24 - 30 January 2002
Issue No.570
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 24 - 30 January 2002 Issue No.570 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Al-Ahram:
A Diwan of contemporary life (426)
Modern Egypt's 37th cabinet, formed in 1928, was headed by Mustafa El-Nahhas who certainly was not lacking in experience. It was El-Nahhas' seventh time to lead a government, most of which ended dramatically -- by royal decree. Most also began dramatically and this particular cabinet was no exception, born as it was against a backdrop of popular discontent following the resignation of Prime Minister Abdel-Khaleq Tharwat and subsequent rumours that the king and the British high commissioner were colluding to oust the government. Professor Yunan Labib Rizk* looks at the cabinet and the skipper at the helm
New man at the helm
El-Nahhas and Gaafar Wali, minister of war, in full regalia at the opening session of the 1928 cabinet
"Agreement over the selection of all the cabinet members was only reached after 6.00pm yesterday, following the painstaking efforts undertaken by His Excellency the prime minister." With these words Al-Ahram of 17 March 1928 announced the formation of the 37th cabinet in modern Egyptian history. It was a difficult birth into a stormy political sea.
This was the first government formed by Mustafa El-Nahhas, the prime minister who had the most incumbencies in the pre- revolutionary history of the modern Egyptian government. El- Nahhas headed seven governments. Only one other prime minister came near that record: Hussein Sirri served as prime minister five times. But this is not the only record El-Nahhas holds. In this same period (1878 to 1952), five royal edicts were issued to dissolve the government. Four of these involved governments formed by El-Nahhas; the fifth dismissed Prime Minister Fakhri Pasha in 1893. Moreover, the dismissal of the Fakhri government was not the result of tension between it and the palace. On the contrary, Khedive Abbas II had invited Fakhri to form a government without consulting British High Commissioner Lord Cromer, who then forced Abbas to dissolve it.
Of all the governments El-Nahhas formed, only one was a coalition government, his first. Perhaps his ordeal as the head of a coalition made El-Nahhas resolve never again to take that kind of risk, whatever the pressure or enticements.
If most of the El-Nahhas governments ended dramatically, with a royal decree of dismissal, they also began dramatically against a backdrop of popular demands that made the palace and the British authorities in Cairo very nervous. In 1928, tension surrounded the resignation in March of Prime Minister Abdel-Khaleq Tharwat whose cabinet had refused to endorse the draft treaty he concluded with Chamberlain in London in November the previous year. Following his resignation, the air was rife with rumours that the palace and the British high commissioner were colluding to oust the government and dismiss the Wafd Party majority parliament that had voted it in. Only a few years earlier, Egyptians tasted a period of unconstitutional rule (1924-1926) when King Fouad dissolved parliament and brought in the cabinet formed by Prime Minister Ahmed Ziwar Pasha, who thus entered history through the narrowest of doors despite his corpulence.
Under the headline, "Demonstrations in the capital and provinces," Al-Ahram of 9 March 1928 gave a picture of the situation: "Students from higher educational institutions yesterday declared a strike, as did most students from government and public secondary schools, private schools and the schools in the provinces, especially in Tanta and Assiut." In Cairo, thousands of demonstrators converged on the "House of the People" -- the home of Saad Zaghlul, the symbol of the 1919 revolution and struggle for national independence -- to rally against the Tharwat- Chamberlain treaty and in defence of the constitution. Police intercepted the protesters and "attacked them with truncheons to which the protesters responded with stones in a battle that lasted two hours." In the aftermath of the demonstrations, an Al-Ahram reporter wrote that barricades were erected along all the streets leading to Zaghlul's home and that "the grounds of the House of the People are littered with fragments of shattered glass; parts of the outer walls of the reception room are damaged and many bushes have been trampled on." Evidently, this damage was minor compared to that wrought by the disturbances elsewhere. According to the London Times, store and warehouse owners in Cairo, Tanta and Assiut were demanding compensation for the damage done to their premises.
So widespread were the "disturbances," as British High Commissioner George Lloyd referred to the mass demonstrations, that the Egyptian army was brought in to restore order. Al-Ahramreports, "Relevant authorities agreed to detail several units of the Egyptian army to protect government buildings and facilities. The units will be replacing the ordinary guards." The article adds that a lorry was put at the disposal of every police division "for use when need arises."
But by then, the popular uprising had borne fruit. British Foreign Office archives contain a telegram sent by Lloyd to London on the day of the demonstrations, advising his government not to prevent the leader of the Wafd Party from becoming prime minister. His advice marked a significant departure from British policy towards the Wafd Party which they hoped to keep out of office at all costs. Lloyd also cautioned King Fouad against any attempt to suspend the constitution which, he warned, would jeopardise the stability of the country.
A major question surrounding the creation of the new cabinet was whether it would be composed entirely of Wafd Party members or whether it would be a blend of Wafdist and Liberal Constitutionalist members as was the case with the two previous governments. The latter was based on a difficult formula in accordance with which the powerful figure of Saad Zaghlul was speaker of the house, thereby serving to restrain the more radical Wafdist members in parliament. The prime minister was a widely respected member of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party. This formula brought into power the governments of Adli Yakan and Abdel-Khaleq Tharwat. However, with the death of Zaghlul in 1927 and the evanescence of Liberal Constitutionalist figures of the stature of Yakan and Tharwat, the formula was no longer feasible. It thus appeared inevitable that the prime minister would be the leader of the Wafd, giving rise to heated debates within the ranks of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party over whether to remain in coalition with the Wafd.
The Wafd did invite the Liberal Constitutionalists to remain in the coalition, and on 16 March they issued a statement to the effect that they would remain even if the prime minister were not of their party. By way of justifying this position, the statement added, "The nation does not currently need to address a domestic policy over which the platforms, aims and aspirations of the diverse political parties diverge, but it must contend with a foreign policy over which no two Egyptians should disagree."
Cabinet members gather in Abdin Palace in March 1928 after meeting King Fouad
In a subsequent edition, however, Al-Ahram revealed that the Liberal Constitutionalists had not arrived at their decision easily. Party ranks had split into two camps over the issue, one headed by the party's vice president, Mohamed Mahmoud, who was in favour of participating in the cabinet because, he argued, the current parliament was based on a coalition between Wafd and the Liberal Constitutionalist parties, "and our failure to participate in the forthcoming cabinet would jeopardise that coalition." The opposing camp, represented by Ismail Sidqi, Hafez Afifi and Mohamed Hussein Heikal essentially held that it was not natural for them to be sitting on the same side of the fence as the Wafd, "because we have always been at odds." The coalition, they said, stymied their party's activity both inside and outside parliament. Inside parliament "our members always had to keep their mouths shut and outside parliament they could not level the slightest criticism against a Wafdist minister without being cautioned that this would jeopardise the coalition."
Heikal, of course, was a particularly ardent exponent of this opinion. He was the editor-in-chief of Al-Siyasa, the Liberal Constitutional newspaper which, since it appeared in 1922, was steadfastly anti-Wafd. Throughout the period of the coalition, the newspaper had a difficult time restraining itself, as Heikal himself confessed in a statement in his newspaper, which was reproduced in Al-Ahram. He said the coalition had led to the disintegration of the National Constitutionalists because of "the many grievances voiced by our MPs and friends due to the lack of supervision and the fact that our demands from our coalition partner (the Wafd) did not receive satisfactory consideration."
In any event, when the matter was put to a vote in the Liberal Constitutionalists' administrative and parliamentary boards, the outcome was 17 to 14 in favour of remaining in the coalition with one abstention. When the result was announced, Al-Ahram observed, "This decision had a great impact in nationalist circles. On Wednesday afternoon, Mohamed Mahmoud met with Mustafa El-Nahhas in his office in the parliament building and informed him of the decision of his party to join the cabinet. El- Nahhas expressed his great delight and congratulated Mahmoud on this splendid result."
On 15 March, King Fouad summoned El-Nahhas and officially charged him with forming a new government. Following his audience at the palace, the Wafd leader headed directly to the House of the People where he held separate meetings with each of his party colleagues "to solicit their advice on the composition of the new cabinet and who they would recommend in the event some of the current ministers decided to step down." Al-Ahram continues: "Each member offered his opinion. Their proposals centred around exerting all possible effort towards keeping the outgoing Tharwat cabinet line-up intact, with the exception of those ministers who could not be persuaded not to step down."
As has always been the case on such occasions, there was a spate of rumours over the composition of the forthcoming cabinet. Egyptians kept track of El-Nahhas' movements during that short interval following his departure from the palace and his subsequent return to present the king with his list of candidates for the next cabinet. However, conjecturing quickly ended when the new prime minister called upon the members of the former government, chief among whom was former Prime Minister Tharwat himself. During this visit, Al-Ahram writes, "the two men expressed their mutual affection and friendship which cannot be diminished by differences of opinion, exchanged views on political matters and affirmed that their friendship will remain unchanged." Subsequently El-Nahhas made another important visit, to Murqos Hanna Pasha, minister of foreign affairs under Tharwat. Alongside Hanna in the meeting was his son-in-law, Makram Ebeid, who would enter the new cabinet as minister of transportation.
As was also the custom on such occasions, Al-Ahram featured brief biographical sketches of the new cabinet members.
Ebeid, writes Al-Ahram, "studied law in Paris and Oxford. Upon his return to Egypt he was appointed secretary to British adviser to the Ministry of Justice. It was in this capacity that he submitted his famous memorandum describing the true nature of the national spirit and which had a great impact in political circles. He was then appointed professor of civil law at the Royal Academy of Law. He was beloved by all students in whose hearts he lit the fire of patriotism."
Since Ebeid had become the number two man in the Wafd following the death of Zaghlul, it was only natural that Al-Ahram's biography should deal at length with his contribution to the nationalist movement, his support for Zaghlul, his dismissal from his job, his membership in the Wafd Central Committee, his exile with Zaghlul to the Seychelles and his membership in parliament. The account concludes, "He is a highly renowned lawyer whose law offices are among the most famous and profitable in Egypt."
Mohamed Safwat Pasha, who was to be the minister of agriculture, was "a legal expert who rose in the ranks of the Ministry of Interior until he was appointed deputy governor of Alexandria," but was dismissed from that post under the Ziwar government because of his pro-Wafd leanings. In 1927 he was elected to the senate, where "he demonstrated great enthusiasm in drawing up and defending the reports of the Senate committees."
The third new face in the cabinet was Ibrahim Fahmi, former deputy minister and now minister of public works. "He began his career as an engineer and was promoted to chief projects engineer in Alexandria, then to director of public works in Tanta before becoming deputy minister of public works. A skilled and energetic engineer devoted to his profession, Fahmi advanced, by virtue of his dedication and competence, through the ranks of the ministry faster than his peers."
There was little controversy over Safwat and Fahmi who were more technocrats than politicians. But classified British documents reveal that El-Nahhas's task of forming a government was still formidable. In particular, he had to contend with pressure from Liberal Constitutionalist leader Mohamed Mahmoud whose agreement to join was conditional upon El-Nahhas discarding three former Wafdist ministers: Fathallah Barakat, Murqus Hanna and Osman Muharram. There was also pressure from the palace which insisted that El-Nahhas remove former Minister of Justice Zaki Abul-Saoud.
It was perhaps testimony to El-Nahhas's strength of character that he succeeded in stitching together a government in only two days. The royal decree announcing the new cabinet was issued on Saturday 17 March 1928 amidst great fanfare as expressed in the flood of congratulatory letters and telegrams that poured into the House of the Nation, many of which were published in Al-Ahram. However, lest the euphoria went to the heads of the new ministers, the newspaper was careful to strike a sober note and alert them to the duties that awaited them. The Ministry of Interior was in need of a number of reforms and the first task of the new minister was to purge it of nepotism and ensure that officials in the provinces were more vigilant in assessing the needs of the fellahin. With summer approaching, topping the agenda of the Ministry of Public Works was the need "to concern itself from this moment on with the equitable distribution of water." The newspaper exhorted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to "become more active and to benefit from its staff abroad." The Ministry of Agriculture was required to increase agricultural and livestock exhibitions while the Ministry of Economy had to actively monitor the expenditures of all government departments and draw up a national economic programme.
On 19 March, El-Nahhas delivered the new government's address to parliament. That his speech was peppered with frequent references to "our constitutional king" was clearly intended to caution Fouad against attempts to undermine his constitutionally-formed government. He also sought to reassure the Liberal Constitutionalist Party: "This government will spare no effort to promote and consolidate the coalition of political parties and to foster a climate free of resentment and rancour."
More important, however, were El-Nahhas's statements regarding Egyptian-British relations, the main reason why the previous government had resigned. His government, he said, was determined "to safeguard our full rights in Egypt and in Sudan in a manner commensurate with our dignity and the glory of our national revival." Referring to the Tharwat--Chamberlain negotiations of the previous year and the results that were reached, he said they conflicted with the independence and sovereignty of Egypt and, therefore, did not form a feasible basis for negotiations between the two countries. Egypt wishes to reach an agreement with Britain but "an agreement between friends, not between master and slave," he declared.
Naturally, these portions of Tharwat's speech rankled in British colonialist circles as was evident from the British news commentaries that Al-Ahram relayed to its readers. The Times, noted for its close connections with Foreign Office circles, observed that the address had "an effect that was frustrating" and that "it emulated the speeches of Saad Zaghlul." It added, "The current parliament is reminiscent of the one in which Zaghlul was prime minister."
Although the Daily Telegraph saw some positive points in El- Nahhas's speech, it remarked, "The Wafd Party has not moved a hair's breadth away from its original programme as outlined by Zaghlul, and now El-Nahhas Pasha has driven this home once again. The Wafd policy in 1924 was to bide its time until British public opinion had come around to accepting the full or partial dismantling of Britain's place in Egypt as the cost of resolving the Egyptian problem. Meanwhile, the Wafd would extract the most from this position through its control of the executive authority, whether its leader was in power, as is the case today, or whether the prime minister was of another party directed by the Wafd behind the scenes. In short, the Wafd believes that time is on its side."
These commentaries prompted the Al-Ahram editor-in-chief to respond with an editorial under the headline "British policy and El-Nahhas Pasha," in which he charged that the British attitude towards Egyptian leaders was arrogant. "However, whatever the British may think, El-Nahhas is a man of unique calibre and it will be futile to try to bend him to their will, by enticement or intimidation, to force him to accept the treaty and persuade Egyptian public opinion to accept it."
Simultaneously, in an appeal to rationality on the basis of the higher interests of both sides, Dawoud Barakat presented an analysis of the current state of Anglo-Egyptian relations. An impartial observer must concede that the British high commissioner had been hostile to every cabinet, he wrote, and every contact that a British official had with a representative of the Egyptian government was inevitably laden with threats, cautions and warnings. "As for concord, calm, civility and cooperation between the two countries, no one can recall such a state ever existing." This is why Egyptians perceived that the high commissioner had only one function in Egypt: "to usurp Egyptian rights and intimidate those in charge of the affairs of government," whereas the proper task of every ambassador and political envoy is "to seek reconciliation, overcome differences and clear the air of all anxiety and tension."
As attention focused on the Egyptian-British problem, El-Nahhas moved to strengthen his hand against the dual forces of the palace and the British authorities. Towards this end he pursued a course that set a precedent for future government leaders. Up until then, several barriers were thrown up in front of journalists wishing to interview any minister, let alone the prime minister. Within days of becoming prime minister El-Nahhas met all editors-in-chief of the major newspapers, "without showing prejudice to their diverse political colours and creed." He told them that he intended to establish a new practice which would apprise them of all matters of importance in government affairs "because you are the intermediaries between the government and public opinion and are responsible for presenting the public with the facts."
Naturally, the representatives of the press applauded the new system which served the welfare of the nation before the welfare of the press. It would liberate Egyptian newspapers from their reliance on reports in the British press, with its inherent bias towards Egypt's most crucial affairs. In addition, it demonstrated "respect for the public, which has the right to know all the facts, and for transparency and freedom of expression."
Our explanation of this commitment is that El-Nahhas had not yet attained the stature of Saad Zaghlul and he knew that in his forthcoming battles he would need to mobilise public opinion on his side and that the Egyptian press held the key to that goal.
* The author is a professor of history and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page