奥斯曼帝国的坦齐马特运动探析（1839-1876）

发布时间：2019-04-17 06:50

【摘要】：19世纪对于奥斯曼帝国是意义非凡的，在之前的岁月里，帝国所处的国内外环境发生了天翻地覆的变化。欧洲列强通过改革与革命纷纷走上了资本主义道路，他们将奥斯曼帝国视为首要的瓜分对象。面对不断强大的欧洲侵略势力，帝国内部的改革却困难重重，先有苏丹谢里姆三世想通过军事改革加强集权，却被守旧的近卫军团与乌里玛势力联合赶下台，后有马赫穆德二世虽然通过强硬手段摧毁禁卫军团恢复了权威，但在内忧外患面前举步维艰，后来，人亡政息改革夭折。尽管如此，在帝国内部穆斯林社会和非穆斯林社会都在经历着深刻的变化，这种变化一方面促使中东的各方面都朝着现代化方向发展，另一方面改革也引起了叛乱、起义和独立运动，帝国的政权在风雨中飘摇。帝国改革的方向在哪里？是需要继续不断树立君主权威，还是要效仿西欧实行分权民主改革？在对未来迷茫之际，帝国迎来了最深刻的一次变革“坦齐马特”。面对越来越严峻的国际压力和国内危机，1839年奥斯曼帝国苏丹阿卜杜勒·麦吉德一世登基并颁布敕令，宣布改革。坦齐马特改革内容涉及奥斯曼帝国军事、政治、经济、宗教、教育等多个方面。改革分为前后两个阶段，前期由穆斯塔法·拉希德帕夏主持，后期由阿里和梅赫迈德·福阿德帕夏领导。从坦齐马特的诸多法令上，我们能看到这次改革十分重视民主建设以及政策法令的规范化，如确保臣民生命、财产的安全，保障臣民的荣誉和尊严；正确分配和征收税收；实施正确的征兵方法并确定服役期限；废除没收财产的做法；法律面前人人平等。这些条令可以说很大一部分是为了改变“非正常”的集权措施。因为在坦齐马特之前的马赫穆德二世时期，为加强中央集权政府采用了许多非常手段。坦齐马特时期政府颁布政策的目的在于使政令制度化，从而将改革转入正轨。虽然坦齐马特时期许多政令都遭到反对派的阻挠与反对，改革进行的非常艰难，但是确实起到了一定的巩固奥斯曼帝国统治的作用。改革的各方面成绩斐然，，这些成果满足了土耳其资产阶级的部分要求，促进了资本主义因素的发展，也造就了新的一批社会进步力量--青年土耳其党。但改革也有局限性，它并未触及帝国最根本的传统政治制度。苏丹仍然大权在握，当他发现这种自上而下的改革严重的损害到他的权力，就是塞缪尔·亨廷顿所提到的君主成为自己成就的牺牲品时，原来领导改革主张进步的苏丹转而走向了改革的对立面。坦齐马特时期分权民主的发展并没有能充分制衡君主的权力，这次改革结束几年后宪政改革失败，奥斯曼帝国走向灭亡。由此我们得出结论：在传统的高度集权化君主专制国家，想要不改变君主专制而通过自上而下的改革进入现代化是很难实现的。
[Abstract]:The 19th century was of great significance to the Ottoman Empire, where the circumstances at home and abroad had changed dramatically in previous years. European powers have embarked on the capitalist path through reform and revolution, and they see the Ottoman Empire as the primary object of division. In the face of the ever-stronger forces of European aggression, the reform within the empire was fraught with difficulties. First, Sultan Sherim III tried to strengthen centralization through military reform, but was driven out of power by the old guard corps and the Ulima forces. Later, although Mahmud II destroyed the guard corps through hard-line means to restore authority, but in the face of internal and external difficulties, later, the death of the political reform aborted. Nevertheless, both Muslim and non-Muslim societies within the Empire are undergoing profound changes that, on the one hand, have contributed to the modernization of all aspects of the Middle East and, on the other hand, the reform has led to a rebellion. Uprisings and independence movements, the imperial regime fluttered in the wind and rain. Where is the direction of imperial reform? Is it necessary to continue to establish sovereign authority, or to emulate the democratic reform of decentralization in Western Europe? At a time of confusion about the future, the empire ushered in one of the most profound changes, "Tanjimat." Faced with growing international pressure and domestic crisis, the Ottoman Empire Sultan Abdul Mejid I ascended the throne in 1839 and issued a royal decree announcing the reform. The reform involves military, political, economic, religious, educational and other aspects of the Ottoman Empire. The reform was divided into two stages, led by Mustafar Rashid Paxa and later by Ali and Mehmead Foad Pasha. From the many decrees of Tamimat, we can see that the reform attaches great importance to the construction of democracy and the standardization of policies and decrees, such as ensuring the lives of subjects, the safety of property, the protection of honor and dignity of subjects, the correct distribution and collection of taxes; Implement proper methods of conscription and determine the duration of service; abolish confiscation of property; equality before the law. These rules can be said to be in large part to change the "abnormal" centralization measures. Because during the period of Mahmud II before Tanzimat, many extraordinary means were used to strengthen the centralised government. The purpose of the government's policy during the Tamtsmat period was to institutionalize the decree, thus putting reform back on track. Although many of the decrees were blocked and opposed by the opposition, the reform was very difficult, but did play a role in consolidating the Ottoman Empire. The achievements in all aspects of the reform have met some of the requirements of the Turkish bourgeoisie, promoted the development of capitalist factors, and created a new force of social progress, the Al-Shabaab Turkish Party. But reform also has its limitations, and it does not touch upon the most fundamental traditional political system of the empire. The Sudan is still in power, and when he finds that this top-down reform has seriously undermined his power, that the monarch mentioned by Samuel Huntington has been the victim of his own achievements, Sudan, which originally led reform advocates of progress, turned to the opposite of reform. The development of decentralization and democracy did not fully balance the power of the monarch. The constitutional reform failed a few years after the end of the reform, and the Ottoman Empire went to ruin. From this we draw a conclusion: in the traditional high-centralization monarchy, it is very difficult to achieve modernization without changing monarchy and through top-down reform.
【学位授予单位】：河北师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：K376.4

【参考文献】