Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 19 - 25 October 2000 Issue No. 504
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875

	Egypt Elections Palestine International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Features Travel Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters

Al-Ahram:

A Diwan of contemporary life (360)

Modern Egyptian history had never witnessed an odder political clash: the palace vs the nationalist movement led by Saad Zaghlul. The battle royal centred around the 1925 parliamentary elections which -- despite all the power the king had at his fingertips -- produced an overwhelming victory for Zaghlul and a humiliating defeat for the Ittihad Party and -- by extension -- the throne. Putting together the story and its characters,Dr Yunan Labib Rizk *flashes back to this intriguing match-up of wits as published by Al-Ahram

---

The power of the people

"The Nation and the Throne" was Al-Ahram's headline for the strangest battle in 20th century Egyptian history. For the first time, the palace publicly opposed the nationalist movement led by Saad Zaghlul. The arena for battle was the parliamentary elections of March 1925 that brought the Ittihad (Union) Party, founded by Hassan Nashaat Pasha, deputy chief of the Royal Cabinet, face-to-face with the powerful Wafd Party. King Fouad hoped that the first of the "royal parties" would end the overwhelming hegemony the Wafd had over the political arena. The 1924 elections had proved the two main opposition parties -- the Liberal Constitutionalist Party and the National Party -- incapable of detracting from the popularity of the party led by Zaghlul.

But the event was extraordinary in other ways. These were the first parliamentary elections in Egyptian history in which the government intervened directly. The government in question here is the Ahmed Ziwar cabinet that succeeded the Zaghlul government, which had collapsed in the face of the British ultimatum following the assassination of the governor-general of Sudan, Sir Lee Stack. The "salvage government," as Ziwar's cabinet called itself, pledged to rescue Egypt from the predicament its predecessor had allegedly put the country in. Although it initially contained some members of the Wafd, these soon resigned when it became apparent that it was little more than a palace-controlled puppet.

The Ziwar government also had one of the most controversial figures in modern Egyptian history. Ismail Sidqi Pasha, considered the most formidable antagonist of the nationalist movement or, alternatively, the ultimate pragmatist, unwilling to cater to popular sentiment to the detriment of the national welfare, was the palace's man as minister of interior. In this capacity, Sidqi entered history through a rather notorious portal, establishing himself as the first, though certainly not the last, to wield formidable power to influence the outcome of parliamentary elections.

Ahmed Ziwar Saad Zaghlul King Fouad Ismail Sidqi Pasha Hassan Nashaat Pasha Abdel-Halim El-Biali

In spite of the broad executive powers the throne had at its disposal, the 12 March 1925 elections produced quite unexpected results. Fouad and Sidqi were confident they had succeeded in loosening the Wafd's grip over parliament. To their surprise and consternation, however, the parliament elected as prime minister the palace's redoubtable enemy Zaghlul. This, in fact, had been the Wafd's plan all along, and the government acted quickly to quash it with a royal decree dissolving the new parliament. Lasting precisely five minutes short of nine hours, it was the shortest-lived parliament in Egyptian history.

Also remarkable was the position of Al-Ahram. The newspaper had been one of the most ardent supporters of Zaghlul during the tide of nationalist fervour that swept the country in the wake of the 1919 Revolution. With the creation of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party, however, the newspaper's enthusiasm for the nationalist leader began to ebb, reaching its lowest point under the Zaghlul, or "people's" government, which it described as a dictatorship of the majority. It was at this point that Al-Ahram opened its pages to intellectual and political luminaries like Mohamed Hussein Heikal, who condemned the Wafd government's policies as sinister and retrograde; Taha Hussein, who charged that Zaghlul, in his capacity as prime minister, continued to act "as a leader of a party and not a leader of a nation;" and Mansur Fahmi, who described Wafd supporters as "the misled rabble."

Nevertheless, Al-Ahram was never as hostile to the Zaghlul government (January to November 1924) as, for example, Al-Siyasa, the mouthpiece of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party, which was relentless in its attacks against that government and its policies. Thus, it was not inconsistent with Al-Ahram's stance that, in the wake of the assassination of Sir Lee, the newspaper would rally wholeheartedly behind Zaghlul against the heavy-handedness of the British ultimatum that brought down the Zaghlul government and threatened to undermine Egypt's recently-won independence.

The newspaper's support of Zaghlul at this stage placed it in the eye of the storm, so to speak. Sidqi Pasha was not about to allow any newspaper to support the Wafd, even one as time-honoured and relatively moderate as Al-Ahram. In fact, the clampdown on the press was quite severe. On Wednesday, 4 March 1925, the newspaper announced, "At 4.00pm on Monday, its assistant editor, Amin Khuri, received orders to leave Egypt at 6.00pm." The newspaper goes on to report that an officer from Abdin police station accompanied the Al-Ahram journalist on the train to Port Said and, the following morning, placed him on a ship destined for Beirut. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that the expulsion was directly related to the newspaper's outspoken support for Zaghlul.

Sidqi adopted another unusual method to muffle the pro-Wafdist press. According to Al-Ahram, the Ministry of Interior began to require newspaper vendors to obtain a special permit on the grounds that they had been selling "certain" newspapers and not others, pushing the newspaper to comment, "For newspaper vendors and readers alike, the sale of newspapers is no different from any other permissible commerce. The vendor obtains those newspapers that cater to the demands of his customers, regardless of the name or policy of the newspaper, because his purpose is to make a profit while the reader's purpose is to obtain information. If a government or political party newspaper does not have wide distribution, that is not the fault of the helpless vendors and certainly no cause to place their freedom in the hands of bureaucrats with the authority to order them to sell a certain newspaper and not another, thereby risking loss of their license and their source of income."

Numerous studies treated the battle of the palace and the Wafd and its ultimate resolution at length. Al-Ahram had an excellent vantage point from which to reveal new insights into the many curious aspects of this affair, which began following the resignation of the Zaghlul government on 24 November 1924.

Nashaat fired the opening volley when he accused the Wafd of "disloyalty to the throne." It has been suggested, moreover, that in order to be able to substantiate his charge, Nashaat urged Abdel-Halim El-Biali, a young Wafdist member, to resign from the Wafd, ostensibly in protest against charges levied against him by his fellow party members that he had close connections to the palace. Because the alleged grounds for El-Biali's resignation bordered on treason, the Wafd was thrown into disarray and ultimately its chairman was forced to issue a declaration affirming his allegiance to the throne.

Zaghlul's statement was published in Al-Ahram on 3 January, 1925. He protested that the charge levelled by the adversaries of the Wafd -- that there was discord between that party and the palace -- was "a fabrication that has no basis in fact" and was "inspired by the spite and malice that resides in the hearts of those who concocted it for the sole purpose of undermining our relations with the palace." The statement concluded, "The Wafd continues to stand firm in its allegiance and it does not, nor has it ever, entertained any disloyal thoughts against our country's king."

The statement was not to divert Nashaat and Abdin Palace circles from their plan, the broad outlines of which had been formulated in an agreement between British High Commissioner Lord Allenby and King Fouad. The next phase of the plan came into effect when another Wafdist member tendered his resignation, the effect of which was to strike a more powerful blow to the Wafd than El-Biali's resignation. Mahmoud Allam had been one of Zaghlul's most ardent supporters and, together with El-Biali, succeeded in drawing other members away from the Wafd. The first to make the jump was Senate member Mousa Fouad Pasha who, in turn, was followed by a number of landowners whom Allenby described as "better known for their wealth than for their Biali ties and administrative expertise." It was these individuals who formed the initial nucleus of the Ittihad Party.

There were two reasons behind the choice of these men. As Allenby suggests, they had the money to spend on the new party and, secondly, as prominent rural notables they would be able to extend the new party's influence deep into the countryside. Clearly, too, the new party was determined to capitalise on all its resources to gain widespread support. Unlike most political parties that only had a single mouthpiece, the new party had two newspapers to promote it: Al-Ittihad, a liberal pro-palace French-language newspaper that had already been in publication, and Al-Shaab Al-Masri, published in Alexandria.

The formation of the new "royal party" containing prominent breakaway Wafd members put Zaghlul's party on the defensive. During the next few days it waged an intense campaign to reaffirm its allegiance to the throne, rallying on its behalf a number of prominent Wafd figures, many of whom sent letters of support to Al-Ahram. Thus, under "The Nation and the Throne" in Al-Ahram of 5 January, Senator Afifi El-Barbari called on the former Wafd members to "fear God" lest they abandon "a nation that stands behind its king and its principles along with Saad Zaghlul and his faithful followers." A second item under this heading was a statement issued by a group of notables from Al-Daqahliya which lauded Zaghlul's declaration to "expose the deceivers who will go to any length to achieve their spurious goals." A number of Zaghlul supporters from Dessouq, in a third letter, condemned "the undisguised strategy of those senators who resigned from the Wafd." Perhaps the most important letter in this column was sent by those belonging to the Shuhada constituency, represented by Senator Fouad Mousa, protesting that they had voted for this senator only because he had been a Wafd candidate.

Some of these letters of support contained more than 300 signatures. From Assiut, authors expressed their "firm conviction that Prime Minister Saad Zaghlul, leader of Egypt and the Egyptian revival, is foremost among those loyal to His Majesty in furthering the welfare of his realm and in their undying quest to rally the nation around his exalted throne. Long live Egypt, long live the king and long live Saad, the faithful servant of the nation and the king."

Other writers contributed lengthy articles on behalf of Zaghlul and the Wafd. One, signed simply "A Senate Member," argued that the resignation of the Wafd members and the charges of infidelity were part of a ruse to weaken the Wafd during the forthcoming elections. He asks, "Can anyone seriously believe that the Wafd, which is a national body dedicated to defending the independence of the nation, could possibly work against the throne." He accused several forces of uniting in the battle against the Wafd during the elections: "The British, the government, the organisations and associations which support them, and now, a fourth, new force, the Ittihad Party, whose platform is to scheme against the Wafd and whose members include our breakaway colleagues."

However forceful their arguments, Al-Ahram and Wafdist circles soon realised that their efforts to dispel doubts about Zaghlul's loyalty were futile once it became apparent that King Fouad was party to the plans to undermine the Wafd Party leader. It was inevitable, therefore, that tension would quickly turn into full-scale confrontation, in which Fouad's strongest card was Sidqi Pasha, who waged a relentless multi-pronged attack against the Wafd. The iron-willed minister of interior had senior officials, known for their Wafdist sympathies, dismissed from their positions. In the countryside where the Ittihad Party hoped to build a bedrock of support he dismissed pro-Zaghlul mayors and elders to prevent them from influencing voters in their villages.

Less well-known was Sidqi's harassment of individuals whose only offense was to voice their support of Zaghlul. Al-Ahram records several instances of this phenomenon. On the evening of 15 February the famous singer Umm Kulthoum was performing in Kursal Casino in Alexandria. The newspaper relates that when the audience returned to their seats following the intermission, "they delayed the reappearance of the singer after clapping and shouting, 'Long live Saad.' One spectator, in the heat of the moment, shouted, 'Long live Saad and down with the parties that oppose him!' Within seconds, policemen stormed the hall and apprehended the offender. The incident triggered great commotion as the sound of applause grated with outcries of protest. It took nearly an hour to restore order."

In the village of Masgid Mousa, a police officer was walking on the street when he happened to see a woman carrying a five-year-old child who, upon seeing the officer, burst out, "Long live Saad!" The officer and an aide followed the woman to her home. As she was about to enter, her child repeated the chant, so angering the policeman that he took the woman and her child to the deputy mayor who reprimanded her for her son's perceived misbehaviour.

A third incident occurred in the village of Fuwah where a street vendor was heard to call out, "Saad's sugarcane! Long live Saad!" The sales pitch did not amuse a village sentinel who dragged the vendor to the police station where he was given a thorough pummelling. Al-Ahram condemned what it referred to as "terrorism" and the brutality meted out for the mere mention of Zaghlul's name.

It was not in the nature of the revered chairman of the Wafd to remain idle in the face of these assaults and he adopted several strategies to counter them. He released statements to foreign news correspondents whom the Egyptian government was unable to keep from contacting him. In a statement to La Reforme, for example, he charged, "The Ittihad Party did not have a single member who subscribed to a clear ideology or who is sincerely convinced of the principles he advocates. Its supporters are all proxies for the authorities. It is not easy for a political party to be created from one day to the next, which is why I have nothing to fear from that party which carries within itself all the seeds for its dissolution." Subsequent events would prove Zaghlul's prognosis correct.

Zaghlul also issued repeated appeals to the people which Al-Ahram featured prominently under the headline, "Saad's Call to the Egyptian Nation." On 2 March, on the occasion of the election of the electoral delegates who would be charged with voting in the new parliament, he proclaimed to the electorate: "You have made the government and its henchmen understand that you are forever prepared and vigilant and that you are the font of your revival. May God bless this nation of which you are the sons. May God bless this revival of which you are the bastion."

In a similar vein, Zaghlul was always ready to receive delegations that had made their way from the provinces to the "house of the nation," as Zaghlul's home was popularly called. To a delegation from Giza and Daqahliya, he said it was "impossible to trust a government which contained members bent on intervening in the elections, usurping the rights of the nation and so callously offending its sensibilities ties that you felt compelled to come to me to grieve." And to a visiting delegation from Assiut he referred to a statement issued by Sidqi during a visit to Sharqiya to the effect that the business of government should be restricted to a certain class. The minister of interior, Zaghlul charged, wants to divide the nation into "masters entitled to command and interdict and slaves meant to hear and obey!"

Wafd leaders were deployed throughout the country to wage a counter-offensive against Sidqi's policies. Al-Ahram assiduously published denunciations of the government issued by such figures as Ahmed Maher, former minister of education and the Wafd candidate for the Darb Al-Ahmar constituency in Cairo. Appeals to the public were made by various Wafd committees, such as the Women's Saad Zaghlul Committee, which appealed to the people "to push for their rights with all their might within the limits of the law."

Sidqi employed his entire arsenal of government machinery to restrict Zaghlul's access to the public. Perhaps his most notorious action was to set up a blockade around the house of the nation, one that grew increasingly impenetrable as the date of the elections approached. A roadblock was set up on 25 February when police and soldiers, equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons, closed off the streets leading up to Zaghlul's home and prevented pedestrians from entering them. Al-Ahram reports, "The blockade lasted until 7.00pm, during which police officers prevented all pedestrians, automobiles and carts from entering the restricted areas. During this time, certain members of the Wafd and journalists managed to reach the house of the nation but only after considerable travail."

It was not long before security authorities began to block access to the homes of other Wafd leaders outside Cairo. In Zaqaziq, Ali El-Shamsi, the former minister of finance, awoke to find five policemen positioned at his doorway to prevent visitors from entering his home. In Assiut, "all were prevented from going in or out of the home of Sinout Hanna Bek."

In a statement in Al-Ahram on 2 March the Ministry of Interior denied taking these measures, saying the police were simply preventing rallies and demonstrations in accordance with the recently issued ban against such political activity. In the same issue, Al-Ahram said its own correspondents had seen for themselves the police blockade that had been set up around Zaghlul's home. It also quoted eyewitnesses. One said police tried to prevent a foreign journalist from entering a street near the house of the nation, relenting only when they verified he was not an Egyptian. Another witness said he saw the Sayeda Zeinab police chief and some of his men attack a delegation from Sharqiya with truncheons as they cheered Zaghlul as he was returning home.

All the precautions, all the campaigns of intimidation and all the money spent on promoting the palace's party proved useless. In a dramatic conclusion to this chapter in modern Egyptian history, the newly-elected parliament assembled on 23 March. When King Fouad arrived -- his entrance into the assembly heralded by an artillery salute and music -- Prime Minister Ziwar delivered the "speech from the throne." Following the ceremony, the houses of parliament quickly assembled to elect the prime minister, taking advantage of the absence of government ministers who were escorting the king out of the hall. The result was an overwhelming victory for Saad Zaghlul and an embarrassing defeat for the Ittihad Party and, by extension, the throne. The return of Zaghlul to power was something that neither the palace nor the British high commissioner could tolerate and within hours King Fouad issued a royal decree dissolving parliament. It was the throne's first breach of the constitution. It would not be the last.

---

* The author is a professor of history and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

	weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg