Autonomy for the region of Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace within the Ottoman Empire was a concept that arose in the late 19th century and was popular until around 1920. The plan was developed among Macedonian and Thracian Bulgarian émigrés in Sofia and covered several meanings. It was adopted and given prominence by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee.
History The idea of autonomy was promoted during the 1880s, by diverse political parties in Bulgaria and in Eastern Rumelia, aimed at "national unification of Bulgarian people". This scenario was partially facilitated by the Treaty of Berlin (1878), according to which Eastern Rumelia, Macedonia and Adrianople areas were given back from Bulgaria to the Ottomans, but especially by its unrealized 23rd article, which promised future autonomy for unspecified territories in then European Turkey, settled with Christian population. This trend emphasized the principle of popular sovereignty, and appealed for a democratic constitution and further decentralization and local autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. In general, an autonomous status was presumed to imply a special kind of constitution of the region, a reorganization of gendarmerie, broader representation of the local Christians in all the administration, etc.
The concept was popularized in 1894 by the first statute of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) with its demand for political autonomy of the Macedonia and Adrianople regions. Initially its membership was open only for Bulgarians and it opposed the Greek, Serb, and Bulgarian irredentist claims towards Macedonia.Andre Gerolymatos, The Balkan Wars, Hachette UK, 2008, , p. 209. It was active in Macedonia, but also in Thrace (the Vilayet of Adrianople). At the eve of the 20th century, on the initiative of Gotse Delchev, it changed its exclusively Bulgarian character and opened it to all Macedonians and Thracians regardless of their nationality. The Organization gave a guarantee for the preservation of the rights of all national communities there. Those revolutionaries saw the future autonomous Macedono-Adrianople Ottoman province as a multinational polity.Bechev, Dimitar. Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia. Historical Dictionaries of Europe, Scarecrow Press, 2009, , Introduction. Another Bulgarian organisation called Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committee (SMAC) also had as its official aim the struggle for autonomy of Macedonia and Adrianople regions. Its earliest documents referring to the autonomy of Macedonia were the Decisions of the First Macedonian Congress in Sofia in 1895.
However, there was not a clear political agenda behind this idea and its final outcome, after the expected dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. By many activists, from SMAC especially, and in IMRO such as Hristo Matov and Hristo Tatarchev, the autonomy was seen as a transitional step towards unification of both areas with Bulgaria.İpek Yosmaoğlu, Blood Ties: Religion, Violence and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908, Cornell University Press, 2013, , p. 16. This outcome was based on the example of short-lived Eastern Rumelia. The successful unification between the Principality of Bulgaria and this Ottoman province in 1885 was to be followed. On the other hand, IMRO leaders like Gotse Delchev, Gyorche Petrov, Petar Poparsov, Yane Sandanski, Dimo Hadzhidimov etc. and their supporters strongly resisted Macedonia’s incorporation into Bulgaria, and saw the autonomy as a first step towards an independent Macedonia which would join a future Balkan Federation.Dennis P. Hupchik (2002). The Balkans. From Constantinople to Communism. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 301. Denis Ljuljanovic (2023). Imagining Macedonia in the Age of Empire, State Policies, Networks and Violence (1878-1912), Lit Verlag, , pp. 219-220.Nada Boskovska (2017) Yugoslavia and Macedonia Before Tito Between Repression and Integration. Bloomsbury Publishing, , p. 24. Serbia and Greece were totally opposed to that set of ideas while Bulgaria was ambivalent because of SMAC and those within IMRO who supported the annexation by Bulgaria.David Turnock, The Economy of East Central Europe, 1815–1989: Stages of Transformation in a Peripheral Region, Routledge, 2004, , p. 43.
According to an editorial in the Pravo newspaper called "Political separatism" (June 7, 1902), which itself was based in Sofia and was close to the IMRO, the idea of Macedonian autonomy was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian ethnicity. As the ideas of the Treaty of San Stefano were already unrealistic, the autonomy was the only alternative to the partition of Macedonia by the Balkan states and the assimilation of its Bulgarian population by Serbs, Greeks, etc.In the words of an editorial in Pravo (Right), a Sofia newspaper close to the BMORK, the idea of Macedonian autonomy (or separatism) was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgar nationhood. Inasmuch as the ideal of San Stefano was unworkable, the autonomous idea was the only alternative to the partition of Macedonia by the Balkan states and the assimilation of its severed parts by Serbs, Greeks, and even Romanians (who claimed the areas of Vlach minority):
The Bulgars of the principality [of Bulgaria] – if there be still some who dream of the Bulgaria of San Stefano, have no reason to object to the separatism of the Macedonian population. Irrespective of the harm that the dream of the Bulgaria of San Stefano might bring both now and in the future, irrespective of all the opportunities that political separatism can bring, there is one essential and important consequence of this doctrine, that is, the preservation of the Bulgar tribe – whole, undivided, and bound by their spiritual culture, though separated politically. Without this politically separatism, the spiritual integrity of the Bulgar tribe seems impossible. It is in the interest of the Bulgarian principality not only to support this idea but to continue to work for its realization. As far as the other small Balkan states of Romania, Serbia, and Greece are concerned, we think that, should their policy be free of egotistical incentives but instead based on the broad mission of Balkan confederation, and should they sincerely believe that the majority of the Macedonian population is of the same nationality as they, nothing would be more urgent for them than to support autonomy and political separatism.
For more see: Ivo Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Cornell University Press, 1984, , p. 315. The text implies that the integrity of Macedonia means conservation of the unity of the Bulgarian people. Thus, paradoxically, through the realization of autonomy, it is projected Bulgarians to remain united, even though politically divided.Marinov, Tchavdar. "We, the Macedonians, The Paths of Macedonian Supra-Nationalism (1878-1912)." In Diana, Mishkova. We, the People. Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe. Central European University Press, 2009, , pp. 107-137.
In 1905 the newspaper Revolyutsionen list issued in Sofia and redacted by Hadzhidimov, expressed the opinion of the Serres leftist group about the autonomy as follows: " They, the Supremists, represent a complete negation of the Internal Organization – there is an abyss between it and them. First of all, against the goal of the Organization of Autonomous Macedonia and its motto "Macedonia for the Macedonians", they put some "autonomous Macedonia" with a disguised motto “Macedonia for Bulgaria”. “Autonomous Macedonia” is understood by the organization as an independent state, which will enter as a separate member into the federation of the other states of the Peninsula; and the Supremists understand it as a transitional form to "San Stefano Bulgaria", which is feasible only for those who do not see further than their noses."Уводна статия на в. Революционен лист, 2 юни 1905 г., в: Билярски, Цочо. Вътрешната македоно-одринска революционна организация (1893 – 1919 г.) – Документи на централните ръководни органи, Том I, Част I, УИ "Св. Климент, Охридски, София, 2007, стр.473.
During the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) and the First World War (1914–1918) the organisations supported the Bulgarian army and joined to Bulgarian war-time authorities when they took control over parts of Thrace and Macedonia. In this period autonomist ideas were abandoned and the direct incorporation of occupied areas into Bulgaria was supported. These wars left both areas divided mainly between Greece, Serbia (later Yugoslavia), and the Ottoman Empire (later Turkey). That resulted in the final decline of the autonomist concept. After that the combined Macedonian-Adrianopolitan revolutionary movement split into two detached organisations – the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation and the Internal Thracian Revolutionary Organisation.
In 1919 the so-called Temporary representation of the former United Internal Revolutionary Organisation founded by former members of the IMARO, issued a memorandum and send it to the representatives of the Great Powers on the Peace conference in Paris. They advocated for autonomy of Macedonia as a part of a future Balkan Federation. Following the signing of the Treaty of Neuilly and the partition of Macedonia, the activity of the Temporary representation faded and in 1920 it was dissolved. The former IMRO revolutionary and member of the Temporary representation Hadzhidimov wrote in his brochure "Back to the Autonomy" in 1919:"This idea, nevertheless, remained a Bulgarian idea until it disappeared even among the Bulgarians. Neither the Greeks, nor the Turks, nor any other nationality in Macedonia accepted that slogan... The idea of autonomous Macedonia was developed most significantly after the creation of the Internal Macedonan revolutionary Organization which was Bulgarian in respect of its members and proved to be well decided, of great military might and power of resistance. The leadership of the Macedonian Greeks could not rally under the banner of such an organization which would not, under any circumstances, serve Hellenism as a national ideal... Undoubtedly, since the Greeks of Macedonia, the second largest group following the Bulgarians, had a position like this vis-a-vis the idea of autonomy, the latter could hardly anticipate success."
See also Autonomism (political doctrine) Macedonia for the Macedonians Independent Macedonia (IMRO) Independent Macedonia (1944)
Notes