Remembered by recent events such as the grounding of the Evergreen ship in the Suez Canal, in 2021, or the Arab Spring, in 2011, Egypt celebrates this Monday (28) the centenary of its independence, which was followed by a monarchy.
The process, according to professors Reginaldo Nasser, a specialist in the Middle East with full professorship at PUC-SP, and Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, in the USA, was more symbolic than effective — and did not confer the status of leadership among Arab countries, an aspect that, on the rise in the second half of the 20th century, was no longer part of the Egyptian reality.
“[O ano de 1922] it was not a big step for Egypt. There was still a British high commission, British advisers, troops from the Empire, including Canadians, Indians, South Africans, Australians,” says Goldschmidt.
“These monarchies ended up being a negotiated independence. Adopting the English model, these monarchies came, but they were far from nationalist”, says Nasser. “It’s an independence in quotes.”
Originally a sort of privileged part of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt was occupied by British forces in 1882 after a rehearsal of a nationalist uprising. From that time forward, the British Empire remained in the region, although the area was not officially a Commonwealth-administered colony.
“It was one of those situations where the longer they stayed, the more they found reasons to stay,” says Goldschmidt.
Nasser says that records from the time even show a westernized Egypt: “The references were all western in the Egyptian elite. Egypt absorbed a lot [da tradição ocidental]: science, universities. That tradition of a more literate elite, of newspapers. They tried to recreate a European model within the Middle East,” he says.
This aspect of valuing Arab culture still keeps Egypt central in research as a point of reference in the Middle East and North Africa region, but in terms of political and military influence, the golden age has passed.
Currently commanded by the military regime of General Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi, since independence in 1922 Egypt has lived a monarchy, which ended in 1952 with the process known as the Free Officers’ Revolution, led by the career military.
The leadership of generals followed: Mohamed Naguib, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, deposed in the Arab Spring.
The country then lived a very brief period ruled by the first democratically elected president in history, Mohamed Mursi, who brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power, until finally there was the resumption of military rule, with Al-Sisi.
Unlike the 1952 revolution and the Arab Spring, the 1922 independence was not, according to the professors, a violent process. It was made up of some demonstrations and there was even a moment when the Cairo telegraph lines were cut, but the prisoners and dead were far from the numbers recorded in the Arab Spring.
Estimates based on governments and reports from human rights organizations point to around 900 deaths in 2011 and more than 6,000 injured. Estimates of arrests over the ten years that followed the uprising amount to 60,000 detainees.
Despite having become an international reference during the Arab Spring — the occupation of Tahrir Square, in Cairo, inspired Occupy Wall Street and the Spanish 15M —, the golden age of Egyptian political influence began in 1952 — and ended, in the analysis of the teachers, in 1979, with the signing of the Camp David accords, which sealed peace between the country and neighboring Israel, a common enemy of the Arab nations in the region.
With the entry of the military into power, mainly Gamal Nasser, Egypt increased its tone in the leadership of pan-Arabism in the region, that is, to advocate for the union of Arab peoples and nations. The Arab League, an organization from 1945 that institutionally consolidated this ideology, was led by Egypt – to this day the League’s headquarters.
Goldschmidt is alert, however, to a shift in hegemony within the group, which now responds more directly to the interests of oil-exporting countries, such as Saudi Arabia.
The height of nationalism and Egypt’s regional influence was, according to Professor Nasser, with the nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956. President Nasser’s action was followed by a joint Israeli offensive with France and England – which still held power over the area.
This was a rare episode where the United States and the Soviet Union stood side by side during the Cold War in support of Egypt. At the end of the conflict, the former colonial powers were defeated and Nasser strengthened his anti-colonialist appeal in the region.
To this day, the channel remains fundamentally important for Egypt, including revenue inflows. “[A crise do Evergreen] showed how important it remains for the circulation of goods, including oil. It is a fundamental point and at the same time a mark of colonialism”, says Reginaldo Nasser.
Nasser is attentive, however, to the need for care when analyzing the conflict, which did not signify an Egyptian alignment with either American capitalism or Soviet socialism. “While nationalism appears as a counterpoint to American imperialism, it was an instrument against communism. Nasser repressed communism in Egypt. This Arab nationalism contains a contradiction,” he says.
The Egyptian president became known for a leading role in the movement of the non-aligned, that is, of former colonies that did not identify with the ideological alignments of the Cold War.
At the time, the project was, above all, one of economic development: in addition to the nationalization of the canal, an agrarian reform was carried out and there was an incentive for industrialization – which paid off. Arthur Goldschmidt says that at the time of independence, in 1922, about 90% of Egypt’s economy was agrarian, with a focus on cotton. Since then, the country has sought to industrialize and produce for the domestic market. The quality of the products, for Goldschmidt, was not the best, but it indicated a step forward.
Despite the reform, the professor says that Egypt has not reached self-sufficiency or economic independence and that it still depends, including, on financial subsidies from neighboring powers, in the case of Saudi Arabia. The professors point to a particularity of the Egyptian case, which was the participation of the military in the economic sector: they acquired industries, tourist companies.
Politically, the downfall came with the truce with Israel in 1979. After a series of offensives that weakened Egypt, the signing of the peace accords caused the country’s expulsion from the Arab League and the severing of diplomatic ties with its Arab neighbors. Despite the return to the League, Egypt did not become involved in conflicts that broke out in the region at this time, such as the civil war in Lebanon (1975-1980) or the current conflict in Yemen.
The decadence was buried by the Arab Spring, which affected the political table, weakening other countries that were the protagonists of the golden age of pan-Arabism, such as Syria. The region’s leadership is now in the hands of oil exporters, often allied with US interests.
“Egypt was an influential country in the region even when the British were there. It was a cultural center. In that sense, it remains important. But politically, Egypt was much more influential in the Arab countries during the Nasser period,” says Goldschmidt.
“Today it is a broken country”, says Nasser, “the capitals that attracted the attention of the West in the Arab world – Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus – are gone”.
