452 conclusion
Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s early change of career, from ulema to administrative, and
Rami Mehmed’s rise from the scribal bureaucracy to the post of grand vizier
(see chapter 6). As showed by Norman Itzkowitz, by the eighteenth century
the kalemiyye career line had gained substantial importance, overshadowing
the once omnipotent “palace career”.62 Thus, we see Nahifi arguing against the
handling of affairs by tradesmen and men of the market, who should not be
allowed in the line of service (tarik). Half a century later, Canikli Ali Pasha
insisted that one should be promoted along a single career line (tarik): for in-
stance, an agha of the janissaries should not become a vizier.
3.6 Consultation (meşveret)
A key concept moderating, to some extent, the ruler’s absolute power was con-
sultation or meşveret, a central notion in the traditional political theories inher-
ited by the Ottomans and, in fact, a central notion in Islamic political thought
with its origins in the Quran.63 One sees consultation praised by authors as
diverse as al-Semerkandi, Akhisari, Celalzade, Hasan Dede, and Müteferrika.64
It is noteworthy that, while all of these writers stressed this need, they also
were quite adamant in giving some terms under which consultation should
be taken; most of them emphasized experience and piety, with the notable
experience of Celalzade, who puts more weight on reason (akl). For him, rea-
son is the basis of proper consultation to such a degree that even receiving
advice from intelligent non-Muslims could be deemed legitimate. It is clear
that, in such a way, he wanted to give the bureaucracy more importance than
the ulema: in Bernard Lewis’ words, “in general, the ulema urged the need for
consultation with the ulema, the bureaucrats were more insistent on the im-
portance of consulting bureaucrats”.65 On the other hand, the struggle over
consultation was combined with different views on who and how many would
be the sultan’s boon companions and favorites, and on how much the sultan
should be accessible or secluded, and ultimately on who should have access to
the flow of political information in the court.66
The emphasis on consultation continued throughout the eighteenth cen-
tury, both in theory and (as it seems) in practice. Defterdar, for instance, de-
spite stressing that it is a useful practice only with trustworthy men, admitted
that sometimes a child or woman could have a sound opinion, while Canikli
excluded astrologers and dervishes, but argues that every class should be
62 Itzkowitz 1962.
63 Cf. Ceylan 2005 on the relevant literature; Lewis 1981–1982; Mottahedeh 1989.
64 Cf. Yılmaz 2015a, 255–258.
65 Lewis 1981–1982, 776.
66 See Peksevgen 2004.