Throughout Egypt's history, attempts at change have been successful only when they originated from within the state's apparatus or worked in conjunction with it. The Urabi Revolution, for instance, initially enjoyed some success due to its alignment with the civilian elite, who operated within the state's orbit. This harmony allowed the Urabis to eventually take formal control. However, their downfall was hastened by a sharp rupture with the ruling powers, be it the Khedive or the Ottoman Sultanate.
The 1919 revolution, led by figures such as Saad Zaghlul and Adly Yakan, learned from the Urabis' mistakes. They maintained open lines of communication with the Sultan, King Fuad, and heads of government like Hussein Roshdy. This strategic approach was underpinned by the revolutionaries' shared values of Egyptian nationalism, secularism, and the pursuit of national independence, constitutional governance, and judicial independence. Their social origins, largely from the ranks of landowners, notable peasants, and Turkish or Circassian families who had become Egyptian, also contributed to their cohesion.
The 1919 revolutionaries skillfully managed the contradictions between the national movement and the state apparatus, ensuring that they maintained lines of communication and trust with the state's machinery. This prevented the British from monopolizing power and using the state against the revolution or the people's demands for independence and a constitution. The British occupation itself had set a precedent that change in Egypt must be channelled through the state, rather than through external means.
The British demonstrated this principle by preserving the Egyptian state and its institutions, merely overlaying them with a system of informal dual control. This involved balancing the Sultan with the British High Commissioner and pairing each minister with a British advisor. British directives were cloaked as "advice," allowing them to implement their policies from within the Egyptian state's structures.
The lesson was not lost on the Free Officers who led the 23 July 1952 revolution. Emerging from within one of Egypt's state institutions, they were able to seize control of the remaining institutions and effortlessly transform Egypt from a monarchy to a republic. They closed one chapter of history and forged a new one, thanks to their grip on the state's apparatus.
This historical pattern underscores the notion that in Egypt, meaningful change has consistently required working from within the state's framework. From Salah al-Din to Muhammad Ali and Gamal Abdel Nasser, this maxim has held true. It suggests that for any significant transformation to occur, it must be in harmony with, or at the very least, not in opposition to, the existing state structures.
The continuity of this theme through Egyptian history highlights the importance of the state as a vehicle for change. While there have been various methods and actors, the underlying principle that change must be channelled through the state has remained constant. This understanding has guided both the proponents of change and those who have sought to maintain the status quo.
Key points
- Change in Egypt has historically been successful only when originating from within the state's structures or in conjunction with them.
- The 1919 revolutionaries and the 1952 Free Officers leveraged their connections within the state to achieve their goals.
- The British occupation's approach to governing through existing state institutions reinforced the importance of working within the state for change.
