Paul Ropp
Structured response 5
Nassir Silenced
opposition in Egypt by creating an authoritarian-populist regime that focused
on the repression, redistribution, and re-socialization of the state.
In the
1950’s Nassir banned all forms of political opposition, although there was no
way for the regime to effectively monitor every single aspect of society the
regime didn’t have too. Nassir in fact had the support of many sectors of
society, not only because of his charismatic leadership but his strongly pointed
social programs, such as a mass of entitlement reform to lower and middle class
citizens. Nassir’s regime was also successful in the repression of the populous
as it had control over all major institutions of the state; media, education,
and religion. Nassir was also able to maintain control of the state through
military control, whereas in 2011 the military turned on Mubarak the Nassir
regime was able to, until the end keep the military on the side of the regime
rather than the autonomous military of modern Egypt. However, important apart the repression played
it was all due to the redistribution and socialization of the state.
Nasser
operated Egypt on a social contract; the state would offer certain jobs,
services, and goods for the political support of the populous, which was a very
effective system until the crumbling of social mechanisms after the 1967
Egyptian Israeli war. Nassir enacted massive entitlement reforms to gain
popularity amongst citizens and as Wickham points out the regimes main
popularity did not come from Nassir’s charismatic leadership or any transitory
ideals purveyed by the current regime but Nassir’s popularity was derived
mainly through the economic reforms aimed at the middle and lower classes of
Egypt. Although, the regime’s goals were not primarily for the betterment of
the Egyptian populous, in the short run reforms enacted by Nassir were
successful in creating a higher standard of living, as well as opening up opportunities
to advance within society which in some ways made the reforms even more
effective because they indebted Egyptian citizens to the regime; the economic
reforms made Nassir look like a savoir of Egypt rather than a tyrant. Moreover,
the expansion of primary education in 1952, then the expansion of higher
education in 1954 by 325%, boosted the short run growth of the Egyptian economy
by increasing human capital. This
increase coupled with the “Graduate appointment policy” allowed any college
graduated the right to government employment. Now these policies worked in
Nassir’s favor by silencing opposition to his rule in two main ways. First the
cost of higher education was reduced which allowed the upward mobility of
Egyptian graduates. Secondly any Egyptian college graduate who had even a remotely
hard time finding work in the private sector or overseas could simply apply and
be hired to the government. The Graduate program in the beginning allowed
Nassir the popular support of any students, however, in the long run this would
prove to be a major downfall of the regime; especially when you can support any
more employees. However successful a regime is in the past, Islamist parties in
the recent years have yielded the majority of success at the ballot boxes for
many reasons two particularly important reasons in Egypt was the promulgation
of the Muslim brotherhood since the Nassir regime, and the promise for a
traditional change that appeals to most Muslim voters.
During
the Nassir regime the Muslim brotherhood was allowed to exist, although it underwent
many periods of government crackdowns, however it continued to grow as a grass roots organization, and
a large scale social movement. During Nassir’s regime the brotherhood took an
active role in the advocacy against Nassir’s regime and was alleged in the assignation
of Egypt’s prime minister in 1948. I think the underlying popularity of
movements like the Muslim brotherhood is the ability for the organization to be
politically active, promising a change for the better, a change away from the
fiercely secularist regimes to a Islamic traditionalism that appeals to many of
the Muslim people in the region. Moreover, the grass roots activism of Islamic
organizations plays into the popularity; like the Nassir regime that used
entitlement, Islamic social movements are going into the country side and inner
cities and helping out the lower, and middle class. One other major factor that
drives the Islamic movements in the MENA region is that the region itself is predominantly
Islamic, as we brought up in class the other day. One of the main factors in
the United States political races Is religion, so why should It be any
different in a very religiously active part of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment