The Administration of Istanbul from the Tanzimat to the Republic

As the capital and the largest city of the Ottoman state, during the Tanzimat period, Istanbul started to face new undertakings and applications in city administration; these ran parallel to the effects of economic, social, and technological factors. The main characteristic of this change was the transformation from the traditional Ottoman city administration towards a “modern” European municipality model. Modernization through the integration of Istanbul into the new world trade order and the Tanzimat reforms, which were based on Westernization and centralization, constituted the two important axes of this process.

“The modern institution of municipality”, which started to replace the administrative institutions of the classical period, was a new structure that emerged in the 19^th century, during the process of change that followed the Industrial Revolution. The rapid urbanization in Great Britain, which was the result of industrialization, led to many problems in a number of areas, such as housing, the environment, transportation, security, health services, etc. Parallel to the characteristics and the size of changes in the local services, the structure of the administration of the cities also underwent changes. In this process, there were attempts to answer the need for public services by introducing new models of organization in areas of special services as well as attempts to improve the former urban institutions. In following days, a process of transition towards a specialized structure of a single local administration that was responsible for local services began. The modern institution of the municipality developed and was legitimized by establishing standard structures of local administration based on specialization instead of structurally or functionally varying models, the development of a legal basis, and the transfer of the responsibilities of the local services to the local administrations. In Great Britain, codes of local administration were introduced in 1835, 1888, and 1894, while in France, the structures of local administrations developed following the 1789 Revolution, with constitutional regulations introduced in 1830 and 1848, and a local administration code in 1884; in Germany, the 1808 Prussian City Regulation marked an important step in the development of the modern municipal institution in Europe.

The effect of industrialization and the migration of the rural population to the cities, although introducing a multifaceted transformation to the city of Istanbul, remained limited when compared to European cities. The primary reason for this was that the Ottoman Empire did not undergo the process of the Industrial Revolution in the same way that Europe did. In this context, it is possible to study the transition in Istanbul’s administration from the structures of the classical period to the modern municipality model in four stages. The first stage was the remarkable expansion in the concept of local services which accompanied the multifaceted and international transformation that Istanbul was undergoing. The second stage was a period in which the functions of the classical structures of the city administration decreased, and thus there was an accompanying increase in the problems experienced in local services. The third stage was the application of modern municipality models to solve these problems. The fourth stage was the expansion of the area of legitimacy for the modern structures of the municipality and their development as principal units of city administration.

The international commercial order in the 19^th century was reshaped within the context of an increasing need for raw materials and new markets; this new demand was caused by the rapid economic expansion that took place following the Industrial Revolution. Faced by this need, the new commercial order seriously affected the Ottoman State, a country with a high potential. The signing of trade agreements between the Ottoman State and European states enabled foreign merchants to freely carry out trade in the Ottoman State, thus enhancing the level of integration into the new commercial order. In particular, parallel to increased commercial relations, port cities located within the Eastern Mediterranean basin, such as Istanbul, İzmir, Thessaloniki, Alexandria, and Beirut, witnessed important economic, physical, social and political transformations.¹

Bazaars, caravansaries, and market places (kapan), which had been the center of commercial life in Istanbul, experienced a decrease in the volume of economic activities; the district of Galata came to fore as the main commercial center. The organization of new economic relationships began to be undertaken by establishments such as companies, banks, and insurance agencies. The guilds, which had had a significant place in the organization of the city administration, lost their position when the market places departed from their central status in commercial life; in addition workshop-type production started to disappear, giving way to factory manufacturing, and there was a change in public consumption habits. These factors also led to a decrease in the functions of the guilds in governing commercial areas and control of commercial life.²

As with many other port cities in the Ottoman State, the economic change experienced by Istanbul led to many accompanying social changes. The cosmopolitan social structure that was fostered by international trade and parallel features in daily life were very different in the Galata-Beyoğlu district than in other parts of Istanbul. Market places and stores, hotels, inns, embassy buildings, entertainment places and houses that had been constructed as a reflection of social and economic changes in the area became the new face of the Galata-Beyoğlu district, an area where Western merchants, middlemen, developers and bankers were concentrated. In addition to the development of new resident areas, such as Şişli, Nişantaşı and Maçka, as well as summer resorts such as the Princes’ Islands, Tarabya and Yeniköy, which had been integrated into the daily life thanks to the ferries run by the Hayriyye Company, developed as the new neighborhoods of residence for the wealthy population. Those who moved to Istanbul from rural areas settled primarily around Eyüp, Hasköy, Kasımpaşa and Üsküdar.³

The classical structure of neighborhoods was under the influence of two important dynamics during the Tanzimat period. The first one was that the population which moved from the rural areas to Istanbul was dense enough to make control of the organizational structure of the neighborhoods difficult. The second one was that the relocation of the wealthy families in regions where families of similar status resided, a result of new economic relationships, created a structure that was different from the classical structure. By damaging the integrity of the relationship between the constituents of the neighborhood organization, these two developments weakened the functions that had been provided by the neighborhood administration. The main problem area was that the imams, the head of the neighborhood administration, were not able to maintain order in the neighborhood. In 1829 attempts were made to restore order by appointing a “first” and “second” neighborhood muhtar (headman) who would take on the administrative and judicial tasks of the imams.⁴

The structural changes experienced by the society and the state also had an effect on the wakfs, an institution that had a very important role in the execution of local services. As a result of the effects of normative regulations, as well as changes in mentality, attempts “to establish endowments” decreased during this period. With the pressure caused by the weaknesses and corruption in the existing management of the wakfs, the Ministry of Wakfs was established in 1826.⁵ Despite the establishment of this ministry, a regulation that was in keeping with the perception of a centralized administration, the problems could not be solved.⁶ In addition to these changes, which reduced the functions of the wakfs, the establishment of institutions that could take their place, such as schools and hospitals, was another factor that affected this process. The wakfs had played an important role in the integration of the stipulations set out in the wakf deeds and the organization of services, however, there was now a decrease in these functions within the context of local services in the city.

Officials such as kadies (judges), muhtasib (policeman who examined weights, etc.), subashi (police superintendent), and mimarbaşı (head architect) represented the state in the administrative organization; these same officials were negatively affected by the administrative reform applications which began in the first quarter of the 19^th century, and which increased with the Tanzimat edict. These reforms led to a decline in the functions of some officials, while others were abolished altogether. As a consequence of the abolishment of the Janissary corps in 1826 officials, the introduction of posts such as the subashi, ases (night-watchman), and çöpçü subaşısı (superintendent of the garbage collection) weakened the function of the kadies in controlling the city. The kadies, who lost their authority over the wakfs with the establishment of the Ministry of Wakfs also lost their connection with the grand vizier; judges now fell under the authority of the sheikh-ul-Islam, and were responsible only within limited matters of civil law. The classical period of city administration had consisted of private institutions and state officials, in which the kadies had played a leading role; however, this new situation meant the end of the role of the kadies in the city administration;

Within the efforts to centralize the administration, the office of muhtasib, which was one of the most important offices for inspecting the tradesmen, was reorganized under the Ihtisab Nezareti (Ministry of city officials) in 1826. This new ministry was responsible for collecting the newly issued taxes and already existing ones; however, it was later abolished and its functions were transferred to the Seraskerlik (Ministry of War) and the Ministry of Finance in 1851. Later, the functions related to safety in the city, which had been transferred to the Seraskerlik, were transferred to the Zaptiye Müşirliği (Office of the field marshals,) which was established in 1845. This office also took care of the lighting and sanitation of the city until 1855. Es’ar Meclisi (the board of market prices) was established in order to carry out the tasks related to the Ihtisab.⁷ In 1852, the Ihtisab Ministry was reestablished in order to carry out inspection of tradesmen and the collection of the taxes. Three years later Ihtisab Ministry was abolished once again, and its responsibilities were transferred to the newly established Şehremaneti (Prefecture).

In 1831 a new institution called the Ebniye-i Hassa Müdürlüğü (Directorate of imperial buildings) was established by uniting mimarbaşılık (the office of head architect) and şehreminlik (the office of the prefect), which had played a very important role in the administration and the development of the city.⁸This new directorate, which was responsible for the development of the city, carried out a number of services; for example, commissioning Moltke to draw up a map and blueprint of the city, the preparation of the Ebniye Nizamname (building regulations), and constructing roads and pavements. In the following years the Ebniye-i Hassa Müdürlüğü carried out services in a variety of structures under the authority of Meclis-i Umûr-ı Nâfia (commission of beneficial affairs) and the Ministry of Commerce; after the establishment of Şehremaneti (the Prefecture) in the city this directorate was transformed into the Hendesehane (department of engineering), under the control of Şehremaneti.

In Istanbul the concepts of “local service” and “municipal organization” were affected and changed by the developments of the 19^th century, undergoing a process of redefinition within the framework of social, economic, and technological developments. The quality, range and size of the services broadened. A need for new organization emerged in parallel to demands for new local services. The municipal officials and the institutions of the classical period, however, remained outside the process of redefining concepts of “local service” and “municipal organization.” When officials like the qadis, muhtasib, subaşı, and mimarbaşı became weakened due to cyclical developments and general administrative regulations, an authority gap appeared in local services in Istanbul. The loss of functions of the waqfs, lonca (guilds) and other neighborhood structures that had had roles in providing local public services led to a decrease in local public services in Istanbul; indeed this reached a level far below what had existed in earlier times. An important gap occurred in local services, for example, the provision of water, transportation, substructure, control of buildings, inspection of tradesmen, lighting, sanitation, etc.

Most of the requests of the local Istanbul population were concerned with reforming the classical institutions of the city to solve the problems of the municipality. On the other hand, those who lived in the neighborhoods of Beyoğlu-Galata or in similar areas, i.e., those who held economic and political power, wanted the European municipal model to be applied to Istanbul. The basis of legality and influence achieved by these social classes within the context of their relationship with Europe became one of the most important factors shaping the new form of administration in Istanbul.

The Tanzimat Era bureaucracy’s approach to the problems of Istanbul, in parallel with the reform approach of the era, was centered round the axis of Westernization, modernization and centralization. Ottoman ambassadors brought the news of the rising modern state in Europe and in their reports discussed the ever-present Napoleonic state, its police organization, postal services, etc. They were puzzled as to how every new service of the state was filling the treasury with more money. The reports of the ambassadors were filled with their admiration for the carefully planned European cities, their wide streets and avenues, and tall buildings.⁹ In this period, the legal basis of the responses domestic and foreign developments given by statesmen who formed the sector of society which “made the decision to change”, switched from Kanun-i Kadim (the old law) to criteria that originated from Western Europe.

Istanbul constituted a contradiction to European cities in the matter of the local public services. When news about the situation in Istanbul became known among the public via reports in local and European newspapers, important reactions occurred among statesmen.¹⁰ According to the statesmen of this period, the way to overcome this situation was to introduce legal regulations and models of administration that had been applied by cities in Europe, which “inspired admiration”, and to adopt the modern municipal implementations.¹¹ Another aspect that made the modern municipality model attractive for statesmen was that it allowed the local administration to run its services supported by taxes which were directly collected from the local population, thus not creating a burden on the central government, which was already in financial difficulties.

During this period, in which the perception of centralization dominated state policies, the modernization of Istanbul was perceived as putting the city in order, establishing communication between various districts, and the beautification of the city. It was in this environment that the earliest examples of modern municipalities came to life in Istanbul. During the process of centralization, the Ottoman State met with the municipalities; this seems to be a contradiction when examined from modern principles, but in fact this was a different kind of centralization. What needs to be taken into account here is that the classical municipal organization allowed public initiative considerable leeway, but the structures of the municipality were established by “the State.”

The Establishment of Modern Municipalities in Istanbul

The Crimean War, which began in 1853, brought the problems of Istanbul to the top of agenda, thus leading to changes in the municipality, and the adoption of modern structures. After the arrival of the British and French navies in Istanbul, the foreign population in Istanbul increased. Many people came from Europe to Istanbul, as soldiers, reserve officers, reporters, health-care workers, diplomats, etc. The arrivals that were coming to the city because of the war were settled in the Beyoğlu-Galata districts. The newly-arrived foreigners often informed the government about their complaints; many of these complaints originated from the fact that the standards to which they were used to were not existent in Istanbul. They desired that Istanbul reach these same standards. The requests, coming from both Ottoman citizens and foreigners living in the Galata-Beyoğlu district, to introduce the modern municipality standards that were present in European cities had a great effect upon the changes in the administrative structure of Istanbul.

Establishment of Şehremaneti

In order to find solutions to the problems that Istanbul was experiencing in providing local services, the Ministry of Ihtisab was abolished on August 16, 1855 and a new structure, known as the Şehremaneti, was established. This model, in which only one government body would be responsible for limited services for the entire city of Istanbul, was a one-step structure.

In Meclis-i Âlî-i Tanzimat (the Grand Council’s Reforms) ruling about the establishment of the Şehremaneti it was stated that due to the large number of foreigners coming to the city for the Crimean War municipal problems could not be ignored; this was a time when European eyes were fixed upon Istanbul. It was stated that the Ministry of Ihtisab had fallen short when faced by the extraordinary situation in Istanbul; thus, in order to find a solution, the Şehremaneti was established.¹²The operation area for the Şehremaneti was concerned with major matters, such as providing goods and foods stuff, organizing cleanliness and order in the market places and districts, and controlling prices.

During this period, the Şehremaneti was affiliated to the ministries of the central government; this association was in respect to the matters that the Şehremaneti was concerned with. It was affiliated with the Finance Ministry for the collection of revenues, most of which came from taxes paid by tradesmen, and with the Ministry of Commerce in matters related to the control and services of tradesmen; it was affiliated with the Ministry of Public Works and with the commission for the improvement of street maintenance (a part of the ministry) for matters related to construction, cleaning and development, and with the Ministry of the Gendarmerie for related to commerce and the police.

The prefecture of the city was established together with two sub-organizations, namely the şehremini (prefect of the city) and the city council. The şehremini, who had executive power, was selected by the Sublime Porte and appointed by imperial decree. Salih Efendi, who had worked as the police marshal and governor of Amasya, was appointed as the first prefect of the city. In some occasions, as in the appointment of the fourth prefect, Hüseyin Hasib Bey, the prefect was not appointed by the Sublime Porte, rather being directly appointed by the sultan.¹³

The şehremini, who was the head and executive power of the Şehremaneti, had different functions from that implemented by the office of prefecture in the classical period. The şehremini, one of the four emins (superintendents) of the palace during the classical period, was the officer in charge of restoration and construction in the palace; he was also responsible for some services related to the payment of the salaries and took care of palace needs. This office was abolished in the 19^th century with the establishment of the Directorate of Imperial Buildings. Despite the differences in tasks and functions, the name şehremini was chosen for the head of the newly established municipal structure.

The şehremini, who was a government official, was a member of the Meclis-i Vâlâ (council of officials). There was no specific assigned task for the şehremini, but he was responsible for carrying out tasks that were given to the institution. Together with their assistants, the şehreminis inspected the markets and shops to check the prices were as they should be and that there was general order in the market. They were also given the authority to act as judges. In cases related to tradesmen, the şehreminis could send people to prison.

There were two officials called muavin (assistant) working under the şehremini. They would help him to carry out his duties. These muavin were also appointed. They would inspect the market and shops on behalf of the şehremini and act as the head of the city council when the şehremini was not present. These assistants were also automatically members of the city council. They also alternately acted as the head of a special council formed from the city council and hearing the cases related to the tradesmen.

The second division of the Şehremaneti was “the city council,” which functioned as an advisory and decision-making board. The council consisted of fifteen members, including twelve men who were appointed by the sultan, the şehremini and his two muavin. Candidates for the council were first chosen by the Sublime Porte from “subjects of every ethnic community” and from prominent tradesmen; these candidates were presented to the sultan and twelve people would be chosen and appointed to the council by imperial decree.

A system was adopted for the renewal of members to the council. According to this system, four of the twelve members were to be renewed every year. The membership of four members, determined by drawing lots, would be cancelled, and four people who were qualified to be member of the council would be selected and presented to the Meclis-i Vâlâ. After being approved by this council, the selected people were appointed to the council by imperial decree.

The city council was to meet twice a week; however, it was possible that the şehremini could call for an emergency meeting. The council was responsible for procuring the basic necessities, determining and controlling fixed prices, inspecting the market places and shops, maintaining cleanliness and order, and transferring the taxes collected by the prefecture of the city to the state treasury.

The matters decided by the council were classified as “Umur-ı Hayriye (charitable acts)” and “Umur-ı Külliye (general matters).” While decisions related to charitable acts could be implemented by the şehremini, those related to the latter had to be presented to the Meclisi Vâlâ; after being approved by this body they would be approved by the sultan, and only then could be implemented. Decisions of the council related to local public services, such as constructing and pavements, procuring basic necessities and deciding on fixed prices, were executed by the şehremini. In order to execute decisions related to central government services or the duties of the state, such as collection of taxes, the sultan’s ratification was necessary.

The yearly financial records of the Şehremaneti, which did not have a separate budget in the beginning, were overseen by Meclis-i Muhasebe (the Council of Accounting), which operated under the Ministry of Finance. The Şehremaneti had a similar financial structure to the abolished Ihtisab ministry. The Şehremaneti collected the taxes taken from tradesmen, which had been the duty of the Ihtisab, and transferred theses to the central treasury. Only a small portion of this revenue was left to the Şehremaneti. There were also taxes taken from the public in return for constructing roads and pavements and in return for animals used in transportation. During these early years, the revenues of the Şehremaneti could only meet the staff expenses. The financial deficit was made up by the central treasury. The institution had been established with significant expectations that it would be able to solve local problems in Istanbul; however, it was unable to attain equal financial power.

Parallel to its limited role in matters of local services, the institutional structure of the Şehremaneti also had a narrow scope. In addition to the main institutional departments, such as dispatch and accounting, units which issued certificates of iskan (housing) and müruriye (tolls) were organized in the structure of “oda (associations)”. Engineers were employed to carry out those services in which the Şehremaneti had as yet a limited role, such as constructing the roads and pavements, and repairing the water ways and sewer system. In addition, there were employees who were responsible for the public inspection and central administration tasks of the Şehremaneti. Tahrirat Odası (The secretarial services,) Muhasebe Odası (accounting services,) Tezkirehane (official certificates), Yoklama Odası (inspections), Mürur Odası (tolls), Jurnal Odası (the Informer’s Report), Hane Odası (house), and Liman Odası (harbor) were the main offices of Şehremaneti.

The Şehremaneti, which had been established to solve the local service problems in Istanbul, was a continuation, in respect to its functions and authority, of the Ihtisab Ağalık and the Ihtisab Ministry. During this first period, the Şehremaneti did not possess a strong characteristic as a unit of local administration that had administrative and financial autonomy and which was based on political representation. Having authority in only a limited number of local services, the few financial resources, and the fact that it was structured as a unit the operated under the central government limited the ability of the Şehremaneti to produce solutions for the large-scale problems which emerged during the process of change in the city.

The Commission of City Order and the Search for a Model of Municipality

The success of the Şehremaneti, which was established to improve local services, did not live up to expectations in the areas of its main responsibility, such as construction, development, inspection of tradesmen, and providing the vital needs of society. In a report related to this matter,¹⁴ although Istanbul, which was one of the most important cities of the world, was the center of the caliphate and the sultanate, it was criticized for being below the expected level in the most important matters, such as construction, as well as the order of the streets and markets. In particular, comparing Istanbul to European cities and the services they provided, the report stressed the need for new institutions that would not be a financial burden; these institutions would carry out higher levels of services, described as tezyîn (decoration), tevsi’ (broadening), tanzif (cleaning), tenvir-i esvak (illumination of streets and markets) and ıslah-ı usul-i ebniye (improvement in construction methods).

In the face of the increasing problems in the local services of Istanbul, the central government embarked on a search for a new municipality model. According to the government, the Şehremaneti had been unsuccessful in applying the European municipal model in Istanbul. It was accepted that the main reason for this was that the members of the city council lacked sufficient knowledge and experience to introduce a municipal administration. Moreover, the city council had failed to offer a tangible model for the new municipality of Istanbul. Upon this, it was suggested that a commission be established; this commission would be made up of local and foreign residents of Istanbul, people who were knowledgeable about the problems of municipal administration. In this way, a new municipality model for Istanbul could be prepared.¹⁵ Upon the ratification of this suggestion by the sultan, in 1856 the İntizâm-ı Şehir Komisyonu (Commission Municipale) was established according to an imperial decree. This commission was headed up by Emin Muhsin Efendi and included the following members: Antuvan Alyon, Kamando, Hüseyin Hüsam, Rovelaki, Ferhad, Mıgırdıç, Harmanos Veledi Yusuf, Mehmed Salih, Franko Ben Bericole and Refik Mustafa.¹⁶

The İntizâm-ı Şehir Komisyonu was not only a reform commission, but was also important due to its activities in public works, such as establishing routes for new roads, opening new roads, restoring old ones, constructing pavements, offering new methods of road construction, illuminating the cadde-i kebir (main thoroughfares), and regularly collecting waste. In finances, in order to create revenue for the Şehremaneti, taxes started to be collected from animal and cart owners and new regulations were introduced to ensure that home and shop owners contributed to the costs of pavement construction. These works were carried out particularly in the Galata-Beyoğlu district. Not only was the commission unable to complete many projects, due to the fat that it did not produce any tangible suggestions for the municipality model, its activities were brought to an end. Another new commission, with seven members, was established.

The new commission prepared a seven-article report on how to improve the structure of the municipality. Perceiving that foreign support was essential for the reforms in the Istanbul municipality to succeed, in its report the commission stated that it was necessary to have representatives from the relevant country contribute to the project. Moreover, some limited solutions were offered to solve the problems of the city related to water, roads, paving, lighting, and cleaning. The most important work that the new council produced was the suggestion for a new model that would be the basis of the municipality for the next period. According to this model, Istanbul would be divided into 14 district, and the Şehremaneti; a municipality would be established in each district (belediye dairesi). Thus, these district municipalities would be responsible for local services, while the Şehremaneti would carry out duties related to the entire city of Istanbul. Suggestions developed by the commission were mostly related to improving the quality of services, rather than ensuring autonomy. The “Belediye Dairesi (departmental municipality)” model offered by the commission played a pioneering role.

Transition to a Two-Level Administration Structure

The suggestion made by the municipality commission to govern the city of Istanbul according to a model consisting of the Şehremaneti and district municipalities was welcomed also by the central government. An official report stated that it was not enough to merely construct sidewalks and pave the roads in Istanbul, it was also necessary to establish institutions that would make infrastructure investments like sewer systems and the laying of water pipes, and which would assume continuous responsibility for these services. The idea to divide Istanbul into districts which would support one another in dealing with the municipality services of the city and the policing, and the collecting them under one administration was ratified.

Just like its counterparts in Europe, the leading approach to municipality reform in Istanbul became giving local services over to the care of an administration that was formed from members of the local public. In this way, it was hoped that improvements in services, as well as the creation of the finances that would be required could be achieved without burdening the central government. In such an environment, the model of “district municipality”, which would provide services in keeping with the practices of the Ministry of Ihtisab and the Şehremaneti was ratified by the government. Although in principle, elections were to be used to select the municipal district head and council, suddenly it was accepted that the method of appointment should be by the government, based on the idea that election was not practical.

The establishment of 14 districts in the Istanbul municipality was not agred upon; this was a new way of administration which would be applied for the first time and it would cause new financial burdens. Instead of this, a pilot scheme was adopted. The Galata-Beyoğlu area, where the most diverse social composition existed, was selected as the pilot region; this was the region where commercial and financial institutions were most densely located and was Istanbul’s window opening onto Europe. The main reasons given to justify this choice were that there were many profitable buildings in Galata and Beyoğlu, many people who had experiences in different kinds of municipality administrations from a number of countries resided here, and there were also some affluent people living here who could help meet the municipality’s expenses.

During the first division of Istanbul into district municipalities, in 1857 a municipality district called “Beyoğlu” was established in the district of Galata-Beyoğlu. When Istanbul was divided into 14 districts, Beyoğlu formed the sixth region, which is why it began to be known as the “Altıncı Daire (Sixth District.)” The regulations known as the “Altıncı Dâire-i Belediyye Nizâmâtı (Regulations of the Sixth District of Municipality)”¹⁷ and “Beyoğlu ve Galata Dairesi’nin Nizamı Umumisi (the general regulation of the Beyoğlu and Galata district)”¹⁸ set out a broad legal framework for the municipality, setting out their duties, authority and financial structure. This legal framework also acted as an example for the municipalities that would be established in rural areas.

The government took the negative experiences of the Şehremaneti into consideration, and affiliated the new municipality not to the Şehremaneti, but rather directly to the grand vizier. As a result of this regulation, the new municipality was able more easily able to overcome many of its difficulties with the highest level of support from the central government. For example, the authority to carry out development within the borders of the municipality was taken from the Directorate of the Imperial Buildings, which was at this time responsible for construction works, and was given to Altıncı Daire. Unlike the Şehremaneti, this district was given the authority to collect estate tax, thus demonstrating its privilege in finances. Despite all these privileges that Altıncı Daire had, there were many administrative regulations which required the permission of the Sublime Porte. Some of the most important of these can be listed as follows: inspection of annual revenue and expenditure tables, permission for a great amount of extraordinary expenditures, new taxes and the appointment of officials.

Two organs, that of müdür (director) and Daire Meclisi (district council), were established under the administrative structure of Altıncı Daire. The müdür, who was equal in status to a government officer, was appointed according to a suggestion from the Sublime Porte and on the approval of the sultan. Those who were to be appointed as müdür were selected from among those who were eligible to be chosen for the council. The primary duties of the müdür included the administration of the municipality, chairing the district council, carrying out communication between the council and the office of the grand vizier, the execution of decisions taken in the council, calling the council for a meeting when necessary and authorizing accounts.

The daire meclisi was the decision-making body; this body was made up fifteen members, including the müdür, seven full members, four consultant members, two assistant managers and a translator. To be eligible for the council, an individual had to have 100,000 kuruş worth of property within the borders of the district, have be a resident of the district for at least ten years, and be knowledgeable about municipality affairs. A list of people with these qualifications would be prepared, having more names than positions in the council, and presented to the sultan by the Sublime Porte. The names approved by the sultan would be appointed as the members of the council. Consultant members would be appointed after undergoing the same process. Half of the council members would be reappointed every two years with the same method.

The requirements for being a council member were developed within the context of examples from Europe, and became the prototype for division based on property, which would become widespread in future municipal councils. To be a citizen of the Ottoman Empire was not a condition for membership. With this regulation, the citizens of foreign states also could be given a place on the council. Parallel to this regulation, the social composition of Altıncı Daire was taken into consideration; it was decided that the minutes of the council meetings would be recorded in French as well as in Turkish.

The responsibilities of the district council were listed as follows: inspection of the places, such as fairs, theaters, markets, restaurants, schools, ballrooms, coffee houses and bars; cleaning the district municipality; opening new roads and widening and restoring already existing ones; constructing pavements; establishing a sewer system; washing the streets; controlling and protecting the waterways; checking the scales and other measuring instruments; demolishing old and dangerous buildings; inspecting the sales of cereals, which were basic needs for the people; controlling revenues and expenditures; being responsible for contracts related to municipality businesses; collecting taxes.

In the sub-organization of Altıncı Daire there were two assistant managers who were responsible to the manager and the council. Tasks related to official correspondence and documents were the responsibility of a unit consisting of a head clerk and clerks. Doctors, consultant members of the council, were responsible for activities related to the public health. Architects and engineers of the district coordinated district maps and carried out building activities in the district. District financial matters were the responsibility of the treasurer and the officers under his command.

Altıncı Daire, which used the financial opportunities provided by a high level of means provided by the state well and which constituted an economically powerful section of the city, was relatively successful. Some of its important achievements were the completion of the cadaster, the organization of Karaköy square, the planning and construction of places that had been damaged in fires, illuminating some streets with gas lamps, constructing a slaughterhouse, cleaning the streets, building a garden in Taksim and opening new roads.¹⁹

The successful works carried out by the new municipality established in Beyoğlu created a demand for municipality administration in other parts of Istanbul. Tarabya which had first been a summer resort for Beyoğlu but after the improvement of the means transportation were attached to its daily life became the second place where a municipality administration was established. Even though Tarabya was not among the 14 districts where a municipality had been planned to be established, as a result of the application of its prominent members to the Sublime Porte was conditionally accepted and a municipality district was founded in Tarabya in 1864. These conditions were not to put an extra financial burden upon the poor population of Tarabya, not to borrow exceeding the budget limits of the district, not to charge taxes from poor peoples’ houses whose rent was lower than 500 kuruş, and not to collect the regular taxes higher rates than % 2 and extraordinary taxes higher rates than % 3. By making limited changes in the legal regulations of Beyoğlu, a peculiar legal regulation was prepared for Tarabya.²⁰

Tarabya municipality carried out the activities such as cleaning the streets, constructing roads and pavements, lightening streets by petroleum lanterns, and opening a public garden with the local taxes and donations collected from the affluent members of the region. Improvement achieved by the municipality in such a short period of time and its efforts to organization had also reflections in the presence of the state.

Following Tarabya, a municipality administration was established in Adalar upon the application of the headman and prominent members of the public in 1867. Adalar municipality district was constituted from Büyükada, Heybeliada, Kınalıada and Burgazada where non-Muslim community densely lived. As a reflection of the social structure of the region the district manager and the council were formed from non-Muslims.²¹

Materializing the Municipality Model in Istanbul

The success of the Beyoğlu municipality, which was the first administration of the city through a model based on the Şehremaneti and municipality districts, and the relatively successful activities of the Tarabya and Princes’ Island municipalities, which were established later, increased trust in the new model. The authority gap in basic issues, in particular, the inspection of tradesmen, cleaning, maintaining the roads, municipality works, was filled by the new institutions that were in charge of these duties; this led to an increase in the legitimacy of the Şehremaneti-district municipality model in the eyes of both the public and the state. During this period, in which Midhat Pasha, Âlî Pasha and Fuad Pasha were influential on the Şûra-yı Devlet (state council) and in the bureaucracy, the Şûra-yı Devlet prepared a law proposal to spread district municipalities throughout Istanbul. After the sultan ratified the code on October 6, 1868, the Dersaadet İdâre-i Belediye Nizâmnâmesi,²² consisting of 63 articles, came into effect.

This was a legal document that was supported by the efforts of Ottoman statesmen to bring Istanbul up to the level of European cities. The reform process that began with the establishment of the Şehremaneti and continued with the establishment of the İntizam-ı Şehir Komisyonu (city order commission) and district municipalities, was presented as a solution to the confusion about authority for responsibility of the services; this was considered to be the source of problems experienced in local services. The code was an important text which discussed the municipality borders, functions, structural features and other rules in one regulation. In this code, which brought many functional and organizational changes to the municipality structure of Istanbul, other than some limited changes, the main structure of the Şehremaneti remained as it had been established in 1855; the Beyoğlu district municipality was used as a model for the 14 municipalities that were to be established.

The organizational structure of the Şehremaneti, which was formed by the şehremini and the Şehremaneti council, was maintained. Readopting the former method of appointing the şehremini, as well as his status as executive, this position was defined as a government officer who was suggested by the Sublime Porte and appointed by the sultan. Unlike previous regulations, a new definition was introduced for the duties and the limits of the authority of the şehremini. At the top of the hierarchy of the Şehremaneti, the şehremini was now a rather powerful position, and had the authority to abolish district councils, as well as financial and administrative powers in district municipalities. Server Pasha was appointed as the first şehremini of this period. The title “şehir meclisi (city council)”, which was the second agency of the Şehremaneti, was changed to “Şehremâneti Meclisi (the council of Şehremaneti).” The method of choosing the six members of the council was via suggestion by the Sublime Porte and appointment by the sultan; this was adopted and maintained in the same manner.

The greatest innovation introduced by the 1868 regulation was the foundation of a new council structure known as the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye (Union of the Public Municipality). In a two-part legal structure, composed from the Şehremaneti and district municipalities, this council provided coordination and control. This new council consisted of 57 members, who were headed up by the şehremini, managers of the district municipalities, and three members chosen from each municipal council. This council, which was to meet biannually, discussed budgets, expenditures and the financial state of the Şehremaneti and district municipalities, as well as examining their requests for loans and large-scale development projects. Another important function carried out by this council was the preparation of draft laws related to municipal issues.

As not all the district municipalities that had been planned were brought to life, the cemiyet was unable to open during this period. While the planned administration system could provide benefits in the coordination of the planned administration system, it was weak in the matter of carrying out inspections. The main problem was that the members in charge of inspection were also the representatives of the bodies to be inspected. In fact, even after the declaration of the second Meşrutiyet and the establishment of the cemiyet, this issue would lead to a great deal of discussion.

The structure of the Şehremaneti was reorganized in 1868. According to the new structure, in the hierarchical order, muavins (assistants) came after the şehremini. Muavins, who chaired meetings at which the şehremini was not present, had a powerful position in the institution. Parallel to its heightened responsibilities, the organizational structure of the Şehremaneti, which had a simple and functional structure in its early years, was also broadened. The main service units consisted of accounting and real estate offices, auditors, a water management commission, engineering, and a civil registry.

As most of the responsibility for development work was transferred to the Şehremaneti, the ebniye meclisi (building council) was established.²³ Until 1868, the construction and road works of the Beyoğlu district were carried out by the directorate of imperial buildings. After this year, these duties were transferred to the Şehremaneti. Moreover, the ıslah-ı tarik (road improvements), which functioned under the Ministry of Public Works and took care of the restoration of places that had been damaged by fire and the construction of new roads, was abolished. The water administration was also transferred to the Şehremaneti, along with its budget. Efforts continued to establish a “Mühendishane” (engineering office), to prepare a regulation related to construction matters, and a special office to supervise construction, known as the called Keşif Kalemi (Survey Office) in place of these earlier offices.

After the 1868 Dersaadet İdare-i Belediye Code (Istanbul Municipality Management Code), the multiple-headed position of the Şehremaneti within the structure of the central administration. In the Ministry of Internal Affairs dated 1869²⁴ it was clearly stated that Şehremaneti worked under the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

With the Municipality Code dated 1868, a new model which was dividing the administration of Istanbul into 14 municipality districts was established. According to this new division three municipalities were to be located in the city walls, and three on each side of the Bosporus; three more municipalities were to be located outside the city walls on both sides of the Golden Horn. Kadıköy, an important residential area in Istanbul, and the Princes’ Islands, which were connected to the city despite the obstacle of the sea by the Şirket-i Hayriye ferry-boats, also had a new municipality established. All fourteen municipalities were within the borders of the Şehremaneti. The borders of the district municipalities were divided in a way that was unlike those of previous municipalities, which had been based on the areas of authority of the qadis and naibs. According to this new division, the borders of the municipalities were not determined based on realistic criteria; level of income, density of population, topographic features and distances were not taken into account.²⁵

The municipality structure, which had begun with the Altıncı Daire and in which all services were carried out by the agencies of belediye daire müdürü (the municipal district manager) and a council, was accepted as the prototype for the new structures. Working under the Şehremaneti, the district manager, who was appointed by the sultan, was responsible for fulfilling the duties and authorities as set out by the law. As he was appointed by the central government, the manager’s salary was paid by the state treasury.

The general decision-making organ within the district municipality was the council. The number of the council members ranged from between eight to sixteen, depending on the size and importance of the district. The municipality code, dated 1868, meant that for the first time the council members were to be elected. In this way, the local populace now had a role in selecting the council members, even though it was a model with limited participation, based on property ownership. Although elections were not carried out during this period, this regulation was important in that it legalized elections for determining the council members.

The control of the election process was to be implemented by “an Election Commission,” which had functions similar to counterparts in the contemporary world. The conditions for being eligible to vote for council members were: being over 21 years old and owning property that could generate more than 2,500 kuruş revenue in a year. Different requirements were established in order to be elected to the council. Those who owned land that generated 5,000 kuruş per year, who were over 20 years of age, who had not been convicted for murder, who were not an employee in one of the district municipalities or in the Şehremaneti, who were not a developer in one of the district municipalities, and who did not carry out any duties in court or work as a lawyer were eligible to be candidates. Members would be elected for a period of two years to the council.

Even though fourteen district municipalities were to be established in this period, not all of them were established. In addition to the municipalities of Beyoğlu, Tarabya, and the Princes’ Islands, which had been established before the introduction of the code, the newly established municipalities remained limited to Yeniköy, Beykoz, and Kadıköy. As a result of the positive applications in Tarabya, immediately adjacent to Yeniköy, leading members of Muslim and non-Muslim communities applied to the government and requested to be able to establish a municipality administration. This request, which was examined by Şûra-yı Devlet (the State Council), was approved provided that these administrations would not be a burden on the treasury. With the opening of the municipality council, composed from leading members of society, at the end of 1873, the municipality was established in Yeniköy. As a result of the process that started with the application by the people of Kadıköy and Beykoz in 1875, the establishment of municipality administrations was approved, with the condition that the tax revenues were sufficient.²⁶

The duties laid out in the municipality code of 1868 introduced significant improvements as compared to previous regulations. The Şehremaneti and the district municipalities went beyond the limited functions of the Ministry of Ihtisab and were organized as administrative units with responsibility for most of the local services. However, sharing the responsibility of the services with central institutions, like the Ministry of Awqaf and Public Works was not completely abolished.

Despite several important regulations that this law introduced, their application was not as successful. There continued to be problems in local in Istanbul. The municipalities, which were still in the establishment stage, did not have the structural or technical substructure to carry out the functions as set out in the law. During this period, to a large extent, the Şehremaneti continued to follow the administrative approach and application of the Ministry of Ihtisab. The Şehremaneti, which lacked the institutional capacity, knowledge and experience to fulfill most of the tasks and duties that fell to it, did not proper make use of its financial.

The failure to establish the municipalities that had been planned, which was the essential foundation of the municipal structure in Istanbul, prevented the Cemiyyet-i Umûmiyye-i Belediyye from opening. It was intended that this body would be formed from the members of the district councils. The model, as set out in the Municipality Code of 1868, could only be applied to a limited extent. This negatively affected and delayed the institutionalization process for the municipalities. The existence of the newly established municipalities in the affluent parts of the city, where most of the residents were non-Muslim, and the authority gap in the local services in other parts of the city created a contradiction.

During this period the financial problems experienced by the state had negative effects upon the municipalities, both in terms of structure and local services. While district municipalities had few personnel, in an attempt to limit expenditure, the Şehremaneti took on a number of functions and thus assumed a more central role. Even though the system was not fully functional, the Municipality Code of 1868 constituted an important step in the process of reorganizing local services with a modern understanding.

The Structure of the Municipality in Istanbul during the First Constitutional Monarchy

One of the turning points in the Ottoman State was the declaration of the Kanun-i Esasi (Constitution) in 1876 and the beginning of constitutional monarchy period. The Kanun-i Esasi, which regulated an administrative system that was based on a constitutional monarchy, was a wide reaching text consisting of 119 articles. This constitutional text adopted an administrative structure based on provinces; there was also a conceptual framework concerned with future regulations and practices. According to this framework, basic principles in the administration of the provinces were the concepts of the “scope of authority” and “separation of powers”.

Rules about the municipalities were regulated in Article 112 of the Kanuni Esasi, under the title Vilayat (Provinces). According to this article, the provision of local services was to be administered by the municipal councils formed from elected members. Legal details, such as the municipalities’ functions, organization, financial structure and election methods, were to be set out in the legal regulations enacted by the Meclis-i Mebusan (Council of Deputies).

Giving the responsibility for local services to the elected municipal councils in a constitutional text was an important point in the transition to the modern municipal structure in the Ottoman State. This regulation demonstrates that municipalities and, more particularly, councils were adopted as the valid model for reorganizing local services in cities; development would be around this axis.

The Dersaadet Municipality Code and Administration Model

In his opening speech for Meclis-i Mebusan (the Council of Deputies,) Sultan Abdulhamid II stated that the laws related to Istanbul municipalities and provinces had been included in the proposals sent to Meclis by the government; furthermore, this body would be instrumental in approving it. This statement was the first sign that the municipalities would be reorganized, as had been briefly mentioned in the constitution. Subsequent to this, a draft municipality law for Istanbul was prepared and sent to the Şûra-yı Devlet. The draft was discussed in the Şûra-yı Devlet Tanzimat Dairesi (State Council Reform Office), and after some minor changes, was presented to the Meclis-i Umumi (General Council). There was debate during the meetings of Meclis-i Mebusan and the Meclis-i Ayan (Senate) concerning issues such as the share that the municipality would have in estate tax, the method of selecting the head of district municipalities from the elected council members, the management of municipality debts, the conditions that new members had to meet in order to be elected, and the limitations imposed on the district municipalities. This new regulation, accepted after some debates and approved by the Meclis-i Vükelâ (Council of Ministers), went into effect as Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu, being promulgated in an imperial edict on October 5, 1877. During this process, another code, entitled Vilayet Belediye Kanunu (Province Municipality Code) was introduced for provincial municipalities. These two codes, which were accepted for the municipalities of Istanbul and the provinces, were important regulations that the Turkish Republic inherited from the Ottoman State, remaining in effect until 1930.

Although the Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu was a new regulation, it did not bring radical changes to the municipal model. It was a legal regulation that aimed to develop and bring maturity to the structure that had begun with the Şehremaneti in 1855, continuing with the Beyoğlu District municipality, and becoming concrete with the municipality code of 1868. The administrative model of Istanbul, consisting of the Şehremaneti and district municipalities, was adopted as it was. This was an important regulation that ensured the municipalities were now full legal entities.

The şehremini was the head of the Şehremaneti and the executive power, as it had been previously. The şehremini, whose period in office was not limited, was appointed by the sultan, as they had been before. As there was no time limit for the şehremini and as they were appointed, it was also possible for them to be removed from their office at any time. The main tasks of the şehremini were to preside over the council of the Şehremaneti and the council, prepare the budget and present it to the council, be the official who had the authority to ratify accounts, to appoint and dismiss the officials, to inspect district municipalities, and to ensure that the police and military forces carried out their duty in related matters when necessary. The şehremini were also authorized to disband the district municipalities, thus being given a very powerful position.

The council was the main decision-making organization of the Şehremaneti. The members of this council, which was formed from a head and six members, were appointed by the sultan. Even though it was stipulated in Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu that the members of the district councils were elected by the public, the members of the Şehremaneti council continued to be appointed. Unlike the 1868 Municipality Code, one of the members of the council was to be an engineer from the Erkan-ı Harbiye (general staff) and another one was to be a doctor from Mekteb-i Tıbbiye Nezareti (the Ministry of Health, Medical School). The structure of the Şehremaneti, which people had thought would be more effective in the administration of the city, was formed in accordance with the control and coordination needs of the central government due to problems previously experienced in the health and development of the city.

The tasks of the Şehremaneti were widely defined, e.g., discussing matters related to the administration of the municipality; discussing matters for which district municipalities had asked permission, conducting primary investigation into complaints about municipality officers and sending these to court, examining the Şehremaneti budget, annual records and expenditure tables, approval of the same, classifying the streets into degrees based on the Ebniye Nizamnamesi (Building Regulations), approving road maps prepared by the district municipalities, resolving disagreements about municipality taxes, examining petitions submitted for tax amnesty or for tax discounts, making relevant decisions, carrying out auctions and contracts for lump-sum taxes, discussing official letters sent by the guilds concerned with lawsuits against tradesmen, deciding the share that would fall to each municipality in contracts that involved more than one municipality, and examining the monthly revenues and expenditures.

The Cemiyyet-i Umûmiyye-i Belediyye, which was made a significant part of the structure of Istanbul’s municipality by the 1868 Municipality Law, but which could not be realized, was reorganized with the Dersadet Municipality Code. Although it maintained its position in this new structure, some changes were made concerning its function and the method of selecting members. In this context, it was stipulated to be created from 63 members, including the şehremini, the heads of the district municipalities, two members selected from each council of the Şehremaneti and the district municipal councils. Unlike the regulation of 1868, there were seats reserved for the members selected from the Şehremaneti.

The task of providing coordination between the municipalities, as well as the task of developing the municipality model, was given to the Cemiyet; this was an important suggestion for the administering of services that exceeded the limits and capacity of one municipality in a city the size of Istanbul. If one considers that the structures developed in Istanbul would act as a model for the municipalities throughout the country, the significance of the Cemiyet can be better understood.

Despite all this, it was not until the declaration of the second Meşrutiyet (constitutional monarchy) that the first meeting of the Cemiyet could be held. The inability to establish a healthy municipality structure and the problems experienced in applications after the Dersaadet Municipality Code, much like the period between 1868 and 1877, prevented the convening of the Cemiyet, most of whose members came from the district municipal councils. As the Cemiyet could not be convened, its functions were assumed by the Şûra-yı Devlet, for the most part.²⁷

The district municipalities, which began with Beyoğlu, made progress with the establishment of five municipalities. However, the fourteen district municipalities that were set out in the 1868 municipality law could not be realized. Six municipalities had been established in Istanbul and run with difficulty; now twenty district municipalities were to be established, as stipulated by the 1877 Dersaadet Municipality Code. The establishment of this structure was based on the administrative structure of Paris. However, the branches in Paris that had administrative characteristics were transformed into independent district municipalities in Istanbul, each having legal entities separate from the Şehremaneti.

Not only was the number of district municipalities increased to twenty, the Dersaadet Municipality Code also reorganized their limits. In the city center it was stipulated that municipalities that had a smaller area, but which were denser in population be established. On the other hand, even though Beykoz, Kadıköy, Ayestafanos and Büyükdere were among the largest districts of Istanbul, they had a relatively smaller and more dispersed population. The inadequacy of the means of transportation and socio-economic differences in Istanbul enabled the acceptance of smaller municipalities. In this way, it was aimed to strengthen the service capacity of municipalities. Some changes were made in the names of the district municipalities. While the names, Ayasofya, Aksaray, Kasımpaşa, Mirgun (Emirgan) and Üsküdar were abolished, Sultanahmet, Beyazıt, Samatya, Hasköy, Arnavudköy, Anadoluhisarı, Yenimahalle, Doğancılar and Makriköy were established as new district municipalities.

With Dersaadet Municipality Code, the previous two laws regulating the Beyoğlu municipality were abolished. The Beyoğlu District Municipality, which was directly connected to the grand vizier and equipped with special means, was reduced to be equal with other municipal districts. In this way, a single legal structure was created for all Istanbul municipalities, without any differences. This regulation also aimed to put an end to the practice that only some districts benefitted from municipality services.

With the Dersaadet Municipality Code, the organizational structure, consisting of the head of the district municipalities and council was maintained. Although the method of appointing the head of the district municipalities continued, stipulating a new condition that the head be chosen from among the council members at least ensured that someone who had already been elected came to the office. In addition to new regulations which were introduced to ensure that the municipalities were independent legal entities, the method of election of the council members and the appointment of the head of the district municipality from among the elected members were regulations that positively affected the independence of the district municipalities.

The district council was composed of eight to twelve members, depending on the size of the district. The members of the council, who were elected through limited participation of the population, remained in office for two years. The head of the district was at the same time the head of the council. It was stipulated that half the council members were to be renewed every year. This procedure was implemented for the first council, at the beginning of the second year, by drawing lots for half of the council members; in following years new members were elected to take the place of the members who had finished their second year. The council, which was to meet every week, had to assemble with an absolute majority and made decisions with a majority vote.

The Functions of the Municipalities

In addition to the efforts to generalize modern municipality structures in Istanbul, there were also efforts to extend the scope of their services. In this context, the scope of services of the Istanbul municipalities were broadened and reorganized with greater details in the Dersaadet Municipality Code. In the Şehremaneti-district municipality model, duties were mainly given to the Şehremaneti, while a more limited functional area was given to the district municipalities, which constituted the second level. It is important that the regulations of the Dersaadet Municipality Code which were related to the responsibilities of the municipalities stayed in effect until 1930. While there were changes in the organizational structure of the Istanbul municipality during this period that lasted for almost half a century, the functional structure continued to exist.

With the Dersaadet Municipality Code, the power to confiscate, an important tool of development in the city, was given to the municipalities. Moreover, having regulations in the Code concerning the organization of the squares, one of the main public places of the city, reflects the importance given to this issue and the change in the perception of city planning. The functions related to the inspection of the construction and restoration of public buildings are similar to the functions of the Şehremaneti during the classical period.

During this period when trams, the Tünel, and domestic sea transportation were operated by the private sector, based on a method of concessions, the process of granting such concessions was in the hands of the central administration. This was why the task of ensuring the substructure as well as those related to transportation was given to the municipalities. In respect to providing water for the city, there was a system that shared authority with the Ministry of Waqf. This was why the dual structure of the municipalities and the Ministry of Awqaf continued during this period.

One of the important regulations introduced by the Dersaadet Municipality Code consisted of the rules that strengthened the legal entities of the municipalities. Giving the municipalities the right to defend themselves in court, the right to go to court and the right to manage their revenue-generating properties were regulations that demonstrated their legal entity. Moreover, not transferring the revenues that had been collected to the central treasury, but rather being able to spend these funds on matters related to the municipality was a regulation that strengthened their independence.

An Interim Solution for the Municipality Model

In order to establish the twenty district municipalities that were stipulated by Dersaadet Municipality Code, first the members of the district municipal councils needed to be elected. As a first step, İntihab Encümenleri (Election Commissions) were formed. However, due to the Russo-Turkish War, a large number of migrants were coming from the Balkans to Istanbul, and this changed the situation. The election councils were put in charge of the migrants’ board and accommodation. Upon the change in the functions of the commissions, even if temporarily, the election of the members of the council, and therefore the establishment of the municipalities, was postponed.

Although the elections were postponed, the preparations by the commission formed within the Şehremaneti to establish the municipalities continued. Works were carried out concerned with organizational structure and the personnel of the new district municipalities. Even though twenty district municipalities had been set out in the Dersaadet Municipality Code, the reports of the commission demonstrated that such a large number of individual municipalities would require a large budget. In reaction to this, the organizational structure of the municipalities and the personnel tables were reexamined and attempts were made to reduce the financial burden.

In Istanbul, where there was no provincial administration, the task of police work was left to the Ministry of Gendarmerie. Other tasks related to provincial administration were carried out by the Şehremaneti. The sub-provinces (sanjaks) of Biga, İzmit and Çatalca and the district (kaza) of Kordon were connected to the Şehremaneti. At the center of the Şehremaneti was a structure consisting of a council that was responsible for tasks related to the municipality; there was another council that was responsible for civil tasks and various other offices. As the existence of two councils was causing confusion and unnecessary expenditure, the Şehremaneti was in favor of uniting them. Şûra-yı Devlet decided to unite the two councils until a time when the new vilayet kanunu (Provincial Law) was in effect, and thus the budget was significantly reduced.

The delay in the establishment of the district municipalities caused problems in local services in many parts of the city, and this caused people to complain. In order to find ways to solve the problems of Istanbul’s municipality, in 1877 a commission was formed. The members of the council were Yusuf Rıza Pasha from the Şehremaneti, Black Bey, head of Altıncı Dâire-i Belediye (the sixth district municipality,) Halil Râmi and Şerif Ali Efendi. The commission that worked for two years on the matter of the municipalities in Istanbul did not achieve any tangible success.²⁸

By 1880, the developments experienced during the process of approving the Şehremaneti’s budget led to the emergence of a new municipal structure in Istanbul. The collection of a variety of property tax, based on different regions, was suggested for the new municipalities. The collection of property tax in the thirteen districts of Istanbul was carried out by the central treasury. Some districts were united and the number was reduced to ten; a decision was then made to establish district municipalities in the same regions. This proposal, which was approved by Şûra-yı Devlet went into effect by an imperial edict dated May 29, 1880. The financial saving that was to be achieved by establishing ten municipalities instead of the twenty that were stipulated in the Dersaadet Municipality Code was the main reason for this new structure.²⁹

In this new structure that was formed by reorganizing the twenty municipalities that were set out in the Dersaadet Municipality Code into ten municipalities, there were imbalances among the districts in respect to the sizes of their population. Districts such as Beyoğlu and Beyazıt, which were in the center, had the largest population. And districts like Fatih, Cerrahpaşa and Üsküdar, which constituted secondary centers, had population sizes parallel to their locations. The municipality districts on the coast of the Bosphorus had smaller populations.

The structure that was established in Istanbul in 1880, formed from the Şehremaneti and ten district municipalities, was different from that as set out in the Dersaadet Municipality Code. Not only was the number of district municipalities reduced, the formation of the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye was postponed. During the crisis that emerged after the Russo-Turkish War the government chose a model that could function under the circumstances of the day and which would be less of a financial burden.

The members of the district municipal councils were not to be elected, nor were the head of the councils to be selected from elected members. A new structure was developed; here the head of the district municipality and other personnel were to be appointed by the sultan and all were included in the general budget of the government. Parallel to the functions given to municipalities by the Dersaadet Municipality Code, limited units and staff, rather than a structure based on expertise, were formed.

Source: Cem Behar, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu 1500-1927, Ankara 1996, p. 75.

On the contrary to the set-out goals, the temporary municipality model of Istanbul, which consisted of ten district municipalities and the Şehremaneti, functioned for 28 years, until 1908. From the point of municipalities, it is possible to describe the period of the First Meşrutiyet as a period when important legal regulations were introduced, but one in which the implementation did not reach the same level, with only a limited development being made. Despite all structural changes and problems experienced by the district municipalities, they were able to expand their legitimacy basis as the main administrative unit.

The Administration of Istanbul during the Second Constitutional Period

The process that began after the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet meant a new period, not only for the central government, but also for the municipalities in Istanbul. The attempts to reopen Meclis-i Mebusan, which had been closed after the Russo-Turkish War and could not be opened during the subsequent 30 years, provided an opportunity for the application of a belated model for Istanbul municipalities.

In order to elect the deputies in keeping with İntihab-ı Mebusan Kanunu (the Code for the Election of the Deputies,)³⁰ all twenty municipalities had to be established in Istanbul. Not only had each municipality been designated as an electoral district, the municipal councils were also to assume the function of elective boards. In this context, it was necessary to establish the twenty district councils as stipulated in the Dersaadet Municipality Code and then to carry out parliamentary elections. In a letter sent to ten district municipalities by the Şehremaneti on August 25, 1908, the municipalities were informed that the existing organizations were to be abolished, twenty municipalities were to be established, and the mayors would be determined by election.³¹

Within the context of the application of the Dersaadet Municipality Code, the work to establish twenty district municipalities began. However, the Princes’ Islands, Beykoz and Makriköy were being administered as districts at this time. As it was not clear how the municipal administration would function alongside the district administration, this issue was put on the agenda of Şûra-yı Devlet. Şûra-yı Devlet asked for the opinions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Şehremaneti, and then decided to transfer the district administration of Beykoz to Ömerli, the district administration of Makriköy to Küçükçekmece, to abolish the district administration of the Princes’ Islands, and to establish municipal administrations in these three districts instead. On the other hand Ömerli, Gekbuze (Gebze), Şile, Kartal and Küçükçekmece districts maintained their status and were linked to the Şehremaneti as they had been before.³²

Although the method of electing the members of the council was first regulated by the 1868 municipality code, it was not start applied at this date; rather, the members were appointed. Despite the problems in practice, in 1877, the Dersaadet Municipality Code regulated the election method in more detail and broadened its scope. These regulations were applied in the election for members of the municipal councils in 1908.

In order to vote, one needed to be over 25 years old, reside within the borders of the district municipality for which one was voting, pay property taxes of at least 100 kuruş for a year for a property within the municipality borders, be male and be a citizen of the Ottoman state. In order to a candidate for the council, one needed to reside within the borders of the municipality for which he was standing, pay property tax of at least 250 kuruş for a year for a property within the municipality borders, to work for the municipality, the district municipalities, or the gendarmerie; in addition, a candidate could not be a contractor or an agent of a contractor for municipal contracts, and had to be a citizen of the Ottoman State.

The establishment of twenty district municipalities, an organization that had not been able to be established for thirty years, was put into practice rapidly with the elections for the council members in 1908.³³The regulations of the Dersaadet Municipality Code set out the foundation, tasks, agents, duties, financial structures and other issues related to the district municipalities; these were now put into practice.

The Opening of the Cemiyyet-i Umûmiyye-i Belediye

After the Second Meşrutiyet, the municipality elections and the establishment of twenty municipalities within the context of the Dersaadet Municipality Code enabled the establishment of the Cemiyyet-i Umûmiyye-i Belediye. Thus, the Cemiyet, which was mentioned in the 1868 legal regulations, although not being established at this time, due to some changes in legal regulations was kept alive and maintained its importance within the municipality structure, was implemented at the first meeting to be held on December 26, 1908. The Dersaadet Municipality Code was applied for the establishment of the Cemiyet, as well as for the working methods and duties of its members. A separate regulation was prepared to establish how the Cemiyet worked.³⁴

The Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye met twice a year in the Şehremaneti building, under the leadership of the şehremini. In the May meeting, which was convened upon the invitation of the şehremini, the expenditures of Şehremaneti for the previous year and other related issues would be discussed, while in the October meeting, the Şehremaneti’s budget for the coming year and that of the district municipalities would be discussed; in addition, the development plans of the district municipalities would be discussed. One of the important functions of the Cemiyet was its ability to make suggestions for the development of Istanbul’s municipal model. It could inspect the Cemiyet, the Şehremaneti and district municipalities, and make suggestions for their development to the Sublime Porte.

As a result of election by a majority of the Cemiyet members, two vice-presidents would be selected for the session. These meetings, which in principle were open to the public, could also be held in secret upon the request of one president and three members. Decisions were taken openly or secretly with a majority vote. The quorum for the meeting and making decisions in the Cemiyet was an absolute majority of the members. If this number could not be reached, a sufficient number of members would be invited to a second meeting. If a majority could not be reached again, it was considered sufficient for an absolute majority of attendees in the third session for a decision to be passed. When there was a tie in the votes, the president’s vote would be the decisive one.

The Cemiyet carried out tasks as set out in the law and those which required expertise via means of commissions similar to the expert commissions that exist in the councils today. Commission members were elected secretly on a majority vote. After the formation of the commission, one member would be elected by a secret vote as the president. Commissions were formed in important fields, such as finance, legislative matters, development and health. The reports prepared after the meetings and consultations of the commissions about the matters in question would be submitted to the president of the Cemiyet. After they were examined by the president, if approved, they would be published and distributed to the members of the commission. After the meetings and consultations of the general council, the decisions would either be approved or rejected.

Even though the Cemiyet had some consultative functions, its most important function was the financial inspection of the Şehremaneti and district municipalities. The Cemiyet would use this authority by controlling the budgets of the Şehremaneti and district municipalities, as well as other accounts from the preceding and following year. However, if one takes into account who the members of the cemiyet were alongside as its authority for carry out inspections, one discovers a structure that could carry out inspections into its own affairs. Heads and members of the councils had the position to act as a means of ratification for the inspection reports into their own affairs. This fact reduced the influence of the cemiyet and the effectiveness of its decisions.

In his memoirs, Şehremini Cemil Pasha complained that the members of the Cemiyet used to work for one day as a “kuvve-i teşriiye (legislative power),” and another day as an “kuvve-i icrâiye (executive power).” He also commented that under such circumstances the mayors could freely carry out commercial transactions, such as selling, expenditures, and construction works. Decrease in the influence of the Cemiyet, which carried out important duties such as maintaining a balance between services and coordination between municipalities, as well as improving and controlling the system, would have negative effects on the harmony between the Şehremaneti and the district municipalities.

Improvement in the Şehremaneti’s Institutional Structure

Parallel to the works of restructuring various state institutions, initiated after the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet, the Şehremaneti’s institutional structure was also reorganized. In this context, new tables organizing the salaries and the structure of the personnel were prepared. Attempts to improve the unwieldy structure of the institution were made by introducing changes to the organization and the personnel system. These attempts caused reactions from the personnel who were now not part of the permanent staff.

The council, the most important body, was also subjected to the Şehremaneti’s improvement efforts. Even though it was stipulated in the Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu that the council would consist of one president and six members, this number was exceeded, and in time, 43 appointments were made. This increase in the number of members was not only contrary to the law, but also negatively affected expenditure. It was for this reason that existing members were dismissed and a new council, consisting of a president and five members, was established.

After the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet, the greatest achievements, both functionally and structurally, that the Şehremaneti made was in the area of health. The new structure of the Şehremaneti improved in parallel with the government’s regulations in general health services. The Heyet-i Sıhhiye ve Hıfzıssıhha Komisyonu (commission of health and public hygiene), which had been part of the Şehremaneti for fifteen years, was now abolished. In order to meet the need for a higher authority to control the health services and take precautionary measures, the Şehremaneti Sıhhiye Dâiresi (health office) was established as part of the new structure. In addition to the central structure of the Şehremaneti, a reorganization of district municipalities was also initiated. District municipalities were divided into three groups based on criteria such as the area and the population, and 48 doctors were appointed.

In 1909 Müessesât-ı Hayriye-i Sıhhiye (the institution of good deeds and health) was established. An independent administrative structure, which brought together an important part of the health and social services in Istanbul, was established. Haseki Nisa (Haseki women), Etfal (children), Nuh Kuyusu, Mirgûn, Cerrahpaşa Zukûr (Cerrahpaşa Male), Beyoğlu Zukûr (Beyoğlu Male) and Beyoğlu Nisa (Beyoğlu women) hospitals, the Servi Burnu quarantine station, the Haseki Mental Observation station, the Darülaceze (poorhouse), and the Toptaşı Bimarhanesi (Toptaşı lunatic asylum) were some of the most important institutions to established under the auspices of the Müessesât-ı Hayriye-i Sıhhiye. Gedikpaşa, Tophane, and Üsküdar Tebhirhanesi (fumigating stations), which provided health services and fought against epidemics, were other institutions that were transferred to this administration.

Searches for a New Model

Even though the initiation of a new municipality model following the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet had been a positive development, it also led to the realization that there were some problems that needed to be dealt with. Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu meant that the municipal districts had gained financial and administrative autonomy from the Şehremaneti. In particular, the selection of the mayor from among the elected members of the council made it easy for them to work as administrative units independent from the Şehremaneti. Supporting this tendency with ideas of “public sovereignty” and “freedom”, introduced by the Second Meşrtiyet administration, helped strengthen the district municipalities in the struggle to share authority with the Şehremaneti.

Although legally the municipality model in Istanbul had been around for a long time, in practice it was just beginning; as a result, many traditions within the institution and between the institutions were just taking shape. This situation led to disagreements; these were most apparent in fields such as correspondence between the institutions, the division of tasks and authority, and the status of the institutions within the system. District municipalities made investments without coordinating with the Şehremaneti, making free use of their budget. A serious debate, even a showdown occurred between the şehremini and some of the heads of district municipalities. The şehremini relieved the heads of district municipalities of their duties and abolished the councils; the members of the councils protested against this. In addition to the disagreements between the Şehremaneti and the district municipalities, the latter also had disagreements among themselves. As a result, instead of the planned, coordinated, and controlled practices that had been expected to emerge from the establishment of the municipalities, their uncoordinated activities became a new source of problems.

The disagreements among the district municipalities started to negatively affect the development of the municipality in Istanbul. A deficit in municipal revenues, the personnel expenditures of the district municipalities, the inadequacy of the police force to inspect tradesmen and prevent abuses of the system were the leading matters of criticism. On the other hand, the troubles experienced in the carrying out of local services, caused by division of the Şehremaneti’s responsibilities between Dâhiliye Nezareti (the Ministry of Internal Affairs), Evkaf Nezareti (the Ministry of Endowments), and Nafia Nezareti (Ministry of Public Works) was another problematical area. Not only was the Şehremaneti disturbed by this issue, but the people of Istanbul were also unhappy about the situation.

Less than two years after elections and the introduction of a fully operating municipal model in 1908, Istanbul’s new municipal model came under discussion again. In particular, the dissatisfaction of the şehremini, caused by the existing situation, influenced the process of reshaping the municipal model. Drafts were prepared for the municipal model by the şehremini, vali (the governor), the commission and bureaucrats. The first one was that prepared by Vali Emin Bey. This draft, which united the city and municipal administration under the Şehremaneti, also abolished district municipalities and divided Istanbul into 36 nahiyes (sub-districts).

The second draft was prepared by a commission formed of Şehremaneti representatives and some ministries. This draft, prepared based on French laws and consisting of 89 articles, proposed uniting the city and municipal administrations under the Şehremaneti, giving the şehreminis the title of vali, and having (the City General Council) work alongside Cemiyet-i Belediye (the Municipal Commission). In addition to these, it was suggesting that Istanbul be divided into eleven district municipalities which would be managed by appointed müdürs (directors).

Another draft prepared by ŞehreminiTevfik Bey suggested reducing the number of district municipalities to three, namely Beyoğlu, Istanbul and Üsküdar. This draft stated that having more than one person in charge of Istanbul’s municipal organization was the main obstacle to the efficient execution of local services. The election of the cemiyet directly by the public and the establishment of a council within the Şehremaneti were other suggestions that were made.³⁵

Cemil Pasha, who became şehremini in 1912, prepared a new draft based to a large extent on Tevfik Bey’s proposal; however, it was not possible to implement this draft. It was suggested that Istanbul’s municipal model was to be formed from the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye, the Şehremaneti, and branch municipalities. Districts which had administrative and financial autonomy were considered to be branch municipalities. Other important proposals in the draft were the abolition of the district councils, the selection of branch managers by appointment, the forming of the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye by electing members directly from the public, and establishing a council within the Şehremaneti.

Changes in the Municipal Model

The draft law which made changes to the municipal model was proposed by the Şehremini Cemil Pasha and was submitted to the government via the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Independent actions of the branch municipalities, their failure to comply with directives from the Şehremaneti and the Cemiyet-i Belediye, and the serious problems experienced in the fields of health and development were presented as the main justifications of the draft. The draft law was ratified as the Dersaadet Teşkilât-ı Belediyesi Hakkında Kanûn-ı Muvakkat (provisional law on the municipality organization of Istanbul).³⁶This law changed the regulations of Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu that concerned the municipal organization of Istanbul.

With the changes to the law in 1912, the twenty financially and administratively autonomous district municipalities were abolished; nine branch municipalities were established within the hierarchical structure of the Şehremaneti in their place. Changes were made to the member system of the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye, which had no room left to operate in after the abolition of the district municipalities. The Cemiyet took on a new form with six members for each branch municipality elected directly from the public. Thus, instead of members that were similar to those in the municipality, a new member structure which had no institutional connection and which directly represented the public was established. The regulations of Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu regarding the duties and responsibilities of the municipality, as well as their revenue, method of election, and conditions continued to be in force.

As the first step to implementing the law, district municipality councils were abolished and the activities of the Cemiyet-i Belediye were put an end.³⁷ After that, tables prepared by the Şehremaneti for the personnel and their ranks in accordance with the institutional structure as stipulated by the law were put into action on the approval of the sultan. During the process of transformation from district municipalities to the branch model, the registers that stated the borders of the Şehremaneti and the branches, as well as the districts within these branches were approved by an imperial edict.

District municipalities were reorganized in the form of branches and were transformed into units that operated within the structure of the Şehremaneti. The Şehremaneti council, which had been part of the system beginning in 1855 and the district municipality councils, which had been opened in 1858, were also abolished. The function of public representation in this structure, which had no district municipalities, was entrusted to the Cemiyet-i Belediyye. The role of the Cemiyet, now with a more independent structure, as it lacked an organic connection between its members and the branches in the fields of planning, coordination, and inspection, had been strengthened.

The status of the Şehremaneti status under the Ministry of Internal Affairs continued during this period. In 1913 Umûr-ı Mahalliye-i Vilâyât Müdüriyeti (the directorate of local provincial affairs), which was part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was defined as the unit responsible of municipal matters. By 1920, during the ministry of Cemil Pasha, the Şehremaneti had been connected to the Ministry of Public Works; Cemil Pasha had previously acted as şehremini. This, however, lasted for only five months. The Şehremaneti was then affiliated once again with the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Şehremaneti carried out correspondence with the grand vizier and other ministries through the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The method by which şehreminis were appointed to the office continued during this period. As the şehremini was appointed on the suggestion of the Sublime Porte, it was possible for any government employee in an administrative position in the country to be appointed as şehremini. For example, Ankara’s Vali Hazım Bey was appointed as şehremini, and the şehremini Mustafa Ziver Bey was appointed to the post of Ankara’s Vali. Later, the director of the Imperial Museum, Halil Bey, was appointed to Hazım Bey’s post. In another example, Ali Suphi Bey, the governor of Jerusalem, was appointed şehremini.³⁸

Achievements in civil administration were enough to make a person eligible for the post of şehremini. Although tax collection and the inspection of tradesmen were regarded as sufficient qualification for the appointment during the early years of the the Şehremaneti, a close connection with the sultan became an important factor after the First Meşrutiyet. Mazhar Pasha, who served as şehremini for ten years during the First Meşrutiyet, was a friend of Sultan Abdulhamid II. Sultan Abdulhamid ignored intelligence reports about Mazhar Pasha, rather sending these reports to the pasha. Again, during the same period Rıdvan Pasha, who served as şehremini for fifteen years, was esteemed by Sultan Abdulhamid II.

The formal criteria established for the appointment of şehreminis after the Second Meşrutiyet were defined as “to be knowledgeable and experienced in municipal works.” To justify the appointment of şehremini Hazım Pasha it was stated that “he had knowledge and experience of municipal works”. However, in particular, the political discord that existed in the government of İttihad ve Terakki Fırkası (the Unification and Development party) affected the length of time that the şehreminis remained in office. For example, Cemil Pasha, was appointed as şehremini during the government of Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası (the Liberty and Agreement party), which came to power after government of İttihad ve Terakki Fırkası. Facing increasing interventions after İttihad ve Terakki Fırkası regained power in 1913, Cemil Pasha resigned the post. He was reappointed to the seat of şehremini once again after the İttihad ve Terakki Fırkası lost power in 1919.

As a result of changing the district municipalities into branch municipalities in 1912, the directors of branch municipalities became subordinate to the şehremini in the hierarchical structure. Thus, the şehremini was the highest administrator in the entire municipal structure of Istanbul. After the abolition of the Şehremaneti council, the establishment of an encümen (commission), made up of branch directors was another regulation that strengthened the authority of the şehremini. When the şehremini was on vacation or resigned from his post, a substitute could be appointed in his place, either from inside the Şehremaneti or from another institution. An example of this type of temporary appointment is the appointment of Polis Müdürü (the chief of police,) Bedri Bey, who substituted for Cemil Pasha when he was on a trip to Europe.³⁹

During the 68-year long period between 1855 and 1923, the seat of şehremini changed hands 52 times; 46 different people served as şehremini. The total period in which there was an active şehreminis in office was 66.8 years; the post remained unoccupied for 341 days. The average period of holding office was approximately one year, 104 days. 36 şehreminis served for less than a year. 13 stayed in office for even less than three months; this is a very high number. No period was stipulated in the law concerning the duration of remaining in the post of şehremini, and they were appointed by the sultan; thus, it was possible them to be removed from the office at any time. The brevity and instability of the duration of holding the office of şehremini had a negative effect on the coordination of the institution, and consequently on the services provided to the public. The şehreminis would be removed from office even before they had a chance to become familiar with the organization, local services and the city. This made it difficult for the şehreminis to take risks or make radical changes.⁴⁰

Thirteen of the şehreminis served from one to three years. However, exceptions to this were Ahmed Mazhar Pasha, who served about ten years during the period of the First Meşrutiyet and Rıdvan Pasha, who served about fifteen years as şehremini during the same period. Those who had the chance to act as şehreminis twice were Hüseyin Hasib Bey, İsmail Pasha, Kadri Pasha, Yusuf Rıza Pasha, Ahmed Tevfik Bey and Cemil Pasha. Rıdvan Pasha served the longest in this post, with fifteen and a half years, while Tevfik Pasha stayed in the office for only nine days.

With the legal changes of 1912, the process of the change in structure from twenty district municipalities to nine branch municipalities was applied within the borders of the Şehremaneti. Thus, there were no important changes in the area of administration for the Şehremaneti. Uniting the districts and transforming them into branches was accomplished by joining municipalities to those which had a central position in respect to population, means of transportation, economic relationships and administrative units. During this process the Princes’ Islands, due to its geographical situation, and Makriköy, due to being outside the city walls although close to the city borders were transformed into municipal branches without undergoing any significant changes.

Four districts, three of them located within the city walls, and Eyüp, which was outside the city walls, were abolished; two branch municipalities were established in their place. With the establishment of the Fatih branch, a new municipality structure that united part of the districts inside the city walls and Eyüp outside the city walls was established. The changes made around the Bosphorus include the abolition of six municipality districts on the European side and the five municipality districts along the Anatolian coast as well as the establishment of two branches on each side of the Bosphorus.

The borders of the Şehremaneti now consisted of Zekeriyaköy and Bahçeköy, Ayazağa çiftliği (farm), Kâğıthane, Alibeyköyü, Küçükköy, Rami, Davutpaşa, Hazinedar çiftliği (farms), Ayastefanos (Yeşilköy) and the Princes’ Islands on the European side, while on the Anatolian side the borders were formed by Erenköy, Kozyatağı, Nerdüban Köyü (Village), Libade, Çakaldağı, Akbaba Köyü and Kabakoz Köyü along the Göksu Stream. Unlike Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu, now Anadolufeneri and Rumelifeneri were left outside the limits of the Şehremaneti.

While the branch municipalities in the central region of Istanbul consisted of small areas, in particular the branches alongside the Bosphorus and up to the Black Sea were much larger. Fatih, Beyoğlu, Üsküdar, and in particular, the Beyazıt branch had a greater density of population than the other branches. Despite its large area, Anadoluhisarı had one of the smallest populations. Despite their limited areas, the branches with dense population had a large number of districts. In addition to the inner parts of the city walls, which had acted as the main residential areas of Istanbul for centuries, the district numbers in Galata and Üsküdar were higher than in other regions of Istanbul.

As part of the transformation of district municipalities into branches, the system of the district councils being elected by the public, even if carried out with limited participation, was abolished. The power to prepare an independent budget and to be represented as a legal entity in court, which were among the basic rights of district councils in respect to their autonomy, were now transferred to the Şehremaneti. As reflected in the name change, the administrations of branch municipalities were organized as service units established throughout the city that operated under the Şehremaneti. As before, the Şehremaheti was the main decision making unit and acted as a supervisory office; in addition, it carried out services such as collecting taxes, ensuring development and providing health services.

The functional and administrative aspects of the branch municipalities were redefined, and the way in which they were organized was changed significantly. In parallel with their decreasing responsibility, the organizational structure of the branch municipalities was simplified. A significant part of the functions in planning, personnel affairs, inspection, preparing budget, and application were transferred to the units in the center of the Şehremaneti. Two units, namely a director and a council, made up the administrative structure of the branches. Commissions on technical matters, health, accounting, and registers were arranged in the center as sub-organizations under the directorates.

The director heading up the branch municipality was appointed by the Şehremaneti. The director, who was given a rank under the şehremini, was in charge of the administrative and technical personnel of the branch municipality. His main responsibilities were to act as president for the branch council, to head up the election commission during the elections of the Cemiyet-i Belediye, to ensure the collection of taxes, to send a bimonthly revenue, expenditure tables and yearly accounting registers to the Şehremaneti, to send funds exceeding 100 liras that had been collected at the cashier’s office to the Şehremaneti, and to carry out and inspect duties related to technical matters, health, accounting and administration.

The council, which was the main decision-making and advisory organization in the branch municipalities, was abolished and in its place a commission that had advisory and coordinating functions was established. The commission was made up of high-raking personnel who served in the branches under the central structure of the Şehremaneti. It was stipulated that the commission, which was mainly a technical one, would convene once a week, headed up by the branch director. The main responsibility of the commission was to ratify documents related to the branch accounts and to inspect the bookkeeping tables on a monthly basis.

Strengthening the Cemiyet-i Umûmiye-i Belediye

The Cemiyet-i Belediye (Municipal Council) which was able to meet thanks to the establishment of the district municipalities after the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet, formed an important part of the municipality administration in Istanbul. Even though it had been the target of criticism due to the imbalances in its membership, there was a consensus from every section of society that this was an important body that represented institutional continuity. Transferring the decision-making powers and the advisory functions from the district councils and Şehremaneti to the Cemiyet-i Belediye, as a result of legal changes made in 1912, increased the importance of this institution. In this new structure, the Cemiyet, with a total of 55 members, was formed under the leadership of the şehremini; 6 members elected from each branch municipality participated. The previous disagreements between the Şehremaneti and district branches had a profound effect upon the change in the membership system. With the new membership system, the Cemiyet became a more autonomous and effective municipal institution as compared to earlier structures.

As for the conditions and process of electing the Cemiyet, no changes would be made, but rather the same regulations that were found in Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu for electing district municipality council members would be applied. Twelve members from every branch municipality were to be elected by the public. Among these twelve members, the six with the most votes would be appointed as members of the Cemiyet for the next three years. It was stipulated that in cases of death or resignation of elected members, those who had the next most votes would be in charge.

The 1914 Cemiyet-i Belediye structure displays a parallel characteristic to the population of the branch municipalities. Muslim members generally acted as elected representatives from all the branches except the Princes’ Islands. All of the members from Anadoluhisarı and Üsküdar were Muslims. Greeks, the largest group among the minorities, acted as members from the branches of Beyoğlu, Yeniköy, Kadıköy, Adalar and Makriköy; a

ll of these districts had rather dense Greek populations. The fact that all of the members elected from the Princes’ Islands branch were of Greek origin was also related to the issue of population density.

Armenians, the second largest minority population after the Greeks, had representatives from Beyazıt, Fatih, Beyoğlu and Makriköy, which were central points in the city. The Jewish population, on the other hand, had representatives from the Fatih and Beyoğlu branches, which were also central parts of the city. In the Beyoğlu branch, which had the greatest population diversity, there were representatives from four different populations, a reflection of this diversity. The proportion in the distribution of total votes cast in the elections was Muslims 70%, Greeks 19%, Armenians 7%, and Jews 4%. Muslim members were mainly from the public sector, while the non-Muslim members mainly came from the private sector. The number of members occupied with trade was particularly high.

After 1913, the elections of members to the Cemiyet-i Belediye were postponed several times; this was because a large number of voters moved due to the destruction wreaked by the fires in Istanbul. Moreover, some voters had gone to perform their military service due to the war. In 1919, after the end of the First World War, the Cemiyet-i Belediye was repealed in keeping with a decision passed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the country went to the polls. The election carried out in 1919 had an extremely low level of attendance. Only about 12% of the voters, almost all of whom were Muslim, participated in the election. Non-Muslim voters did not take part in the election on the grounds that they could not freely cast their votes. Even though the attendance to the elections was low, they were accepted as valid and the Cemiyet was opened.

The low participation in the elections and the boycott of the same by non-Muslim voters led to debates about the legitimacy of the Cemiyet. The government was uneasy due to this situation and abolished the Cemiyet, thus opening the way for new elections in 1920. The functions of the Cemiyet were temporarily given to the Şehremaneti commission. However, the granting of the authority that belonged to an elected institution to an institution that was appointed led to new objections. Upon this, in 1921 the authority of the Cemiyet was transferred to a committee formed from members who had been elected from within the borders of Istanbul’s Public Council of the Şehremaneti. Even though the Şehremaneti many times attempted to hold elections again, all were inconclusive. It was necessary to wait for the establishment of the Turkish Republic for the Cemiyet to reopen.

The Organization of the Şehremaneti after the Model of Branch Municipality

After the changes were made to the law in 1912, the institutional organization of the Şehremaneti also underwent some changes. The Şehremaneti commission and the commission of directors were established. In addition, the sub-organization of this new structure was developed by establishing new expert units. These new developments created a significant impetus for the bureaucratization of the Şehremaneti and the construction of a modern institutional culture. The process of codifying and standardizing the municipal regulations gained speed. The legal texts prepared in respect to the functions, characteristics of the personnel, and internal operation of the Şehremaneti units played an important role not only in the structure of the organization, but also in the standardization of operations and activities. With a new law, most of the revenue of the Şehremaneti, based on many different legal regulations, was gathered under one single structure. Many books were published about municipality regulations and services in order to support the institutional structure.

One of the important legal changes made in 1912 was the abolition of the Şehremaneti council and the establishment of the Şehremaneti commission in its place. With this regulation, the first commission was structured to have the characteristics of an organ in the history of Turkish city councils. Unlike the council, the commission was formed from the directors of appointed units, such as the accounting office, the health office, the technical office, the legal affairs office, the registrars’ office, and the general council. From this perspective, it appeared to be a commission with a prominent technical character. This commission was headed up by either the şehremini or an assistant selected by him.

The commission normally met once a week. The fact that the commission had authority to make decisions when the Cemiyet-i Belediye was not sitting increased the importance of the commission. The commission provided coordination between units and was the preliminary advisory board in matters related to services. The fact that an appointed commission now had the same authority as a publicly elected council led to some criticisms. The main duties of the commission were: advice about the budget, accounts, taxes, property sales and auctions; in addition, it could examine the legality of contracts and send employees to the court, as well as some powers in other similar issues.

After the transformation of the district municipalities into branch municipalities, a new agency, called Encümen-i Müdîran (the Commission of Directors), was established in the Şehremaneti to provide coordination between the şehremini and the directors of the branches. Encümen-i Müdîran carried out regular meetings once a week at the Şehremaneti. In addition to its coordinating functions, due to the fact that directors of the branch municipalities who worked in various parts of the city were members, this commission also served as an advisory unit.

The Establishment of a Provincial Administration in Istanbul

There were many regulations and applications that restructured the Ottoman civil administration during the Tanzimat era; however, Istanbul was not included in these regulations. While Muhassıllık Meclisi (special councils for the collection of revenues) were established in rural areas, later to be transformed into “Memleket Meclisi (Country Council)” or “Eyalet Meclisi (Provincial Council),” similar councils were not established in Istanbul. The Vilayet Nizamnamesi (provincial regulation),⁴¹ which benefited from the French civil administration for the restructuring of administration in rural areas, went into practice in 1864. However, before introducing this regulation into practice throughout the country, it was introduced in the Balkans, where rebellions and foreign states intervention was experienced to a great degree, as a trial implementation.

The Vilayet Nizamnamesi included important changes in civil administrative divisions. The provincial administrative system, which had been applied in Osmanlı taşra idaresi (the Ottoman country administration) was abolished. The new divisions were determined as vilayet (province), sanjaks (sub-provinces), kaza (district), and karye (villages). The governor, who had been the highest authority in the province, maintained his position. While kaymakam (district governors) had served in the sanjaks, in the new system this task was given to the mutasarrıf (sanjak governors). The position of director, elected to serve in the kazas, was abolished and kaymakams, appointed by the central government, replaced them. Istanbul was still an exception after eyalet sistemi (the provincial system) had been changed to vilayet yapısı (the structure of cities) with the 1864 Vilayet Nizamnamesi.

With the 1971 Vilayet Nizamnamesi,⁴² prepared as a supplement for the 1864 and 1867 Vilayet Nizamnamesi, the introduction of city administrations became widespread in rural areas. However, Istanbul still remained outside this practice. In Istanbul, where a city administration had not been established, and thus no governor could be appointed, most of the duties related to civil administration, particularly those related to security, were given to the Zabtiye Müşiriyeti (office of field marshalls).

A new council, known as the Meclis-i İdâre-i Liva-i Zaptiye, was established in 1865 in order to carry out administrative tasks for the four counties, known as Kaza-i Erbaa; that is, Çatalca, Gekbuze (Gebze), which was also known as Kordon, Kartal and Şile.⁴³ With a regulation enacted in 1870,⁴⁴ the zaptiye müşiri was granted the title of governor of Istanbul. In this regulation the office of the Zaptiye Müşiriyeti was formed from mutasarrıflık (the governorships) of the Dersaadet, Beyoğlu, Üsküdar and Çekmece, and kaymakamlık (the district governorships) of Galata, the Princes’ Islands, Kartal, Eyüp, Yeniköy, Beykoz and Çatalca. This new structure continued to function until the First Meşrutiyet.

In addition to a significant amount of space in the Kanun-i Esasi (constitution) being devoted to the administration of cities, in particular the city councils, the status of Istanbul was given particular attention. In the second article of the Kanun-i Esasi it was stated that Istanbul did not have any privileges or exemptions not given to other cities. This article meant that the establishment of a city administration and its organization for Istanbul was to be the same as in other cities. Despite this regulation, there was no city administration established in Istanbul during the First Meşrutiyet. This is why the Istanbul Vilayet Umumi Meclisi (general city council) could not be convened during the First Meşrutiyet. A significant number of the the civil administration duties in Istanbul were carried out either by the Şehremaneti or by central government departments. In the first years of the First Meşrutiyet, debates arose whether or not the şehreminis were governors or mayors. The şehreminis who headed up the Şehremaneti, however, also held the status of governor in respect to civil administration.

In 1876, security issues of the Dersaadet (Istanbul) and other areas connected to it were entrusted to Zabtiye Nezareti (the Ministry of Gendarmerie,) as had been the case previously. The sanjaks of İzmit, Biga and Çatalca, and kazas (districts) of the Princes’ Islands, Kartal, Şile, Beykoz and Gekbuze were directly connected to the Şehremaneti. In the salname (state almanac) for 1877 it is recorded that Istanbul was administratively divided into four mutasarrıflık: Üsküdar, Beyoğlu, kaza-i erbaa (four districts) and İzmit. Üsküdar consisted of four kazas: Kartal, Beykoz, Şile and Gekbuze, while İzmit was formed from the kazas of Geyve, Karamürsel, Adapazarı and Kandıra. The center of the kaza-i erbaa was Çatalca and included Büyükçekmece, Silivri, Terkos and Küçükçekmece. In 1879, Biga and İzmit were separated from the Şehremaneti due to the great distance.⁴⁵

In the parliament that was reopened after the declaration of the Second Meşrutiyet, some members who came from rural areas criticized the absence of civil administration in Istanbul; they based this criticism on the second article of the constitution, which stated that Istanbul had no privileges over other cities. In response to this, an alternative type of city administration was established in Istanbul in 1909 and a governor was appointed. The new city, with Istanbul as its the center, constituted the liva (provincial subdivisions) of İzmit, Çatalca, Beyoğlu and Üsküdar and the counties of the Princes’ Islands, Gekbuze, Beykoz, Kartal, Küçükçekmece and Şişli. With the establishment of the city administration, Zaptiye Nezareti was abolished and Polis Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi (the General Directorate of Police) was established to carry out the same functions. Even though a city administration was established in Istanbul, a general city council was not.

After the declaration of Second Meşrutiyet, the civil and municipal administration in the city was reevaluated. The prepared draft prepared was based on views taken from the provinces and on the principles of the constitution; it was enacted and went into effect, after some delays, in 1913 as the Îdare-i Umumiye-i Vilâyât Kanun-ı Muvakkatı.⁴⁶ Vilayet kanunu (The Code of Vilayat) took the place of the 1864 and 1871 Vilayet Nizamnameleri (Vilayet Regulations). The ranks of vilayet (city), liva (provincial subdivision), kaza (district), nahiye (sub-district) and karye (village) were maintained as they had been before.

In cities, the head of the administration was the governor and there were also officials such as naib (regent), defterdar (treasurer), mektupçu (chief secretary), jandarma alay kumandanı (commander of the gendarmerie regiment,) directors of maarif (education), nafia (public works,) ziraat (agriculture,) defter-i hakani (main register of revenues,) police, evkaf (endowments,) population, and sıhhıye (health.) The governor was appointed upon the decision of Meclis-i Vükela (the council of the ministers) after being recommended by the Ministry of Internal Affairs; however, assistant governors, mutasarrıf (sanjak governors), vilayet mektupçuları (chief secretaries of the cities), and kaymakam (district governors) were appointed by an imperial edict after being recommended by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The directors who headed up the civil administrative departments, on the other hand, were appointed by the ministries to which they were affiliated. There were administrative councils in the vilayet (cities), kaza (district) and liva (sub-province).

The most important regulation of the 1913 Vilayet Kanunu was that the special city administration was established as a legal entity. Even though since the day they had been established the municipalities had been legal entities, with a concrete structure and financial resources, the special city administrations gained such status only with the 1913 Vilayet Kanunu. Thus, a new local administrative unit in keeping with the scale of the city was established alongside the modern municipality structures that had been introduced with the Tanzimat. The management of the special city administration had three sub-organizations, namely the governor, meclis-i umumi (general council,) and encümen-i vilayet (city commission.)

After the special city administration became a legal entity with the 1913 Vilayet Kanunu, after the elections in Istanbul Vilayet Umumi Meclisi (the general city council) began to function. The number of members of the council would be determined based on the male population of the counties. It was stipulated that one member was to be elected for a male population of between 12,500 and 18,750, 2 members for up to 31,250 males, 3 members for a male population up to 37,500 and 4 members for a male population of 50,000. For places that had a male population of greater than 50,000 males, the number of members would be increased in proportion to the population. Places with a male population of less than 12,500 would send only one member.

In order to be a member of Vilayet Umumi Meclisi, it was necessary to meet he eligibility conditions for being a member of parliament. These included having a reputation of good conduct, owning property, not having been convicted for murder or political crimes, being at least 25, being able to speak Turkish and being an Ottoman citizen. Moreover, those who were carrying out their military service, who were senators or members of the parliament, judges, government officers, mültezim (tax-farmers) and contractors involved in city affairs could not be elected as a member of the council. Members were being elected for four years and those who had completed such a term could be reelected.

The area of responsibility of Vilayet hususi idaresi (the special city administration) was far-reaching. This included the construction and restoration of roads connecting the districts, counties and villages, the care of lakes and swamps, the construction of irrigation canals, the granting of concessions to operate trolleys, city lighting, buses, and cars for less than 40 years, the establishment of farms, nurseries, schools of agriculture and companies for agricultural cooperation in order to improve agriculture, the development of forests and industrial associations, the opening of schools and museums related to industry, the opening of commercial enterprises and stock markets, the organization of fairs, the building of schools at all levels and the inspection of education, the establishment of hospitals, hospices, mental asylums and charity organizations, and the management of assets.

Umumi meclis (the General Council) met once a year. The meeting period was limited to forty days. When an extension was needed, the governor had the authority to extend the meetings for fifteen days, provided that informing the Ministry of Internal Affairs. With the approval of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, one-third of the members of the council could call for an emergency meeting. At the beginning of every meeting, the governor would read a performance report prepared by a committee on the previous year’s decisions. If two-thirds of the Council did not ratify the action taken, then the proceedings of the meeting would be sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In the Vilayet Kanunu, dated 1913, the revenues of special city administrations were also regulated. The following are mentioned as the main revenue sources for the special city administration: a portion of the Aşar Vergisi (tithe) to be used in education, the Tarik Bedel-i Nakdisi, a tax charged for the construction and restoration of roads, the Zebhiye Resmi, a supplement added to the tax charged for slaughtering animals, revenues coming from property and estate sales, fees charged for the care of bridges, docks and boats in the city, revenue coming from companies in return for concessions to operate trams, omnibus and automobiles, revenues coming from the farms, nurseries and fields belonging to the special administration, revenue from city publishing houses and newspapers. With the exception of a portion taken out of the taxes to be used for education and the Zebhiye Resmi, the revenues of the city’s special administration were significant as a financial resource.

Despite the establishment of a provincial administration in Istanbul, the appointment of a governor, and the convening of Meclisi Umumi in the following years, the Şehremaneti’s dominance of the civil administration continued. The şehreminis, who headed up the Şehremaneti and acted as the executive agency, for the most part carried out the duty of governorship by proxy. Parallel to this, the effectiveness of the special city administration, which had a limited organizational structure, staffing, financial means and service capacity, remained lower as compared to the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye, which was part of the Şehremaneti and had the characteristics of a municipal council.

The administrative model applied in Istanbul, consisting of the Şehremaneti and special city administration, was discussed during the years of the Second Meşrutiyet. When the law drafts that were prepared for the civil and municipal administration of Istanbul in this period are examined, it can be seen that many consisted of proposals for the abolition of İl Özel İdaresi, and, as a result, the general provincial administration; this was due to the existence of the Şehremaneti. Not only were the people making these proposals from the municipality, and in particular, the şehreminis, also people from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and officials from the civil administration, for example, the governors of Istanbul, were also making their voices heard. These proposals for Istanbul’s administrative structure, as a whole, however were not put into effect. In 1912, only one change in the law was made regarding the municipalities. The autonomous structure of district municipalities was abolished and they were turned into branch municipalities. The Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye was strengthened and the Şehremaneti was the only municipality in the city. Although Vilayet Umumi Meclisi (the general city administration) continued to function during those years, it did not have an effective role.

The last important improvement regarding Istanbul’s special city administration took place in 1920 when the Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye was dismissed so that elections could be held. When the Cemiyet was abolished, its functions were transferred to the Şehremaneti commission. However, giving the power of the elected Cemiyet-i Belediye to a commission formed from appointed members led to some discussion. As a solution to this situation, the authority of the Cemiyet was given to a commission of members chosen from among Vilayet Umumi Meclisi (the General City Council.)

In addition to Istanbul’s large size and dense population, the fact that the central government was also in the city created different administrative structures and applications as compared to the other cities. While the city administration was founded at quite a late date as compared to those in the rural areas, the city organization and Vilayet Umumi Meclisi did not have an important role in practice as compared to the Şehremaneti, which maintained a very strong position in the city.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF ISTANBUL IN THE TURKISH REPUBLICAN ERA

Maintaining the Ottoman Administrative Model

The period from 1923 to 1930 in the administration of Istanbul begins with the proclamation of the Republic and continues until the enactment of Belediye Kanunu (the Municipality Code) No. 1580. This was a period in which there were no significant changes to the administrative structure of Istanbul; rather the model that had existed during the Ottoman State continued to be used. Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu dated 1877 continued to be applied and the municipal structure, consisting of the şehremaneti and nine branch municipalities, continued to exist until 1930. The main factors that influenced the administration in Istanbul during this period were the attitudes of the staff of the Republican regime to Istanbul after Ankara became the capital city and the efforts of the şehremnis to develop the administration of the city.

The first municipal problems that Turkey faced after 1923 were to reconstruct those cities in western Anatolia that had been destroyed during the war and to fill the gap that had emerged in the sectors of production and service after the population decline that was a result of the population exchange. Another problem was the proclamation of Ankara as the capital and the reconstruction of it accordingly.⁴⁷

The proclamation of Ankara as the capital city in 1923 was the most important development of the period for Istanbul. After Ankara became the capital city, Istanbul had to hand over its title as center of the state, which it had held for about 470 years. The distrust felt by the staff of the Republican regime against this city, which had been the center of the Ottoman State, their desire to develop a new city in keeping with the efforts to modernize, and Istanbul’s geographic position, which could be threatened by enemy fleets, were the main reasons for moving the capital to Ankara.

In addition to the centuries of history in Istanbul, the Westernization that had been introduced, one in which non-Muslim citizens had played a more active role, was not accepted by founders of the Republic. One of the negative effects of moving the capital to Ankara was that the new state developed without benefiting adequately from these two historical experiences in Istanbul. Ankara became the center and the single structure for the newly adopted modernization. As a result, all the resources of the state were mobilized for Ankara. Istanbul’s leading role in the field of modern municipality during the Ottoman period was taken up by Ankara during the Republican period. The development of Istanbul, however, now had to be held under control, and was thus limited. This approach showed itself in applications for the administration of Istanbul.

The major characteristic of the regulations between 1923 and 1930 that were related to the legal substructure of the municipalities was to maintain the entirety of the municipal laws, but to make some updates and improvements on the regulations form the Ottoman period in respect to areas such as financial structure, construction, local services, etc. The main factors that directed the regulations carried out during these early years of the Republic were that the municipal experience from the Ottoman period was not adequate; that opposition to the new state could become organized in the municipalities and thus gain strength; the application of a centralized administrative model; the slow increase in the population and urbanization; and finally a decrease in the revenues of the municipality as a result of loss in taxes caused by inflation, a result of the First World War.⁴⁸

Belediye Vergi ve Resimleri Kanunu (the Municipality Law of Taxes and Tolls)⁴⁹ and a new ordinance regarding the accounting system, introduced to regulate municipal accounts, were enacted in 1924. The law was prepared as a result of the proposal by the şehremini Haydar Bey to change the tax on goods brought into the city; this was extended by the Minister of Internal Affairs Ferid Bey to a full-scale law that included all municipalities. Here the goal was to find new sources of revenue and to increase tax revenues, which had decreased due to the inflation during the war years.

Şehremini Haydar Bey took some steps to increase the revenue for the şehremaneti during the early years of the Republic. The slaughterhouse in Sütlüce, which had begun to be constructed during the era of Şehremini Cemil Pasha, was completed and opened for service; one million lira of revenue per annum was generated. Companies that served the city, such as tram, water, electric and telephone companies, all of which operated with the concession of privileges, were not giving any shares to the Şehremaneti, although this was a legal requirement. Additional contracts were signed and these companies undertook paying a share to the Şehremaneti out of their gross income instead of out of their net income. Similarly, revenue was generated from the storage facilities used by the companies that provided the city’s petroleum needs. Loans made to the Şehremaneti were refinanced; in the end, all these steps increased the revenues of the Şehremaneti from about 1-1.5 million lira to 4 million lira.⁵⁰

In 1924 the Umuru Belediyeye Müteallik Ahkam-ı Cezaiye Kanunu (penal law related to municipality affairs)⁵¹ was enacted, based on a proposal prepared by Şehremini Haydar Bey; anyone who built a structure without permission on sites that had suffered fire damage would be fined. Thus, now having the authority to impose fines, the municipalities would be able to control the city more effectively. As a result of cooperation between the governor of Istanbul, Reşid Bey and the Şehremini Emin Bey, the privileges given to porters and lightermen were revoked. By a decree enacted in 1925 the authority of the Şehremaneti over tradesmen was now invested in the chambers of commerce and industry. These were steps taken to bring the tradesmen under control.

The issue of the unification of the Şehremaneti and governorship in Istanbul had been brought onto the agenda on a number of occasions during the Second Meşrutiyet and some draft laws had been prepared in this context. Even though not legally realized, in practice unity was achieved by giving the şehreminis the right to take the place of the governors. Even after 1923, this issue maintained its place on the agenda. Şehremini Haydar Bey took this issue one step further and proposed that not only the governorship and the Şehremaneti should be united under one single authority, but also the administration of endowments, which had a very important place in the city, should be included.

Unlike during the Second Meşrutiyet era, during the period between the proclamation of the Republic and 1930, the office of şehremini and governorship were usually carried out by two separate individuals. There were two exceptions to this. The first governor in the period of Turkish Republic, Ali Haydar (Yuluğ) Bey, also assumed the duties of şehremini by proxy between 15 April 1923 and 8 June 1924. The second time was during the era of Muhyiddin (Üstündağ) Bey, who was appointed as şehremini on 27 January, 1926; Muhyiddin Bey was also appointed as deputy governor on 14 July, 1928 and fulfilled this duty for about two years.

The authority of the municipalities related to crime was strengthened with the regulations of the 1926 Türk Ceza Kanunu (Turkish Penal Code.) With Sular Kanunu (the Law of Waters) of 1926,⁵² the management of water facilities, which previously been carried out by the waqfs was transferred to the municipalities. In this context, historical water facilities, dams and other facilities that were under the management of the endowments in Istanbul were transferred to the Şehremaneti.

Another debate that took place after 1923 was concerned with the Şehremaneti council. The Cemiyet-i Belediye, the decision-making body of the Şehremaneti, would meet twice a year; this caused problems when something urgent occurred. Şehremini Haydar Bey proposed that a nine-person committee be selected from the Cemiyet-i Belediye to take over the responsibilities of the Şehremaneti council; this committee would make decisions on behalf of the Cemiyet on certain matters when the Cemiyet was not convened. Even though this committee was established at a later date, it never fully replaced the Şehremaneti council. Its functions remained limited to preparing budgets and proposals of law.

In the early years of this period, the financial means of the municipalities soon began to be reduced due to changes made in law. In 1925 it was stipulated that the municipalities would help pay the expenses of elementary schools, profit tax was changed to income tax in 1926, and the municipalities’ share in property tax was reduced to 15 % in 1929; all of these led to significant financial loss for the municipalities. The economic crisis of 1929 also accelerated the revenue losses of the municipalities.

The first change in the civil administration of Istanbul between 1922 and 1930 was that introduced by the 1924 Teşkîlât-ı Esasiyye Kanunu (constitution of organization). By changing the status of mutasaarıflık (vilayet subdivisions) into vilayets (provinces) with this regulation, Beyoğlu and Üsküdar ceased being mutasarrıflık and became two separate vilayets within the borders of Istanbul. However, this did not last long. In 1924 Beyoğlu and in 1926 Üsküdar became ilçe (districts). Bakırköy and Çatalca were also changed into ilçes (districts). In 1927 there were seven districts in Istanbul, namely merkez ilçe (central district), Princes’ Islands, Bakırköy, Beyoğlu, Çatalca, Şile and Üsküdar. In 1928 Eminönü and Fatih, and in 1930 Beşiktaş, Sarıyer and Yalova, which was reattached to Istanbul, also became districts.

The Unification of Vilayet (Provincial) and
Belediye (Municipal) Administrations

The 1930s was a period of one-party rule in Turkey. The new program symbolized by “Altı Ok (Six Arrows)” and accepted in the Grand Convention of Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası (the Republican People’s Party), which was in power at the time, put forward the concept of “One Party” integrated with the state. The idea of “for the people in spite of the people” proposed to take the people to the level of modern civilization via the municipalities. The desired modern life style was to be brought to the cities, and good examples would be presented to the people, even if they opposed it.⁵³The unification of the state and the party during this period significantly shaped Istanbul’s administration.

In respect to the legal structure and application, the perception of the Republican period regarding the municipality essentially took shape after 1930. Belediye Kanunu no. 1580, enacted in 1930, marked the beginning of the period. The regulations brought by the 1884 dated law, which had been prepared with inspiration from the French Municipal Code, developed the municipalities that had begun in the Ottoman period even further. The Dersaadet Belediye Kanunu of 1877, the Vilayet Belediye Kanunu and all of the supplementary legal regulations were abolished. All of the municipalities in the rural areas were seen to be equal and structured under a single body of law.

The voting age in the elections was reduced to 18 and the age to be eligible for election was reduced to 25. Women were given the right to vote. The requirement to pay property tax for being eligible to vote or to be a candidate in the elections was abolished. A new rule was accepted requiring that the mayor be elected by the council of the municipality. A minimum population of 2,000 was accepted as criterion for the establishment of a municipality. An encümen (commission) was established as a third body within the municipality. It became a requirement that development plans be prepared. On the one hand the authority and duties of the municipalities were widened, while on the other hand the central government was given a strong authority over the municipalities.

The administration of Istanbul was significantly altered by the Belediye Kanunu. The regulations enacted for Istanbul and Ankara became the exceptions to the law which regarded all municipalities as equal. The structure of the Şehremaneti, which had been used in Istanbul since 1855 and in Ankara since 1924, came to an end. The municipality and İl Özel İdaresi (the Special Provincial Administration) were united in Istanbul. The effect of this change was mostly felt in the Şehremaneti. In addition to the şehremini, which was an executive body, Şehremâneti Encümeni (the Council of Şehremaneti,) and Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye, which had the structure of a council, were abolished. Similarly, the Vilayet Daimi Encümeni (Standing Provincial Committee) and (vilayet umumi meclisi) the General City Council in İl Özel İdaresi were also abolished.

Instead of two councils, the Istanbul Umumi Meclisi (Istanbul General Council), the members of which were elected and which had the status of a decision-making body, was established. The council was formed with the participation of members elected both from within the borders of the municipality and from parts of the city outside the municipality. Umumi Meclis (General Council) was responsible for making decision about matters that were within the area of responsibility for both the municipality and İl Özel İdaresi.

In addition to the Istanbul General Council, a council structure was also established. This council was formed of eight members from Umumi Meclis, elected by the council. Six members were elected from inside the borders of the municipality and two from outside the borders. The employees who were in charge of the units in the municipality structure, such as technical works, health affairs and accounting matters, were able to attend council meetings on matters related to their units and had the right to vote.

In Istanbul the mayoral responsibilities were given to the governor. As had been the case before, the governor held the title of mayor as well as being the head of works for İl Özel İdaresi. With this new status, the governor also headed up the newly established Istanbul Umumi Meclisi and Encümeni (Council.) The governor also had the right to vote in meetings.

During the Ottoman period and in the early years of the Turkish Republic, the common point in the law drafts proposed concerning the administrative structure of Istanbul, despite their structural differences, was that they unified vilayet hususi idaresi (the Special Provincial Administration) with the Şehremaneti under the auspices of the latter. However, the Belediye Kanunu adopted an utterly opposite approach. The governor and the kaymakam (governor of the district), the appointed officials of the central government in rural areas, would also fulfill the responsibilities of mayor. In addition to civil services, they also were responsible for municipal works. Only residents of the city could participate in municipal works. In this way the party-state unification was fully achieved in Istanbul. With this regulation, based on the perception of keeping the city under control and connecting it to the central government, the financial and administrative autonomy of Istanbul as a municipality ended.

Unlike Istanbul, the existence of a separate municipality was accepted in Ankara. However, a regulation stated the mayor would not be elected by the public, but rather appointed, as suggested by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and with the approval of the president.

After the elections on October 14, 1930, the first Istanbul Umumi Meclisi (General Council) was opened by Muhittin Üstündağ, who was both mayor and the governor, on November 6, 1930. There were 68 members of the Council. 60 were elected from within the borders of the municipality, while 8 were elected from outside the borders.

The municipal substructure was also reorganized. The nine branch municipalities which had been established in the organization of the Şehremaneti in 1912 were abolished and in their place, ten kaza (district), ruled by district governors, were established. Counties were divided into 34 nahiye (sub-district) and these were divided into 289 mahalle (neighborhood). Ten municipality branches were established within the borders and with the same name as the kazas. Kaymakams (District governors), who were carrying out the civilian duties in the kazas, were also put in charge of managing the branch municipality. District governor would not be paid extra for managing the branch municipality. Even though administration of the kazas and branch municipality administration were operating from the same building, there were two separate personnel to carry out the civil services of the kaza and that of the municipality. Kaymakams had the authority to sentence and punish crimes related to the municipality.⁵⁴There were also the kazas of Çatalca, Kartal, Yalova, Silivri and Şile, which were outside the borders of the Istanbul municipality. Eyüp was added in 1936.

Source: Ergin, Beledi Bilgiler, pp. 201-202.

The duties in the central sub-districts were carried out by the district governors. There was also a director appointed to the central sub-districts of Eminönü, Fatih and Beyoğlu kazas. Nahiye müdürü (director of the sub-district) also carried out the works in the municipality and the duties of the city police. Nahiye müdürü was not given the authority to impose any penalties. In addition to the governors of the cities, giving kaymakams and Nahiye müdürü the role of mayor enabled the central government to control Istanbul down to its smallest unit.

The unification of İl Özel İdaresi (the Special Provincial Government) and the municipality in Istanbul was achieved only at the upper levels. The municipality and the İl Özel İdaresi continued to exist and carry out activities. The budget, in accordance with the new structure, was divided into three main sections. While in the first section information about matters related to İl Özel İdaresi were included, in the second section revenue-expenditure information about the municipality was to be found. The third section was concerned with the joint organization of the city and municipality and their areas of service. The expenditures of the Istanbul Umumi Meclisi (General Council) and allowances made to members are examples of this.

The structuring of the municipality during the Turkish Republic, which started to take shape after the Belediye Kanunu, continued with new legal regulations. With the 1931 Umumi Hıfzıssıhha Kanunu (Public Health Law),⁵⁵ the functions of municipalities in environmental health, health institutions, and social aid were widened. In order to improve development plans and construction, which constituted some of the greatest problems from the early years of the Republic, the Belediye Yapı ve Yollar Kanunu (Municipal Buildings and Streets Law)⁵⁶ was enacted in 1933. In order to support the investments of the municipality, the Municipality Bank was established in 1933. In regards to land appropriation, one of the most important instruments for the municipalities in construction, the İstimlak Kanunu (Appropriation Law)⁵⁷ was enacted in 1934. In order to financially strengthen the municipalities, Belediye Gelirleri Kanunu (Municipality Revenue Law)⁵⁸ was passed in 1948. The earlier legal regulation, which was introduced in the 1930s and continued until 1945, created an expansion of the responsibilities of the municipalities; however, all these regulations were in essence centralist.

Another situation that occurred during this period was that the control of local services, such as transportation, water, electricity and telephone, which were granted via concessions, was passed to the municipalities. The transfer the local services to the municipalities was parallel to the principle of state control which prevailed in the administration of the state. Companies that had been granted concessions were taken over by the municipalities in two stages. In the first stage, the company that had been granted concessions was appropriated by Nafıa Vekâleti (the Ministry of Public Works); during the second stage it was transferred to the municipality in question. In 1932 the water management on the European side, in 1934 the management of the harbor, in 1936 the management of phone services, in 1938 electricity and water management on the Anatolian side, and in 1939 the management of trams and tunnel were all brought under state control. The facilities related to water management were transferred to the Istanbul Water Administration, which was part of the municipality. “İstanbul Elektrik, Tramvay ve Tünel İşletmeleri (Istanbul Electric, Tram, and Tunnel Management) (IETT)” was established in 1939; it dealt with inner-city transportation and electric production.

The unified administrative structure developed by Belediye Kanunu in 1930 remained in practice for approximately 25 years. After the Democrat Party came to power for a second time, the articles of Belediye Kanunu that regulated the administration of Istanbul were abolished with a law passed on March 10, 1954.⁵⁹ During the process of separating the two administrations, the task of solving problems related to staff members, common services, municipality properties and Özel İdare (the Special Administration), as well as issues of loans and borrowing was given to an eight-man commission elected from the Istanbul Umumi Meclisi. From the beginning of 1955, it was stipulated that the civil and municipal administration be separated. However, because of the delay in putting the law into practice, a new code⁶⁰ was enacted in 1955; it took effect as of March 1, 1956.

Local elections were held in 1955. Elections for İl Genel Meclisi (the General City Council) were held on September 25 and the elections of Belediye Meclisi (the Municipal Council) were held on November 13. The members of İl Genel Meclisi and Belediye Meclisi were also elected in Istanbul and these two councils started to work. Thus, the two councils which had been united in 1930 were actually separated in 1955. In accordance with Belediye Kanunu, the Istanbul Belediye Meclisi (Municipality Council) was required to choose the mayor at its first meeting. The Council elected Fahrettin Kerim Gökay, who was also the governor of the time, as the deputy mayor. By not using its authority, Belediye meclisi maintained the practice of governor-mayor, which had begun in 1930. Mümtaz Tarhan and Ethem Yetkiner, who became governors after Gökay, were also mayors. On the other hand, it was the first time that an elected council decided who was to be the mayor responsible for the entire city; from 1855 until 1930 the şehreminis had been appointed, and from 1930 until 1955 the governors had also been appointed.

On June 1, 1957 the prime minister, Adnan Menderes, was given the title of Honorary Mayor of Istanbul by Istanbul Belediye Meclisi for his contributions to construction and development.⁶¹The unified administration of Istanbul was actually separated into İl Özel İdaresi (the Special Provincial Administration) and Istanbul Municipality on May 14, 1958. In practice, however, the administration of the city and the municipality continued to be under the control of the governor (Ethem Yetkiner) until the end of 1958. With Belediye Meclisi (the Municipal Council)’s election of Kemal Aygün, who was governor of Ankara at the time, as the mayor of Istanbul, these two positions were separated on December 25, 1958. Thus, the governor’s position as the head of both İl Özel Idaresi and Belediye Yönetimi (the Municipal Administration), which had been in practice in 1930, came to an end.

The Increase in the Problems of Urban Life and the Search for a Metropolitan Administration

The period between 1960 and 1980 in the administration of Istanbul began with a military coup and ended with another military coup. Following the coup d’état, the political system went through important changes, with a new constitution being ratified in 1961. During this period, instead of enacting basic laws regarding the municipality, changes were made to existing ones. Most of these changes originated from the new constitution. In this period, when the large cities, in particular Istanbul, faced the phenomena of industrialization and immigration, the problems related to local services started to deepen. Because the existing structures of administration were inadequate, the search for new administrative models became the most important and significant development for Istanbul.

As with many other areas, the military coup of May 27, 1960 marked the beginning of a new era in the municipalities. On June 10, 1960, the cabinet decided to relieve all mayors of their duties and appoint new ones in their place. The 94^th article of Belediye Kanunu allowed mayors to be relieved of their duties; in cities they could be appointed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and in other places by the governors, with the support of a cabinet decision. In such places, with a proposal from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to be approved by the president, the post of mayor could be given to the city governors or district governors. During the coup d’état, this article of Belediye Kanunu was frequently applied. In the city centers other than in Istanbul and Ankara, governors, or in district centers, governors of the district carried out the role of mayor.

Some of the mayors were dismissed from their duties and appointments were made before a cabinet decision was taken. In Istanbul, on May 27 Mayor Kemal Aygün was removed from his post and General Refik Tulga was appointed in his place. Although Tulga left the post of mayor to staff colonel Şefik Erensü three weeks later, he became mayor again three months later. Until the elections of November 17, 1963, five more people were appointed as mayors for short periods of time. In 1958, less than two years after the separation of the governorship and the mayoralty, these two posts were reunited under the responsibility of the governor.

Even though the term of İl Genel Meclisi (the General Provincial Council) and Belediye Meclisi (the Municipal Council) ended before the coup, due to political developments the elections could not be held. With a law enacted on November 3, 1960,⁶² İl Genel Meclisi, Belediye Meclisi, Muhtar ve İhtiyar Heyetleri (Committees of the headmen and the elders) were removed from their posts. Belediye Meclisi in Istanbul had been abolished at a much earlier date. On June 4, based on a decision taken by the İstanbul Milli Birlik Komitesi Başkanlığı (Istanbul National Alliance Committee), a sub-organization of the military, Belediye Meclisi was dissolved on May 27. At the time the council had 71 members.

Due to the dissolution of Belediye Meclisi, the eight directors of the branch municipalities and the four members of the council who formed Belediye Meclisi were also relieved of their duties. In place of this council, a new council was formed to carry out their duties. This council was formed from one deputy mayor and eight belediye şube müdürü (directors of branch municipalities). It functioned until the local elections in 1963.

The 1961 Constitution introduced important regulations about municipalities. The Constitution improved the democratic character of the municipalities. There had been no regulation regarding municipalities in 1924 Constitution, but the 1961 Constitution created a framework that would help develop autonomous and strong local administration. Some of the constitutional regulations in this context were: in addition to government from the center, the principle of local government was introduced; local administration was defined as a public legal entity that met the local and shared needs of the people, and the general decision-making bodies of which would be elected by the public; and the characteristics of an elected local administrative body was possible via judicial means.

In the 55^th Article of the Constitution it was accepted that the local elections would be held based on principles of a free, equal, secret, single-stage, general ballot, with open counting and recording. Until that time, the mayor had been elected with two-stage elections. Before, people would elect the council and members of the council would choose someone as the mayor from the council, or outside the council, provided that this person met the necessary conditions. Parallel to the constitutional regulation, a change in the law was made on July 27, 1963;⁶³ it was now accepted that the mayors would be elected directly by the public in a one-stage election, based on the principle of majority. The responsibilities of the mayor, elected directly by the majority of the public, to the council were now less than in the old system. The structure, consisting of a mayor who had total executive power and a council that did not have executive power, introduced a system of a strong mayor and a weak council in Turkey.

The rule which required that the city governor, the minister of Internal Affairs or the president, depending on the size of the administrative unit, approve of measures was also abolished in electing the mayor. Mayors were more autonomous and had a stronger position both before the municipal council and the central government. However, the rules in the Municipality Code regulating the appointed mayor, and which enabled city and district governors to become mayors, remained in force.

The requirements to be eligible for the council were changed. According to this, in order to be elected, one needed to be a citizen of Turkey, to have lived in the relevant region for more than six months, be over 25, to be able to read and write in Turkish, not have been restricted or banned from public services, not to have worked for foreign government services without permission, not to have been convicted for a serious misdemeanor, to have completed military service, and to not have a contractual relationship with the municipality.

After the changes regarding mayors and their elections, local elections were held on November 17, 1963. In Istanbul, a large proportion of the voters, about 45%, did not participate in the elections. In the elections, the candidate from Adalet Partisi (the Justice Party) Nuri Eroğan received the majority of the vote (40.3%). But when it was discovered that Eroğan did not fulfill the conditions for being a mayor, the candidate from Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (the Republican People Party), Haşim İşcan, who had received the second highest vote in the elections (34.9 %), became the first mayor to be directly elected to office. The distribution of the members of the municipality was as follows: 53 members from Adalet Partisi, 38 members from Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, and 2 members from Millet Partisi (Nation’s Party).⁶⁴

Throughout the world the years between 1960 and 1980 were ones in which industrialization developed; this was also the case in Turkey. Modernization and industrialization of agriculture led to migration from rural areas to urban centers, in particular Istanbul. Istanbul, which in 1945 had a population of about one million people reached 4 million in 1975. The intensive wave of uncontrolled migration led to the emergence of shanty housing in Istanbul. The deficiencies in Istanbul’s municipality, both in institutional capacity and in its administrative model, led to more problems in areas such as development, construction, city planning, water and sewage, solid waste, transportation, housing and the creation of residential areas. The problems experienced in local services in Istanbul and other major cities brought the new models and practices in the city administration under discussion.

As a result of the industrial developments and migration, after the 1950s the most important efforts made by the Istanbul municipal were in construction. Between 1945 and 1960, some important construction and appropriation practices, such as constructing new roads and squares, organizing green areas, the construction of community facility buildings, were carried out. Between 1960 and 1970 construction activities in the city gained speed. During this period many underpasses were built to solve the city’s traffic problems. After 1970, building housing, increasing health services, protecting consumer rights, opening coasts for public use, building children’s parks, creating green areas, increasing public transportation and cultural activities, as well as providing basic municipal services, such as construction and roads, provision of water, electricity, and the maintenance of the sewage system all fell within the scope of the municipality.

With the foundation of Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (the State Planning Organization) in 1960, a period of planned development started in Turkey. After 1963, 5-year development plans were put into practice. The problems of large cities, called metropolitan cities, frequently appeared in these plans. The main suggestions in the plans regarding Istanbul were: investments in areas around large urban areas and emigration areas to create new centers of attraction in an attempt to control migration from rural to urban areas; providing staged and functional urbanization; and improving local administration models in large cities. Failure to bring these proposals to life led to increasing migration to Istanbul with the related problems in local services.

The first step in the administration of Istanbul was taken in the field of planning. In 1965 a cabinet decision was taken to establish Büyük İstanbul Nazım Plan Bürosu (the Great Istanbul Regulatory Plan Bureau). This bureau, which worked directly under the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement tried to direct the settlement in Istanbul with 1/50,000 regulatory development plans. When the Istanbul Municipality proved inadequate at planning, the central government stepped in. Istanbul’s industrial zones were determined in 1967. However, because settlement zones were not as well planned as the industrial zones, shanty housing districts were developed in adjacent areas.

Bakanlıklar Arası İmar ve Koordinasyon Kurulu (The Board for Development and Coordination between Ministries) was established in 1972 to provide coordination in development work in metropolitan cities, including Istanbul; in addition, this board was to solve problems using methods that were suitable to a metropolitan city. The main tasks of the board were to protect the natural environment and the historical value of cities such as Istanbul, Ankara and İzmir, to plan settlement and transportation, to provide coordination between investments and applications, and to make preparations for the establishment of a metropolitan administration.

In the 1961 Constitution there was no regulation concerning the application of special administrative models for large cities. When faced with a situation that restricted the application of administrative models to metropolitan cities, the solution was looked for by producing municipality unit models. The Ministry of Internal Affairs prepared a draft Metropolitan Hizmet Birliği (Metropolitan Service Units) Law in 1972 and a draft Istanbul Metropolitan Service Unit Law in 1975. In these drafts, a municipal service unit was to be established with the participation of places lying within the borders of the city and the adjacent areas. The governor would be the head of the unit; however, these drafts could not become law. At the same time, draft laws continued to be prepared during this period. “

İstanbul Bölgesi Su ve Kanalizasyon İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü Kanun Tasarısı (The draft law for the General Directorate of Istanbul Water and Sewage Administration)” was prepared by the Ministry of Public Works in 1975, the “Metropolitan Hizmet Birliği Kanun Tasarısı (Draft Law for Metropolitan Service Unification),” prepared by the member of parliament, Şerif Tüten in 1976, and “Büyük Kent Birliği Kanun Tasarısı (the Metropolitan City Unity draft law),” prepared by the Ministry of Public Works in 1978 are some of the important attempts at codification which were not enacted.⁶⁵

Even though attempts to introduce laws to create solutions for Istanbul’s administration problems via municipal units and in keeping with the Constitution were unsuccessful, they played an important role in strengthening the idea that it was a necessary to administer metropolitan cities via the models that were peculiar to them. This was a preparation for future steps that would be taken for the administration of the metropolitan city.

As a result of increasing amount of migration to Istanbul after the 1950s, the city started to grow rapidly. Parallel to the growth of the city, changes were made in the municipal structure of Istanbul. Between 1950 and 1960 the municipalities of Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece were established. Parallel to the growth of the city between 1960 and 1978, 24 new municipalities were established. In 1960 a municipality was established in Küçükyalı, in 1963 municipalities were established in Bayrampaşa, Kâğıthane, Küçükköy, Ümraniye and Değirmenköy, in 1966 municipalities were established in Avcılar, Güngören and Yakacık, in 1967 in Alibeyköy, Kocasinan and Sefaköy, in 1969 municipalities were established in Hadımköy, Celaliye-Kâmiloba and Soğanlık, in 1970 in Esenler, in 1971 in Dolayoba and Selimpaşa, in 1972 in Kemerburgaz, Yenibosna and Çınarcık, and in 1976 three more municipalities were established in Halkalı, Yeşilbağ and Yayalar.

Transition to the Metropolitan Municipality Model

The military coup on September 12, 1980 not only started a new era for Turkey, but was also the beginning of a new process that brought important changes to the administrative structures of municipalities in rural areas, particularly the municipality structures of the large cities such as Istanbul. Just as with the 1960 military intervention, the first step after the coup was to remove the mayors from their posts and to abolish the municipal councils. With a law enacted on September 25, 1980⁶⁶ the responsibilities of the municipal council were transferred to the councils formed from the heads of the municipal departments. In accordance with the leaders of the martial law, appointments were made to the post of mayors in the cities by the Ministry of Internal Affairs; governors made these appointments in places that were smaller than cities. In this context, until the 1984 local elections, three appointed mayors served in the Istanbul municipal office.

One of first acts of Sıkıyönetim Komutanlığı (the Martial Rule Commandership) was related to residential areas outside the borders of the Istanbul Municipality. Because these municipalities, which, for the most part, consisted of shanty towns and unplanned housing, fed by industrialization and immigration, lay outside city limits, they were unable to adequately benefit from many of the services and displayed uncontrolled development. With the declaration of Martial Rule, dated February 9, 1981, 25 out of the 35 municipalities that surrounded the Municipality of Istanbul were connected to Merkez İl Belediyesi (the central provincial municipality).

During this process, while some municipalities were combined, some others joined already existing municipalities within the Istanbul city limits. The Tokat municipality was connected to the Beykoz Şube Müdürlüğü (branch directorate), Alibeyköy and Kemerburgaz were connected to the Eyüp branch directorate, and Küçükköy was connected to the Gaziosmanpaşa branch directorate. Küçükçekmece, which included the municipalities of Avcılar, Halkalı and Sefaköy, was connected to the center as a new branch directorate. With the inclusion of Yenibosna, Belediye Şube Müdürlüğü (the branch municipality) of Kocasinan was established; with the combination of Esenler and Yeşilbağ, the branch municipality of Güngören was established. The branch municipality of Gaziosmanpaşa; was established with the inclusion of Küçükköy and with the inclusion of Dolayoba, Yayalar and Tuzla, the branch municipality of Pendik was established. Soğanlık and Yakacık municipalities were included to form the branch municipality of Kartal, and with the inclusion of Küçükyalı, the branch municipality of Maltepe was established.⁶⁷

Bayrampaşa, Kâğıthane and Ümraniye, as large settlement areas, became separate branch municipalities. Thus the number of branch municipalities connected to Istanbul rose from 14 to 23. With Declaration No. 81, dated March 11, 1981, the legal entities of 22 villages were abolished and they were joined to the municipality of Istanbul. On the European side these villages were: Firuzköy, Kayabaşı, Şamlar, İkitelli, Habibler, Mahmutbey, Kirazlı, Atışalanı, Cebeci, Ayazağa, Gaziosmanpaşa and Güneşli, on the Anatolian side they were: Yukarı Dudullu, Aşağı Dudullu, Büyükbakkalköy, Küçükbakkalköy, Başıbüyük, Şıhlı, Güzelyalı, Aydınlı, Kurtköy and Sultançiftliği.

With the inclusion of municipalities and villages, the area of the city expanded from 275 square kilometers to 1,001 square kilometers. Together with adjacent regoins, this area rose to 1,629 square kilometers. This was the largest expansion of the limits of the Municipality of Istanbul from that the Şehremaneti was established in 1855.

The military authorities followed different approaches about uniting municipalities into the larger ones and affiliating them with the central municipality. With a law dated December 4, 1981,⁶⁸ a standard and legal framework was drawn up that included surrounding municipalities into the central one. In this law, it was stipulated that such municipalities could be united to the central provincial municipality with a cabinet decision, thus providing these municipalities with basic municipal services, like electricity, water, sewage, transportation and construction. Moreover, the borders of new municipalities, the status of their personnel, structure and other issues that had been debated were now clarified.

The unification of the surrounding municipalities with Istanbul municipality as branches was an important step for the administration of the metropolitan city by a single body. However, constitutional restrictions and the inefficiency of the scope of the Municipal Code, dated 1930, concerning the administration of large cities prevented the desired results being put into practice. A step-by-step transition towards metropolitan local administration started with regulations made after 1980. In 1981, İSKİ (the Istanbul Water and Sewage Administration) was established with an autonomous budget, under the control of the governor. In this way water and waste water services were placed under the control of one single authority throughout the entire metropolitan city.

The 1982 Constitution enabled a wide scope for the administration of large cities, in particular Istanbul. In the 127^th article of the constitution, it was stated that some special administrative models could be created for the large cities. In the 1970s, because of constitutional restrictions, only the municipality union model of the different administration models came onto the agenda. From that time on, however, new administrative models could be developed without any restrictions.

In 1983, a special regulation in regards to construction was prepared for the Bosphorus, which was a sensitive region. With the Bosphorus Law,⁶⁹ a special development regime was put in practice. The main goal of this regulation was to protect the historical value and natural beauty of the Bosphorus; here the public good was to be observed and the structure of the area, which could accelerate in population growth, was to be monitored. The Bosphorus was divided into zones: “sahil şeridi (coastal line zone),” “ön görünüm bölgesi (the front viewing zone),” “geri görünüm bölgesi (the back viewing zone),” and “etkilenme bölgesi (possible affected zone),” with various standards of living being established. While a development ban within the coastal and front viewing zones was accepted, limited construction was allowed in the other two zones. In order to execute the law, the Bosphorus Development Directorate, which was a separate legal entity, was established. Even though the establishment of other structures, such as the Boğaziçi İmar Yüksek Koordinasyon Kurulu (Bosphorus Development High Coordination Commission) and Boğaziçi İmar İdare Heyeti (the Bosphorus Development Administration Committee) were stipulated in the law, these were not realized. With Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kanunu (the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Beings Law), enacted in 1983, seven Koruma Bölge Kurulu (Regional Protection Commissions) and one Yenileme Alanlarını Koruma Bölge Kurulu (Regional Protection of the Renovation Area) commission was established in Istanbul.

The local elections were postponed due to the 1980 military coup. A decision was taken to hold local elections in 1984. After constitutional regulations were taken to allow a transition to a metropolitan city administration, the second step was taken with a law enacted that would organize the election process.⁷⁰ According to this law, large cities that had more than one district within its borders, the city limits were to be determined as the election zone for the election of the city mayor. In the election of district mayors and members of the municipal council each district would act as the election zone. This regulation was paramount to an announcement that steps would be taken towards creating a law concerning the metropolitan city municipality even before it was enacted.

In fact, with Büyük Şehirlerin Yönetimi Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararname (Decree Concerning the Administration of Metropolitan Cities), dated March 8, 1984, a two-stage model for the metropolitan administration in Istanbul was applied. In the local elections held on March 25, 1984 Bedrettin Dalan was elected as Istanbul’s first Metropolitan Mayor. With Law No. 3030, dated June 27, 1984,⁷¹ the legal structure of the metropolitan city municipality model was developed. The regulations concerned with the application of Law No. 3030 went into effect in December 1984.

The metropolitan municipality, which started to be applied in Istanbul, had a two-stage administrative structure. The metropolitan municipality constituted the upper stage. It included three bodies, consisting of the mayor, the council, and the commission. In the lower stage were the district municipalities that were within the borders of the metropolitan municipality. District municipalities also had a structure consisting of a mayor, a council, and a commission. With the metropolitan city model of 1984, the application of the branch municipality model, which had been in practice in Istanbul since 1912, was also abolished. In its place, ilçe (district) municipalities were established. Thus 72 years later, lower-level municipalities that had separate legal entities from the upper level were reestablished. When evaluated from the aspect of historical development, the metropolitan municipal structure that was ratified in 1984 was in fact a development of the two-stage model applied between 1858 and 1912.

The mayors of the metropolis and the ilçes of Istanbul were to be elected directly by the public and according to a majority vote. The members of the district municipal councils were again to be elected by the public according to the method of proportional representation. As for the council of the metropolitan municipality, it would be formed by participation of one-fifth of the members of the district municipality councils, the mayor of the metropolitan municipality, and the district municipality mayors. Thus, this structure in a way resembled a board made up of regional representatives. The metropolitan municipality council consisted of seven people appointed by the mayor from the directors of the municipality units.

The principal approach of the 1984 metropolitan municipality system was an attempt to solve the problem of services that were above the capacity and limit of the ilçe municipalities by handing them over to the upper level; in other words the metropolitan municipality would take care of these services. On the other hand, those services that were within the capabilities of the ilçe limits would be dealt with by the district municipalities. In this context, services like developmental plans, transportation terminals, public transportation, firefighting, solid waste storage facilities, providing water and removing waste water were the responsibility of the metropolitan municipality. In order to provide coordination between authorized units like UKOME (transportation authority) and AYKOME (substructure facilities authority) in Istanbul, some coordination commissions were established. In addition, in 1984 İSKİ started to operate under the metropolitan municipality with an autonomous budget. Büyük İstanbul Nazım Plan Bürosu (The Greater Istanbul Regulatory Planning Bureau), which was established in 1960, was abolished and Boğaziçi İmar Müdürlüğü (the Bosphorus Development Directorate) was affiliated with the metropolitan municipality.

The Transition to Metropolitan Administration

The reform efforts in public administration which began in Turkey in the 2000s also produced some changes in Istanbul’s administrative model. The main approach of the reform efforts was to restructure the public administration concurrently as a whole in matters such as central government, local administrations, financial administration, personnel management, transparency, management methods, e-government etc. During this process, major laws concerned with local administrations were re-codified. The law concerning metropolitan municipalities, enacted in 1984, was abolished in 2004 and a new Metropolitan Municipality Law⁷² was enacted. The 2004 regulation, based on the 1984 Metropolitan Municipality Law model, developed the municipal system.

The 2004 Metropolitan Municipality Model made some changes to Istanbul’s administrative structure. The first one of these was to expand the city limits of the metropolis, up to the city limits. Thus, the metropolitan city limits rose from 1,831 square kilometers to 5,461 square kilometers. This was more than a geographical expansion. Rather than a municipality solely responsible for the city area, now there was a municipality structure that was responsible for the entire metropolitan area, both rural and urban. Thus, planning metropolitan areas with a holistic approach and a more controlled growth of settlement areas would be possible.

The second important innovation that the Metropolitan Municipality Law introduced was that the district municipalities were united under the metropolitan municipality system, in the same way as the ilçe municipalities. By including the district municipalities, which were within the expanded area of the city but which were weak in their institutional structure, into the metropolitan system, not only would there be healthier development in the regions, control over these areas would also be increased.

The Metropolitan Municipality Law not only expanded the city limits and included district municipalities into the system, it also improved the model which had been established in 1984. The duties of the metropolitan and district municipalities were listed one by one, and the duties of the metropolitan municipality were increased. Belediye Meclisi (The Municipality Council) was to meet once a month, although it had earlier met three times a year. In this way a strong council structure was introduced, one that would meet once a month with the mayor who was directly elected by the public. The governor’s authority over the municipality, which had been based on discretion, was abolished and it was limited to control in accordance with the law. Inclusion of the elected members on the metropolitan municipality council, which formerly consisted only of appointed members, was now possible. The administration of the municipalities in keeping with the five-year strategic plan became obligatory.

Within the context of the 2004 Metropolitan Municipality Code, the counties of Şile, Silivri, Büyükçekmece and Çatalca were added to the metropolitan system. In this way, the number of counties in the metropolitan area was 32.

The inclusion of the district municipalities and first-level municipalities into the metropolitan municipality system also changed the member structure of the municipal council. According to this, the metropolitan municipal council was formed from the heads of the metropolitan, district, and first-level municipalities, one-fifth of the members from the district municipal councils, and one-tenth of the members from the first level municipal councils. In this new structure, the number of members rose from 207 to 347.

In 2008 the administrative structure of the Istanbul municipality underwent some important changes. With Law No. 5747⁷³ the legal entities of the first-level municipalities were abolished. Thus, the administrative fragmentation, that is, 32 ilçe and 41 first-level municipalities in Istanbul was reduced. The main aim of the law was to create unity in planning and development in Istanbul. It was also intended to develop efficient structures and to prevent the problems that people were experiencing in local services because of problems with the revenues, personnel and institutional structure of the small municipalities. Some municipalities were turned into ilçe and joined to district municipalities, while some districts were united or took in districts from an existing ilçe or became a new ilçe.

Within the context of the transformation of the first-level municipalities, new district municipalities were created: these were Arnavutköy, Ataşehir, Başakşehir, Beylikdüzü, Çekmeköy, Esenyurt, Sancaktepe and Sultangazi. The number of counties in Istanbul rose from 32 to 39. Just as in 1984, a new model in the metropolitan municipality in Istanbul was developed, including only ilçe municipalities at the lower level. In this process the legal entity of Eminönü municipality was abolished and it was joined to Fatih municipality. Thus, the region within the city walls was united under a single administrative region, as it had been for the office of the Istanbul qadi in the classical Ottoman period.

As a result of the abolition of first-level municipalities, the member structure of the metropolitan municipalities changed once again. As in the 1984-model, the members consisted of the mayor of the metropolitan municipality, the mayors of the ilçe municipalities, and one-fifth of the members from the district councils. As a result of the inclusion of the 41 first-level municipalities in the metropolitan municipality council, injustice in member representation was eliminated, to a certain extent.

The Development of the City Administration in Istanbul between 1958 and 2012

From the 1860s on, at times the unification of governorship and municipal administration in Istanbul became an issue of debate. The Ottoman period was usually dominated by the desire to unite the functions of governorship under the Şehremaneti and the office of şehremini; implementations were shaped accordingly. During the Republican period, up until 1930, the post of governor and the Şehremaneti usually worked as separate institutions. Giving the governor the responsibilities of Istanbul İl Özel İdaresi (Special Provincial Administration) as well as the responsibilities of the municipality administration after 1930 was a reflection of a centralist government administration. The transitional state of Istanbul’s administrative structure, which can be observed in the administration of municipality and the city after the 1860s, came to an end with the separation of the post of governor and the municipality in 1958. Thus, in the administrative structure of Istanbul, the division of the municipality, İl Özel İdaresi, and civil administration started to be applied. The exception of this was giving the post of mayor to governors and district governors during the military coups.

Istanbul’s city administration was divided into two sections: İl Genel İdaresi (General Provincial Administration) and İl Özel İdaresi (Special Provincial Administration) The General Provincial Administration represents the central government’s civil administration in rural areas and İl Özel İdaresi refers to the local administrative structure. An organization based on this division was put into practice after 1958 in Istanbul. Unlike the municipality administration, a model in civil administration that was unique to Istanbul was not developed; rather the same structure that was present in other Turkish cities was used.

In Istanbul, the central government’s civil administration of rural areas consisted of city, ilçe (district), and bucak (sub-district) administration. Istanbul’s civil administration was based on the principle of the “extension of authority,” that is, the transfer of some of the central government’s authority to institutions in rural areas in a hierarchical structure. In this context, the civil administration of the city was like a smaller version of the central government’s organization in the capital.

Istanbul’s civil administration consists of three units, namely the governor, the directors of city administration, and the city administrative council. The governor is the head of the city administration. The governor, who is the representative of the government and state, has administrative and political duties as the representative of each and every minister. The governor runs the city in accordance with the laws and regulations. He/she is responsible for executing the orders of the government and the ministries, collecting state revenues, directing and controlling lower level units, which constitute the city administration, using the administrative authority over the local administration, and providing public order and safety as commander of central and local police forces.

The heads of the ministries in the rural areas consists of İl Müdürleri (city directors). City directors are under the orders of the governor. İl İdare Kurulu (the City Administration Committee) consists of the governor, who is the head, the directors of legal matters, the financial department, education, development, health and social aid, agriculture, and a veterinarian. The City Administration Committee has executive and advisory duties.

The kaymakam (district governor) is the head of the administration of the ilçes in Istanbul. As the representative of the central government in rural areas, the kaymakam carries out the civil duties in the counties under the orders of the governor. In the ilçes there are district directors at the head of the central government administrative organizations. The administrative council of the ilçe consists of the kaymakam, the registrar, the director of financial affairs, a doctor, the director of national education, the director of agricultural matters and a veterinarian.

The sixteen ilçes of Istanbul in 1950 were: The Princes’ Islands, Bakırköy, Beşiktaş, Beykoz, Beyoğlu, Çatalca, Eminönü, Eyüp, Fatih, Kadıköy, Kartal, Sarıyer, Silivri, Şile, Üsküdar and Yalova. Between 1950 and 1963, three new ilçes were established. Although the population tripled and the settlement areas expanded between 1963 and 1987, new ilçe were not established. With the expansion of settlement areas, attempts to meet the administrative needs of the new settlements were made by municipal administrations. As part of the effort to establish a more optimal district size in the Istanbul administration, five new ilçes were established in 1987. In a few years, these ilçes were followed by new ones. In 1990 one, in 1992 seven, and in 1993 one more ilçe was established. After a fifteen-year interval, as part of the efforts to achieve optimal ilçe size, eight more ilçes were established in 2008. In addition to the establishment of new ilçes, Istanbul lost two of its ilçe administrations after Yalova became a province and Eminönü was incorporated into the ilçe of Fatih.

In the hierarchy of the civil administration of the city, the administration of bucak (sub-district) comes under the administration of the ilçes. The term bucak refers to an administrative unit consisting of some villages and small towns that have a close relationship geographically and economically, as well as in issues of safety and local services. Although the term nahiye, which had been in use during the Ottoman period was changed to bucak in the 1924 Constitution, the term nahiye continued to be used to refer to administrative units in legal regulations and practices. The 1949 Provincial Administrative Law⁷⁴ used the term bucak in place of the term nahiye. The director of the bucak headed up the bucak administration. The bucak also had two more administrative bodies, namely the bucak council, headed up by the director of the bucak and the bucak commission. There are records which state that there were 41 nahiyes (bucaks) in Istanbul in 1941. As a result of the expansion of the city, some of these nahiyes were transformed into ilçes and their number was reduced over time. In 1983 the number of nahiyes dropped to 13, and the last remaining nine bucak administrations were abolished in 2008.

İl Özel İdaresi (special provincial administration) constitutes the second part of the city administration. İl Özel İdaresi is a local administrative unit organized as a decentralized administration on the provincial level. The governor, who is the head of the provincial civil administration, is also the head and executive power of İl Özel İdaresi. Other bodies of İl Özel İdaresi include İl Genel Meclisi (the Provincial General Council) and an encümen (committee). The members of the General Provincial Council are elected directly by the public in local elections on behalf of the ilçes that make up the city of Istanbul. The first council after the abolition of the Istanbul General Provincial Council in 1930 was established in the 1955 local elections as the first step in separating the municipality and İl Özel İdaresi.

After the military coup on May 27, 1960, the General Provincial Council was abolished and membership to it was terminated. The council, which remained closed for about three years, was reopened and started to function after the 1963 local elections that were held throughout the country. After this, the members of the General Provincial Council were routinely renewed with elections in 1968, 1973, and 1977. The second intermittent period of the General Provincial Council occurred during another military intervention, i.e. the September 12, 1980 coup d’état. As with the rest of Turkey, the General Provincial Council in Istanbul was abolished. Until the new General Provincial Council members were elected the responsibilities of the council and the comittee were given to a council of four people selected by the governor from among the directors of İl İdaresi (the Provincial Administration). The governor acted as head of this council. With the 1982 Constitution the election period increased from four to five years. As a result of the 1984 local elections, the General Provincial Council was reintroduced. The members of the General Provincial Council were renewed in the local elections of 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2008.

After the 1960s, some of the changes made in the public administration of Turkey led to a decrease in the effectiveness of İl Özel İdaresi. The increase in the organizational level of the central government in rural areas and the emergence of institutions within the central government that are regionally organized and provide services reduced the duties and authority of İl Özel İdaresi. Parallel to this, many local services that were provided throughout Istanbul were transferred to institutions belonging to the central government. Topraksu Genel Müdürlüğü (the General Directorate of Topraksu) (TOPRAKSU), Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü (the General Directorate of the State Water Supply) (DSİ), Yol, Su ve Elektrik İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü (the General Directorate of the Roads, Water, and Electric) (YSE), and Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of the Village Services) were major organizations that provided local services on the city level.

With the law⁷⁵ that was enacted as part of the efforts to strengthen İl Özel İdaresi again, new regulations were made. The first thing done within the context of simplifying the 1913 Vilayet Kanunu (Provincial Law) was to change its title to “İl Özel İdaresi Kanunu (the Law of Special Provincial Administration).” Some of the terminology of the law was simplified. The change in the law introduced some innovations for İl Özel İdaresi of Istanbul, as it did in other cities. It was stipulated that İl Özel İdaresi had to prepare an investment program. The governor of the city was to provide the services that fell under the auspices of İl Özel İdaresi via Özel İdare Müdürlüğü (the Directorate of Special Administration) and special institutions of the central government that were in the cities. Thus, attempts to overcome the problems caused by insufficient personnel and equipment at İl Özel İdaresi were made. The areas of responsibility for İl Özel İdaresi in this new organization were determined as development, construction, health and social aid, environmental health and protection, education and sports, agriculture, landscaping and forestation, economy and commerce, communication, culture and tourism.

The most important development affecting İl Özel İdaresi in Istanbul was brought about by the legal changes that were made in 2004 related to the metropolitan municipality laws. Within the context of reforms carried out in the field of public administration, the metropolitan municipalities were reorganized according to “Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kanunu (the Metropolitan Municipality Law)” No. 5216. With the temporary second article of Law No. 5216, an application unique to Istanbul and Kocaeli was ratified. In those cities, the limits of the metropolitan municipalities were expanded and made equal to the city limits. With this regulation, which was carried out under the freedom provided by the 127^th Article of the Constitution, special administrative models could now be developed for major cities; the metropolitan municipality was now responsible for the entire city. Before the 2004 regulation, the districts outside the borders of the metropolitan municipality were metropolitan district municipalities, while the municipalized villages (belde) were transformed into first-level municipalities.

Source: Osman Nuri Ergin, İstanbul Şehreminleri, haz. Ahmed Nezih Galitekin, İstanbul 1996, s. 6; 26 Nov. 2018 http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-tr/kurumsal/belediyetarihcesi/pages/eskibelediyebaskanlari.aspx.

Expanding the borders of the metropolis municipality up to the limits of the city affected the responsibilities and authorities of İl Özel İdaresi, which carried out services in the same fields. The services that were carried out by İl Özel İdaresi, such as development, construction and repair of roads, the disposal of solid wastes via water and sewage systems were now transferred to the metropolis municipality. Providing water and sewage services to the villages is now the responsibility of İSKİ (Istanbul Water and Sewage System Administration). The responsibility of the services related to highways has been assumed by Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yol Bakım ve Onarım Müdürlüğü (Metropolis Municipality’s Directorate of Road Restoration), while the responsibility of the disposal of solid waste has been given to the district municipalities.

In rural areas, environmental, emergency and recovery services, as well as supporting and planting trees in forest villages, which were responsibilities of İl Özel İdaresi in Istanbul, are now carried out by il müdürlüğü (the provincial directorates) of the central government. In the administrative structure developed in Istanbul since 2004 the functions of İl Özel İdaresi have remained as: health and social services, constructing and restoring school buildings and other educational support services, development and housing, culture and art, youth and sport services, agricultural, industrial, and commercial services.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1325 Senesine Mahsûs Umûr-ı Belediye Mecmûası, Istanbul: Bağdâdliyan Matbaası, 1325.

1330 Senesi İstanbul Beldesi İhsaiyât Mecmûası, Istanbul: Matbaa-i Arşak Garoyan, 1331.

1335 Senesi İstanbul Beldesi İhsaiyât Mecmûası, Istanbul: Matbaa-i Osmâniye, 1337.

7 yıl içinde Vilayet ve Belediyece Yapılan İşler: 1949-1955, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 1956.

Baykal, Bekir Sıtkı, “93 Meşrutiyeti”, TTK Belleten, 1942, vol. 6, no. 21-22, pp. 45-83.

Behar, Cem (ed.), Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu 1500-1927, Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 1996.

Bozlağan, Recep, İstanbul: Derinlik, Değişim ve Güç, Istanbul: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği yayınları, 2011.

Cumhuriyet Devrinde İstanbul, Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1949.

Cumhuriyet’in 50. Yılında İstanbul, 1973 İl Yıllığı, Istanbul: İstanbul Valiliği, 1973.

Çelik, Zeynep, 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Başkenti: Değişen İstanbul, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996.

Daver, Abidin et. al.(ed.), Güzelleşen İstanbul, Istanbul: İstanbul Belediyesi, 1944.

Ergin, Osman Nuri, Cumhuriyet ve İstanbul Mahalli İdaresi, Istanbul: Matbaacılık ve Neşriyat Türk Anonim Şirketi, 1933.

Ergin, Osman Nuri, Türkiye’de Şehirciliğin Tarihi İnkişafı, Istanbul:
İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi İktisadi ve İçtimaiyat Enstitüsü, 1936.

Eryılmaz, Bilal, Kamu Yönetimi, Istanbul: Erkam Matbaası, 2007.

İstanbul Vilayeti Umumi Meclisi Çalışmaları 1955-1956, Istanbul: Nurgök Matbaasi, 1956.

İstanbul’un Kitabı, Istanbul: İstanbul Vilayeti Neşriyat Müdürlüğü, 1957.

Johnson, Clarence Richard, İstanbul 1920, tr. Sönmez Taner, Istanbul:
Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1995.

Kabakçı, Enes, “Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul’unda İdari Yapılanma”, Kültürleri Başkenti İstanbul, Istanbul: Türk Kültürüne Hizmet Vakfı, 2010, pp. 532-537.

Keyder, Çağlar, “Arka Plan”, İstanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Arasında, ed. Çağlar Keyder, Istanbul: Metis yayınları, 1999, pp. 9-40.

Oktay, Tarkan, “Belediyenin Tarihsel Gelişimi”, Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimler, ed. Recep Bozlağan and Yüksel Demirkaya, Istanbul: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 2008.

Oktay, Tarkan, Yerel Yönetim Reformu Sonrasında İl Özel İdareleri, Istanbul: Hayat Yayınları, 2010.

Ortaylı, İlber and İlhan Tekeli, Türkiye’de Belediyeciliğin Evrimi, Ankara: Türk İdareciler Derneği, 1978.

Rosenthal, Steven, “Foreigners and Municipal Reform in İstanbul: 1855-1865,” IJMES, 1980, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 227-245.

Şehremâneti Nizâmnâme Lâyıhası, Article 3, Atatürk University Library, Özege Collection, no. 12755.

Şehremâneti’nin 1337 Sene-i Mâliyesi Büdcesi, Istanbul: Ahmed İhsan ve Şürekâsı Matba-acılık Osmanlı Şirketi, 1337.

Topuzlu, Cemil, İstibdat-Meşrutiyet-Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık Hatıralarım, Istanbul: Güven Yayınevi, 1951.

Tümerkan, Sıddık, Türkiye’de Belediyeler (Tarihi Gelişim Bugünkü Durum), Istanbul: İçişleri Bakanlığı, 1946.

Unat, Faik Reşit, Osmanlı Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992.

Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilatı, Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988.

Yayla, Yıldızhan, Anayasalarımızda Yönetim İlkeleri, Tevsi-i Mezuniyet ve Tefrik-i Vezaif, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi, 1984.

FOOTNOTES

1 Paul Dumont, “Tanzimat Dönemi (1839-1878)”, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi, edited by Robert Mantran, translated by Server Tanilli, Istanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1995, p. 104.

2 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Türk İktisat Tarihi, 2^nd edition, Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 1994, p. 298.

3 İlber Ortaylı, “İstanbul’un Mekânsal Yapısının Tarihsel Evrimine Bir Bakış”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 1977, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 92-94.

4 Musa Çadırcı, “Türkiye’de Muhtarlık Teşkilatının Kurulması Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, TTK Belleten, 1970, vol. 34, no. 135, pp. 409-420; Bilal Eryılmaz, “Türkiye’de Köy ve Mahalle Muhtarlıklarının Ortaya Çıkışı ve Gelişimi”, Türk İdare Dergisi, 1988, vol. 60, no. 378, p. 467.

5 Nuri Paşa, Netayic ül-Vukuat, ed. Neşet Çağatay, Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1980, vol. 3-4, p. 285; Ali Akyıldız, Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Merkez Teşkilatında Reform, Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1993, p. 147.

6 Nazif Öztürk, Türk Yenileşme Tarihi Çerçevesinde Vakıf Müessesesi, Ankara : Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995, p. 282.

7 Ahmed Lütfî Efendi Tarihi, edited by Münir Aktepe, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi yayınları, 1984, vol. 9, pp. 50-51.

8 Şerafettin Turan, “Osmanlı Teşkilatında Hassa Mimarları”, TAD, 1963, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 178.

9 Stefan Yerasimos, “Tanzimatın Kent Reformları Üzerine,” Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı Kentleri, ed. Paul Dumont-François Georgeon, tr.anslated by Ali Berktay, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996, p. 5.

10 Cavid Baysun, “Mustafa Reşit Paşa’nın Siyasî Yazıları”, TD, 1960, vol. 11, no. 15, p. 124.

11 Bayram Kodaman, “Mustafa Reşit Paşa’nın Paris Sefirlikleri Esnasında Takip Ettiği Genel Politikası”, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Dönemi Semineri Bildirileri, Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1987, p. 73.

12 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/45.

13 Osman Nuri Ergin, İstanbul Şehreminleri, ed. Ahmed Nezih Galitekin, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1996, p. 71.

14 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-44.

15 Ibid.

16 Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediye, İstanbul : İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1995, vol. 3, p. 1278; BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-43.

17 Dated 28 Dec. 1857 “Altıncı Dâire-i Belediye Nizâmâtı”, Düstûr, First arrangement, Istanbul: Başvekalet Neşriyat ve Müdevvenat Dairesi Müdürlüğü, 1289, vol. 2, pp. 460-463.

18 Dated 7 June 1858 “Beyoğlu ve Galata Dairesi’nin Nizâmı Umûmisi”, Düstûr, First arrangement, vol. 2, pp. 464-477.

19 BOA, İ.DH, no. 28571; BOA, A.MKT.MVL, 114/48.

20 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-34; BOA, DUİT, no. 37-1/1-39; BOA, İ.MVL, no. 23292.

21 BOA, A.MKT.MHM, 387-4/55.

22 Dated 6 Oct. 1868 “Dersaadet İdare-i Belediye Nizamnamesi”, Düstûr, First arrangement, vol. 2, p. 450-459.

23 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-36.

24 Takvîm-i Vekayi, 26 Zilkade 1285 (10 March 1869), no. 1064.

25 İlber Ortaylı, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri (1840-1880), Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000, p. 162.

26 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-32.

27 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-24.

28 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr, vol. 3, p. 1413.

29 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-24.

30 “İntihâb-ı Mebûsân Kânunu Layıhâsı” dated 3 October 1908, Düstûr, Second arrangement, Istanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1331, vol. 4, pp. 18-37.

31 Şehremâneti Hudûdu Dâhilinde Bulunan Mahallât Esâmîsi, Istanbul: Arşak Garoyan Matbaası, 1329, p. 21.

32 BOA, DH.MUİ, 36-2/11.

33 BOA, DH.İD, 39/29.

34 Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye’nin Nizâmnâme-i Dahilîsi, Istanbul: Selanik Matbaası, 1328.

35 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr, vol. 3, pp. 1455-1458.

36 “Dersaadet Teşkilât-ı Belediyesi Hakkında Kanûn-ı Muvakkat,” dated 30 December 1912, Düstûr, Second arrangement, Istanbul: Başvekalet Neşriyat ve Müdevvenat Dairesi Müdürlüğü, 1332, vol. 5, pp. 37-39.

37 BOA, DUİT, 37-1/1-4.

38 BOA, İ.ŞH, no. 2-S 1327; BOA, DH.MUİ, 100-1/38; BOA, İ.ŞH, no. 3-B 1327.

39 BOA, DH.UMVM, 90/1.

40 Tarkan Oktay, Osmanlı’da Büyükşehir Belediye Yönetimi: İstanbul Şehremaneti, İstanbul : Yeditepe, 2011, pp. 130-132.

41 “Vilayet Nizâmnamesi” dated 7 Nov. 1864, Düstûr, First arrangement, Istanbul: Başvekalet Neşriyat ve Müdevvenat Dairesi Müdürlüğü, 1289, vol. 1, pp. 608-624.

42 “İdâre-i Umûmiye-i Vilâyât Nizâmnamesi,” dated 22 Jan. 1871, First arrangement, vol. 1, pp. 625-651.

43 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr, vol. 3, p. 1500.

44 “Dersaadet ve Mülhakâtı İdâre-i Zâbıta ve Mülkiye ve Mehâkim-i Nizâmiyesine Dair Nizâmname”, First arrangement, vol. 1, pp. 688-702.

45 “İdari Yapı”, DBİst.A, IV, 136-138.

46 “Îdâre-i Umumiye-i Vilayât Kânun-ı Muvakkatı” dated 26 March 1913, Second arrangement, vol. 5, pp. 186-216.

47 İlhan Tekeli, Cumhuriyet’in Belediyecilik Öyküsü (1923-1990), Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2009, pp. 32-33.

48 Tekeli, Cumhuriyet’in Belediyecilik Öyküsü, p. 36.

49 Belediye Vergi ve Resimleri Kanunu, no. 423 dated 26 Feb. 1924, Düstûr, Third arrangement, Istanbul: Başvekalet Neşriyat ve Müdevvenat Umum Müdürlüğü, 1931, vol. 5, pp. 642-656.

50 Ergin, İstanbul Şehreminleri, pp. 568-575.

51 “Umuru Belediyeye Müteallik Ahkâm-ı Cezaiye Kanunu” no. 486 dated 16 April 1924

52 “Sular Hakkında Kanun,” no. 831, dated 10 May 1926, Official Gazette 10.05.1926/368.

53 Tekeli, Cumhuriyet’in Belediyecilik Öyküsü, p. 51.

54 Osman Nuri Ergin, Beledi Bilgiler, Istanbul: Hamit Bey Matbaası, 1932, p. 200.

55 “Umumî Hıfzıssıhha Kanunu”, no. 1593, dated 30 April 1930, Official Gazette, 06.05.1930/1489.

56 “Belediye Yapı ve Yollar Kanunu”, no. 2290, dated 10 June 1933, Official Gazette, 21.06.1933/2433.

57 “Belediyece Yapılacak İstimlâk Hakkında Kanun”, no. 2497, dated 4 June 1934, Official Gazette, 09.06.1934/2722.

58 “Belediye Gelirleri Kanunu”, no. 5237, dated 1 July 1948, Official Gazette, 09.07.1948/6953.

59 “İstanbul Birleşik İdaresinin Ayrılması Hakkında Kanun”, no. 6349, dated 10 March 1954, Official Gazette, 18.03.1954/8661.

60 “İstanbul Birleşik İdaresinin Ayrılması Hakkındaki 6349 Sayılı Kanunun Bazı Maddelerinin Değiştirilmesine Dair Kanun”, no. 6499, dated 27 Feb. 1955, Official Gazette, 01.03.1955/8943.

61 Rakım Ziyaoğlu, İstanbul Kadıları, Şehreminleri, Belediye Reisleri ve Partiler Tarihi: 1453-1971: İdari-Siyasi, Istanbul: İsmail Akgün Matbaası, 1971, p. 425.

62 “İl Genel ve Belediye Meclisleri ile Mahalle Muhtar ve İhtiyar Heyetlerinin Feshine ve Görevlerinin İfa Şekline Dair Kanun”, no. 120, dated 3 Nov. 1960, Official Gazette, 10.11.1960/10651.

63 “Belediye Kanununda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun”, no. 307, dated 19 July 1963, Official Gazette, 27.07.1963/11465.

64 Ali Eşref Turan, Türkiye’de Yerel Seçimler, Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2008, p. 118.

65 Metropolitan Yönetim, Dünyada ve Türkiye’de, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi and Marmara ve Boğazları Belediyeler Birliği, 1987, pp. 182-184.

66 “3.4.1930 Tarih ve 1580 Sayılı Belediye Kanununa Ek Kanun”, no. 2303, dated 25 Sept. 1980, Official Gazette, 29.09.1980/17120.

67 “İstanbul”, Yurt Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul: Anadolu Yayıncılık, 1982, VI.

68 “Büyük Şehirlerin Yakın Çevresindeki Yerleşim Yerlerinin Anabelediyelere Bağlanmaları Hakkında Kanun”, no. 2561, dated 4 Dec. 1981, Official Gazette, 08.12.1981/17538.

69 “Boğaziçi Kanunu”, no. 2960, dated 18 Nov. 1983, Official Gazette, 22.11.1983/18229.

70 “Mahallî İdareler ile Mahalle Muhtarlıkları ve İhtiyar Heyetleri Seçimi Hakkında Kanun”, no. 2972, dated 18 Jan. 1984, Official Gazette, 18.01.1984/18285.

71 “Büyük Şehir Belediyelerinin Yönetimi Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamenin Değiştirilerek Kabulü Hakkında Kanun”, no. 3030, dated 27 June 1984, Official Gazette, 09.07.1984/18453.

72 “Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kanunu”, no. 5216, dated 10 July 2004, Official Gazette, 23.07.2004/25531.

73 “Büyükşehir Belediyesi Sınırları İçerisinde İlçe Kurulması ve Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun”, no. 5747, dated 6 March 2008, Official Gazette, 22.03.2008/26824.

74 “İl İdaresi Kanunu” no. 5442, dated, 10 June 1949, Official Gazette, 18.06.1949/7236.

75 “13 Mart 1313 Tarihli İdarei Umumiyei Vilayat Kanunu Muvakkatının Adının ve Bazı Maddelerinin Değiştirilmesine, Bu Kanuna Bazı Maddeler Eklenmesine Dair Kanun”, no. 3360, dated 16 May 1987, Official Gazette, 26.05.1987/19471.