WHAT ROLE DID EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM PLAY IN THE LONGEVITY OF NASSER`S REGIME FROM 1952-56?
Word Count: 3740
What role did Egyptian nationalism play in the longevity of Nasser’s regime from 1952-56?
Forms of Nationalism
The very notion of nationalism conjures up images of imperialism and conflict, especially in regions that are already volatile. Yet, many successful regimes and political parties have succeeded on nationalism platforms. One of such regimes is that of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egyptian’s president from 1956 until 1970. Nationalism is the loyalty and devotion to a nation, a sense of national consciousness promoting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on publicity of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations. Nationalism has been seen throughout history as a cause of either uprising or war, for example world war one. Nationalism is seen as a threat or a cause of such events, due to it leading to other forms of radicalism. Extreme nationalists are those whom would do anything for their country as well as shun all other nations, whether opposed or not. This may lead to civil uprising and wars. An example of Nationalism would be the Great War. The concept of nationalism had caused for great tension to build up between the opposing nations, as well as influencing nations to join the war in order to not portray them as weak or vulnerable. There are other forms of Nationalism such as Pan-Nationalism, which is similar to Nationalism but is associated with national territory, which does not correspond to political borders, such as cultural/ethnic groups.
Before WWI, the Ottoman Empire was the dominant nation state in the Middle East. While the region may not have been stable at the time, it can be considered relatively stable when compared to the Middle East today. After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, numerous nation states formed and stability, for some time, fluctuated. After all, parties in the Middle East vied for control over territory and power, even forming alliances and coalition to consolidate power. With the West becoming an increasing presence in the region, especially with its concentration on resources, there was effectively a need for states to take sides. WWII exacerbated matters severely, as military engagements broke out across several parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The Cold War, too, forced many states to choose sides, in effect. Neutrality was a relief afforded to few nation states at that time. The series of international and regional conflicts between states that the Middle Eastern and African countries were not parties to still promote political conflict and restlessness within these nation states. Egypt was no exception.
From this post-WWII condition in the Middle East ushered in a particular ideology, one that had slowly started developing at the beginning of the 20th century. More specifically, there was a need for an ideology that solved two problems: the problem of frequent political conflict between Middle Eastern states and within such states, and the problem of having to choose sides in the wars of others. From these needs, as well as several other factors, arose Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism, in its most common form in the 1950s and 1960s, was focused on the emergence and maintenance of an Arab identity that would guide political decisions, create peace, and promote the interests of Arab states as opposed to simply being pawns in the matters of Western powers. Arab nationalism promised a somewhat cohesive and peaceful Middle East, in which cooperation was valued over conflict. After all, this was a cultural and ethnic ideology. Preserving Arab culture and maintain the long-held social ideals of the Arab identity were paramount. Another important characteristic of Arab nationalism was the importance of modeling political and social structures on those of the past. There was a long history of successful Arab empires, from the Mesopotamian and early Persian (Achaemenid) empire to the Ottoman Empire with many great nation states in-between. For a country and its leaders to embrace Arab nationalism was to emulate, in some significant way, the political and social structures and standards established in the past.
It is important to recognize that, while Arab nationalism arose from a combination of factors around the Middle East, Egypt and Nasser played major roles in the advancement of Arab nationalism. Egyptian nationalism, of course, was its own type of nationalism, but is certainly connected to the greater Arab nationalism movement that flourished under Nasser. The origins of Egyptian nationalism can be seen after the British had colonized Egypt in 1882. Many Egyptian nationalists wanted the British influence to be completely eradicated from Egypt, with Egyptian and Arab nationalistic ideology spread throughout the population, through the influence of Gamal Abdul Nasser. It was seen that Egyptian pride is what drove the nationalists into the need of eradicating the British rule, many had seen Britain to be helping the economy, so the Egyptian population had then strived to achieve national self-determination. Rejecting British assistance, trade, and any cultural influences from the West were a major focus for much of the nationalists in Egypt. In fact, Egyptian Nationalism had been focused on ending the British colonial Rule since the colonization in 1882, this influence has been seen to be ruling the nation, which made it seem to the people that they are lacking independence as well as shown to be weak . However, many embraced the British influence and saw the advantages of a powerful nation to be a direct link to the security of the Egyptian nation. Egyptian nationalism bolstered Nasser’s rise to power, as he preached and strived of this ideological view as a great Egyptian power. In 1913, Zaghlul was the vice president of the legislative assembly, during his term it was stated that in order to achieve independence it is to be done through legislation and reforms. This was influenced by Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi and Sati al-Husi (Arab Nationalists, influential politicians of the 19th century). This influenced Nasser’s reforms when later brought into power in 1952.
The Suez Canal
In 1956, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal as part of his broad Egyptian nationalism policies and reforms, which will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. The Suez Canal is a passage between mainland Egypt and the Sinai, which had created a passage route from the Mediterranean to the Red sea. Built by the Egyptian people however owned by Britain as well as France, the Suez Canal was seen to the Egyptian people as an everlasting sign of the lack of independence. The Canal was a major transport route of which many nations including Egypt had wanted to gain control of. Gamal Abdul Nasser had sought out to nationalize the canal in order to establish the beginning of the start of completely diminishing the British rule in Egypt. The nationalization of the Suez Canal served as a symbol for anti-imperialism in the Middle East, thrusting Nasser from merely being a strong political leader in Egypt to being a Middle Eastern leader at the front of the Arab nationalism movement.
After many of his reforms were implemented and much of the dissent against him quashed, Nasser would turn his focus on further improving Egypt, specifically. This meant a discernible turn away from Arab nationalism, in many ways returning to what earned him power in Egypt in the first place, Egyptian nationalism.
Abdel Nasser faced horrendous domestic problems that effectively claimed every iota of his energies and relegated Arab nationalist issues to the bottom of his agenda. To begin with, there were the masses of Israeli soldiers camped on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal, a mere three hours' drive from Cairo. If their commanders felt like making the trip, Abdel Nasser knew that he did not have an army to stop them. Then there was the abysmal condition of the fragile economy, made even weaker by the financial strains of war and its attendant demographic dislocations. The task of domestic reconstruction was Herculean, robbing Abdel Nasser of any inclination to look beyond Egypt's dented frontiers.
Nasser’s initial reforms after coming into power can be characterized as nationalistic, meaning that they were focused on improving the Egyptian state, even if it meant disrupting the current political and social structures in Egypt. As Nasser became a more important political figure in the Middle East, especially in leading the charge against Western imperialism, many of these domestic aims seemed to get lost. Yet, as his rule continued, Nasser would return the focus to his domestic policies and his Egyptian nationalism agenda. It is undeniable, that Nasser’s balancing of Egyptian nationalism and Arab nationalism policies and approaches thrust him into power not only in Egypt, but also as the preeminent political figure in the Arab world.
The Egyptian and Nationalist Revolutions
The Free Officers Movement served as the revolutionary group that Nasser was involved in during the revolution. This movement sprung out of the Muslim Brotherhood and emphasized nationalism. In particular, members of the movement were active in the promotion of the interests of the Egyptian people as a whole, rather than one particular class (i.e., the ruling class or the upper-class). This movement can also be viewed as a sort of countermovement against a movement that promoted a rather exclusive advancement of political power. In other words, the pre-revolutionary political leaders in Egypt were quite focused on slowing the economic advancements of the lower class, given that such advancements were promoting revolutionary sentiment and the rise of political leaders who were not part of the traditional political hierarchy. It is important to recognize, here, that the pre-revolutionary Egyptian political leaders were quite concerned with asserting state power as a means to control the population, across virtually all classes. The assertion of such control created resentment in many classes across Egypt. The result was that there was already strong support for the revolution and for the sort of populist, nationalist social changes that were promised by the Free Officers Movement and Nasser in particular.
The Egyptian Revolution began in 1952. It can be viewed as resulting from an era of anti-monarchy, anti-colonialism, and anti-British sentiment. The public support for the revolution enabled a full-scale revolution, meaning that members of virtually every class participated, even though there were, of course, dissenters in every class as well, especially large farm owners and business owners who would be negatively impacted. In January of 1952, British forces ordered Egypt to surrender the Suez Canal due to anti-British activities that occurred at this location. The British engaged the Egyptians, killing 40 and injuring 70 Egyptian more. This sparked many riots and protests, which contributed to foreign businesses burning down and fostering nationalism, on one hand, and the recognition of the possibility of social and political disaster, on the other. Nasser was angered by the fact that the Egyptian government did not attempt to stop or halt the riots and protests, despite his nationalist approach. Nasser was much more concerned with Egypt’s relative power, rather than with any particularly strong position against foreigners or foreign governments.
Nasser’s forces were moving into Cairo by July 1952, seizing control of strategic military and government posts and this was done with almost to none resistance. Military leader Sadat was called on my Nasser to come to Cairo for the start of the revolution. Sadat saw that the rebels had stormed many military bases and arrested officers. Sadat became the communication officer as Nasser ordered. Sadat was contacting rebel leaders in the Sinai, the western desert, Alexandria, and other major Egyptian cities in order to coordinate an offensive on Cairo. In July 23, Sadat was instructed by Nasser to seize control of the Cairo Radio stations to broadcast an official statement to the people in order to announce a Coup. The toppling of the British controlled government and the fall of foreign powers pleased many Egyptians and thus Nasser had gained immense amounts of support not only in Egypt, but in the entire Middle East. Nasser’s perceived accomplishments solidified his reputation in the region.
Nationalist Reform
Land reforms became a major issue during the reign of Nasser. In fact, one of the driving messages behind the revolution was to drastically transform the existing social and political structures regarding land. Before the revolution, a very small group of Egyptians owned the majority of Egyptian land. Exacerbating this issue is the fact that an even smaller group of Egyptians owned virtually all of the fertile land in the state. In fact, Makram Ebeid Pasha presented the government of a fully drafted bill that aimed to enhance the percentage of fertile land to small land-owners (i.e., those owning less than 50 acres) in September 1945. By 1950, more than one-third of all fertile land was owned by less than 0.5% of Egyptians. Another third was shared between 95% of the population, which is made up of mostly poor farmers. The combination of these factors not only suggested that there was high inequality, but also contributed to greater inequality in the state. Also, the financial institutions in Egypt charged absurdly high interest rates, crippling the owners of small farms and others in the lower class who needed loans. The result included continued problems regarding inequality, as well as increases in malnourishment, disease, and a high mortality rate for the lower classes, especially the rural lower classes. Such classes, nonetheless, formed a large portion of the population. This meant that Nasser would receive major support from much of the population for his positions on land reform.
Land reforms included a number of targeted changes that would improve the conditions of the lower classes. Such reforms including the implementation of a maximum that any particular could own in acres of land. This maximum was a 100-acre ceiling held by any particular family. This drastically altered the social and economic structures of Egypt, relieving many of the peasant families in the state. Families that had owned large amounts of land had to forfeit much of this land to others, of course. Another important land reform included halting absentee ownership protections. Ultimately, this led to further decreases in social and economic inequality. Social inequality refers to the positions of influence held by individuals in the context of the social structures within any society. In addition, Nasser’s regime capped the rent that could be charged to small-scale farmers. Similarly, financial reforms diminished the practice of exploiting small farm owners, peasants, and consumers. The legal rights of peasants were also increased drastically under Nasser, further solidifying his populist position.
Nasser also attempted to remodel completely the structure of wealth by transferring ownership from a narrow capitalist class at the top of the social pyramid to the millions of workers and poor laborers at the very bottom. This contributed to the rise of the poor classes economically and socially. Such egalitarian policies were very popular, enabling Nasser to capture strong support early on. This, of course, contributed to the longevity of Nasser’s rule. These reforms centered on Nasser’s populism, but his nationalism perspective reinforced such policies. After all, Nasser was aiming at the improvement of the Egyptian state as a whole, instead of focusing only on the ruling elite. Such a focus contributed heavily to increasing heroism being associated with Nasser. From this perspective, Nasser was viewed as a champion or hero of the general population, including the lower classes.
Nasser’s public-sector policies varied drastically from those that came before him. He effectively introduced a new class of state-owned factories, companies and enterprises during the late 1950s to the early 1960s. This set of policies drastically reformed Egypt, pushing it closer to what may be considered a Communist state than the sort of feudalism and upper-class concentrations that came before. Nasser’s policies also included at least some nationalization of almost all sizeable businesses in Egypt, meaning that the government began asserting power over the upper-class and business owners, flipping the policies of the regimes that preceded Nasser’s. This nascent public sector drove industrialization in the state, demonstrating Nasser’s commitment to nationalism. A number of large-scale projects were also constructed at the time. Many of the Middle East and Africa’s largest steel works, cotton weaving, steel factories arose in Alexandria. Meanwhile, the completion of the High Dam in Aswan demonstrated Egypt’s commitment to the future and to a sustainable economy in which the government would provide opportunities for the lower classes through the regulation and effective control over business. The Aswan Dam had stopped the Nile from flooding the valley each year. These policies coupled with the land reforms and the new public sector massively changed Egypt’s economy, transferring 75% of Egypt’s GDP to the state or to millions of small farm and business owners. The solution to social, political, and income inequality was now realized.
As one might expect, these political, social and economic changes did not come without unintended consequences. After all, there was a ruling class that was losing power, both in relative terms and in absolute economic terms. Many in the ruling class sought to overthrow the Nasser regime, despite the success of the Egyptian economy in the region. The state’s economy grew by 9% annually. Industrialization led to manufacturing gains that contributed to increases in GDP that were very impressive. For example, GDP growth was 14% in the late 1940s, but grew to an astounding 45% by 1970. His reforms had been particularly successful.
Nasser’s Regime Longevity and the Decline of Power in the Middle East
Nasser was, in many ways, forced to shift away from his Arab nationalism positions, in the midst of growing domestic issues.
Abdel Nasser, by moving away from revolutionary Arab nationalism and its touchstone of comprehensive and organic Arab unity, was at least partly to blame for the growing prominence of competing ideologies. His deepening dependence on the financial support of conservative Arab states—the same oil kingdoms that had fought Abdel Nasser's Arab nationalism tooth and nail—set the seal on the Arab nationalist creed. Pragmatic considerations outweighed ideological fidelity in Abdel Nasser's decision to seek detente with the status quo forces in the area. He signaled this change of attitude by closing down the "Voice of the Arabs" radio station, which for so long had been the shrill voice of radical Arab nationalism. Then came the Khartoum summit meeting, consecrating the territorial nationalism of each Arab state as the dominant ideology, regulating inter-Arab relations on the principle of state sovereignty.
For his stand on the Suez Canal and his many reforms. In Egypt, Nasser was viewed as a hero. More broadly across the region, Nasser was viewed quite favorably. In fact, he was one of the few leaders in the Arab world who seemed capable of fostering peaceful negotiations without succumbing to Western forces or entering into Western alliances. The state media also played a large role in the depiction of heroism for Nasser. In particular, the messages disseminated from the state government and passed on through the media were quite nationalist and populist in nature, even if such messages did not align perfectly with the policies and decisions made by the regime. In any case, the state was successful in promoting Nasser through messages that portrayed him favorably and as accomplishing the will of the people
By the late 1950s, a major problem in the Middle East was finding a way to reconcile varied Arab interests. Arab nationalism had only done so much at a time in which Middle Eastern and Africa conflict remained common. The erosion of Nasser’s influence and perceived power came at a time in which the prospect of Arab nationalism was giving way to the individual nationalism policies in the Middle East. In the midst of Middle Eastern conflict arising during Nasser’s reign, “with Arab pitted against Arab, there were no easy victories on the shelf. No word or term could match the symbolic power and emotional resonance of "anti-imperialism," with its conceptual separation of Arab from non-Arab, of "us" from "them." Iraq's 'Abd al-Karim Qasim, Saudi Arabia's King Faisal, or the monarchists in Yemen could not be defeated by symbolism alone.” In the 1960s, Nasser’s power was eroding, perhaps more from what was going on around him than from any of his own actions and policies. “By 1967, the loss of the imperialist foil had eroded Abdel Nasser's charisma, undermining his perceived ability to bring the other parts of the Arab world into his Arab nationalist caravan. This symbolic diminution of Abdel Nasser's aura was as devastating for Arab nationalism as the June 1967 military defeat of Egypt and the other Arabs.” With Nasser’s power fading in the region, it seemed that Arab nationalism was, itself, being eroded.