El-Khatib, M. F.

2019-02-15T14:22:47Z

2019-02-15T14:22:47Z

1954

The foregoing study shows that the parliamentary system, as it functioned in Egypt between 1924 and 1952, was not a success. This failure was due to various inter-related factors. In spite of the fact that prior to the introduction of the parliamentary system in 1924, semi- parliamentary government had been found in Egypt, the democratic concept as emphasised by the 1923 Constitution was rather an advanced system in view of the political comprehension of the people and their social and economic conditions. The introduction of the parliamentary system in Egypt was the ultimate result of the 1919 Revolt. But this Revolt flared up with the aim of ridding the country of the British Occupation and without any conception whatever of the system of government to be applied in Egypt after the achievement of the objective of the Revolt. Accepting these facts, as well as the fact that the Revolt was an expression of the Egyptian national spirit, the failure of the 1919 Revolt is self evident. Instead of the struggle for the independence of Egypt being continued, a parliamentary system was imported from Europe. Democracy, which has developed and flourished in the West, is not a political doctrine for exportation to other countries. That system, in order to be successful, should evolve and develop within the community to which it is applied. Not only was the political structure in Egypt cursed with the application of a foreign political doctrine, but also the Constitution, which provided for the parliamentary system, was drawn up on the pattern of the Belgian Constitution:. No allowance was made in view of the great differences between the social, economic and political conditions of Egypt and Belgium. Therefore, the basic factor leading to the unsuccessful working of democracy in Egypt, is the unfitness of the parliamentary system, as described by the 1923 Constitution, to match the conditions of the country. The position of Britain with relation to the institutions of government in Egypt, supplies another cause of the failure of the working of parliamentary institutions. The continual interference of Britain in Egypt's internal political affairs, especially before the conclusion of the 1936 Treaty, is manifest. That interference did not stop with the conclusion of that treaty; the influence exerted by Britain on parliamentary institutions in Egypt continued, though in a disguised shape. The problem of the settlement of Anglo- Egyptian relations pushed all political potentialities in Egypt towards one object. All political activities were concentrated on attempts to settle Egypt's relation with Britain. Political parties and groups exploited the nationalist tendencies of the people by directing their attention to this one aspect of the political problem of Egypt. All efforts were made to solve a problem which did not concern Egypt only, while nothing was done for the promotion of democratic government. Politicians did not try to tackle the internal political and social problems, and the mass of the people found their interest and satisfaction in the question of the achievement of the national aspirations. There was no solid ground in Egyptian society for the development of varying political parties. Their programmes were alike, and they did not differ on matters of policy. Yloreover, they differed slightly in the methods they followed to achieve their ends. The challenge between different political parties was only motivated by their determination to reach the seats of the mighty. The Wafd, which enjoyed continuously the support of the mass of the people, originated with the 1919 Revolt. The activities and programmes of that party were mainly drawn on a pattern to satisfy the national sentiments of the people. Although it showed some democratic inclinations, the Wafd did not to ment of parliamentary government in Egypt. In their opposition to the Wafd, other political parties really derived their power from the King, and did not have much popular support. All political parties, including the Wafd, were an important factor in the failure of representative government in Egypt. They did not try to educate public opinion, promote the political consciousness of the people, and bring to their attention and understanding the different problems of the country. Although the King was non-responsible, and was not entitled to practice as full authority as he did, he was the point of focus of the political system in Egypt. This special position of the King was due not only to the fact that the Constitution itself was ambiguous and conferred on the sovereign an extensive authority, but to the fact that other political institutions did not check effectively the practice of the prerogatives of the King. If any of these institutions tried to exercise its constitutional rights to control the acts of the King, these attempts carne after too long a period of reluctance and revealed only the weakness of these institutions. The King's right to appoint and dismiss his ministers caused a relative weakness of the Cabinet. On the other hand, his right to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies gave some power to the Cabinet in its relation with Parliament. This means that the omnipotence of the Cabinet appeared only when it faced the people and their representatives. However, this power of the Cabinet was derived from the autocracy of the King. The Cabinet's weakest spot was its inability to frame far -seeing and stable policies. This was not due only to the inefficient party system, but was also the natural outcome of the short life of the Cabinet. This short life was the result of the interference of the King in dismissing or demanding the resignation of the Cabinet, or by foreign interference, but hardly by the will of the people expressed through their representatives. The Cabinet did not face any criticism from Parliament. Actually Parliament functioned to ratify the Cabinet's actions whether in the administrative or legislative fields. The weakness of Parliament was very obvious. The basic reason of that weakness is the electoral system according to which members of Parliament were elected. It resulted from the fact that Parliament did not constitute in miniature the society which it represented. No representatives of the working classes were found amongst members of Parliament. The so- called representatives of the people were mainly from social classes which had interests conflicting with the mass of the people. This situation was due not only to the social framework in Egypt, but it was also created by the interference of the administration in the running of the elections. Parliament failed to perform its legislative function and to enact laws meeting the social necessities of the country. Its task was merely to give consent to the bills prepared by the ,Cabinet, and to those private member's bills which gained the consent of the Cabinet. The Senate, however, succeeded in acquiring more legislative authority than it possessed under the Constitution, and its predominence over the Chamber of Deputies was manifest. In performing their function of controlling the Cabinet, both chambers of Parliament were incompetent. The Cabinet exerted influence on both chambers through the rights of the King to nominate two -fifths of the Senators and to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies. Sometimes the powerful majority which the governing party had in Parliament, helped the Cabinet to keep both chambers under its influence.

http://hdl.handle.net/1842/34029

The University of Edinburgh

Annexe Thesis Digitisation Project 2019 Block 22

Working of parliamentary institutions in Egypt, 1924-1952

The working of parliamentary institutions in Egypt, 1924-1952

Thesis or Dissertation

Doctoral

PhD Doctor of Philosophy