Talk:Nasserism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: The Criticism Section

As of June 10th, 2006, this section read: Nasserism operated in Egypt through a totalitarian one-party system, and the mixture of dictatorial methods and socialist-style land reform and other efforts to improve life for the poor, yet however opposing or ignoring Marxism and the concept of class struggle and fervent nationalism, has prompted some opponents to compare it to Fascism. (citation needed) Some present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology, and are generally more left-wing than Nasser himself.

This paragraph is a mess. Nasserism may have avoided direct association with Marxism, but it certainly did not ignore the concept of "class struggle". After all, the pursuit of "socialist-style land reform," one of the primary goals (if not the primary goal) of the early Nasserists, demonstrated the simple fact that the early Nasserists were keenly aware of the plight of the peasant (the Arab "masses") in Egyptian society . Furthermore, it is astounding that someone would assert that Nasserism ignored "fervent nationalism," for Nasser was the face of Arab Nationalism throughout his period of rule. Finally, I have never seen a history which has attempted to compare the policies and practices of Nasser to any Fascistic regime.

In the end, the only practical criticism is the initial statement, "Nasserism operated in Egypt through a totalitarian one-party system." I am going to cut the rest of the paragraph and add a section stub. If anyone has any problems with this, discuss it here. I am kind of on a wikibreak, but I will check back as frequently as possible to see if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. --(Mingus ah um 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

I have reinstated a revised version of the last sentence of the former Criticism section at the end of the current Introduction. As such, the former statement ("Some present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology, and are generally more left-wing than Nasser himself") has been revised and reinstated as: "Most present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, and tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology." I cut out the assertion that modern day Nasserists "are generally more left-wing than Nasser," for their views on "hard" left policies (one party rule v. open democracy; systematic change v. minor-to-strong alterations of the status quo) are far less dogmatic (that is, radical) then they were in the past. --(Mingus ah um 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] support

agree in general with the edits of the criticism section. i originally wrote most of it, but in a haste etc, and it was never any good. but what's the justification for the claim that nasserism receives more support outside of egypt than inside it? what countries would that be? it seems far better organized in egypt than elsewhere, for whatever that means. Arre 22:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestine for one, and I surmise in Syria also, though I can't be certain. In any event, it should be made clear that as of now, Nasserism as an ideology and a political tool for change does not receive wide support in Egypt and, in addition, there has been strong anti-Nasserist sentiment among the current grassroots reform movements, including ones with socialist leanings. The article mentions that Nasserism "is generally confined to minor opposition parties, writers and intellectuals," which is true and in so far as Egyptians are concerned, their support usually goes to either Islamist organizations like the MB or the moderate el-Wasat, or to liberal opposition such as el-Ghad and last year's presidential contender Ayman Nour. — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zerida and all. I can't really totally agree with the above statements "Nasserism receives more support outside of egypt than inside" or "Nasserism "is generally confined to minor opposition parties, writers and intellectuals". They can be easily regarded by anyone as POV since the article provides no citations for them. As for Nasserism in Egypt, i agree it is not a popular ideology but still two parties with the Nasserist ideology exist , one of them the Nasserist_Party is a legitimate one and the other "El-Karama party" which has won 2 parliamentary seats -from a total of 33 seats won by all independents and opposition parties other than the MB- is still under construction. Hamdeen Sabahy, the head of El-Karama party has very high popularity in certain parts of Egypt, mainly Balteem and Al-Hamool in Kafr ash Shaykh Governorate. This support was demonstrated in the Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2005 [1]. Besides, the Egyptian movement for change Kifaya has a nasserist majority. Ayman nour's results in the last presidential elections may be in part attributed to the absence of a MB candidate and to the fact that a large number of poolitical parties including the Nasserist_Party and the leftist Tagammu' party boycotted the elections. Please note i'm neither a nasserist nor a MB advocate but as far as i know Egyptians haven't shown support to any opposition party or group except for the MB. All opposition parties including New Wafd, Tagammu', Nasserist, Ghad, Ahrar,... stand in the same position here. The political ideology of most of the Egyptians can't be confirmed- they neither vote nor take part in any political activity. so, IMHO, the statements i mentioned above may be considered POV and should be removed.--Wedian 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wedian (long time no see!). While I didn't write that sentence, since you do agree that Nasserism is not a popular ideology, I don't see why it should be removed or considered POV. If it describes the Egyptian political scene accurately, then instead of simply removing it, perhaps a citation should be provided? I could dig something up from Ahram Weekly. I, however, have to categorically disagree that Kefaya enjoys a "Nasserist majority". My impression of Kefaya is that, while overwhelmingly left-wing, it's not necessarily Nasserist (though there are Nasserist members), but rather quite diverse.

On another note, I just glanced at el Karama's platform [2], and I'm sorry to say it appears thoroughly confused. In attempting provide a foundation for its Arab nationalist agenda, it gleans supposed "evidence" from historical events such as the military campaigns of Ramesses II and the 1919 revolution associated with Saad Zaghlul, neither of which has the faintest thing to do with any Arab-based ideology (lest they forget Zaghlul's famous remark to the effect that Arabism amounted to adding zero to another zero!). Also, to claim that the Egyptian language is mixture of Arabic and indigenous words is pure nonsense. No wonder it's been trying to obtain legal license to operate as a recognized party since 1990. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a source for the statement that Nasserism does not enjoy wide support among Egyptians. The AW article states: "The real problem [...] is that the leftist and nationalist ideologies upon which the Nasserist and Tagammu parties were founded no longer appeal to the masses" and "most party members know just how weak the Nasserist candidates -- with the exception of Dawoud -- really are in their constituencies." — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zerida i can't really think of an Ahram weekly article as a source. It may be used as a source for a certain event or accident but surely not as a source for the popularity of a certian ideology unless it has conducted some sort of survey. After all, Ahram is a pro-governmental newspaper and this article probably reflects the opinion of the writer. Also, i'm sure that there are articles in other newspapers (at least in Al-Araby) claiming the opposite. Overall, I still think these statements should be removed. As you said, this may be my or your opinion but it can't be verified or proved so it certainly doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. As i previously stated, the majority of Egyptians don't participate in any political activities so their beliefs can not be verified. I myself have doubts that Nasserism may still have some popularity among certain elderly populations. Anyway, our opinions are irrelevant if we're considering adding information to an encyclopedia. This information will appear as facts for the reader. BTW, this is also probably irrelevant, but Kifaya has a large number of nasserist (mainly Al-Karama party) members including the official speaker of Kifaya Abdel Haleem Kandeel. Another thing, which is also irrelevant, for parties to get a legitimate licence in Egypt, they must be approved by a certain committee- the committee for parties' affairs. This committee is totally appointed by Egyptian government and i think you can quickly conclude that it approves what the government wants to approve. In fact, after El-Ghad sudden approval and then the sudden imprisonment of Ayman Nour, some voices claimed that this was a deal with the government which went wrong.--Wedian 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, if we keep the above statements as they are, we probably have to mention that no other ideology has considerable popularity except for the islamists and MB. This is obvious if you review the membership in all Egyptian opposition parties including the liberal ElGhad and Wafd party or the leftist Tagammu'compared to the total Egyptian population. As i told you, here in Egypt, the majority is considered silent and the only apparent opposition is MB. Finally, i think it is better not to add the information at all than to add something disputable or non verifiable--Wedian 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Actually, if you'd read the article you would see that these were statements made, not by the AW journalist, but by Nasserist leaders themselves, namely Amin Youssri and el-Arabi's chief editor Abdallah el Sinawi. It's up to you if you want to add information to counter their own assertions, but there is no justification whatsoever for removing properly sourced information which in this case is directly relevant to the Wiki article. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when i read the article, i got the feeling that the writer was analyzing the reasons behind Dawood's loss in the parliamentary elections. And except, for the one sentence you mentioned, the whole article was attributing the Nasserist's party loss to lack of democracy in the party and to the poor performance by Al-Arabi. Since almost all legitimate opposition parties have similar problems and haven't achieved real successes in the elections, and since the article was mainly talking about this particular party failure, i can't really see that this article proves the above mentoned statemets concerning the nasserist ideology as a whole. The claim that nasserism receives more support outside of Egypt than inside it has nothing to do with the article. Reading the article, i also haven't got the idea that Nasserism is confined to minor opposition parties, writers and intellectuals!. Actually, i find it very easy to argue that by the fact that all kinds of political activities in Egypt is confined to minor parties, writers and intellectuals. Thus, generally, i think the AW article might be used a source in an article about the Nasserist Party in Egypt and not about the Nasserism.--Wedian 02:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then feel free to edit those articles as well. As I am not, however, inclined to keep rehashing the same argument, I'm simply going to insist that properly referenced material remains in the article. I just rephrased the part in question so that it stays exactly within what the source stated, to wit, Nasserist parties receive little support because their ideology no longer appeals to the people ("The real problem, he [Amin Youssri] said, is that the leftist and nationalist ideologies upon which the Nasserist and Tagammu parties were founded no longer appeal to the masses"). — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Your recent rephrasing is much better. However, when i have time, i'll try to find better sources. --Wedian 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)