Issue about the "Dual Kingdom"

The dual organisation that was observed in the Turkish political institutions caused the emergence of a theory that was called as "dual kingdom". According to this allegation, the leaders of the sections had the freedom of movement and they separately represented the government as "two rulers that formed governments parallel to each other". This system was actually based on the inheritable, religious and social roots and it was not only peculiar to the Turkish "nomadic people". This system was also observed among the tribes of Khirghiz people, Mongolians, Ural people, Tibetans, the Central African and Oceanic tribes. However, Turks have attained a distinguished influence through the development that was based on this state order. It is beyond doubt that this allegations that seems to be interesting at first sight does not express the reality at all in respect of the Turkish state conception and the general (public) law. Actually, there was not a parallelism in the government and sovereignty within the Turkish states. There was always the superiority of one side to the other under any circumstances. Despite the relative degree, this issue has been determined with the symbols of khanate. For example, the flag with the globular knob of golden wolf was always under the possession of the ruler of the eastern side within the Gok-Turk State and this flag would set waves in front of his palace or large tent.

When the Chinese emperor wanted to separate the western section from the eastern section of the Gok-Turk khanate in the year of 581, he sent a flag with the knob of a golden wolf to Tardu that was in the western branch. Therefore, he had declared that he recognised Tardu as the "hakan" (ruler) of the Gok-Turk State. This situation was the same for the other Turkish states. For example, it is much difficult to imagine that there was a person with the equal power of sovereignty as Mo-tun who was the Asian Hun Tanhu (Ruler) and a partner of the government of the statesman like Attila in the west.

On the other hand, the charismatic quality of the right for sovereignty prevents this dual domination among the Turks. Therefore, it is of great significance that there was a "Bey" or "Şad" in the capacity of the actual ruler beside the hakan (ruler) that had hardly any responsibilities and the executive power. The issue that is the subject matter is not only the "domination". The issue that had much more importance was the issue of "legitimacy". Therefore, it is difficult to consider that more than one person was endowed with the God's gift (divine power) with the same level of state government and the same powers.

The persons that were considered as the executors in the name of the ruler included yabgu that was an assistant in all regions by the side of the ruler (in the Gok-Turk State), "beys" by the side of the ruler (among Khazar people), "yula" by the side of "Kündü" (among the Hungarian people), and "Kül-Erkin" by the side of the yabgu (among the Oguz people). Actually, it has not been observed that the aforesaid persons or the governors of the "subject" regions or the kings of the wings did not have any claim within the Turkish political organisations as long as they did not dare to revolt against the state.

Due to the belief that the charisma was inherited from father to son, there would be some struggles for the throne that took place among the sons of the ruler upon the death of the ruler. In case that one of these sons could not achieve a full success, the state would be dissolved and it would be divided to two or more independent regions. Therefore, new states would be formed (as it was observed among the Hun, Bulgarian, Gok-Turk, Tabga, Turgis peoples and even in the Karahanli State).

Therefore, the Turkish public law did not recognise the share of the right of sovereignty. Accordingly, it was required that the state would bear a fairly centralised character. The general attitude that was assumed in the government of the Turkish states had the quality that confirmed this reality. They were the persons of Hun origins that always had received instructions from the ordu (capital city). The sad people in the Gok-Turk State were the members of the ruler's dynasty. Similarly, the Curl and Erkin people that were the leaders of On-ok (Ten-arrows) tribes were the chief leaders that were sent to their regions with one arrow per each leader as the symbol of their subjection to the central government. Furthermore, the governors that were the members of the dynasty would be send as the leaders of the far and distant regions such as Beşbalik, etc.

Attila had appointed his son, İIek to establish dominion in the region extending from the east of his vast country towards the Ural Mountains. Before the year of 630, the country of Khazar that was the west wing of the Gok-Turk Empire was under the domination of a price from the family of Aşina and 7 tribes of the Hungarians were under the control of 7 buyruk people (ministers) that were assigned by the Khazar Khanate.

The Karluk yabgu princes were related with the Aşina family. The relatively small-scaled political organisations such as Uighur, Turgis, Oguz Yangu State, etc. were doubtlessly governed in the same way. For example, Uighur Ruler Moyen-çur was the leader of Oguz people while he was a "Tegin" (Crown Prince).

The situation in the Il-khanate (empire) was much different. Actually, several countries that were "subject" to the state were independent in their internal affairs. For example, there were 26 countries with this state of affairs within the Asian Hun Empire in the year of 176 BC. In the period of Attila, there were more than 25 Slav communities including the German, Iranian, Finno-Ugrian and Slav groups that were "dependent" to the Western Hun government. The foreigners must have been in the form of (Vassal) states in the entire empire. Their dependence in the central government was composed of the characteristics such as the lack of representatives in the course of the foreign affairs, the mediation of the Turkish states in reference with their foreign relations, the payment of a specific tax and the provision of the required backup troops in case of necessities. Attila's army was composed of 200 thousands of people in the war of Campus Mauriacus. Within this army, the number of the infantry backup troops composed of these "vassals" that were not suitable for the serial movement of Turkish style was much higher than the total number of the main Hun army.

These kinds of countries were dependent on the Turkish states through only their rules, kings, and chiefs. When the Turkish States collapsed, they would come into existence without losing any property from their tribal structures.