 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 April 1999 Issue No. 426 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 April 1999 Issue No. 426
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Special Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Al-Ahram:
A Diwan of contemporary life (282)
Egypt's modern civil service, organised and codified by Mohamed Ali in the first half of the 19th century, was politically dormant when administrative grievances began to be heard. But grumbling turned into protest action over political developments sparked off by the British occupation of Egypt which began in 1882. The majority of civil servants went on strike in April 1919 to protest the arrest and exile of several nationalist leaders headed by Saad Zaghlul, by the British. The nationalist strike lasted for about three weeks. But it was followed by a steady flow of complaints, protests and demands by civil servants for better working conditions. Dr Yunan Labib Rizk * tells the story from reports published by Al-Ahram
illustration:
Makram Henein
One of the marvels of the 1919 Revolution was the government functionaries' strike in support of Egyptian nationalist demands. Civil servants would have been perhaps the last segment of the population that one would have anticipated to engage in political activism. Yet, from this unexpected quarter came one of the most influential strikes in the revolution.To call this strike a marvel is not an understatement. Founded by Mohamed Ali Pasha, the father of modern centralised government in Egypt, at the beginning of the 19th century, the civil service was not even a century old by the time of the 1919 Revolution. Loyalty to the pasha was the functionary's watchword. It was Mohamed Ali who had established the modern educational system that spawned the functionaries and it was he who set the policies regulating the bureaucratic hierarchy, not to mention the penalties inflicted upon those who "deviated from the Royal will". Nothing could illustrate this more clearly than some of the articles of the first law regulating government jobs. One article read: "Whereas the good conduct of government rule necessitates the implementation of the provisions of laws and regulations, should the employees in government authorities, regardless of the seniority of their positions, fail to fulfil the stipulations of the laws and regulations, as is their duty, or should they commit an act contrary to the conditions of service, they shall be subject to the appropriate punishment." Another article offers an idea of the nature of the punishment that could be imposed on a wayward civil servant. It stipulates that whoever, by his actions, brings harm to the government "shall be incarcerated in the citadel for a period of six months to two years".
Also difficult to imagine was the possibility that government functionaries could summon the collective political will to go on strike. It was not until the 1870s that politically motivated disgruntlement began to infect the civil service. This was in response to the Khedive Ismail's policy of engaging foreign civil servants in government in order to placate his European creditors, notably France and Great Britain. Even then, however, discontent would have been confined to the circles of the senior ranking bureaucrats the majority of whom, at the time, were of Turco-Circasian origin. Towards the beginning of the 1880s, when financial straits brought cutbacks in government jobs, dissatisfaction infiltrated to the lower echelons of government employment, in which indigenous Egyptians had a greater representation. Their sympathies for the anti-British Orabi revolution in 1881 would have been motivated, to a good extent, by that leader's advocacy of employing nationals in government service. Still, the British had not yet entrenched their occupation of Egypt and nationalist sentiments had not yet built up the momentum that would generate the type of collective action manifested in 1919.
The Milner commission, which was sent to Egypt to examine the causes of the 1919 rebellion, noted a general resentment among government employees, although this was directed primarily against British government administration policies. Corroborating the nature of the grievances was the fact that after the revolutionary fervour subsided, government functionaries began to press their particular occupational demands. This development, nevertheless, would not have been possible had they not gained an advantage during the initial outburst of the revolution in March and April 1919.
The first harbinger of a civil servants' strike occurred on 10 March when employees of the Ministry of Justice submitted a petition to the sultan protesting the arrest and banishment of Saad Zaghlul. Over the next four days student demonstrations and workers' strikes gained steam, causing the interruption of transport systems and general chaos. To forestall further disruption, the British military authorities issued a caution to civil servants. They were instructed "to avoid involvement in political movements and to continue to perform their duties, in the performance of which they would enjoy the protection of the military authorities." The caution continued: "Whosoever attempts to obstruct them in the performance of their duties will subject himself to severe penalties in accordance with the provisions of martial law."
The warning was effective, at least for a time. When, by 24 March, there was no sign of the functionaries' involvement in the uprising, the British foreign secretary, in a speech to the House of Commons, praised them as the elite of the Egyptian nation who had the sense not to take part in the general disturbances. That day, too, military authorities in Egypt lauded a specific segment of government employees: the post office workers "who have exerted their utmost efforts to ensure the delivery of the mail and money orders with which they have been entrusted".
Egyptian civil servants cringed at this unsolicited praise. As Al-Ahram reported, "Government employees feel that their sympathies under the current circumstances have been misunderstood. They have, therefore, decided to make their sympathies explicit by stopping work in all the ministries and other government administrations." One contemporary observer commented, "Until that date, civil servants performed their duties faithfully. However, they shared the grievances and aspirations of the nation. Therefore, when the British misconstrued their behaviour, they took it as an affront and unanimously resolved to protest the British foreign secretary's commendation. They presented a letter of protest to His Royal Highness, the sultan, sent a copy of this petition to the consulates of the great powers in Cairo and announced their intention to go on strike for three days."
On 2 April 1919, the strike began. Their strike, moreover, gave a fortuitous green light to a contingent of students whose particular educational affiliations had prevented them from joining the general student movement until then. On this day, too, students of the police and military academies staged a protest march before the offices of foreign consuls and their residences.
Particular groups of civil servants, however, faced a difficult predicament. For them to refrain from work could inflict great harm on broad sectors of the populace. This applied in particular to telegraph and irrigation employees. Yet, whereas the former could "sustain their services to the public at a reduced extent", the latter, as a British communiqué announced, "remained in their posts and faithfully executed their periodic irrigation rotations on schedule". Of course, in opting to safeguard the nation's crops, the loyalties of the irrigation employees could not be called into question.
One Al-Ahram reader, Abdel-Aziz Hamdi, touched on another aspect of the civil servants' dilemma. Under the headline, "To my fellow government employees", he cautioned his peers against continuing the strike. To do so would offer "nefarious individuals the opportunity to exploit the na•veté of the uneducated classes to convince them that they have powers that were not sanctioned by God, thereby, undermining foreigners' confidence in our abilities to follow democratic processes."
Four days later, on 7 April, Egyptians woke up to the sound of British military aircraft overhead. The planes were dropping fliers containing High Commissioner Lord Allenby's announcement that Saad Zaghlul and his three colleagues had been released and were permitted to travel freely. It appeared that the unrest in Egypt would soon draw to a close, particularly now that Rushdi Pasha had agreed to form another cabinet. Al-Ahram gave two conflicting reports on the reaction of the civil servants to these developments. On 8 April it said that the employees would report back to work the following day. The following day, however, it announced that "the employees share in the jubilation of their fellow citizens and have decided not to report to work in order to join the rallies." The employees' decision caused the frustrated British High Commissioner to wire off a telegram to London saying, "All ministry employees, all postal employees and the majority of the railway employees did not report to work today."
Because it is always easier to get into the bath than out, as the saying has it, it took some time before work resumed as normal. On 10 April, government employees still did not go back to work as was expected. Instead, they formed a 32-member committee, whose first resolution was to prolong the strike until their demands were satisfied. These demands were government recognition of the committee, the lifting of martial law and "the withdrawal of British soldiers from the streets".
Suddenly, civil servants moved to centre stage in the Egyptian nationalist movement. Over the rest of April, Al-Ahram covered their negotiations with the government, which accepted their demands. Lord Allenby, on the other hand, did not. Successive communiqués from the cabinet and Lord Allenby relate these developments. On 12 April, the cabinet announced, "The persistence in waging the strike under the current circumstances will cause considerable disruption and chaos. The strikers should be aware of the enormous responsibility they bear towards their country." The strikers, in response, expanded their committee to 54 members and voted to continue the strike.
On 15 April, the cabinet communiqué adopted a more menacing tone. It instructed employees to report back to work the following day, or "bear the consequences of continuing the strike". Again, the functionaries would not be dissuaded. Life was getting complicated in the capital, particularly as regards communications. International consuls threatened to set up private postal networks for themselves and their subjects should the strike continue. Travel by rail was reduced to the minimum. On 17 April railway officials announced that rail travel would be restricted to certain classes of individuals: those who needed to travel for military reasons, government employees who needed to perform essential services and individuals forced to travel for emergencies. People wishing to travel by rail had to submit applications to the passports department in the railway station.
On 21 April, Lord Allenby issued a communiqué in which he warned that those employees who continued to strike would be "stricken from the government personnel registries". This warning, in conjunction with the resignation of the Rushdi government the following day, marked the turning point in the civil servants' strike. On the evening of 21 April, the civil servants' committee met and resolved that all government employees would return to work the following day. Although newspaper accounts made it appear as though the committee had pressed a magic button and that all employees were behind their desks the next day, British secret documents tell a different story. On the first working day after the strike, only four per cent of employees turned up for work in the Ministry of Finance, 16 per cent in the Ministry of Public Works and 18 per cent in the Ministry of Interior. It took a further two days until attendance was back to normal. However, rather than marking the end to the strike, 24 April simply ushered in another new phase in labour relations.
Over the subsequent days, civil servants organised to press their occupational demands. This unprecedented syndicate-like movement climaxed the sense of empowerment they acquired as a result of the success of their strike during the first three weeks of April. Taking the initiative were the railway employees, whose strike had the most profound impact on the country. Their grievances were that "their salaries are too low, that it took too long to receive pay raises and promotions and that they are not being treated on an equal footing with employees in other government authorities, forcing them to endure the lowest standards of living of all in these dire times." Telegraph employees came next. They complained that "some of them who have been in service for forty years are still working 8am to 8pm shifts." They too demanded more equitable treatment.
On 18 June, Al-Ahram remarked that it had received dozens of copies of the occupational demands submitted by government employees in various departments. The newspaper proceeded to categorise these into communal and individual demands. Communal demands included "amending the occupational grade scales, making the salaries commensurate with the current economic conditions, shortening the period of provisional employment status and shortening the duration of service necessary to be eligible for full pensions".
The railway and telegraph employees voiced the general principle for specific departmental demands. This was equal treatment in terms of pay, holidays, working hours and medical care, a demand which "merits the closest attention, for a single standard of treatment should be applied to all employees, without discrimination". Over the next few weeks, Al-Ahram offers a glimpse at the areas in which the standard of non-discrimination between government departments should be applied. Employees in the religious institutes submitted a petition of compassion to the sultan in which they grieved that the government's decision to accord them a cost of living salary increment had not been put into effect. They were "in dire need of assistance", writes Al-Ahram, because with their current salaries they could not keep pace with inflation. In August, the clerks in the Office of the Public Prosecutor demanded that they should be gradually assimilated into the civil servant grade scale and accorded the same rights as other government employees. Clerks working for the Cairo police pressed similar demands. In a petition to the Cairo police commissioner they complained that they had not received the salary raises due to them and that they were not treated equally with the clerks in the Labour Authority.
The civil servant movement also extended to the countryside. From Tanta, "employees of all grades have wired authorities complaining of the rising costs of living and the inability of their subsidies to cope with the needs of their families". One of two solutions was possible: "Either their subsidies should be increased or the government should ensure that sufficient foodstuffs and other essentials are stockpiled and sold to them at reasonable prices." From Qalyubiya, primary school teachers demanded, "in the name of all instructors in the nation", an increase in salary, a reduction in teaching load from 24 to 18 classes and a minimum of two months summer leave.
Naturally, the authorities responded to the demands in accordance with the relative importance of each category. Thus, while they met the railway employees' demands immediately, they told post office workers that "we are currently studying the means to amend the occupational grade and salary structure in order to improve their circumstances" and that "they should not contemplate a strike before these studies have been concluded".
It is not known whether or not the government met all the civil servants' demands. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that their movement -- and the labour movement in general that was sparked off by the 1919 Revolution -- bequeathed a more durable legacy. The months following the outburst of nationalist revolutionary fervour also gave such a boost to the national union movement that by the close of the year, there was barely a single segment of the working population that did not have some form of organisation to represent it.
* The author is a professor of history
and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
