Talk:Nasserism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paigegunnett.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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))

Also, i'd add the Charter for National action as well as the Statute of the Arab Socialist Union should be added in the refrences section. - Dudecock

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))

I don't know much about the rules of the discussion page, but this doesn't really say what nasserism entails, breifly in the intriduction. Should it?

I think it's incorrect to describe Nasser's government as totalitarian, it wasnt, and there is a difference between totalitarianism and dicatoship-I would recomend read Nasser-The last Arab by Said. Also, although Im less clear on this, I do not think Nasser ruled through a one-party system. The free officers could not exactly be described as a party, but a revolutionary group, and as far as I know there were several parties operating in Nassers regime and cooperating with the government, originially even the muslim brotherhood and communist political wings cooperated with the government-However as you no doubt know this changed, and nassser outlawed them. Still, I think, although Nasser maintained ultimate executive power, the system could not be described as single=party, and definetly not totalitarian (a contentious statement which is not sourced).86.156.52.67 (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

nasserism vs. baathism

What was the difference between the two? I know that Nasserism was pro-Nasser and Egyptian whereas Baathism was Syrian/Iraqi. But what were the ideological differences? BillMasen 12:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not much.  ;) Schwael (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ba'athism at least on the face of things espoused more open socialism and less pan-arabism, but obviously this socialist element died when the Americans decided to back the stooge of Saadam Hussein in the revolution (the Americans would neevr back an open socialist), incidentially this is also about the time the Ba'ath party in Iraq finally lost its christian elements. You could say, although its a POV, Nasser stuck more to his proposed ideology, where as the Ba'ath party really became a power-tool.86.156.52.67 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would be good if someone could explain the real differences if any. [[Mewnews (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Misleading understatement

I think this statement is misleading understatement:

During Nasser's lifetime, Nasserist groups were encouraged and often supported financially by Egypt, to the extent that many became seen as willing agents of the Egyptian Government.

The Arab socialist Union was founded by Nasser and was the only official party. It is like saying that "Communist groups were encouraged and often supported financially by Stalin in the USSR." Were there other Nasserist groups who were supported? [[Mewnews (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)]]

I imagine it means "nasserist groups" in other countries. BillMasen (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Secular nationalism?

Though mindful of the Islamic and Christian heritage of the Arab World, as with Ba'athism, Nasserism is largely a secular ideology.

• How is it considered secular when it stresses on Arabization (using Arabic language as the only written language & if natives spoke other dialects/languages they should learn Arabic language) which is the language of Quran?
• If Arabism has something to do with Christianity, why almost all of the Arab league nations have Islamic favoring legislations, rather than treating all citizens as equal individuals? Why do many of them have Islam as their official religion? What else has to be made to prove the political-Islamic identity of Arab Nationalism & its supporters? Their flags, their constitutions, their policies! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources are clear that Nasserism is a secular pan-Arabist ideology. Here are a few [3], [4], [5]. nableezy - 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It theoretical that Nasserism or any form Pan-Arabism is secular You will find sources that say it is and many that say it is not.Even the Coptic bishoped himself stated that Arabism is something Muslims more feel with inifitity due to their religious beliefs connection with Arabia. Even the fake Christian (muslim convert) Michel Aflaq stated that Islam is the proof of Arabs genius and their greatest achievement. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Muslims feeling a connection to Arabism, or Nasserism, does not make it non-secular. Bring sources that say it is not instead of just saying that it is not. nableezy - 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does especially since its what motivated Muslims to declare war on the Christians in 1958 Lebanon crisis but luckily thanks to American intervention, the had not been ripped apart yet and few people died. Nasser is the one who egged these people on , how can inciting sectarian tensions in a fragile country be considered Secular?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

here are some interesting links, Nasserists advocating islamists http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/parties/nasser/nass90.htm http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/parties/nasser/guard.htm

There are third party, reliable secondary sources published by university presses that flat out say Nasserism is a secular nationalistic ideology. You need to provide a source of the similar quality to even dispute that, much less say otherwise as fact. nableezy - 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an EGYPTIAN national paper not some bias Pan-Arabist or Leftist idealogue the same kind who would make mugabe out to be revolutionary hero out of their own irrational self-hatred for the west. So Nasserist politicans themselves stating their party has sympathy for islamic causes and should reconcile isnt a realiable source?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you cant answer me regarding Nasser in sighting Muslims to fight christians in Lebanon during the 1958 crisis nullifies as secularist because even you cant admit or blatantly this is what a secularist would do. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the paper itself is not the problem, the problem is that it does not say that Nasserism is not secular. They say that certain Nasserists advocate for greater integration of Nasserism and Islamism. Those are two different things, and you are attempting to use that to introduce a an argument that those sources do not make, and which other high quality secondary reliable sources directly dispute. And finally, I can answer you, it just is a wast of my time to do so. I dont care what you think, bring reliable sources that actually support what you want to put in the article, not just things you think prove your point. nableezy - 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FAILURE

Nasser was a racist and a failed politician now ofcourse I wont add this to this already POV propaganda piece with no sources but just to remind everyone this man deported nearly all the jews of Egypt in the name of his racist arabism in 1950s he arabized the Egyptian identity, his socialist policies meant that businesses were nationalized and private property and the Copts who then were 20% of the population but owned 50% of commerce lost out due to his Arab fascist ideals and many left the country in consequence. He turned the country into a police state which only would stem fanatics support and made them go through countless of wars for Palestine in the name of Arabism in consequence meant alot of EGYPTIAN got occupied instead and many Egyptians died for nothing. also the prescne of ethnic Minorities (Italians,Armenians,Greeks,Turks etc) all began to their communities fade or suffer from this man and his silly failed racist policies ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, take your rant somewhere else. nableezy - 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum post just facts, and btw this shouldnt be his propaganda page eihter many these facts of which will go into this article the racism & failures of the Nasser legacy is well documentated despite the fact Pan-Arab dreamers may wish to be in denial. The problems Gamal NAZI Nasser brought into the Egyptian society and region is even the central theme for the novel and film The Yacoubian Building ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you think Nasser was a Nazi shows how ridiculous this is. nableezy - 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasser was good as a Nazi with his Nazi Arab fascist Mufti of Jerusalem who he was the protege of, he the Hitler of the Egyptian era but Germans moved on and realized Hitler was a racist bigot and Supremcist idiot many ppl have yet to realize that with Nasser. Infact he's ideology really should of been called Nazisserism, terrible man terrible ideology. http://books.google.com/books?id=HGkthBwbNg8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Nazi+Connection+to+Islamic+Terrorism&cd=1#v=snippet&q=Gamal%20Abdel%20Nasser&f=false ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are relying on a self-published book to make these wild claims. Learn to recognize scholarship and ignore such low-quality sources. That book is not a reliable source. nableezy - 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing actual reliable sources and replacing them with garbage. You removed two books published by high quality presses and replaced it with an opinion piece first published here. nableezy - 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt use that source here is the source http://www.scribd.com/doc/25563937/A-Bloody-Greeting-for-Coptic-Christians-R-21-January-2010 Faith freedom COPIED and pasted that article from the original source, which is text using exerpts from Elaph.You are a propagandist Nablee, we all know Nassers socialist laws deeply harmed the minorites of Egypt especially the Copts lost much of their comerces thanks to this NAZI (Nationalist Socialist) and I dare you Nableezy to tell us who expelled the Egyptian Jews?its SOURCED dont even bother thinking you can use Wikipedia to distort the truth in THEORY nasser had some secular principles.Your sources are mostly from Pan-Arabists or dont go in deph into Nasser's so called secularism how is that realibe? or is citing his biography? You are the one who removed a realibe sourced that indicated HE is the one impleneted that the State religon of Egypt is Islam by constitution in 1956 and blend the sharia counrts.Now I dare you, refute that a secular politician impelents a state religion in the Constitution? what kind of secular politician incites the Muslims in Lebanon to fight the Christians in the 1958 Lebanon crisis? This racist idiot was as secular as Yasser Arafat was people should stop kidding themselves to make him out to be something he isnt. he was an Evil man shame on anyone who tries to hide this,.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and Nazism are two different things, and the paper you linked to is not a reliable source. The books you removed are. nableezy - 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

read Nazism then come here and tell me the Nazis were not Nationlist socialists? do you know what Nazi is short for? like Gamal Abdul al Nazism was —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote more carefully. Nazism and socialism are two different things. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say such things stop wasting my time. nableezy - 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Is Nasserism immune to criticism!

I see that the article is left with no criticism. Well, stating half the information, even if sourced and true, makes the article biased. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The lack of a criticism section is not because Nasserism is immune to criticism, but just a reflection of the article's poor quality. It is poorly developed and mostly unreferenced. Nasserism is not well-defined here and its difference with say the more romantic, fascist and racially-driven Baathism isn't made clear. It's far-reaching influence on the Arab world during Nasser's lifetime is not gauged accurately and the Nasserism espoused by certain political movements today (Hamdeen Sabahi's Karama in Egypt for instance) is also not well-addressed. Bashing Nasser or his ideology (like in the section above) is not warranted in an encyclopedic article of course. If you are concerned about the article's state, you should go ahead and start a Criticism section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

thinking of expanding the part at the end about Hamdeen Sabahi...just to bring it up to date and maybe put things in the right perspective...Hamdeen Sabahi seems to be the heir to Nasserism...anyone have any suggestion??? Should i or shouldn't I??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.95.227.33 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Leftism? Or Centrism?

I think Nasserism (like Baathism) was a more syncretic politics, more akin to Peronism. They even had Nazis making propaganda for them. 186.32.216.85 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment!

Ultimately the problem is that everyone can have a different understanding of politics, and a different view of what is leftism and rightism. To this end, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia - a semi-recent example I remember is that one editor claimed that a left-wing party was "socially right-wing", and they justified it with a single source of the party's leader being pro-life.

This obviously had massive problems - the article source did not mention "right wing" at all, which meant that this label did not reflect the article, but merely reflected the editor's view that a pro-life party cannot be socially left-wing. Because of that, we limit ourselves to sources that directly call a party left-wing, right-wing or syncretic. This way we can avoid situations like "this party is pro-life so they must be right-wing".

Nasserism is listed as left-wing, and this is what several sources, listed in the infobox, say. We do not want to pretend that we are experts on politics, so we rely on what sources, be it published books or journals, say.

Regarding Johann von Leers, your argument seems to be that Nasserism was syncretic because Nasser had a Nazi amongst its political advisors. Unfortunately this means we are guessing and forcing assumptions here, namely that a party or an ideology must be right-wing if they had a collusion with a Nazi. I would not say that is the case.

If you believe that you are able to find a source that explicitly calls Nasserism syncretic, then I think you got a case. Thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)