Background:

Several people are asked to share their feelings regarding ex-President Jamāl ‘Abd al-Nāsir. One of the interviewees was Muḥammad Sid Aḥmad (1928 – 2006), who was an activist in the communist and progressive moments and one of Egypt’s leading political writers and intellectuals. He says that when he heard of Nāsir’s passing on September 28, 1970, it had been a dark day. He heard a lot of women from poorer areas hysterically crying. Sādāt, who later succeeded Nāsir in presidency, was required to announce the news.

Side A:

Numerous people are nostalgic towards communism, especially in the former Soviet Union controlled nations because life was easier back then, perhaps there was no liberty but at least there were jobs, housing and food. Former Egyptian President Jamāl ‘Abd al-Nāsir remains strong in the hearts of the Egyptians even 39 years later. He is idealised for he was the first revolutionary in Egypt. Egypt had been an English colony and the Egyptians suffered a lot. It is because of this young Egyptian officer, that people began to regain their hope for democracy in their country. Nāsir was a hero to many Egyptians, and according to the interviewee, even the Cubans were sad following the president’s decease. Nāsir was the giant who looked over all the Arab countries. The woman thinks that Egypt misses Nāsir because he tried to bring Egypt higher up and did a lot for the people. She also shows her respect to the latter president Sādāt and the-then current president Mubārak.

Side B:

Muḥammad Sid Aḥmad states that the Six-Day War was the most devastating defeat for Nāsir, but regardless of this defeat, the people continued to adore the president because there was “something bigger in him”. He had been the first Egyptian to rule over Egypt since the Pharaohs says Aḥmad. The British had ruled over Egypt for over seven decades. In 1936, the British had allegedly come to a compromise with Wafd. The British were afraid that if they did not make some concessions, this could become critical to their ruling, especially with fascism creeping up.

Aḥmad believes that in the days of Nāsir, it was not so much about being Egyptian as it was about being Arab. Pan-Arabism was an idea developed by Nāsir and it was allegedly the first time that being Arab was uplifting to the Egyptians. Aḥmad argues that the nationalization of the Suez Canal had proven the end of Western colonolization to the US and thus they stood by the Egyptian nationalist movement. As for the USSR, it was an opportunity for them to improve relations. Aḥmad says the Egyptian presidents who came after Nāsir would rather want to forget him than honour him because they do not wish to be compared to him.

The pan-Arabism phenomenon which Nāsir stood for has faded away and the confrontation with Israel in the 1994 peace settlements has resulted in the Arab World accepting Israel argues Aḥmad. With the break-down of pan-Arabism and Arab-socialism, much has changed in Egypt since Nāsir’s reign, making place for radical Islam according to Aḥmad, an ideology Nāsir was strongly opposed to. Nāsir fought the Muslim Brothers and saw them as standing in the way of Egypt’s progression. Nāsir’s status among the Egyptians today, however, is beyond these issues of ideologies and that is why he remains so strongly in the people’s hearts. No one could have survived such a defeat as the one Nāsir survived in 1967, if he was not idealised the way he was. Nāsir was the one man brave enough to stand up against the foreign occupiers. Aḥmad thinks Egypt lost that secure feeling of having someone who would take upon the fight. Egypt lost insurance. Egypt lost trust and confidence.

Accordingly, Nāsir had failures as well, including the fact that he wanted to replace the people rather than have them participate. He wanted liberation to be seen as a gift from the ruler, not a conquest by the people against the ruler. It is because of this that when Nāsir needed the people to participate in fighting bureaucracy, it had failed. The people had become passive according to Aḥmad.

Despite of Aḥmad’s imprisonment under Nāsir’s regime, he continues to admire him. Aḥmad believes Nāsir was able to deliver. He was close to the lower class and was concerned with them. Since then, people in power have solely been people in power.