopoly of power the evkafçılar had over the Turkish Cypriot religious and social life. The reformists also challenged the new office of the fetva emini, created by the British, and elected Ahmet Sait as the mufti. Through challenging the government’s policies and establishing a political body under the Milli Kongre, the halkçılar were making a bid for an unprecedented shift in the balance of power and social influence between the privileged old guard (the evkafçılar) and the socially rising reformists (the halkçılar).

Neither the evkafçılar nor the British failed to take notice of the Milli Kongre. The newspaper of the former, Hakikat, published an article that was strongly critical of the Congress.[22] The article claimed that the Congress was not representative of the Turkish Cypriot people, and it defended the policies of the government. It was also claimed in the article that the Turkish Cypriots were “completely happy” with the way in which the British administered the Turkish Cypriot institutions. The article claimed that the duty of the Turkish Cypriots was “to protect and improve [their] situation through cooperation with the government.”

In Söz, the halkçılar responded to the criticisms in Hakikat, stating that the Congress was actually representative of the Turkish Cypriots, and that the Evkafçılar were cowards because they did not participate in the Congress.[23] In another article, Söz attacked the evkafçılar as kaimeci: those who are after money.[24] The reformists accused the evkafçılar of being bought off by the British, with the added connotation that they already had money. Thus defining the evkafçılar as being monied and money-seeking, Remzi stated that by objecting to the election of a mufti by the people, the kaimecis were in fact saying “don’t disturb our peace with your words and actions and be patient with our tyranny and oppression!” According to Remzi, the kaimecis were giving false information about the Milli Kongre, “in order to deceive the government and to present the Congress as an imitation of Greek activities.”

It is interesting to note that the halkçılar were criticizing the evkafçılar by being too close to the British, while the latter accused the former of trying to imitate the Greek Cypriots and thus creating trouble. In this period it was mainly the Greek Cypriots who were expressing their dissatisfaction with the government and making demands for reform. The assembly of the Milli Kongre was the first organized and popular reaction to the British policies from the Turkish Cypriot community. Hence, although there were no signs of any joint movement against the British by the reformist Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriot groups, the evkafçılar attacked the halkçılar for serving the Greek Cypriot political goals by raising their voice against the government.

The British soon reacted to the developments in the Turkish Cypriot community. A declaration by Henniker Heaton, the Acting Governor, appeared in Hakikat, stating that “it ha[d] come to the attention of the government that some people belonging to the Islamic community ha[d] gathered in the form of an assembly, which they call the National Congress, and that they elected a person among themselves as mufti.”[25] The governor believed that the mufti election was totally against “the law, the traditions and the precedents, and thus it [would] on no condition be recognized by the government.” Heaton stated that the government had the right to press charges against anyone who declared himself to be the mufti and added that the government recognized the fetva emini as the only office that has the right to issue fetvas. In conclusion, he alleged that the Milli Kongre was against the real interest of the Turkish Cypriots and that it could have dangerous results for them.

The government was alarmed by the Milli Kongre and wanted to discourage Turkish Cypriots from joining the halkçılar. It is significant that the declaration was published in Hakikat, the newspaper of the evkafçılar. The British did not want to recognize the opposition and thereby acknowledge their power. They were aware of the halkçılar’s intention of using the office of the mufti to stir up Turkish Cypriot opposition to the government and they wanted to prevent such a possibility. The declaration stated that:

Because the government pays attention to the welfare and happiness of the
Islamic Community, it will happily consider and understandingly discuss the
suggestions that are presented in an appropriate manner and that seek to
improve the present conditions and the future of the Islamic Community.

This passage indicates the intention of the British not to lose the grip they have established over the Turkish Cypriot community through the evkafçılar. The “appropriate manner” probably meant ‘through the Evkaf department’. The British were nervous about the activities of the halkçılar and they wanted to preserve the loyalty of the Turkish Cypriot masses to the Evkaf establishment and thus to the British.

The opposition of the halkçılar to British policies acted as a background element of the 1931 riots, which marked an important change in Cypriot political and social life. In October 1931 the governor attempted to pass a tariff bill in the Legislative Council. The British hoped that the Turks would vote with the British, as they had traditionally done, and lead to a deadlock, in which case the governor could use his casting vote in favor of the bill. However, Mehmet Necati, along with the Greek members, voted against the bill and upset their plan. Following this, the governor issued an order-in-council and put the bill in effect. In protest against this act, the Greek Cypriot members of the Legislative Council resigned on 18th October 1931 and the attendant political tension resulted in widespread rioting by the Greek Cypriots that swept the island.

After they crushed the riots, where six people were killed, thirty were wounded, and over two thousand were imprisoned in addition to extensive property damage, the British engaged in administrative realignment. The Legislative Council was abolished and laws were enacted regulating the ringing of church bells and the display of Greek and Turkish flags. Existing political parties were banned and no new ones were permitted to form. Strict press laws were enacted, and the teaching of either Greek or Turkish History was forbidden in the schools. That the British were extending their strict measures to the Turkish Cypriots for a crime they played no part in increased the bitterness of the latter against the government.

These strict British measures acted as a blow to the reformist movement. In a series of articles entitled “The Flag of Surrender,” Mehmet Remzi claimed that, given the current political conditions of the island, there was no meaning in or possibility of continuing the struggle against the British and the evkafçılar.[26] He believed that the demands of the Turkish Cypriots had been made and now it was the duty of the government to actualize them. Despite articles by Mehmet Necati and others that intended to continue the momentum set by the Congress, the excitement died down. The central committee of the Congress never had another meeting. Hence, the era of the Milli Kongre ended without any concrete progress towards the actualization of either of the goals set by the reformists, namely breaking the monopoly of power of the evkafçılar and achieving more communal autonomy for Turkish Cypriot community.

Although the measures of 1931 put an end to the heated arguments in the Turkish Cypriot political life, it could not put a halt on the changing sentiments of the Turkish Cypriots. The dual factor of continued evkafçı hegemony and the existence of a Turkish nation-state based on reformist principles put the Turkish Cypriot community into a phase of gradual strengthening of the halkçılar and weakening of the evkafçılar.


3. The End of the Clash and the British Reorientation

After the establishment of the Republic of Turkey many Turkish Cypriots, particularly the younger generation, became increasingly attached to the Turkish nation-state and the modernist principles on which it was based. The traditionalists tried to prevent this development, which was inevitably, even predictably, going to lead to their loss of popular support. However, their attempts were fruitless and by the end of the 1930s the traditionalist view had greatly lost its appeal and popular support had shifted greatly in favor of the reformists.

During the 1930s the students of the Turkish lycee in Nicosia started more noticeably to identify with Turkey. This process led to a conflict between the students, to whom the halkçılar gave support, and the government, which tried to control or circumscribe the Turkish Cypriot reformists. The Turkish Board of Education had a heavy traditionalist presence. Until 1929 the governing body was composed of the mufti, the delegates of Evkaf, the elected Muslim member of the Legislative Council, three Muslim members to be elected by the Board and one government appointee.[27] In this year the British enacted a law that made a change in the structure of the Board, whereby it was to have three members appointed by the governor. The Board appointed a Briton as the headmaster of the Turkish lycee, in addition to the several British teachers employed there. The government’s policy of controlling the Turkish lycee gave rise to heated debates.

During the 1930s the lycee increasingly became a focus of the reformists and an issue of dispute between them and the Evkafçılar. At the meeting of the Committee of Secondary Education on 19th December 1930, F. D. Newham, the director of education, reappointed Münir to the presidency. Söz criticized this development and accused Münir of extending his hegemony over the Evkaf to the lycee. Hakikat published an article defending Münir’s reappointment and argued that the Evkaf was the only point of support for the Turkish community and it was essential that all social institutions and activities be governed by the Evkaf. Hence it was necessary for this institution to have an influence over the Turkish schools and it was a right move for Münir to accept this position.

In the meeting of the Commission of Secondary Education, the halkçılar and the evkafçılar also engaged in a heated debate regarding the headmaster of the Turkish lycee. The evkafçılar wanted Mr. Grant, the English headmaster of the lycee, to remain, while the halkçılar wanted to appoint a headmaster from Turkey. Eyüp Musa, an evkafçı politician, stated in the meeting that an Englishman should remain the headmaster of the lycee “until the Republic of Turkey is able to produce headmasters that have sufficient abilities and moral qualities to administer” the Turkish lycee.[28] Although Eyüp Musa was attacked bitterly by the halkçılar, the British did not give way, and the hiring of a Turkish headmaster did not materialize. In a further attempt to curb the students’ identification with Turkey, the Turkish Board of Education, composed of Münir and two Britons changed the name of the school from Kıbrıs Türk Lisesi (Cyprus Turkish Lycee) to Kıbrıs Islam Lisesi (Cyprus Islam Lycee) prior to the 1936 – 1937 academic year.
The issue of the lycee was paid utmost attention both by the evkafçılar and the halkçılar because of the influence of education in the mindset of the students. In this period there was no longer an Ottoman Empire for the younger generations to identify with, and hence it is no surprise that they directed their attention to secular and western-oriented Turkey, which was viewed as a strong regional power by the Turkish Cypriots at the time. The evkafçılar, aware that such a trend would mean the eventual loss of their political power, thus tried to diver the students’ attention from Turkey and direct them towards Britain.

While the traditionalists were worried about their lack of support from the younger generation, they were further losing popularity because of the hegemonic rule of Münir, who was given the Order of the British Empire in 1931. In his minute in 1935 Arthur Dawe, a counselor in the Colonial Office, wrote that “a good deal of Kemalism among the Cypriot Turks is due to the personal unpopularity of Münir Bey.”[29] He added that it was “beginning to look doubtful whether the support which past Governments have given to that rather unsound person ha[d] been politically worthwhile.” Dawe mentioned Münir in another in minute in 1937, where he stated that Münir represented the old regime and everything that was opposed in modern Turkey.[30] Dawe added that Münir was “personally not popular with his fellow Turks because of his excessive power as Director of Evcaf and as the Government’s chief adviser on Turkish matters.” Hence, by the second half of the 1930s, the traditionalists were rapidly losing popular support and it was becoming less viable for the British to support them in holding on to the privileged status they enjoyed.

In the meantime the halkçılar were gaining more sympathy in the community, as the Turkish Cypriots’ dissatisfaction with the evkafçılar and their own identification with Turkey grew. By the mid-1930s Turkey had come to be seen as a paradise by many Turkish Cypriots. Writing in 1935 Sir Herbert Richmond Palmer, the Governor, had expressed his worries about “a further application for an entire village to migrate to Asia Minor.”[31] Following strong signs of desire to emigrate to Turkey among the Turkish Cypriot community, Palmer instituted a passport fee of 10 Pounds in order to discourage the Turkish Cypriots from emigrating.[32] The British were concerned about the emigration of Turkish Cypriots, for if this movement assumed large proportions it could have meant the weakening of the traditionally loyal community of Cyprus, in which case it would have been harder to counter the demands by Greek Cypriots for enosis and hence have an effective and stable administration on the island. However, as the British continued to support the traditional establishment, it got harder for the government to maintain this source of support. Palmer, writing to British Ambassador to Turkey in 1934 stated that:

They [The Turkish Cypriots] have, as you are aware, been traditionally loyal to
the British administration for over half a century, but the young generation has
been impressed by what they regard as the advance in civilization in Turkey and
they have evinced growing impatience at the retention in Cyprus of the shackles
imposed by their religion and the control exercised by the Ulema.[33]

By the end of the 1930s the British were getting increasingly worried about the changes in the sentiments of the Turkish Cypriots. The halkçı newspapers were loudly supporting the reforms in Turkey, and the British administration had to censor them several times, for referring to Turkey as “the Fatherland”, and using expressions like “our Atatürk.”

During the 1930s the traditionalists started disappearing from Turkish Cypriot political life. In 1943 local elections, first to be allowed by the British Administration since 1931, all the candidates in the Nicosia region were reformists; the traditionalists were not able to produce any candidates. That the traditionalists had lost so much support that they could not even enter the elections as a group made it harder for the British to continue their existing policy of using their power and authority to govern the Turkish Cypriot community through the evkafçılar. The British had been noticing the gradual loss of popular support of the traditionalists but it was not until the elections of 1943 that they felt the urge to make a change. Writing as early as in 1934, Governor Palmer argued that “the older generation of Turks is gradually disappearing and dwindling , and as the younger generations tend to become Kemalists, we cannot in any case return to the old method of controlling Cyprus for long.”[34] A report from Downing Street in 1937 stated the following:

It is important to make the Moslems of Cyprus feel that the Government is taking
adequate care of their interests and that they have a definite part to play in
the colony under British administration. The collapse of the old order in Turkey
and the rise of the Kemalist republic had created a new problem to which the
British administration in Cyprus must seek to adapt itself. It seems desirable
that Government should endeavour to make an appeal to the younger and
progressive Cypriot Turks.[35]

The changing circumstances indicated to the British administration that they had to make an appeal to the halkçılar. This attempt came in the immediate aftermath of the elections. In early April, Münir – who was still the Turkish delegate of Evkaf ! – started visiting the prominent reformists and having discussions about the establishment of a political organization.[36] In his meetings with the reformist leaders he promised them that he would mediate the relations between this organization and the government. He also stated that the hall of the Evkaf building could be used for the gathering when the organization will be officially founded. After his attempts, the four Turkish members of the Nicosia Municipal Council invited the prominent members of the Turkish community of Nicosia to a meeting in the hall of the Evkaf building. At the meeting an association named Kıbrıs Adası Türk Azınlığı Kurumu (KATAK – Asssociation of the Turkish Minority of the Island of Cyprus) was formed. The association was dominated by politicians known for their reformist stances. It rapidly opened branches in major towns of the island, thereby becoming the largest Turkish Cypriot political organization.

Establishment of this organization should be seen in the light of the British intentions to make an appeal to the halkçılar. Münir was completely dependent on the government for high office and the course of action he took was clearly dictated by the British. After the elections it was clear to the British that the evkafçılar were a non-entity in the Turkish Cypriot political life and that the continuation of their policy of blind support for the traditionalists would jeopardize the loyalty they enjoyed from the Turkish Cypriot community. Hence it was necessary to somehow close the gap between the halkçılar and the evkafçılar and to win the sympathies of the halkçılar. It was this understanding that probably led them to push Münir into a dialogue with the halkçılar, who had criticized him bitterly throughout the past fifteen years. The halkçılar had been disorganized in the post-1931 era, due to the law that banned political parties, and this is probably why they responded favorably to the suggestion of Münir, who, by going to them, was acknowledging the political supremacy of the halkçılar in the Turkish Cypriot community. The establishment of KATAK meant the absorption of traditionalist elements of the Turkish Cypriot community into an organization in which the reformists had the upper hand. The establishment of KATAK marks the definitive end of the evkafçılar as a political body.

In the post World War II era the British administration recognized the reformist leaders as the true representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community. Considering the continued reformist demands with respect to Turkish Cypriot social institutions, the government founded a Committee of Turkish Affairs in 1948

to examine and make recommendations on matters affecting the Turkish community in Cyprus, that is to say: - (i) Evcaf; (ii) Muftiship; (iii) Family Law; (iv)
Educational matters; (v) Sheri Courts.[37]

The governor appointed the Committee members, all of whom were reformists. The Committee worked for a year, after which its proposals were published in the Interim Report of the Committee of Turkish Affairs in 1949. All the proposals were along the halkçı demands of the past two decades and were geared towards introducing the practices in Turkey into the Turkish Cypriot community. These proposals were taken seriously by the government and the demands were to be realized one after the other in the 1950s.

Through the establishment of this Committee the British had capped their change of policy and withdrawn their historical support to the traditionalists. The Turkish Cypriot community had gone through a significant change between the world wars and the reformists had assumed the leadership of the community while the traditional ruling class had rapidly lost its prestige. The British had to come to terms with this fact if they wanted to maintain peaceful relations with the Turkish Cypriot community. The reapproachment with the halkçılar came as a result of this realization. This official recognition of the Turkey-oriented reformists as a the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community was to have significant impact on the political developments in Cyprus and on the policies of Britain, Greece, Turkey and the Greek Cypriot leadership in the following decades.

Notes

[1] For more information on the developments that led to the signing of this convention see Hill.
[2] Interim Report, p. 23
[3] Gürkan (1982), p. 146
[4] Hill, p. 413
[5] Hamilton Goold Adams (High Commissioner) to Harcourt (unidentified), 4 September 1914, FO 371/2143/35985. Quoted in Gürel, p. 162
[6] McHenry, p. 124
[7] An, 22 March 1993
[8] Stevenson (High Commissioner) to the Duke of Devoshire, 24 December 1922, FO 371/9131/E748/44. Quoted in Choisi, pp. 165 - 166
[9] Colonial Office file on Mehmet Münir, July 1932, CO 67/247/13-143643. Quoted in Choisi, p. 170
[10] McHenry, p. 127
[11] R. Nicholson (Colonial Secretary) to Khuremzadeh Mehmed Hakki Efendi (mufti of Cyprus), 19th November 1928. Reproduced in the Interim Report, p. 59
[12] McHenry, p. 122
[13] Colonial Office file on Mehmet Münir, Ibid.
[14] See Ünlü, pp. 50 - 54
[15] Ismail, pp. 107 - 109
[16] Letter from Ahmet Agaoglu (General Director of Press and Intelligence of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey) to Mehmet Remzi, 21 August 1922. Reproduced in Manizade, pp. 16 - 17. All translations from Turkish in this work are mine.
[17] Reproduced in ibid.
[18] Cyprus Blue Book of 1922
[19] "Yeni Harfleri Benimsemek Vazifemizdir", Söz, 13 September 1928. Quoted in Birinci and Ismail, p.214
[20] An, 9 August 1993
[21] Ahmet Rasit, “Gazanız Mübarek Olsun”, in Söz, no. 460. Quoted in An
[22] Reproduced in An, 14 February 1994
[23] Mehmet Remzi, “Milli Kongranın Mahiyeti” in Söz, 14 May 1931. Reproduced in Birinci and Ismail, pp. 170 - 174
[24] Mehmet Remzi, “Kaimeciler Hokkabazlik Ediyor” in Söz, 14 May 1931. Reproduced in Birinci and Ismail, 174 - 175
[25] Reproduced in Fedai, pp. 87 - 89
[26] Mehmet Remzi, “Teslim Bayrağı", Söz, 17, 24 and 31 March 1931. Reproduced in Birinci and Ismail, pp. 149 - 150
[27] Interim Report, p. 38
[28] Söz, 5 March 1931. Reproduced in An,
[29] Minute by Arthur J. Dawe, 1 May 1935, CO 67/262/2-90571. Quoted in Choisi.
[30] Minute by Arthur J. Dawe, 15 November 1937, CO 67/281/14. Quoted in Gürel, p. 176 and McHenry, p. 143
[31] Palmer to Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister (Colonial Secretary), 10 April 1935. Quoted in Kızılyürek (1988), pp. 111- 113
[32] McHenry, p. 195
[33] Palmer to Loraine (British Ambassador to Turkey), 11 April 1934, FO 371/17963 – XC146076. Quoted in Choisi, p. 174
[34] Palmer to Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, 4 April 1934, CO 67/254/39720/3. Quoted in McHenry, p. 139
[35] CO 67/281/14-f-144143, Downing Street, 19 November 1937. Quoted in Kızılyürek (1993), p. 74
[36] Gürkan (1986), p. 145
[37] Interim Report, p. 3

(c) 2000. This work is based on the unpublished undergraduate history honors thesis presented and defended at Amherst College in 1994. It was presented at the Third International Congress on Cyprus Studies in November 2000 in Cyprus.