EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM.
rye ms ammo's Or TIM BP [gen.-role:1
Stu,—Your article in the issue of March 9th on the demand of the Egyptian General Assembly for Parliamentary govern- ment was a remarkable example of the subtle psychological reasoning for which your readers have come to look whenever . you touch on Eastern subjects. Its fundamental position, . that the Oriental desires a sane and benevolent despotism, has indeed been an orthodox opinion ever since Aristotle coined his phrase about "natural slaves." But sound as the traditional opinion doubtless is as a description of the Eastern ,attitude under the old conditions, is it not conceivable that the immense revolutions of the last quarter of a century have begun at lest to modify, in Egypt at least, what we too vaguely call the 'Oriental" character ? Types are not immutable, and neither climate nor the conformation of the skull wholly suffices to make the character of a race. Political and economic conditions have their moral effects, and the influence of Western education, alien though it is, may do as much to transform the outlook of a people as a religion imposed by conquest. It is possible to argue that the security and prosperity of Lord Croiner's regime have actually begun to effect this spiritual transformation. A man accustomed only to arbitrary rule, to unwritten laws, to the daily triumph of violence and chicane, to the daily demonstra- tion that wealth and comfort are the rewards only of craft or strength, will certainly think of power and personal rule as the conventional " Oriental " does. But accustom him to even justice, written laws, and the possibility of gain without violence, and does it follow that even an Oriental will continue to idealise personal rule ? If nothing in his experience suggests the notion of personal rights, and all around him is tyranny, his ideal is necessarily "a sane and benevolent despotism." But alter his judicial and economic environment, as the English have done in Egypt, and new political concep- tions will almost certainly dawn on his consciousness. You say that "no Mohammedan community has ever developed any system of self-government." In fact we have the precedent of the Egypt of Arabi's time and the Persia of to-day. It is true that the " development " in these instances was not spontaneous or native. But was it more directly imitative than the development of democracy in Christendom ? Modern European democracy had its root in the inspiration of Greek and Roman history. And again, is it not begging the question to classify Egypt as a Mohammedan community ? Islam is definitely hostile to the Nationalist idea and silent as to representative government; but can we say that Christianity as such contains their germ ? The fact is that a stream of ideas and tendencies which are purely secular is moving in Egypt, and that religion no more prompts them there than it does with us. It is relevant to recall the fact in this connexion that the Egyptian Nationalists are combating the reactionary clerical influences centred in El Azhar, which are purely Mohammedan.
Your statement that the Oriental prefers despotism had a qualification. You describe his ideal as "a sane and beneficent despotism, tempered by public opinion." That Lord Cromer's rule is sane and beneficent we all proudly acknowledge ; but can any alien despotism be "tempered by public opinion" in the sense that the Oriental expects ? The good Oriental despot whose name becomes a legend is always a believer, and usually by origin a man of the people. He is amenable to public opinion because he shares the popular beliefs and recognises the popular standards of conduct. Through his relatives, his wives, his favourites, his soldiers, he is constantly in touch with this opinion. He goes to the Mosque, where he may hear unpalatable truths. He must defer to the clergy ; he may be confronted by some democratic prophet. In the last resort he may be assassinated (a common fate in Persia and Afghanistan), or deposed, as two recent Sultans have been, by the Sheikh-ul-Islam. Finally, there is the great resource of passive resistance and public protest known as the closing of the bazaar. An alien despot cannot be reached by religious preaching. He would only write a paragraph in his next report about the prevalent "fanaticism." He cannot be deposed by the priesthood, and if he were assassinated, another would take his place after the proclamation of martial law. If a prophet were to arise and denounce him, our newspapers would merely baptise him a "mad mollah," while the closing of the bazaars would set all the Chambers of Commerce passing resolutions for an increase of the army of occupation. Faced with a despotism which is beneficent but alien, the Egyptians are, in fact, busied in looking for some means of "tempering it by public opinion." They have done their despot the compliment of borrowing an expedient from his own country. They have asked for a Parliament.
To grant a Parliament with full responsible government would certainly be a daring experiment. But the history of civilisation is a mass of precedents from which we could choose our checks and our restraints. A nominated Upper House would be one. A system of nominated Administrative
Boards to supervise the work of Ministers would be another. A scheme of financial control analogous to that which maintains the credit of Greece would be a third. But if even this seems too reckless, we can still attempt to govern "in accordance with Egyptian ideas." What else is meant by your formula about "public opinion" P When public opinion asks for Arabic teaching in the professional schools, for a subvention for a liberal University on the lines of .Aligarh College, for free elementary education, for a municipality for Cairo, can it be argued that any of these things would, in your own words, "destroy the welfare that has been won" ? And If these demands are compatible with the security and the credit of Egypt, can our despotism honestly profess to respect public opinion if its attitude towards them is merely negative P A generous and kindly speech from Lord Cromer or Sir Edward Grey which promised these things or some of them, welcomed frankly the new movement of awakened patriotism, and reserved the larger political issue without prejudging it, would go far to disarm Egyptian Nationalism, to rob it of its bitterness, and to wean it from its restless quest for sympathy among the enemies of England.—I am, Sir, &c., [The main contentions of our correspondent's very able letter are vitiated by the fact that they beg the question. He assumes a bond-fide Nationalist Party with a stable and honest desire for Parliamentary institutions. We do not believe that any such party exists in Egypt. What we see and hear passing resolutions by the sheaf is a phantom called into existence largely by the exercise of that Rhedivial authority which is still so great a force in Egypt. The National Party in the Assembly asks for a number of things, good and bad—a certain number of the things demanded are, we are quite willing to admit, excellent per se—not because it wants them, but because the word has been passed that it is the will of "Effendina" that they should be asked for. In the same way, a vigorous exercise of British authority might no doubt obtain equally numerous resolutions in a contrary sense. There is no reality in the demands of the Egyptian Nationalists for Parliamentary institutions, though a genuine desire unquestionably exists among the Pasha class for the exploitation of Egypt uninterfered with by British adminis- trators. The ideal of this class is that we should protect Egypt from foreign interference and from internal revolu- tion, while they should govern Egypt according to Egyptian ideas,—i.e., according to the ideas which prevailed in the days of Ismail—En. Spectator.'
Previous page
