The abolition of the intermediate level of administration and the resulting administrative gap

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Article 3)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

In Türkiye’s administrative history, the Bucak (Nahiye) system, which served as the most direct link between the state and the villager, can be defined as a “lost link” in the civil administration structure today. Designed in the early years of the Republic to act as a bridge between districts and villages, this system aimed to extend the state’s service delivery power to the most remote points locally. These units, whose legal framework was determined by the Village Law of 1924 and the Provincial Administration Law of 1949, were symbolized by a Bucak Director and a gendarmerie station (1).

Bucak (Nahiye) centers were not just administrative units but also the economic and social centers of attraction for villages. These points, where weekly markets were established, health centers were located, and basic public services such as schools spread to surrounding villages, performed the duty of being the engine of local development. However, with the development of transportation networks and the increase in the number of vehicles since the 1960s, the access of villages to districts has become easier, and the functionality of Bucaks has begun to be questioned (2).

The system began to weaken in practice starting from the 1970s, and the positions of Bucak directorates were gradually vacated. At the end of this process, with the legal regulation made in 2014, the Bucak system was completely removed from the laws and deleted from the civil administration hierarchy (3). However, this removal has brought along a serious administrative gap. In mountainous and rural settlements far from the district center, the inspection power and service speed of the state have decreased due to the absence of this intermediate level.

The end of the Bucak (Nahiye) system has caused rural management in Türkiye to be squeezed between “districtization” and “centralization.” Today, the efforts of many former Bucak centers to attain district status or the security and service disruptions in these regions still remind us of the requirement for an intermediate level of management (4). For a rational architecture in the settlement pattern, it constitutes a necessity to focus on new and flexible management models that will fill the gap created by this lost link.

Aydın Tiryaki Ankara, January 12, 2026

---

All ideas, opinions, and suggestions in this article belong to the author. During the process of writing the text, the artificial intelligence Gemini was utilized for writing assistance and information compilation.

ANNEXES

Annex A: Historical Change in the Number of Bucaks (Nahiye) in Türkiye

• 1924: 681 Bucaks
• 1950: 924 Bucaks
• 1970: 710 Bucaks
• 2014: Completely removed from the laws

Annex B: Some Important Former Bucak Centers That Attained District Status

• Ankara: Kalecik (Former Nahiye)
• İstanbul: Şile (Former Nahiye)
• İzmir: Selçuk (Former Nahiye)

REFERENCES

(1) Provincial Administration Law No. 5442 (Amendments before and after 1949). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr

(2) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Interior, Turkish Administrative History Research and Bucak Organization Report. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/illeridaresi

(3) Law No. 6552 (Article regarding the legal termination of the Bucak system). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr

(4) Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), Archive of Settlement Units and Administrative Division Statistics. https://www.tuik.gov.tr