No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Turkish-Cypriot nationalism: Its history and development (1571-1960)
Abstract
This article aims to trace the creation and development of Turkish-Cypriot nationalism on Cyprus. The article also aims at understanding the power of this “second” nationalism in Cyprus, as a reactive force vis-a-vis the already developed Greek-Cypriot nationalism. While the intellectual birth of Turkish-Cypriot nationalism and its initial spread as an ideological child of mainland Turkish nationalism had very little to do with Greek Cypriots and their already developed nationalism, its growth and final form came to be conditioned as that of a response and reaction to Greek- Cypriot nationalism. The partitionist nature, uncompromising ideology, and the militant character that Turkish-Cypriot nationalism would acquire by the 1950s ensured that cohabitation and compromise with the Greek-Cypriot community would be ousted as political choices by the nationalist Turkish-Cypriot elites, with the known devastating results. The article examines the growth of a religious minority, symbiotic and flexible in character, and integrationist in social and economic attitude, into a monolithic nationalist force that was open to the outside intervention of Turkey and the British colonial government. The two basic characteristics of Turkish-Cypriot nationalism, the belatedness of its growth and the contingency of its materialisation stand out as crucial factors in understanding its nature as well as its effects on the political history of Cyprus. Together with the analysis of the evolution, ontology and cohesion of Turkish-Cypriot nationalism, an attempt is made to juxtapose and compare Turkishand Greek-Cypriot nationalism on the island. Finally an attempt is made to demonstrate how the lack of options that the Cypriots had in the late 1950s for forging an independent political existence, free of strife and conflict, were both a product of the formulations of nationalism on the island, as well as a result of external intervention and imposed options for a solution.
... The year 1931, however, saw a massive uprising in Cyprus, in which Enosis occupied for the first time a central position 19 . The cause for this uprising was the imposition of extra tax on salaries, which a united front of Greek-and Turkish-Cypriots had rejected in the Legislative Council, yet it was still imposed by the British administration (Apeyitou, 2003). The 1931 tax imposition scratched an old wound 20 , therefore inevitably brought to the foreground the Greek-Cypriot demand for Enosis. ...
This thesis examines urban partition in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, and how its changing roles and shifting perceptions in a post-conflict setting reflect power relations, and their constant renegotiation. Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, was officially divided in 1974 in the aftermath of an eighteen-year-long conflict between the island’s Turkish- and Greek-Cypriot communities. As a result, a heavily militarized Buffer Zone, established as an emergency measure against perpetuation of intercommunal violence, has been cutting through its historic centre ever since. This thesis departs from a genuine interest in the material and ideational dimensions of urban partition. How is it constructed, not merely in physical terms but in the minds of the societies affected by conflict? How is it established in official and everyday discourses? What kinds of mechanisms have been developed to maintain it, and make an inseparable part of the urban experience? Moreover, taking into account the consensus in relevant literature pertaining to the imperative for its removal, this thesis is inquiring into the relevance of peace agreements to overcoming urban partition. For this purpose, it also looks at narratives and practices that have attempted to contest it. The examples examined in this thesis offer pregnant analytical moments to understand Nicosia’s Buffer Zone as a dynamic social construct, accommodating multiple visions of and for the city. Its space ‘in-between’ facilitates encounters between various actors, accommodates new meanings, socio-spatial practices and diverse imaginaries. In this sense, urban partition is explored in this thesis as a phenomenon that transcends scales as well as temporalities, entwining past, present, and future.
The decisive issue influencing the Cypriot question in the 1930s was the 1931 revolt. But in relation to what happened during the revolt of the Greek Cypriots through October 1931 we should underline the importance of a host of social factors in what followed. They include: (a) the social and economic disparities entailed in British rule which, despite their profoundly class-based character, the hegemony of the bourgeois strata would induce the popular classes to see as exclusively a product of colonialist domination, which only Enosis would resolve (b) the serious consequences stemming, for decades, from payment of the Tribute of Cyprus, (c) the effects of the global economic crisis, (d) realization on the part of the Greek Cypriot element that there was little to be expected from the diplomatic route towards the objective of Enosis, (e) the attempt by the British to interfere in the administration of educationEducation, (f) the aforementioned refusal in September 1929 of the Secretary for the Colonies Lord PassfieldPassfield to introduce further representative institutions and, of course, (g) the refusal of the Governor to accept the Legislative CouncilLegislative Council’s resolution on economic issues in September 1931, which refusal was motivated by the fact that the Turkish Cypriots did not vote with the British. Let us examine all this in more detail.
The period of OttomanOttomans occupation is characterized by the predominance of the Asiatic mode of productionAsiatic mode of production, a mode of production quite different from the corresponding feudalFeudal mode of production that had enjoyed supremacy during the periods of Venetian and Frankish rule, but consonant with what had been imposed throughout the Ottoman Empire.
This article shows how everyday religious practices inform the processes of social identification, complicate presumed ethno-religious categories, and mediate local cultural differences in face of political and cultural hegemonic practices. In the context of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a de facto state recognized only by Turkey, Turkish Cypriots and Turks are considered to share an ethnicity and religion. This “overlap” has been employed to justify Turkey’s military intervention and its political, economic, and cultural domination over the island. Yet the cultural diversities and “perceived” differences between and among these groups are exacerbated by power dynamics, nationalist agendas, and mutual biases. The article explains subtle discussions around “genuine” Turkish and Muslim identities, as well as the enforced coexistence and constructed brotherhood of Cypriots and Turks on the island. The competing accounts of the “correct” interpretation of Islam at a Muslim tekke reflect intragroup power asymmetries and the conflict between institutionalized Sunni-Orthodox and “heterodox” local Islam. The article focuses on two overlooked issues in the scholarship on Northern Cyprus—the relations between Turkish Cypriots and settlers from Turkey, and the role of religion in the political processes—as well as on literature on shared sacred sites and an analysis of competitive intracommunal interactions.
Yakinthou throws light on the challenges of adopting political settlements in frozen conflicts and divided societies by focusing on the conflict in Cyprus, the resolution of which has for years been held up, in large part by elite intransigence. The book offers answers for why elites in Cyprus are so unwilling to adopt a power-sharing solution.
Traditionally, the development of a secular identity within the Muslim minority on Cyprus has been attributed to the British administration as part of a ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.1 Those who accept this argument have implied that Turkish-Cypriot nationalism is to some extent less genuine than Greek-Cypriot nationalism, an artificial identity imposed by an external source. Yet not only does this ignore the nature of national identity, which has been overlooked in the discussion of nationalist development on Cyprus, it also seems to credit the British with too much foresight and control. This article questions whether the development of a Turkish identity within the Muslim population was primarily based on British encouragement. It also argues that Turkish-Cypriot nationalism, rather than being ‘late’ or ‘imposed’, emerged similarly to other national identities. As the 1950–1951 attempt to appoint a mufti demonstrates, Turkish-Cypriot leadership appeared in spite of rather than because of the colonial administration. Indeed, the incident shows how British officials misunderstood the desires and concerns of the Turkish Cypriots just as much as they did Greek-Cypriot feelings regarding Enosis.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.