Bonaparte in Egypt and the Egyptians of To-day

Meanwhile, under the malign influence of their English "friends," the Egyptian journalists have done much to injure their own cause. They are crying out for a "representative government" while, by the very articles in which they make their demand, they show the want of self-restraint, of the capacity to appreciate facts, to weigh arguments, to form well-balanced judgments, which are the very first qualifications needed in men who would guide or rule others. And they err in other ways. No one more fully absolves them of all intention to promote or even countenance fanaticism than I do, but as I have said on page 61, when speaking of religious teachers, it is useless for men to preach toleration while they denounce others as "enemies," describe them as "filled with hatred to the people," and so forth. In the days of "Harry Lorrequer," when a greatly daring dun or bailiff ventured into the great square at Trinity College in Dublin, he was fortunate indeed if he did not hear the cry of "Oh! boys, boys! don't nail his ear to the pump." I do not think that the professed toleration of the Egyptian press is of this type, but I am certain that, accompanied with wild, unreasoning "criticisms," it is only too likely to have the same effect.

For the young Egyptian of the so-called "Nationalist" party there is also something to be said. His education separates him almost wholly from the bulk of his countrymen. His ideals, his aspirations are not theirs. He comprehends and understands them as little almost as do the foreigners in the country. With his lack of that home-training which forms the Englishman's character far more than aught else, and with his imperfect knowledge of French or English and of European life and thought, he falls an easy, self-sacrificing prey to that ultra-Radicalism which is the refuge of the brainless and uneducated in the political world of Europe. In doing so he belies his own nature, decries his countrymen, and disparages his religion. Rightly named the party to which he attaches himself should be termed the "Anti-Egyptian and Anti-Islamic" party, and yet this is the class that Lord Cromer's assailants would have Europeans accept as the representatives of the Egyptian people!

If there is a party in Europe essentially and wholly in all its forms and all its aspirations anti-Islamic, it is the ultra-Radical party. Yet it is this party that the "Nationalist" party of Egypt is pleased to accept as its ally. Radicals and Radicalism are the ideals that Mustapha Pacha Kamel holds out to the Egyptians. He does not use the terms, but the principles he advocates are those proper to the terms. He may call himself a Mahomedan but the policy he preaches is the policy of a Radical, and a man cannot be both a Radical and a Mahomedan. If, then, the "Nationalists" desire to promote reform, to protect and develop their own interests, let them fling their Radicalism aside and return to Islam.

As Spencer has shown, the social and political history of mankind is the history of an evolution. Whether created in the image of God, or slowly developed from some primitive amorphous atom, so far as we can trace our origin, man has been moving, on the whole steadily, though with many halts and set-backs, towards perfection. As yet our civilisation – the highest point yet reached – is but a miserable makeshift for that we should aim at. Let us hope that when the present agitation shall have died out Englishmen and Egyptians will find it possible to join hands in an effort for the mutual attainment of something better.

Thirty years ago in India I preached the doctrine that the welfare of the Indian Empire and its peoples was to be sought in the mutual understanding and co-operation of rulers and ruled. Twelve years ago I began to preach the same doctrine to the Egyptians. To-day I repeat it. Some time ago, urging my views on a Moslem friend, he said, "There is only one thing needed to make your policy a success – that all the Egyptians should be angels and all the English archangels." There is an evident moral in the criticism that needs no pointing. Knowing Englishmen and Egyptians as I do, I believe that the flood of evil that has swept between them will pass away and that even out of all this evil some good will come. If Englishmen in Egypt and at home will but try to realise the patient forbearance, the manly self-control that the Egyptian has been and is practising under the steadily pressing burthen of the unhealthy influences of which I have written, I have so much faith in the English sense of justice, fairplay, and manly straightforwardness, as to believe that these qualities will compel them in the near future, if not now, to form a new estimate of the Egyptian, and to feel that, with all his faults, he has some sterling merits and is a man to whom all honest, right-thinking men may fitly hold out the hand of friendship. It is my hope that what I have written may tend to this effect, and help to bring about a good understanding between the two peoples.

The English can, if they will but do justice to their own better feelings, gain and retain the sincere friendship of the Egyptian people, and in gaining that friendship they will gain the friendship of all Islam, and thereby acquire a power and influence in the East such as they can gain in no other way – a power and influence that must prove of endless benefit not only to the British Empire but to the world at large. But if this result is to be attained the Egyptian must contribute his share of effort to realise it. That he should do so needs nothing more than that he should follow his own healthy and natural inclinations and the teaching of his religion, and in doing this he will be serving not only the cause of Egypt, but that of Islam; he will be benefiting not only his own countrymen, but all Mahomedans. In this way, and in this way only, will he find all his best aspirations become not merely possibilities, but actualities, and Egypt will take its rightful place as the great centre and fountain of all Mahomedan progress. If, on the other hand, he allows himself to be seduced by the plausible speech of Radical agitators and, following the advice of Mustapha Pacha Kamel and his party, abandons the teaching of Islam for the teaching of Radicalism, he will assuredly defeat his own aims and sacrifice the claim of his countrymen to be the true leaders in the world of Islam.

CHAPTER XXI

TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW

So far I have spoken of the Egyptians collectively, and I have aimed at sketching as faithfully as possible, not the views or ideas of a class but those which are common to the whole body of the people of all ranks and grades. Whether there is any one Egyptian, or any class of the Egyptians, to whom my description might be applied without any qualification or modification is probably doubtful, but that that description, taken in the sense and to the extent intended, is absolutely correct there is no doubt whatever. The Egyptians of to-day are divided in opinion upon many points, social, political, and religious; how much so is evident in the fact that of their many newspapers and periodicals not one is wholly and fully in accord with any other. To have attempted to give the reader a well-defined portrait of each and all of the classes thus formed – had it been possible to do so – could only have resulted in bewildering him; all the more so that, as yet, there is no one class in the country that is not undergoing, more or less consciously, a process of change. It is scarcely possible that it should be otherwise. I have written, so far, entirely in vain if I have not succeeded in conveying to the mind of my reader a clear conception of the fact that the people are as yet but slowly feeling their way towards the adoption of a definite social and political programme. In the maze of conflicting ideas resulting from this condition there are clear and indisputable evidences of a general tendency towards the final acceptance of certain principles that, once definitely adopted, must dominate the whole future of the people. Of these the most prominent is that internal and external peace are absolutely essential to the welfare of the country and of the people, collectively and individually. Of any one thousand Egyptians taken at random from among any grade or large class of the people, I am certain there are not ten who do not sincerely hold this opinion. One and all desire a greater or less change in existing conditions, but they desire that change to be wrought without any sudden or violent disturbance of those conditions. This, without any qualification whatever, is the fact that is the most essential to be realised at the present moment by anyone who would understand the Egyptian of to-day. It is the one influence that practically controls all the others that are affecting the people. The existence of the "Nationalist" party does not in the least disprove this, nor does the popularity of the organs of that party disprove it. The attacks upon the English occupation so widely spread in the country, and almost as widely applauded, have no more influence upon the people than a "transpontine" melodrama of the old type had upon the "gods" who roared themselves hoarse in rapturous applause of its most virtuous sentiments. All the Arab-speaking peoples are alike in this – that there is nothing else that can so stir their enthusiasm or so fill them with delight as the sonorous melody of well-turned phrases and sentences in their native tongue. If the sense of what they hear be clear and evident, they enjoy it the more, but however dense and impenetrable its meaning may be, the music, the rhythm and harmony of its sounds draws their applause. So even the most illiterate of the people will listen with keen enjoyment to a long political article of which the meaning of all but a sentence or two is wholly beyond their comprehension. Thus the glowing periods of the Nationalist Press find ready applause, but awaken no echo in the hearts of the people. Unfortunately it is only too much the same with the papers of a higher type, and these labour under the disadvantage that, of necessity, their articles dealing with prosaic topics do not admit of the ornate style of their rivals. None the less it is unquestionable that it is these papers which are exercising the greatest influence upon the thoughts and ambitions of the people, and their influence is, as I have said, almost wholly one for good. The great mass of the people listen to the reading of the newspapers just as the great majority of church-going people at home listen to sermons – as most edifying and commendable, but as having no practical bearing upon the affairs of life – yet, as I have already pointed out, the Moayyad has been, and is, exerting a wider and always growing influence, and is not only teaching the people to think, but teaching them to think clearly and well.

And now we may look for a moment at the Egyptian as an individual. To do justice to this subject would need a volume, not a paragraph. Fortunately the reader can turn to "Lane's Modern Egyptians," in the pages of which he will find a wealth of detailed information needing but little modification to bring it up to date, though it fails to give a clear, well-defined idea of the Egyptian in his daily life. Let me attempt to supply this deficiency, by saying that, according to his class, the average Egyptian corresponds very closely with the average Englishman. Roughly, the whole of the people may be divided into five classes. First, the Ulema, the natural leaders of all the others; secondly, the wealthy landowners and others of independent means; thirdly, the "educated," mainly professional men and Government servants; fourthly, the great middle class of small land and house owners, lower grades of the Government services, merchants, and so forth; fifthly, the working classes, including artisans, craftsmen, labourers, and all who work for their living. Of each class a book might be written, yet I may sum up in broad but accurate outline the character of each by saying that it is in the main that of the same class at home. Let me take the middle-class man. Getting through his morning and the day's work, his one idea is to reach home. On his way by train or tram he greets cordially his acquaintances, discusses with them the news of the day, compares their business or official experiences, growls at the shortcomings of the Government or the tramways, deplores the growing cost of living, and laughs over the latest joke or jest. Once home, he has his favourite easy-chair and newspapers, and has an hour or so of rest with these, seasoned with the chat of the harem as to the misdoings of the children or of the servants, the coming of visitors, household finance, and a hundred other topics. Then out for an hour or so to this favourite café, where he reads the latest papers – Moslem and Christian – and has a game or two of backgammon, all the while taking an active part in the brisk fire of conversation going on around him. Then home again to the ease and comfort of the harem, or possibly to entertain some visitors with the unstinted hospitality of his race. Then supper, and then to bed. And through all the day, at home, in his office, on his way to and fro, if you could but follow his doings and his sayings, you would find him in both a very close copy of the man of the same class at home, interested in the same subjects, discussing the same matters, laughing at the same type of jest, grumbling at the same grievances, and withal a man anxious to please and be agreeable, and easily pleased and conciliated. Freer than the Englishman in his amities and friendships, ready to chat or joke with his barber or his baker, but, like the Englishman, most at ease and enjoying himself best in his own special circle.

And now I must hasten to a conclusion, and reply briefly to one or two questions that my reader may possibly be inclined to ask.

What has the occupation done for the Egyptians?

It has secured them the personal freedom they so highly prize, it has given them the liberty of getting, keeping, or spending wealth, a free Press, a knowledge and keen appreciation of the advantages of a properly organised Government, a clearer perception of the natural "rights of man" and of the personal dignity of the humblest, and, as a result of these, enlarged ambitions and aspirations, greater independence of spirit, and a better conception of the interdependence of each one upon his fellow-men.

Not much in mere words, but in the reality of the resulting whole an entirely immeasurable amount of good – an amount of good no living man can even approximately estimate, much less appreciate. Possibly some of our children's children will be able to form some adequate conception of its greatness. We of to-day can no more understand its meaning than did the Barons at Runnymede understand the meaning of the great charter they wrung from the unwilling John.

Has the occupation failed in any respect?

It has in two vitally important matters. It has not in any way qualified the people or any class of the people to undertake the government of the country. It has not educated the people, or done anything whatever to ensure the permanency of the good that has been done.

As to these failures, I do not think that any other result could have been attained under the circumstances that have prevailed. Lord Cromer, as a sincere well-wisher of the people and a man of advanced liberal opinion and progressive mind, was the man of all others to work for these things directly and openly if it had been possible for him to do so; but it was not possible, or has only become so since the evacuation of Fachoda. Up to that event the only possible form of Government by which the welfare of the country and of its people could be secured, was that which Lord Cromer adopted – a "benevolent despotism." No other form of Government could by any conceivable possibility have attained the results that have been attained, and that form of Government could only attain those results when in the hands of a man such as Lord Cromer. None the less, as Mill has said, a benevolent despotism "is an altogether false ideal… Evil for evil, a good despotism, in a country at all advanced in civilisation, is more noxious than a bad one; for it is more relaxing and enervating to the thoughts, feelings, and energies of the people." In Egypt, however, this effect is modified by the attachment of the people to the Turkish Empire, by their objection to non-Moslem rulers, and by all the unhealthy influences of which I have spoken; but while the great mass of the people would much prefer to see the administration of the country entirely in the hands of Mahomedans, they have absolutely no desire for any other change in the present form of the Government.

To-day, in spite of all that has been done, Egypt in one most vital matter stands absolutely far behind the position it occupied when the English occupation commenced. Then there was a governing class in the country – a "misgoverning" class, if you will, yet a class that had some conception of, and experience in the art of governing; a class the members of which were accustomed to bear the responsibility of Ministers. To-day that class, and those men, have ceased to exist.

If there had been no foreign intervention at the time of Arabi's revolt, if the Egyptians had been left to work out their own destiny, there would in all probability have been a long period of wild disorder and anarchy such as followed the French evacuation. That in its turn would have been followed by the rise of a new Mahomed Ali. The occurrence of this sequence of events would have been absolutely certain and inevitable, the only doubtful point being how long the anarchy might have lasted. As it was, there was no man in the country competent to deal with the crisis. Nor was there one in Europe. England was the only country that had a man willing to face the task, and he undertook it under conditions that for a long time rendered it an almost impossible one. The success Lord Cromer has attained is the one and only justification of the occupation as far as its initiation is concerned. In itself the occupation was essentially a blunder. Having been undertaken, only British pluck and resolution could save it from disaster, and even these, without a man like Lord Cromer to guide them, would very certainly have failed. But the Egypt of 1906 is not the Egypt of 1882. A new revolt, could we imagine its occurrence, would now bring a party, not an individual, into power. There is no man in the country who could by any possible combination of favouring circumstances establish himself as a despotic ruler. Nor is there any one party that could seize the government of the country and hold it. Anarchy would therefore be inevitable, yet it would not be the helpless, hopeless anarchy of former days, but that of rival parties with more or less definite aims and more or less stable cohesion. The only possible salvation of the country after the departure of the French was the rise of a despot like Mahomed Ali. The only possible salvation it could have after a collapse of the existing system, would be the triumph of a party, or a renewed occupation by England or some other Power. But omitting all consideration of the latter contingency, the rivalry of parties would be a rivalry of systems; the men engaged in it would fight – as do those of all parties – largely and mainly for their own interests, but they would fight under the banner of some principle through the profession or adoption of which they would seek the support of the people, and they would, one and all, at least profess a standard consistent in the main with European ideas. The struggle would be a long and exhausting one. The country and the people would suffer heavily, but in the end the Egyptian – if left to do so – would work out his own salvation and a strong Government, built upon sound and healthy lines, would start a new era. Unfortunately the one condition necessary to the attainment of this result – the non-interference of any outside Power – this one condition would be wanting. Hence the collapse of the British occupation would be fatal to all the interests of the country and its people. Nor would the withdrawal of the occupation with all adequate precautions for the preserval of order and a capable administration be much less disastrous, if prior to that something has not been done to qualify the people for self-government.

Were the English to leave Egypt to-morrow the people throughout the country would hail the evacuation as they did the evacuation of the French, and among the most blatant in celebrating it would be those who would be the greatest losers by the change. Step by step all the old abuses would be renewed. Individuals and classes alike would be powerless to stay the flood of evil. Least and last of all the Khedive, who would be the helpless puppet of the intriguing factions that would fasten around him. No matter how pure his intentions, how high his aim, how great his ability; no effort, no sacrifice on his part would avail aught, for the one condition absolutely indispensable to enable him to follow his own inclinations or to deal with his people as a wise or benevolent ruler, would be wanting, since that one condition would be the utter exclusion of all European influence from his councils. It is not, therefore, the weakness or faults of the Egyptians themselves that would render an evacuation disastrous, but the selfishness of Europe, the very cause that to-day ensures the prosperity of the country. Nor does it need any supposition of lust or greed on the part of the Powers to bring about this evil issue. The controlling hand of the British being withdrawn, it would at once become the imperative duty of each of the Powers to seek to strengthen its own position in the country; and let them strive as earnestly as they might to do so in the most honest, most generous manner, the clashing of interests would be such that none of them could afford to withhold what pressure it could bring to bear in its own favour. They, like Egypt itself, would be helpless. Nothing could enable them to avoid the wrecking of the country save the immeasurable impossibility of a common accord for the harmonising of their rival claims. England must remain, therefore. Not to protect her own interests in the country itself or in the Sudan, not that she may control the Suez Canal, nor that she may carry the Cape railway to the shores of the Mediterranean. All these she could do without a single soldier or official in the country. She must remain to protect the Egyptians, or rather that they may protect themselves. She must remain that the Powers may, as I believe they most honestly desire to do, preserve the common accord essential to the true interests of all; that she may the better act as their intermediary in the prevention of discord and ensure that each may benefit in just share from its own contribution to the general welfare.

But if the cessation of the British occupation would thus inevitably mean disaster, unhappily its continuance is not without the possibility of evil. As I have shown, in spite of the earnest desire of the Egyptian people for peaceful progress, there is much dissatisfaction in the country. It amounts to-day to nothing more than a want of harmony, but a Government that has not the confidence and goodwill of the people it rules is like a seaman sailing into unknown ports, ever liable to encounter unforeseen and unforeseeable dangers. Apart from all other possibilities, and they are many, the continuance of the occupation under a man less able than Lord Cromer to cope with all the difficulties of the position might easily lead to endless troubles. With a weak, rash, or obstinate man in Lord Cromer's position, and an able diplomat, with a knowledge of Eastern ways, in one of the other consulates, no one could foretell what the result might be. England will, therefore, not have fulfilled her duty to the Egyptians or to herself until she has taught the people to govern themselves. That she may do this the people, not a class or section, but the whole body of the people must be educated. There are some among the Egyptians who have seen this, and there is strong reason to believe that their views will ultimately prevail. Meanwhile schools are being established throughout the country at the expense of private individuals, and if they are marked by an anti-English bias, however regrettable this may be, I am afraid it is but a natural result of the existing conditions.

It must not be forgotten that the Government of Egypt to-day is exactly the same in form and principle as that which existed before the occupation. The Administration has been organised on sound lines, but the Government is still that of an autocrat ruling through agents responsible to him, and to him alone. In other words, it is absolutely the worst form of government conceivable; the most unstable, the most liable to disaster and calamity of every kind. As Mill has said, the one of all others most tending to the degradation of the people. So far, under the benign sway of Lord Cromer, it has proved a beneficent institution, but that has been the accident, not the property of its form, and as an accident it has been wholly dependent upon the extraordinary combination of high abilities, and, even more, the self-sacrificing zeal of Lord Cromer. Since the days of the Caliphs no man that has ruled the land has ever had such absolute power as Lord Cromer has had. With all the might of England to depend upon, he has known how to secure the sanction of all Europe for his work. Happily for Egypt and the Egyptians, he has sedulously sought to use the unlimited power he has thus commanded solely for their good. But it must be granted that, vast as has been the good he has wrought, his task is incomplete, and must for ever remain so until the Government of the country has been placed upon a footing that will ensure the stability now wholly lacking.