"Pet patriotism"... How did the Egyptian bourgeoisie abort the ambitions of the 1919 revolution?

A century after the Egyptian Revolution of 1919... dreams of freedom and aspirations for emancipation are still burning (social networking sites)

“If the bourgeoisie had not been the one guiding them and determining their steps, they would have been able to achieve Egypt’s complete independence, where there is no protection for the interests of England or anyone else.”

This is how the writer Salah Issa, in his book “The Egyptian Bourgeoisie and the Method of Negotiation,” summarized the role of that social class in limiting the course and consequences of the 1919 Revolution.

This hypothesis was not concluded by Jesus and others who chronicled that era in a vacuum;

The events of the revolution that broke out more than a hundred years ago - on March 9, 1919 - confirm the dangerous role played by the Egyptian bourgeoisie in charting the revolutionary path for the poor classes.

What increases the strangeness of the scenes of this revolution is that the direct cause of its outbreak was the British occupation authority’s exile of a group of members of the Egyptian bourgeois class.

It is true that the causes of the revolution were present and rooted in the history of the British occupation in Egypt for decades, but its ignition on this date came as a direct result of the exile of the leader of the National Movement - at the time - Saad Zaghloul and three of his companions, to Malta.

The interests of the bourgeoisie

After nearly thirty years of British occupation of Egypt, Egyptians were fed up with the occupation policies, which reached their oppressive peak with the beginning of World War I in 1914.

First, martial law was declared with the outbreak of war, and laws were issued criminalizing gatherings and striking. Then a package of decisions was issued regarding the Egyptians’ contribution to the costs of the war in which the occupier was a party.

Crops and livestock were confiscated, peasants were forced to grow crops suited to wartime needs, and hundreds of thousands of rural people were forcibly conscripted to participate in auxiliary work behind the battle lines.

In addition, basic commodities decreased in the markets, and the prices of what were available increased to a degree that exhausted the poor classes, and matters spread to the bourgeois class, which basically owns agricultural lands and factories.

While the poor were shaking the dust from their chests full of revolution, the bourgeois class, with its intelligence motivated to protect its interests, was managing the entire revolutionary scene in its favor.

Salah Issa says in his book, “The bourgeoisie remained keen on subordinating the popular mass movement within the framework of its specific energy.” A desire to serve its goals of sharing power with colonialism or monopolizing it.”

In this, the poor masses used a scarecrow to frighten their enemies, whether the occupation or the king.

Some national leaders, led by Saad Zaghloul, all of whom were bourgeois, submitted a request to form a delegation to represent Egypt at the peace conference in Paris to demand the independence of their country.

The British High Commissioner refused the delegation’s travel, and due to the national leaders’ insistence on their position, the occupying authority was forced to exile Saad Zaghloul, Muhammad Mahmoud, Hamad Al-Basel, and Ismail Sidqi to Malta, on March 8, 1919. This behavior was the spark that sparked the anger of the Egyptians and ignited their revolution.

Pet patriotism

played the bourgeoisie for its interests on all the conflicting parties at that time. In his book “Pet patriotism... delegation and the building of the national state under colonialism,” Tamim Al-Barghouti explains that “this elite offers the entire indigenous population the promise of liberation, and offers the invading power the promise of preserving colonial interests.” Vitality.

Negotiation is the card played by that class on both sides.

While the poor street was ablaze with revolution, the bourgeoisie realized the danger of leaving the threads to the poor, so they proposed negotiation as a solution between the revolutionaries and the English.

Things become clearer through an incident narrated by Fikri Abaza in his book “The Crying Laughter,” in which the peasants’ anger at the attacks on foreigners’ property during the revolution extended to the property of the bourgeois class.

Abaza recounts how the peasants tried to seize the property of Mahmoud Pasha Suleiman - and his son was part of the delegation seeking the independence of Egypt - and some intellectuals tried to prevent the peasants from doing so, from an interrogative logic: “How do you want to burn the property of Mahmoud Pasha when his son seeks to Egyptian independence?” The farmers’ response was, “ The Pasha did not distribute to us the means of living.”

Negotiation:

The man who was exiled to Malta after he asked to travel to Paris to present the issue of his country’s independence to mainly imperialist powers did not hide his negotiating approach from the beginning.

Saad Zaghloul was the one who told Sir Reginald Wingate, in November 1918, that Egypt, which demanded its independence, promised England not to harm its interests.

He promised that Egypt would give England a guarantee on its way to India, namely the Suez Canal, and would even give it the exclusive right to occupy it when necessary.

He is the one who said in one of the sessions of the House of Representatives, “I see that the path open to me to achieve the nation’s purpose and goal is negotiation.”

Then the same man resorted to arbitration by occupying authorities through an international conference.

Therefore, when Saad Zaghloul and his companions were exiled, it was natural for the rest of the bourgeoisie to follow the path of their leader.

The day after the deportation of Saad Zaghloul and his companions, a delegation of university students - who would then ignite the revolution - went to one of the delegation’s members, Abdel Aziz Fahmy, asking him about the reaction they should take. He asked them to return to their universities and not “play with fire.” "So as not to increase the anger of the English.

Some members of the delegation, who would then travel to Paris, also sent telegrams to Sultan Fuad I confirming that they had no connection to the actions of the masses.

On March 24, Egyptian ministers and notables warned of the effects of cutting railway lines and attacking property.

In the name of the nation's interests, they urged the revolutionaries to calm down so that those they described as "those who serve the nation through legitimate means" could move forward in their endeavors.

In the face of the revolution of the poor and working classes, England was forced to release Saad Zaghloul, and allowed an Egyptian delegation to travel to the peace conference in Paris, to present to it the issue of Egyptian independence.

It was natural that the members of the reconciliation conference did not respond to the demands of the Egyptian delegation.

The Egyptians returned to their revolution, and Britain was forced to issue the declaration of February 28, 1922, which stipulated the abolition of British protection over Egypt, the declaration of Egypt as an independent state, the issuance of the first Egyptian constitution, and the formation of the first ministry headed by Saad Zaghloul.

But what happened on the ground was that the British remained in Egypt, and the situation did not move slightly towards the withdrawal of the occupation except with the signing of the 1936 treaty, but the last English soldier left the land of Egypt in 1956.

Source: Al Jazeera