Egypt: the Struggle for Hegemony, 1952-1981. (Volumes I and II) (Development, Nasser, Sadat).

Abstract

This dissertation presents an examination of authoritarian politics in Egypt from 1952-1981. It derives its theoretical impetus from the Marxist and non-Marxist literature on authoritarianism in developing nations, and incorporates key concepts from both schools. Its major questions relate to the longevity of authoritarian rule and the impact of political-ideological struggle on socio-economic development efforts. A key organizing concept of the dissertation is Gramsci's notion of hegemony; i.e., the ability of a ruling group to convince the bulk of the citizenry of its moral and legal right to rule. A major hypothesis proposes that the establishment of hegemony is essential to the fulfilment of socio-economic development objectives, because the requisite level of forced savings entailed in the development process can only be achieved under such conditions. With these propositions in mind, the Egyptian case is scrutinized to evaluate efforts to establish hegemony. First, the major political-ideological (hegemonic) contenders are delineated. Then, a study is made of the competition between those contenders for control of the military, parliament, the regime's mass political organizations, the media, the journalists' and lawyers' syndicate councils, and political activity at the universities. An effort is made to establish which domestic and foreign variables help account for changes in the strength of those ideological currents over time. Finally, the effect of this competition on the socio-economic development strategies of the 1950's (guided capitalism), 1960's (Nasserite socialism), and the 1970's (Sadat's open-door economics) is explored. The study reveals that deep ideological divisions set the stage for the authoritarian solution of a small group of officers. Over time, those officers were themselves factionalized by disagreements over political-economic development strategy. Internal dissensus thus combined with continued opposition from (extra-regime) domestic forces and foreign foes to undermine all efforts to establish hegemony. In turn, the absence of hegemony rendered the post-1952 regimes incapable of exacting payment of the development bill from its citizenry.