Literature History of the Middle East 2 (1500-present)
2020-2021
Leiden University – Bachelor Middle Eastern Studies– year 2 – semester 2
Midterm 2
Contents:
Summary of the chapter 7-10 and the epilogue from the following book: Anderson, Betty. A History
of the Modern Middle East: Rulers, Rebels, and Rogues. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016.
Summary of the following article: Shlaim, Avi. “Israel and the Arab Coalition” In The Modern Middle
East: A Reader, edited by Albert Hourani, Philip Khoury, and Mary C. Wilson, 535-556. New York: IB
Tauris, 2005.
*Please note that parts of this summary are quoted (almost) literally from the original tekst. I have
done this only when I thought I could not phrase it better myself. When citing directly from this
summary, please check with the original text (noted above here) if you are also citing literally from
the original and provide correct annotations. Prevent plagiarism.
1
,Chapter 7
Military Coups
Politics and Violence: Iran, Turkey, and the Arab States, 1952-1980
After the war, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan joined Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran as formally
independent states and all entered the United Nations. We saw political liberalizations in all
countries except Saudi Arabia: parties formed, elections took place and unions could organize. This
was a period of unprecedented engagement of citizens with national politics. There was an optimistic
attitude in the years after the war: Europeans had left and many believed independence would lead
to economic growth and new opportunities. Liberalization however, had unintended consequences.
The political forces forming called for more radical changes than the leadership was willing to
undertake. Rebels and rogues of this period were not tribal shaykhs, militia leaders and landowners
of post-WW 1, defending their territories against foreigners and domestic challengers. Now, urban
populations were fighting for political rights and reforms. They called for radical changes that would
overrun the political, social and economic hierarchies that kept leaders in power, so the government
was not willing to accept the changes. Leaders used force to keep their positions.
In Arab states like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, political parties succeeded in dominating much of the
discourse about the directions the newly independent countries should take. They advocated land
reform, workers’ rights, industrialisation and a political break with imperialist and Cold War powers.
Via military coups, their ideas and ideologies came into political power. As the result of military
coups, the old elite political structure broke down and those that had been marginalized in the past
rose to power.
Political developments in Egypt
Political liberalization lasted from 1945 to 1952 and it allowed political parties, unions and urban
militias to move on to the political stage. A downturn in the economy sparked calls for social and
economic reform. Since many peasants owned little to no land, land reform also came on the
agenda. None of these ideas passed into law, because the parliament was fragmented.
In 1952, British troops surrounded the headquarters of the Ismailia gendarmerie and ordered the
police to surrender. In the battle, dozens were killed. The following day demonstrations broke out in
Cairo, and foreign businesses, hotels and bars were the target.
Revolution in 1952
In 1952, junior officers in the Egyptian military, calling themselves the Free Officers, led a bloodless
coup against the government. They had attended the Military Academy when it opened to young
men from lower-class backgrounds in 1936. These young officers were mad at the Egyptian
government for abandoning its soldiers on the battlefield in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, by giving
them poor-quality weapons and logistic support.
The Free Officers established the Revolutionary Command Council after the coup as the chief
executive instrument that would construct a new kind of republican Egypt. Naguib became the first
president, but he was replaced by Nasser in 1954.
2
,Free Officer program
The core of this program was a nationalism that focused on bringing Egypt into full independence
from British control. The first victory was the Anglo-Egyptian agreement of 1954, that stated the
complete removal of all British troops from the Suez Canal Zone by 1956. A land reform program was
passed and banks and large industries were nationalized. The government sought to break the power
of the old elites, while distributing services to a larger group than ever. The program stimulated the
public and private sectors. Politically, the program had a populist element because the state called
on the mass of the population to join the Nasserite project of building a new and modern Egypt.
The goal was to weaken the power of old political elites and to bring those who had been
marginalized or had rebelled in the past to power. This was possible, because people from various
backgrounds could now attend the expanding school system. The Free Officers came from a modest
social background. The Free Officers were, in essence, answering the call made by the generations
rebelling since the 1930s to open op positions of influence to the newly educated.
In a step towards authoritarian rule, the Free Officers banned political parties. Violence however,
decreased after the coups. Former rogues had been recruited into the Free Officer project and thus
had been made stakeholders.
Gamal Abdel Nasser
Nasser distinguished himself by standing strong against the US, Israel and European Powers. He
made use of propaganda to enlarge his popularity. The resocialization program in schools and
universities rewrote textbooks so that Nassar appeared as the descendant of Islamic and Arab heroes
of the past. A lot of students enrolled in the youth groups Nasser initiated to bring them into his
project. Nasser also repressed opposition and he side-lined people that disagreed with his position or
policies. Even the Free Officer leaders found themselves with little influence a few years after the
revolution. A major group not included in Nasser’s project was the Muslim Brotherhood. The
government banned the organization after an alleged assassination attempt against Nasser. The
Brotherhood went underground.
Egypt as a revolutionary model
The example of Egypt demonstrates the vibrant but fragmented political life that existed across the
region after WW2. Nasser became a model for Arabs throughout the region who wanted to bring
revolution and change to their countries. As the example of Egypt also shows, civilian political forces
were not the ones who would make the transformations. Junior military officers took up the
platforms of the political parties and brought them into governance via military coups. They
implemented anti-imperialist and populist programs and pushed old political elites out. These
powers forced monarchs in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Transjordan to broaden their bases of support to
retain their thrones.
Arab political parties
Party politics also reignited in Jordan, Syria and Iraq after the war. State leaders were old elites, but
they initiated periods of political liberalization. The political process in these countries however
proved no more successful than in Egypt in establishing participatory governance. Political parties
struggled against the same old problems. The opposition was divided and could not generate mass
support, so government leaders retained the ability to suppress their activities.
3
, In the late 1940s, these opposition parties, parliamentary groups and unions started protesting.
Nationalist, socialist and communist parties started to emerge. The Ba’th parties focussed on pan-
Arabism and they wanted to erase the boarders between the Arab countries that the Europeans had
erected to divide and weaken the Arabs. Arab Nationalist parties called for Arab solidary to fight
imperialism and to work together to help the Palestinians. Communist parties also adopted a pan-
Arab framework and spoke of worker and peasant rights irrespective of any state boundaries.
Party platforms
Parties demanded that the states protect the welfare of the marginalized. They were opposed to
Western imperialism and to their countries taking part in Western-dominated defense pacts
connected to the Cold War. They were also against Israel and all parties adopted elements of
socialism. Parties were quite revolutionary in the sense that they did not merely want to win
elections or take over governments, but wanted to overturn the power structure in their countries.
They thought the existence of individual Arab states made the Arabs weak. This is why, among
others, the Ba’th parties wanted to erase the boundaries between Arab states so that all Arabs could
be ruled by one state and work together to generate a political, economic and cultural awakening.
Aflaq, the ideologue of the party, called for an upheaval of society so that it could be completely
regenerated. The rebirth of the Arabs (the meaning of the word Ba’th), would come as individual
Arabs reformed their own attitudes and then worked together to improve life for their fellows.
At the American University of Beirut, students demonstrated for political causes very often. They
opposed Israel, Western imperialism and the growing influence of the Cold War powers in the region.
The school administration tried to suppress the protests and it did not agree to the demands of the
students.
Political passions of the 1950s
During the 1950s, people in the region were excited about independence and the possibility of real
change after years of colonial rule and old notables dominating politics. Now, a younger generation
of students and professionals considered themselves far better trained than the old people in charge.
It was also a moment when Arabs struggled in solidarity with their fellow Arabs. Because government
changed so quickly, through elections or coups, the new generation thought they could finally gain
access to politics to institute the revolution everyone called for. It was also a moment in which
peoples standard of living rose as the result of new state institutions.
Political party weakness
Parties however, faced the same problems as their predecessors in the 1930s. Parties were now
larger in number, but they still attracted the same supporters: urban students, civil servants,
professionals and workers. The majority of the population was not mobilized and organized for the
kinds of change the parties desired. The new parties could not alleviate the bad situation of the
peasants, because they sat in weak positions in government. Party leaders also made little effort to
adjust their message for possible supporters in the rural areas. Kings, presidents, old notables and
European and Cold War powers also worked against these new parties. State leaders could suppress
the parties because they held sufficient coercive power.
4
