Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (626)

Sacred leadership

A phenomenon Egypt has experienced throughout its contemporary history is the inflation of some political leaders so much that treating them in any shade of negative light is considered national apostasy. Saad Zaghloul Pasha and Mustafa El-Nahhas Pasha, two leaders of the Wafd Party, would have been considered above reproach except for differences between them and prominent Wafd leaders. Professor Yunan Labib Rizk sees how leaders become mortal

---

In the spring of 1921 most members of the Wafd Party opposed Saad Zaghloul Pasha for refusing that prime minister Adli Yakan assume the presidency of the negotiating delegation that was to be formed and sent to London. Only three party members remained on Saad's side: Mustafa El-Nahhas, Sinot Hanna, and Wassef Ghali. In contrast, among the detractors were a number of famous politicians including Ali Shaarawi, Mohamed Mahmoud, Hamad El-Basil, Ahmed Lutfi El-Sayed and Abdel-Latif El-Makbati.

Yet Saad Pasha remained unconcerned by this fact and continued on his way without a care. The letter these opponents sent to Saad Pasha on 28 April 1921 revealed the high-handed disposal of his views before the majority of the party members. The text of this letter read: "The country's interest that we have made it incumbent upon ourselves to uphold compels us to frankly tell you that we cannot approve your making the Egyptian cause a personal one on whose matters personal inclinations may be taken into consideration.

"Sadness fills our hearts as we inform you that you did not have the approval of the Wafd and were in fact violating its unambiguous resolutions when you decided not to grant confidence to the government [of Adli Yakan] after all of your demands had been met with the exception of the presidency [of the delegation], which we view as neither advancing nor detracting from the smooth procession of negotiations.

"You accepted that and when the matter was brought before the Wafd and its majority did not approve this disadvantageous plan, you resolved to follow it through and disesteemed the opinion of the majority once again, providing an example through your treatment of one of us.

"Facing this monopolisation of opinion and singularity of action, we have absolutely no option other than to be cleared of guilt by God and the nation of the results of the discord caused by following this approach."

Yet they and others had forgotten that exactly 23 days earlier the Egyptian people had hailed the leader of the revolution with a legendary homecoming welcome on his return from Europe where he had been since 8 March 1919. It began with the docking of the steamship transporting Saad Zaghloul in Alexandria, which Al-Ahram described as "undoubtedly the grandest of all magnificent days celebrated in Egypt for a very long time, and perhaps the greatest of them."

As his ship approached and entered the port, a delegation that had come from the city of Port Said sailed alongside it in a special steamer. Many people steered boats and launches beyond the harbour to welcome those approaching, and "all the ships and boats in the port were decorated with marine flags."

Following a grand reception at the dockyard headquarters, Saad's procession continued "among innumerable masses gathered in a crowd of which there has never been like, along the sides of the roads. The people's interest in viewing the procession had reached its apex in recent days to the point that thousands have rented spaces at high costs for themselves and their families in buildings located alongside the path of the procession. I was told by a senior officer that a hotel next to [the department store] Sednawi had made up to LE100 from renting spaces." (The amount of LE100 was large by the standards of the time, and was enough to rent a small house for a number of years).

The masses had risen at dawn and "it was not yet six in the morning when the way from Abu Warda Street to the Claridge Hotel on Fouad I Street was crowded with dense lines on both sides. It was not yet seven when the balconies, roofs and windows of buildings were filled and the crowds grew in the street and everywhere to an extent never seen before."

After Al-Ahram 's correspondent experienced this unprecedented mass gathering of people, he went on to note that even as night fell Alexandria did not quiet down. This drove him to write an article titled "In Alexandria, night is as day", in which he resolved that despite the setting of the sun the city "continued to rock like the surging ocean. Lights sparkled everywhere and the people were in a state of magnificent joy."

The following morning on Tuesday 5 April, the returning leader began his journey by train to Cairo. He was accompanied by Al-Ahram 's correspondent who offered a unique written portrait of the reception Saad received the entire length of the journey. "Pashas and those wearing blue galabiyas, effendis and peasants, all strode in one step and stretched a festoon of ornaments between Alexandria and Cairo. From the morning people flooded from villages and hamlets to the railway tracks to line up in well formed groups with flags flying overhead and the playing of music as they turned their eyes to the man they exalt and love."

Al-Ahram 's correspondent then went on to describe the legendary receptions Saad's train received in Damanhour, Itay Al-Baroud, Kafr Al-Zayat and Tanta until it arrived in Cairo where Al-Ahram 's reporters were spread out across the city observing and recording the events of this unique day.

The night of Saad Zaghloul's arrival the capital was dressed in its "party attire, for all the roads, streets and alleys had flags flying overhead and all communities put up decorations. When news came that Saad Pasha had arrived in Alexandria, a holiday was celebrated all day and night in Cairo." Commercial markets, workshops, factories and schools were closed and "government agencies and departments were shut down. The welcoming retinue lined up from Cairo's train station until Saad's home and the rate for renting a balcony in some homes reached LE40. Rooms were let for LE15 and chairs were rented for dozens of piastres. The tramways were halted and the picture of Saad was found everywhere, either garlanded with flowers or ornamented with a frame."

The doors of the train station were closed at 9.30pm and "the movement of trains halted as the Railway Authority had previously announced." Al-Ahram 's reporter couldn't resist stating that while he had read many historical accounts of leaders of the triumphant returning home at the head of their armies, "history has never told us of an entire people celebrating a man with such a splendid and glorious festivity."

The number of Egyptians welcoming Saad Zaghloul was estimated at 600,000. They lined up along the road to Beit Al-Umma, Saad's home, where pavilions were erected and in which were lined up more than 5,000 chairs "for notables, prominent persons, those in the know-in-Egypt and delegates from the directorates and governorates." It was here that the grand reception ended, and where its legendary character was stressed once more.

It was therefore not peculiar when news was heard of the differences Adli and Saad had concerning the presidency of the negotiating delegation, and when the masses demonstrated and called out the unusual chant, "Occupation under Saad, not independence under Adli!" It was also not unexpected for the man's self-importance to be inflated to the point that he felt his opinion alone was fit for execution. And thus he rejected the opinion of the majority of the members of the Wafd Party who had fallen out of line with him.

ALL THAT HAS BEEN RECOUNTED in the following lines is well known, and has been presented in one way or another in the many writings that have addressed the life of Saad Zaghloul or the history of the nationalist movement. But what is not sufficiently known is that this situation was repeated nearly 15 years later (1937) and that the focus of the story this time was the prime minister Mustafa El-Nahhas Pasha.

At the time the Wafd Party was supported by four pillars: the president of the Wafd El-Nahhas, the general secretary of the Wafd Makram Ebeid, the head of the council of representatives Ahmed Maher Pasha, and the prominent freedom fighter Mahmoud Fahmi El-Nuqrashi. These pillars began to tremble, however, following the dispute that flared up between El-Nahhas and Ebeid on one side and Maher and El-Nuqrashi on the other. This dispute led to El-Nuqrashi's removal from the fourth El-Nahhas government that was formed on the occasion of King Farouk assuming his constitutional authorities in early August 1937.

Given the position of El-Nuqrashi in the history of the nationalist movement, El-Nahhas Pasha attempted to patch up the rift at first by offering the dismissed minister the post of one of the two Egyptian members on the administrative board of the Suez Canal Company. Although El-Nuqrashi at first appeared prepared to accept the position, the "good old boys" intervened to spoil this attempt. Sir Miles Lampson, the British ambassador, accused Abdeen Palace of intervening to prevent closure of the deal.

The new lord of the palace, or some of his aides at the least, had the idea of gaining control of the Wafd Party from the inside by doing away with the leadership so firm in its position towards the throne and represented by El-Nahhas and following him Ebeid. The plan was to replace it with a new leadership loyal to the king composed of the twosome who were angry over El-Nuqrashi's ousting from the government and joined by Ahmed Maher.

Let us stop for a moment to follow the developments of the policies of Fouad and after him his son Farouk towards the nationalist movement that was embodied by the Wafd Party. While most of the time this policy was characterised by enmity, certain matters differed in the age of the son from that of the father.

Fouad attempted to take control of the Wafd Party from within following the death of Saad Zaghloul in 1927. El-Nahhas Pasha took over the party's presidency and he seemed a dwarfed figure in comparison to his predecessor. Mohamed Mahmoud, head of the Liberal Constitutionalists Party, fancied that he was better suited to the presidency of the Wafd than El-Nahhas under these circumstances. Yet his attempt to assume it, backed by the king, ended in failure, and no one else ever tried to take it over again.

During the reign of King Fouad the palace resorted to establishing what historians have dubbed "palace parties". This happened twice, first in 1925 a short while after the fall of the first and last Zaghloul government when the Ittihad Party was established with the assistance of Ismail Sidqi, minister of interior affairs in the government of Ahmed Zewar. Sidqi assisted the party's establishment through the use of carrots and sticks and although the elections that were held a few months later brought a majority for the Wafd Party, the parliament did not live but a few short hours until a royal decree dissolved it.

Despite these results the palace repeated the experiment in 1930 after Sidqi Pasha assumed the post of prime minister. The standing constitution was replaced with one favourable to the king and the next step was to establish a new royal party, Al-Shaab, although the earlier palace party was still breathing.

Through boycotting the large parties Wafd and Liberal Constitutionalists during his term, Sidqi was able to extend the life of Al-Shaab Party from which most of his cabinet was taken. Yet the plain-faced royal intervention via the palace's man Hassan Pasha Nashaat led to removing Sidqi himself from the seat of office although that period continued to be named after him. This was the virtual end to the experiment of forming royal parties.

Matters were different during the reign of King Farouk as the palace did not strive to battle the Wafd Party in the manner of the prior king. Those in charge of the palace's affairs, the sophisticated politicians, Ali Maher Pasha and Ahmed Hassanein Pasha, used another approach by encouraging splits within the Wafd Party. In the end this resulted in the departure of its most important leaders, El-Nuqrashi and Maher in 1937 and Makram Ebeid in 1943. They were replaced by a new leader, Fouad Serageddin, who did not receive the popular acceptance the outgoing leaders had enjoyed on account of their long national record.

Let us linger for a moment over this first departure, for it had been difficult to imagine the Wafd Party without Ahmed Maher and Mahmoud Fahmi El-Nuqrashi. Both men had represented the extremist wing within the Wafd Party, a fact that had subjected them to arrest and trial more than once. For a long time, the office of the British high commissioner opposed their joining any government. They had many supporters within the party, particularly in the Wafd youth committees.

Despite this El-Nahhas did the unthinkable when he removed El-Nuqrashi along with three others from his new cabinet. He realised the import of his action, which he attempted to lighten by not ousting El-Nuqrashi alone. Not only were the three removed with him but he was compensated with the post of membership in the administrative board of the Suez Canal Company, though it was an offer he rejected.

El-Nahhas felt that he was in a position to take this step after his political stature had grown to a height he had not even dreamt of. The Al-Wafd newspaper described him as the "venerable president" and convinced him of his grandeur. It also described his leadership as "sacred", a characterisation Saad Zaghloul had enjoyed before him. The reasons for this were as follows:

- At the time he had succeeded in signing the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, which politicians promoted as the "treaty of friendship and honour." This was followed by success in abrogating the exclusivity rights following the Montreaux Convention the next year, by which he believed he had met the hopes the nationalist party had long wished to reach and thus became the "hero of independence".

- El-Nahhas believed that by this step he had gained the friendship of the English and that they would no longer stand as an obstacle before his continued rule as they had in the past.

- The same period saw the passing away of King Fouad and his young son's assumption of the throne with a consultative council whose members had been selected through Wafd initiatives. He did not believe that the new king was capable of playing games hostile to the nationalist movement of the like his father had.

In light of these facts and El-Nahhas's and Makram's sense that the competing parties were weak, they were gripped by the belief that they were the only players in the field of Egyptian politics. This is how the idea of "sacred leadership" was brought back and how it applied to El-Nahhas following his predecessor.

FOLLOWING AL-AHRAM IN THE MONTHS between the formation of El-Nahhas's fourth government in early August 1937 and its rescission on 30 December of the same year sheds light on the nature of the battle between the two wings of the Wafd. This battle ended with the departure of El-Nuqrashi and Maher from the party, which brought with it numerous consequences.

The most significant aspect of that battle was the sharp polarisation of those involved, something the Wafd Party had not experienced in previous splits, whether that which led to the departure of those who formed the Liberal Constitutionalists Party in 1922 or the split of 1932 that did not produce a new party. Each of these splits was limited to the party's apex without affecting its base, which remained loyal to the standing leadership of Zaghloul and El-Nahhas.

Matters differed this time, however, driving us to describe it as a division rather than a split as previous writings have categorised it. The wing detracting from the Wafd understood this and named those who remained with its leader "El-Nahhasites" while terming itself "Saadites". When it formed a party, it conferred upon itself the name the "Saadist Union".

The process of polarisation began early on. After a short period of silence, El-Nuqrashi stated that among the reasons for his removal from the cabinet was his opposition to its policies, particularly those related to the militia known as the "wearers of blue shirts" that the Wafd Party had formed. This militia had caused a state of chaos and commotion, especially after it had been joined by non-students. He even stated in one of his speeches that "these groups are dangerous and threaten the safety of the country and are preoccupying the government," contrary to the case of "the Wafd youth committees". This led to the blue shirts favouring El-Nahhas and the youth supporting El-Nuqrashi.

This was confirmed in the Al-Ahram issue published on 9 September 1937. Under the headline "Meetings and decisions of the Wafd committees", was the resolution of the Wafd youth committee of Abdeen "with complete trust in the man of truth and integrity his Excellency Mahmoud Fahmi El-Nuqrashi Pasha and protest over the government's behaviour contrary to the most basic rules of the constitution". In the same vein were the resolutions of the Wafd youth committees of Bab Al-Sheariya, Manial Al-Rhoda and Shubra. In contrast, the statement of "Mohamed Bilal Effendi the general leader of the youth groups" declared its trust in the leader of the Wafd Party. It ended with the words "the soldiers of all the groups know no leader other than Mustafa El-Nahhas, and anything stated to the contrary is considered a false attribution to the groups."

In a clear challenge to the position of the El-Nahhas leadership was the demand published in government newspapers for a referendum to be conducted on confidence in the Wafdist government. This was an unusual suggestion unprecedented in Egyptian history. In El-Nahhas's response he declared, "the position of the government is sound as it was before the composition of the new cabinet. We enjoy universal support in parliament and from the Egyptian people, and it is impossible for there to be any serious opposition."

The more significant battle was that over the concept of "sacred leadership" and whether it was the right of the leader of the Wafd Party to take decisions not backed by the majority of his leadership. This battle ended with the departure of El-Nuqrashi from the Wafd Party although there was some discussion as to the character of this departure. Some members of the Wafd present at a meeting held on 13 September saw it as the dismissal of the man, while Maher objected and asked that the statement concern the resignation, not the dismissal of El-Nuqrashi. When those gathered settled on the first choice, Maher left the hall after describing what had happened as El-Nahhas gave the members the choice between himself and El-Nuqrashi. He did not approve of this, which resulted in himself being removed on 3 January 1938 "for committing a sin against the constitution and the Wafd not to be forgiven."

Al-Balagh newspaper, which had detracted from the Wafd and fallen into line with the papers supporting the palace, waged a campaign against the notion of sacred leadership and accused El-Nahhas of retaining the "blue shirts" to assure the "establishment of an infallible sacred leadership that must be blindly obeyed". The Wafd let fly with a response after it smelled the scent of conspiracy wafting from the royal palace behind this accusation.

Al-Misri newspaper wrote about a "hidden, veiled struggle between constitutional democracy and the non-constitutional authority. What we see today of dust clouds is only the very beginning that commences struggles of this kind in its early rounds." Al-Basir newspaper addressed the matter directly. "They are attempting to state that the leaders of the Wafd are demanding sacred leadership, in meaning that the sanctity of leadership and the necessity of obeying it do not comply with the constitution or democratic life." The paper went on to explain that it differed from this understanding and that the meaning of sanctity, in its opinion, was "obedience to the leadership as long as it functions within the framework of conviction... it must be understood through the veneration of personal virtues and national history. It is tested in good times and bad, and is never disgraced by doubt." Under the headline "Mustafa El-Nahhas is a leader not a dictator", Kawkab Al-Sharq magazine described him as a leader "because he has remained a constitutional man, a consulting leader should consultation be required, and a beloved leader among those who work alongside him".

Yet the Wafd Party did not suffice with its press. It organised a tour for El-Nahhas and Ebeid to refute the claims of El-Nuqrashi and Maher after confirming the palace conspiracy. In Beni Sweif, before a massive crowd of locals, El-Nahhas spoke of El-Nuqrashi's dismissal from the Wafd and the fact that he had submitted his resignation six times to the previous cabinet and that his departure was inevitable. In Alexandria he gave a speech to the same effect before the Lawyers' Syndicate.

Yet none of this prevented fate from running its course, particularly after Ahmed Maher issued a statement accusing the government of denigrating security, education, and workers. The government was annulled, the first time this occurred in the term of Farouq and the third such event in the life of this sacred leader, who no longer remained sacred.