Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (632) Selection before election In 1938 Egypt was in a constitutional predicament. The dismissal of the El-Nahhas government, the subsequent dissolution of the Wafdist parliament, and a royal decree charging the government of Mohamed Mahmoud to hold elections to form a new council, all within a 50-day period, put the government in a quandary. Professor Yunan Labib Rizk reveals how the muddle was dealt with It was well-known that any elections held by any government in accordance with the rulings of the 1923 constitution would result in an overwhelming victory for the Wafd Party. The palace was on its guard about this, particularly after the experienced politician Ali Maher assumed the presidency of the royal cabinet with the approval of the coalition parties that had formed the Mahmoud government and which included heavyweight personalities such as Mahmoud himself and Ismail Sidqi. Supporting the assumption that the Wafd Party would undoubtedly win such elections were several factors. The first of these were historical precedents -- since 1923, the Wafd Party had never entered elections without winning. It won in the first elections held in 1923, and during the term of the Ziwar government in 1925, despite the immense efforts exerted by Ismail Sidqi to prevent this victory and which led to the resulting parliament being dissolved a few short hours later. The following year (1926), the Wafd Party was again victorious following the formation of a coalition with the Constitutional Liberals that produced a council some observers described as a Wafdist parliament with a "constitutional balcony". In 1929, subsequent to the fall of the Mohamed Mahmoud government that had obstructed the constitution over the preceding two years, the Wafd Party won again in a parliament that survived until the next year. It was dissolved in 1930, after the failure of the Egyptian-British negotiations known as the El-Nahhas- Henderson negotiations was ascertained. During the next four years, a constitution "fitting the king's requirements" was used, one that was known by the name of its drafter, Ismail Sidqi Pasha. The Wafd Party and the Constitutional Liberals, the two largest political powers in the country, boycotted it until the Tawfiq Nessim government was formed in 1935 and decided to overthrow it. Widespread unrest shook the country during the time that passed until the 1923 constitution was brought back and the Ali Maher government was formed and held elections in 1936. For the sixth time, the same scenario was repeated and the Wafd Party secured an overwhelming victory. Shoring up these historical precedents were changes brought by the final Wafdist government, which met many national hopes. The 1936 Treaty was signed with the British, an accomplishment that seemed as though it met the country's highest ambitions. This was followed the next year by settling the issue of the capitulation powers subsequent to the Montreaux Convention. While before this development observers had considered it difficult to defeat the Wafd Party, with this mean feat it became impossible. In addition to these factors, each time the Wafd Party formed a parliamentary majority, it strove to change the electoral system set in place by the 1923 constitution. This system divided the electoral process into two levels -- elections for 30 members of the council of representatives and those for 100 members of senate. This greatly reduced the size of the electorate directly voting for members of the two councils, which in turn allowed powers inimical to the Wafd Party to influence voters. The opposite would occur if elections were held by secret, direct balloting. Although this did not come to be, the Wafd Party attempted, in order to increase its security, to change it, and with its final government was able to cancel elections in stages and replace them with direct balloting. The Wafd Party strove to join securing the majority in all future parliaments to the accomplishment of two other goals. The first was to make the post of rural umdas, or mayors, by election, which would mean the "Wafdicisation" of the administration, as British documents put it. This would prevent inimical powers from exploiting this post in their interest, either by using carrots or sticks, as Ismail Sidqi had done in the 1925 elections. This end was fiercely opposed by both the palace and the English, which caused more than one constitutional crisis. They did in fact prevent the Wafd from succeeding with the venture. The Wafd Party also strove to issue a law for the trying of ministers who violated the constitution after it bitterly experienced governments loyal to the king persistently doing so. The Ziwar government continuously delayed the holding of elections (1924-1926), and the Mohamed Mahmoud government halted enforcement of the constitution on the pretext of rushing reforms he wanted to implement (1928-1929). The Sidqi government changed the 1923 constitution with another that widened the king's autocratic powers. This constitution remained in force for the next five years (1930-1935). Yet once again, the palace, supported by the British high commissioner's headquarters, prevented the accomplishment of this goal and violating ministers therefore escaped constitutional prosecution. Despite the Wafd Party's failure to reach these two goals, its adversaries remained convinced that it would succeed in any future elections following the parliament's dismissal. This situation placed the entire matter under close consideration, over the 50 days following its dismissal, and where else but in the pages of Al-Ahram. AL-AHRAM PUBLISHED A LONG STUDY on the front pages of its 5, 6, and 7 February 1938 issues titled "Selection before election -- proposal of a new parliamentary system that suits our current age", although it would have been more appropriate to say "that suits our current situation". The author was "the distinguished Abdel-Aziz Ezzat Pasha". Resorting to his file with the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discover his identity, we find that Ezzat Pasha was of Albanian origin, studied in Cambridge, was married to a granddaughter of Khedive Ismail, worked at one time as the undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and had close ties with English civil servants in Egypt, especially Lord Sechyelle. The British circles that wrote this report went on to describe the man as sophisticated and attractive. His health was frail, however, requiring him to carry antiseptics with him everywhere to wash his hands with if he touched anything he was unaccustomed to. He refused to eat outside of his home. The report then left personal aspects aside and dwelt on public ones. The man held the posts of minister plenipotentiary and ambassador extraordinary in London from 1923 to 1928 following the establishment of the Egyptian diplomatic corp. Although the British circles described him as "useless", Ezzat Pasha was appointed the minister of foreign affairs in the government of Tawfiq Nessim on 18 February 1935, and following the death of King Fouad on 8 May of the following year, he became one of the throne's three administrators. It is surprising that a personality such as his would open discussion on such a topic, especially since the man had lived most of his life outside the country, a fact that made it difficult to believe that he was suddenly concerned with what the rest of Egyptians were with regard to internal political affairs. This raises suspicions that someone was behind counseling Ezzat Pasha to dive into this issue. Most likely it was the head of the royal cabinet, Ali Maher. Even if we took for granted that Ezzat Pasha was the proprietor of most of the ideas presented in the long study, it is difficult to believe that he produced the sophisticated Arabic style it was written in. It is assumed that he did not speak Arabic in his daily life given his origins and the fact that he had lived most of his life abroad. The selection of this man in particular to carry out this mission might have had to do with his lack of affiliation with any of the battling political powers. This earned his words a degree of credibility, or at least that is what those who selected him thought. In his first article, Ezzat Pasha began with a long historical introduction to the establishment of the partisan system of governance, then went on to discuss the English parliament since it was the first to be formed on a partisan basis. He wrote that this had taken place because at that time "it was necessary to improve the workings of the government apparatus. It thus joined together the various elements of the government and made them one force of loyalty and support to be relied upon independently from the personal inclinations of ministers. It made them an internally cohesive unit, and the government and House of Commons both gained a system that had to be respected." And yet in this very same article Ezzat Pasha began to insinuate that the partisan system was not an absolute requirement for political life. This came up more than once. For example, he wrote, "As a politician's abilities grow, the less he is able to adhere to purely partisan considerations and requirements. Many prominent politicians believe that the partisan system is constructed more than it is natural. In the best of cases, it is no more than a tool that can be used for support in looking into issues and viewing them from various perspectives." Elsewhere he wrote, "politicians in parties are compelled, due to their presence within them, to exaggerate in exhibiting partisan differences. We must warn them, and not let them impose upon us rules they claim the nature of the situation has dictated. For the most part, they are nothing other than rules partisan interests have devised to protect themselves." To shore up the author of this study's orientation (or whoever inspired Ezzat Pasha to write it) and the notion of selecting an alternative system to the standing partisan one prior to the elections, the "distinguished" author stressed in this second article the conflict between partisan politics and national interests. He wrote, "It is noteworthy that when the catastrophe of war or an economic crisis takes place, the partisan government loses its centres of power and is replaced with a coalition or national government in which partisan differences dissipate. A spirit of cooperation and concord reigns, and it is as though there were an implicit acknowledgment that partisan politics and national interest are opposites that are never joined during disasters and crises." Ezzat Pasha added that this did not only apply to foreign relations but that it also influenced internal affairs. When a party assumed governance, he argued, it lost the view of national perspectives in matters brought before it, failing to see them clearly. Ezzat Pasha ended this article with declaring his goal. "We are now in the path of transformation. We can say that the time for fundamentally changing the manner of representation is not far, and that people will be able once again to elect their representatives from among the most competent of men possessing status and respect, those who have demonstrated that they are qualified to lead and guide the people based on what they have done of good deeds, whether in their private or public lives." Aziz Ezzat Pasha concluded his final article with a brief outline of what he hoped to get across. He presented this in the following points: The system of election on the basis of parties is corrupt. Parliamentary representation must be based on an upright nature and outstanding competency. This may be achieved by adopting the method the English follow in selecting councils. In order to actualise this reform, each electorate district should be charged with preparing a list of names of outstanding individuals with upright morals and superior competency. These lists should be made public so that people can express their opinions on those included. Should a sufficient number of people agree that any of them are unfit, they should be removed, so that only those with excellent characteristics remain. When the time for elections comes, representatives should only be elected from these lists, thus putting an end to partisan campaigns. Practitioners of every profession should submit two or three names of those they want to represent them in the council. The administration and supervision of these elections should be conducted by the Court of Cassation, which should be fully independent in its opinion and distanced from caprice. Its members should not be dismissed and should equal ministers in post and esteem. A second council should be composed of those who are distinguished by high competency, some members by elections and others by appointment. Their membership should be for life. GIVEN THE SMOLDERING ATMOSPHERE in which this study, with all its intimations, was published, it was not expected that it would pass quietly. Many knew that it was not innocent, and that someone else was in fact behind it. While Ezzat Pasha saw that ending the Wafd's domination over the ballot boxes should be achieved through getting rid of parties altogether, others put forth different opinions of the generally same orientation. Among these was the opinion put forth by the English newspaper Action, which believed that the Wafd had "completed the goal for which it was created, which was the independence of Egypt. It is now necessary to form a new group of new individuals with superior minds to agree on taking this independence as a foundation for improving the situation of the fellahin and not consider it a closed road to stand before." A reader of Al-Ahram following the issue, Abulis Bulis, seized upon the English newspaper's article and asserted that the notion had previously been called for by a number of Egyptians. Despite his enthusiasm, however, he felt that there were several obstacles that stood in the way of its implementation. The most important of these was that every government that had, and would be created, considered itself the fellahin 's government, "vigilant over their renaissance, striving to please them. These governments therefore put forth a bundle of projects that remained under study until the government was changed and a new one instated. The fellahin come out of this with empty hands." The author saw that the path to reforming the situation of the overwhelming majority of fellahin was obvious -- promulgating laws that oblige owners of old hamlets to build new ones for their fellahin and find a solution to the issue of new land irrigation turning into run-off and wiping out the health of a million residents. He held that the path included promulgating laws that set rent rates according to crop proceeds and instituting a different system for mandatory and primary schooling that included education in health and agriculture. In addition, he saw that a law must be promulgated to prohibit prayer spaces next to rivers, another that punishes polluters of canal water, and a final law to be rapidly enforced and that would oblige residents to fill up ponds. Abulis Bulis's conclusion was similar to that of Aziz Ezzat Pasha when he stated, "we are approaching a fierce election battle, and the time has come for a programme for our domestic, and not foreign, policies to be the basis of one party's victory over others in gaining the confidence of the nation. In following, I call for every current party to lay out the plan it will employ in reforming the state of the fellahin in which they have remained for too long. If my call is responded to, wonderful, and if it is not, then refusal of this urgent request may be the greatest encouragement for the formation of my new party, the Egyptian Fellah Party, which will enter the imminent elections and win the battle with an overwhelming majority." With this statement, Abulis Bulis reached his main point, that the Wafd Party would not enjoy such a majority again. Another intervention was made by the journalist Mohamed Zaki Abdel-Qader, who wrote an article titled, "After dissolving the council of representatives, will the upcoming elections revolve around a clear programme?" He began the article with justification of the dissolution of the Wafdist council of representatives. Although Abdel-Qader saw it as unblemished in terms of its constitutionality, particularly after its members had been elected on the basis of the Egyptian- British negotiations, he deemed that "its dissolution was necessary following the completion of the negotiations, after which parties should present to voters new programmes for domestic reform. As for those who see no necessity for its dissolution, it causes them no harm as they are able to approach voters anew and win back their seats and votes." Mohamed Zaki Abdel-Qader adopted the same position as Abulis Bulis. He held that following the settlement of the situation with the British, it had become necessary to turn to the fellahin, who were in dire need of many reform projects. "Voters expect to hear from party candidates clear and precise opinions on programmes for education, taxes, combating illiteracy, national defence and the fair distribution of monetary burdens among the various classes." He concluded his article by expressing his fears that the same thing would occur in the imminent elections that had taken place in previous ones in which the Wafd Party had gained an overwhelming victory. "If the candidates hurl accusations, pelt vituperation, dig up the past, and incite hatred, the country will witness a tragedy whose outcome only God knows." Interventions on Aziz Ezzat Pasha's study continued, and most of them supported his message. In fact, a number of well-known politicians participated in declaring their affiliation to the palace. Among these was Qalini Fahmi Pasha who welcomed the study of this "distinguished gentleman" and mentioned that he had called for most of its import in an article published in Al-Ahram on 18 January, about 20 days before the publication of Ezzat Pasha's articles. He commented that Aziz Ezzat's view that sound parliamentary representation must assemble all united forces "and join together on the horizon similar efforts to serve the nation and the public interest is a thoroughly sound opinion supported by the numerous scenes everyone witnessed in the days of the 'legislative assembly' when all the intertwined, cohesive forces in the country were like one person, making demands, exerting efforts, and working for the country's interest. There was not one party or even several parties. Rather, there was one nation rising above." The solution in the view of Qalini Pasha was to form a strong front that strove to reform the domestic affairs of the nation, ranging from construction to social issues to economic concerns. "An opponent might raise the question as to who would assume the leadership of this front. I would reply that the heads of the parties would assume leadership of the front for a limited period to be rotated among them, for the purpose of serving the public interest." Another participant signed his initials A M, and understood of "selection before election" that it was a call for reform of the parliamentary system in Egypt. This understanding was correct, although he did not comprehend that this reform would prevent the Wafd Party from governing. The author of this article blamed the standing situation on tense nerves "due to the squabbling of parties in this country, which distances those fighting from the goals that get them moving. Lessons are found in results, and the situation won't improve if the results reinforce the old partisanship." A M came to the same conclusion that there was no indication suggesting that the country had any desire to return to the partisan government system. "The partisan government was not established, as many believe, to treat an economic crisis. Rather, it was established as one of our parliamentary means to confront crises and calamities that many other countries face by doing away with the entire constitutional system." The last of these supporters was Ahmed Shafiq Pasha, the well-known historian and palace good-old-boy. It was natural for him to be biased toward his colleague, the "distinguished" Abdel-Aziz Ezzat Pasha, who had stated that the partisan system in Egypt had proven its failure by the fact that the final treaty had not been signed except through the nation's pressure to form a coalition and a national front. Ahmed Shafiq Pasha held that to expedite the people's conviction that parties should not run the nation under the current circumstances was the fact that their mission had been completed with the signing of the treaty with the English. He held that "all of these parties must be dissolved. We must not submit to the claims of politicians with motives that this infarcts the conditions of global democracy." One author differed with the trend started by Abdel-Aziz Ezzat Pasha's study -- Mohamed Farid Wagdi, secretary of the Watani Party. His difference was over details, however, and not the end goal. While he agreed that the current disputes between parties were damaging, he did not hold that dealing with them required abolishing them. Rather, he saw that another means could be employed -- turning elections for the council of representatives into three levels instead of direct elections as was the case at the time or two levels as they had been previously. "If those shouting about the necessity of protecting the constitution are sincere in their jealous guarding of it, they should support this opinion, which guarantees the formation of a superior elite of representatives of the nation. Otherwise, our constitutional system itself may be subject to danger." This short battle in Egyptian history ended with the failure of the call to abolish partisan governments. Those who inspired it in Abdin palace and the cabinet leadership in Lazoughli grew convinced of its failure, and so gave it up to deal with the crisis of the likelihood of the Wafd Party returning once again. Mohamed Mahmoud's coalition government, which formed something like an opposition front to the Wafd Party, arrived at the ideal solution -- forging elections for the first time. But that's another story.
