While Fethullah Gülen (1941–2024) was the undisputed leader of the Hizmet (“service”) movement for over 50 years, his authority gradually became routinized into a bureaucratic structure of hierarchies, procedures, and offices, writes Ida Hartmann (University of Copenhagen) in an article in Contemporary Islam (online August 25) focusing on the aftermath
of the dramatic 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. Hartmann challenges the portrayal of Hizmet as a purely charismatic religious movement centered around Gülen’s personal authority. Over decades, the community developed complex bureaucratic structures that distributed authority beyond Gülen himself. This bureaucratization was shaped by the political contexts where Hizmet
operated. Hizmet began in 1960s Turkey as a close-knit religious brotherhood organized around Gülen’s charismatic teachings. The community expanded into a vast network of schools, media organizations, and businesses extending globally.
Fethullah Gülen, founder of Hizmet movement.
This growth required developing hierarchical organizational structures. Authority evolved from pure charisma to a “pyramidal structure.” At the top were “senior brothers” (Gülen’s disciples) based at his Pennsylvania retreat. Below, authority cascaded through international, national, regional, and local levels, with leaders selected for loyalty and proficiency. Those were “hidden
hierarchies” with no explicit diagrams, decision procedures, or selection criteria. This opacity stemmed from Turkey’s secularist state, which banned Sufi orders in 1925 and suppressed Islamic groups. It enabled “adaptational dexterity,” shielding Hizmet from crackdowns while allowing it to infiltrate state institutions like the judiciary and police. Abroad, branches became
more formalized, aligning with local transparency norms. For instance, in Western contexts, Hizmet adopted explicit governance in schools and NGOs.
After the failed coup and subsequent repression (involving mass arrests, asset seizures, and Hizmet’s near-eradication in Turkey), many Hizmet members fled to Europe and North America, where they encountered demands for transparency and democratic governance that conflicted with the community’s opaque Turkish-style organization. Diaspora followers, especially younger, Western-educated ones, pushed for transparency and accountability, leading to conflict between
“old guard” senior brothers, tied to Gülen’s charismatic authority and Turkish opacity, and reformers. The article examines key voices of reform, advocating various approaches. After Gülen died in 2024, the senior leadership announced that a committee would lead according to istişare (consultation) principles, with decisions subject to secretariat evaluation. This case study
shows how religious movements navigate between maintaining traditional authority and adapting to modern institutional environments, with authority emerging from collective interpretive practices rather than individual charisma alone.
(Contemporary Islam, https://link.springer.com/journal/11562)
