This project was originally written for a class at American University in 2020.
In 1961, Frantz Fanon wrote one of his seminal works entitled The Wretched of the Earth – a look at the impact and influence of colonization on nations and peoples, and further the social process of decolonization in these nations. Nine years prior, in 1952, there was a coup staged in Egypt by military personnel against the ruling elite and in 1953, the Egyptian monarchy was abolished, and the Republic of Egypt was established. Following this, Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in the country and changed the course of Egypt for many years to come. While Fanon did not write The Wretched of the Earth until almost a decade after the events in Egypt, the two share many details in common especially as the theme of decolonizing nations is so prevalent to both. This essay aims to explore the Free Officers Movement and Nasser’s rebuilding of post-colonial Egypt through the lens of Fanon and further develop understandings of both ideologies.
It is necessary to begin any discussion of post-colonial Egypt by establishing the colonization of Egypt. This is not because formerly colonized nations are characterized by their colonization but rather because it provides necessary context in understanding the true depth and impact of colonization on these nations and how their societies are influenced by these socio-political impositions. Foreign occupation of Egypt can be traced back to the 16th century with the presence of the Ottoman Empire in the region, which was followed by Napoleon’s campaign in the country in 1798. French occupation was immensely unpopular in Egypt with scholar al-Jabarti writing about the cruel nature of the French campaign in Egypt, particularly in response to the Cairo Revolt, and referring to the French as “demons of the Devil’s army” (al-Jabarti, 36) in his book Chronicle of the French Occupation: Napoleon in Egypt. After the French left Egypt in 1801, the nation saw occupation by Muhammad Ali and the Ottomans for the greater part of the 19th century until the entry of the British in 1883, who wanted control over the Suez Canal and the region before the French.
As Cleveland writes, British occupation of Egypt “shaped Egyptian economic development for several decades, had an impact on the formation of the country’s political leadership and became the focus of an anti-imperial nationalist movement that affected Egyptian politics for the first half of the twentieth century” (Cleveland, 96). While Egypt was never a formal British colony, it was considered a veiled protectorate until 1914 where the former Ottoman colony was made a formal protectorate of Britain by the League of Nations, setting up the Sultanate of Egypt. The Sultanate lasted till 1922 but following this, the British maintained a significant presence in the country, particularly with regards to the military and Egyptian politics.
Under British rule, it is important to note that the Egyptians who benefitted were “the large landholders who saw their property values and profits grow… have a vested interest in the social and economic advantages it brought them, and they would attempt to preserve those advantages” (Cleveland, 97). Egypt was ruled by its monarchy and technically was a sovereign nation, but the presence of the British colonial powers continued until 1956, despite the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 which called for the withdrawal of British troops for Egypt except the Suez Canal.
During the first half of the twentieth century, however, as more countries gained independence or sovereignty, there was rising political and nationalist consciousness within the Arab world and Egypt in particular. With the rise of anti-imperialist groups like the Wafd Party and the Muslim Brotherhood, there was an increased sense of Arab-centrism and anti-colonial rhetoric. In 1947, most notably, the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party was formed. The party was focused on three main principles: Arab nation unity and liberty, freedom and equality, and anti-colonial civilization (Baath Party Constitution). Nationalist ideas and open criticisms of British interference in the region were increasingly commonplace as “educated Egypt had found a voice – or perhaps many voices – and its echoes reverberated across the political landscape” (Cleveland, 100) primarily through Egyptian press and media.
While the Ba’ath party never gained prominence in Egypt, particularly due to Nasser’s personal disagreement with the organisation, its Constitution reflects many beliefs that were held by Arab nationalist leaders at the time, like Nasser. Firstly, the idea that the “Arab Homeland belongs to the Arabs” is a strongly regionalist and anti-colonial statement, that showed rising attitudes at the time across the world – with the rise of pan-Arabism and pan-Africanism. Additionally, a focus on the fundamental idea of freedom plays a strong role across Ba’athist beliefs and literature at the time. The Constitution speaks about the provision of equal opportunity for all, establishing just systems and that the Arab nations seek to help all who struggle for freedom. It then goes on to address anti-colonialism, taking a strong stance of solidarity and vowing to provide support to anyone that may need it. While it is important to note that Nasser was not a part of Ba’ath party and it has never maintained a strong presence in Egypt, the 1947 Constitution shows a spiking consciousness in the Arab world about ideas of decolonization and a change in the discussions of class as previously known.
This rising contention brings to the forefront one of Fanon’s core ideas: the idea of violence. Fanon writes: “Decolonization never goes unnoticed, for it focuses on and fundamentally alters being… decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation” (Fanon, 2). Fanon’s central premise on violence is that he believes that colonialism itself is the result of a campaign that has its foundations in violence and that “in the colonies, the foreigner imposed himself using his cannons and machines” (Fanon, 5). Fanon also states that the order of the colonial world is governed by violence, that “tirelessly punctuated the destruction of the indigenous social fabric, and demolished unchecked” (Fanon, 6). Further, Fanon argues, the only way to properly eradicate or abolish colonial rule that is established on violence is through the use of violence. In his view, “whenever an authentic liberation struggle has been fought, wherever the blood of the people has been shed and the armed phase has lasted long enough to encourage the intellectuals to withdraw to their rank and file base, there is an effective eradication of the superstructure borrowed by these intellectuals from the colonialist bourgeois circles” (Fanon, 11). This idea has been the subject of criticism in academic circles, especially where the belief “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” is prevalent. However, it is necessary to be cognizant of the fact that Fanon is not calling for solely unbridled physical violence, but also structural violence to break down oppressive systems and more importantly, intellectual violence to rid the colonization of the mind.
In a Fanonian sense, the rising social consciousness and political critique at the time was an active act of violence by the colonized against their colonizers. When the “colonized subject … discovers that his life, his breathing and his heartbeats are the same as the colonist’s” (Fanon, 10), they are actively engaging in decolonization and violence against the systems that held them back. Cleveland discusses how the “Egyptian press served [as a] … forum for the propagation of ideas on the major cultural and social issues of the era” (Cleveland, 100) as the nation moved to independence. However, most notably, Gamal Abdel Nasser engaged in this violence on a variety of levels. In a classical sense of violence where “blood is shed”, as a military officer, Nasser had fought for his country in the Egyptian Armed Forces and the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 – where he developed his intense brand of nationalism. Nasser’s fundamental desire as a leader of Egypt was to “dismantle the old regime and uproot the political, economic and ideological imperialism which was keeping Egypt in servitude” (Nasser, 75). Structural violence is best understood as a form of violence wherein there are certain social structures and disparities that prevent certain groups from accessing necessities, an occurrence that is incredibly common in colonial societies. Under British rule, most programs were designed “to serve British imperial and financial interests” and “in many areas of social development, [their] policies were regressive” (Cleveland, 98). Previously, Egypt had a state-sponsored school system, but under the restrictive education policies of the British, tuition fees were raised and the general public’s access to education was increasingly restricted.
These restrictive policies that were often centered around financial restrictions contributed to two main features in Egyptian society. First, there was increased disparity between sections of society that led to increased class consciousness, and a desire to remove systemic barriers through the upturning of colonial powers and their allies, the monarchy in the Egyptian context. The production of wealth for the British empire at the cost of Egyptian lives became even more prominent as Egyptians began to realise the nation’s “conversion into a vast field of cotton provided the British economy with its life blood, at the expense of the starving Egyptian peasants” (Nasser, 77). Secondly, there was a creation of a “group of Egyptian intellectuals imbued with nationalist ideals and a sense of frustration over their inferior status” (Cleveland, 98). An example of such a figure is Gamal Abdel Nasser himself. In his 1962 charter The Morrow of Independence, Nasser explicitly states his disillusionment with the British colonial rule and heavily criticizes the socio-economic structures in Egypt at the time.
An important aspect of Fanon’s ideas is his focus on class statuses and the theory of stretch Marxism. Following the abolition of colonial rule through violence, it is imperative that the creation of a nation state and its development is not led by the “native bourgeoise” or by the elite of the country. Rather, the revolution and the subsequent rebuilding of the nation should be carried out or led by the lowest rung of society that is uninterested and uninvolved in revolutionary politics, or the lumpenproletariat. Fanon argues that this is because he believes that the native bourgeoise is driven by personal interest and may act as a “vulgar opportunist” (Fanon, 11). While there may be some removal of foreign influence, the native bourgeoise will act in accordance with their class interests and continue the capitalist, imperialist patterns in order to maintain power and disparity – going as far as to say that the ruling elite’s “interests are identical to those of that of the colonialist bourgeoisie” (Fanon, 23). It is notable that following the official “end” of the era of the British acting as protector over Egypt, the country was run by the monarchy who continued relations with Great Britain and allowed them to maintain a strong presence in Egypt – against the interests of the greater society and primarily for financial profit. Despite popular protest, the British did not dissolve their military presence and did not leave until the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, as they had nothing to gain from being in the region anymore.
The actions of the native bourgeoise, namely the King of Egypt and the rest of the monarchy, and the presence of British forces in Egypt acted as the primary motivator of the 1952 Free Officers Movement or the 1952 Coup. While the coup d’état is not characterized by its physical violence, it did contain some movements of violent interactions between parties. However, it is a strong example of structural violence – it intended to completely uproot the status quo and return the power to the Egyptian people, rather than the elite minority. While this use of violence and focus on the removal of the bourgeoise is quintessentially Fanonian, it is imperative to note that the revolution was still a revolution from above. The military class is not the lumpenproletariat, as they are organized, often well off and are often politically involved which goes against the Marxist prescription for the lumpenproletariat. However, it is important to recognise that it was still a relatively lower class that was focused on socialist and somewhat Marxist beliefs.
Nasserism as a political ideology is explicitly rooted in socialism, and this can be seen in his writing and his policies. In The Morrow of Independence, Nasser hints at Fanon’s discussion of the upper class and the colonial powers, stating that “before the revolution, economic power was in the hands of a coalition between feudalism and exploitative capitalism… political life and the parties reflect this power and serve as the façade for this coalition” (Nasser, 77). He then goes on to discuss the intrinsic link between colonialism and capitalism, noting that the “economic momentum of the capitalist countries originates from the investments made in the colonies” (Nasser, 77). While Nasser did not embody Marxism in his Nasserism and rather leaned towards a more Arab brand of socialism, some of his ideas resonate with Fanon’s stretch Marxism. Fanon calls for the stretching for Marxism to include critiques of colonial capitalism and states that “Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem. Everything up to and including the very nature of pre-capitalist society… explained by Marx, must here be thought out again” (Fanon, 40). This call to stretch Marxism is seen in Nasserism, which is further characterized by its rejection of Western capitalism and inherent focus on anti-colonial nationalism.
While it is clear that some of Fanon’s ideas can be seen clearly within Egypt’s post-colonial state-building, many aspects of Nasser’s rule do not align with Fanon’s view of an independent country. Firstly, and most importantly, is the question of the lumpenproletariat. While it is true that Nasser and the rest of the Free Officers were not a part of the colonial elite or the native bourgeoise, they maintained a relatively high-class status, especially Nasser who also had a background as an intellectual. This is an important shift in Fanon’s theory of decolonization and can be considered as an important factor in determining Egypt’s future. Additionally, one of the main characteristics of Nasserism is his continued focus on modernisation and industrialization, as he attempted to bring Egypt into the modern world. This breaks from Fanon’s strict prescription of class and focus on agrarian society as “when the Nasserist ruling class came to power, they addressed the dominance of the private sector by weakening the power of the agrarian faction that dominated it, and which was tied to foreign capital and institutions[1].” Fanon also warns against the “pitfalls of nationalist consciousness”, a rhetoric that Nasserists leaned heavily into and built a majority of their policies and platforms around. Salem writes that “nationalism could just as easily lead to exclusion, tribalism, chauvinism, racialized nationalism and so on… impossible to argue the Nasserist nationalist project was free of these ideological extremes and… it did eventually succumb to a regressive form of nationalism.[2]”
Another reason that Nasser does not fit into this Fanonian view is because of the role of pan-Arabism at the team. As aforementioned, in the late 1940s, the Ba’ath party started to gain prominence and there was an emergence of a united Arab consciousness, as evidenced by Nasser’s own involvement in the creation of a United Arab Republic. This provides a different background and temporal context for Egypt’s attempts at decolonization because the country also participated in regional alliances and societal norms.
At a surface level, it is obvious that Egypt was not built around Frantz Fanon’s ideas of how a post-colonial society should organise itself or what such a society should look like. Placing The Wretched of the Earth within Fanon’s broader bibliography also makes it evident that his ideas are centered around the experiences of black colonized individuals and therefore, lack replicability to some extent. However, it is important to recognise the validity of Fanon’s ideas as they transcend a variety of national and cultural boundaries and hold relevance even outside of the context they were written. While the Egyptian project took place years before and in a completely different part of the world to Fanon’s writings, it is necessary to note that Fanon did not write his work in a vacuum – it was informed by the world around him and already existing freedom struggles.
In discussions of vacuums, there is also a lasting impact of the post-colonial project in Egypt on Egyptian society. While Nasser and his regime tried vehemently to disband neocolonialism in Egyptian society in the 1950s, the role of class runs deeper than comprehensible. As Persaud writes, “the hegemonic project that was begun in 1952 came to an end by 2011 mostly because of the colonized nature of the national bourgeois, combined with cracks in the leadership that was no longer able to manage the contending social forces.[3]” The inability of previous governments to address the problems of colonialism arguably indirectly led to the events of the Arab Spring in 2011 to some capacity, resulting in the long-term effect on Egyptian society and government.
Nasser and Egypt do not perfectly adhere to the Fanonian model of decolonization, and perhaps there is merit to this because of the divergence between Nasser’s Egypt and Fanon’s look at still-colonized African nations. However, there are clear links between the two and Fanon can act as an important method of looking at post-colonial forays into nation building and, more importantly, problematize these in order to learn broader lessons in decolonization.
———————————————————————————————
[1] Salem, Sara. 2018. “Reading Egypt’s Postcolonial State Through Frantz Fanon: Hegemony, Dependency And Development”. Interventions 20 (3): 428-445. doi:10.1080/1369801x.2017.1421041. 437.
[2] ibid 439.
[3] Persaud, Randolph B. 2021. “Hegemony And The Postcolonial State”. International Politics Reviews. doi:10.1057/s41312-021-00106-0. 1.