In pursuit of homogeneity: the Lausanne Conference, minorities and the Turkish nation

Abstract

Following World War I, the Allied Powers signed Minority Treaties with a number of Central and Eastern European states. These treaties delineated the status of religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities in their respective countries. Turkey would be one of the last states that sat down to the negotiation table with the Allied Powers. In the Turkish case, the Lausanne Treaty would be the defining document which set out a series of rights and freedoms for the non-Muslim minorities in the newly created nation. The present article explores how and why the non-Muslim minorities were situated in the fringes of the new nation. In doing so, the article highlights the content of the discussions in the Lausanne Conference and in the Turkish Grand National Assembly with an emphasis on the position of the Turkish political elite.

Formation of the Turkish Nation-State, 1920–1938

“…This conceptualization also ignored the ethnic and linguistic diversity within each group. Furthermore, the definition of minorities aligned perfectly with the political elite's nationalist sentiments that were infused with religious referencesunderlining the Muslim character of the Turkish nation (Bayar 2014).…”

“…While the Lausanne Treaty, which was ratified in August 1923, was a significant text establishing to a large extent present-day Turkey's territories and ending capitulations, it also was a historical document in relation to the three non-Muslim communities in the country. Discussions inside Parliament (and in Lausanne) highlight the tension between two central issues pertinent to nation formation: the protection of minorities and the process of homogenization (Bayar 2014).…”

How Informal Institutions Matter

“…The notion of millet in the Ottoman Empire referred to religious communities. The Ottoman sociopolitical structure was composed of two main millets: the Muslim millet (millet-i Islamiyye or millet-i Muslime), as the dominant and ruling one (millet-i hakime) and the non-Muslim millet, as the dominated and ruled one (millet-i mahkume) (Oran 2021; see also İçduygu and Soner 2006;İçduygu, Toktas, and Soner 2008;Bayar 2014;Lord 2018). Thus, within the Ottoman millet system, non-Muslim groups were treated as religious minorities.…”

“…Instead, state officials embraced a definition of minority based on religious affiliation and recognized only certain non-Muslim religious groups (Greeks, Armenians, and Jews) as official minorities. The state granted these groups some minority rights and freedoms, such as the right to establish and manage foundations, charity organizations, religious and educational institutions, and linguistic rights, such as publishing, broadcasting, speaking, and educating in their mother tongue (see also İçduygu and Soner 2006;Ucarlar 2009;Oran 2011Oran , 2021Kaya 2013;Kizilkan-Kisacik 2013;Bayar 2014). Interestingly, the section of the Lausanne Treaty (July 1923) assigned to the protection of minorities (Articles 37-45), does not refer to any specific minority group.…”

Navigating the nationalist landscape of exclusion: Armenian citizens of Turkey and the politics of naming

“… 5 5 The Lausanne Peace Treaty (1923) extended certain freedoms and rights to non‐Muslim nationals including the right to establish and manage their own educational, charitable, and religious institutions (Bayar, 2014a). Over the course of the 20th century and up until the present time, multiple provisions of the Treaty were contravened numerous times.…”