How can we understand where state failure began if we don’t know the history of Egypt? A brief recap of the country’s affairs and power changes since it became a Republic in 1952 helps us understand how Egypt is positioned as it is today.
Although the country was independent after 1922, sovereignty was extremely limited; Britain continued to take control over external affairs and held a strong military presence. Consequently, Egyptian nationalism grew. Under Nasser rule there were plans for large agricultural and industrial development projects, as well as for progressive economic and social reforms. This time in Egyptian history is known for its social welfare; citizens enjoyed unprecedented quality in housing, education, and health services. Due to rapidly growing population and some mismanagement, however, this era didn’t last long.
Nasser is famous for his nationalization of the Suez Canal (1956) and his political victory in the Tripartite Aggression (when he took control of the canal, the British and French saw the potential power that Arab nationalism could have over access to oil in the Middle East. Consequently, Egypt gained negative international attention because of its potential to be a threat.
Leadership is a defining factor in the history of the state; certain decisions made during Nasser’s leadership changed relationships with neighboring countries, influenced perceptions of Western countries, and unintentionally enhanced the nationalism of the state.
Nasser was popular in the Arab world because of his success in promoting Pan-Arabism as a leading ideology. His goal was to unite Arabs and this ultimately meant defeating Israel. In 1958, he merged Egypt with Syria to create the United Arab Republic (UAR), which failed in 1961 due to political differences. During Nasser’s rule the country was humiliatingly defeated, losing the Sanai Peninsula to Isreal during Six Day War in 1967. This defeat, other multi-national pan-Arab attempts at uniting, and the presence of Egyptian nationalism threatened the legitimacy of the ideology. The prior 100 years British occupation and the unique rich ancient history of Egypt proved to be a nationalizing factor; although seen as a leader of Pan-Arabism, Egyptians considered themselves distinct from Arabs and identified themselves with Egypt.
Now I’d like to sidestep to the concept of state failure and how it relates to this brief early modern history. ‘Stateness’ refers to the amount of effective governance and the degree to which state institutions are seen as legitimate. Egypt has some structural economic factors, such as its geographic location and the presence Suez Canal that made it difficult for the country to establish itself from the start. Consequently, throughout most of its modern history, Egypt was seen as a British puppet lacking sovereign rule. With such a strong British presence, how was Egypt support to exert its sovereignty and become a legitimate state in the eyes of the world? Could Egypt use its nationalism to improve their level of “stateness?”
Geopolitics & Egypt 