The Committee of Union and Progress and the Consolidation of Dictatorial Power
The Coup of January 1913
On January 23, 1913, Committee of Union and Progress leaders seized power in a coup in Constantinople.
The new political order became increasingly authoritarian, and the empire's government came to be dominated by a relatively small circle of party leaders.
Three figures became particularly prominent:
- Mehmed Talat Pasha, who served as minister of the interior and later grand vizier.
- Ismail Enver Pasha, who became minister of war.
- Ahmed Cemal Pasha, who held major military and administrative responsibilities, including command in Syria.
These men are commonly known as the Three Pashas.
Although their individual responsibilities and political priorities differed, they exercised enormous influence over Ottoman wartime policy.
Other important figures included Bahaeddin Şakir, associated with the Special Organization, and Mehmed Nazım, a leading Committee of Union and Progress ideologue.
Population Engineering and Nationalist Policy
The Committee of Union and Progress increasingly pursued policies intended to reshape the empire's population.
These policies involved the settlement of Muslim refugees, the relocation of communities, restrictions on minority populations, and the expansion of Turkish Muslim dominance in strategically important regions.
Armenian settlements became central to these calculations because they were concentrated in eastern provinces bordering the Russian Empire and in regions that Ottoman leaders regarded as politically sensitive.
The government's approach combined security arguments with nationalist and demographic objectives.
The Ottoman authorities claimed that Armenian political activity and Russian military operations created a threat to the empire's survival.
Yet the subsequent deportations extended into regions far from the battlefront, and they targeted women, children, elderly people, and civilians with no demonstrated connection to military activity.
This discrepancy between official explanations and actual policy is a central element in historians' assessment of genocidal intent.