Response #5

Nasser successfully silenced opposition by means of repression, redistribution, and resocialization. According to Carrie Rosefsky Wickman, Nasser essentially stripped the rights and freedom of the Egyptians to prevent any threats to his power. In the 1950’s, all political parties were banned from Egyptian politics. The government then took control of the media, schools, and mosques to censor any anti-regime rhetoric by its opposition. 

Using bribery, Nasser created a “social contract” in which he traded goods and services to the Egyptian citizens in return for political support for his regime. This contracts main purpose was to represent economic distribution among all Egyptian citizens, making it seem like Nasser was concerned with the standard of living of all his people, regardless of economic class.

In addition, Nasser attempted to sympathize with the “educated youth”. He made a series of reforms to higher education, such as a lowering of university tuition and an expansion of eligibility for university scholarships. With these reforms, not only did Nasser gain more supporters, fields such as engineering, agriculture, and veterinary medicine, were able to acquire better educated and skilled workers. 

Regarding the Islamists in the ‘post-Arab revolts’ environment in the MENA region, I believe most of their success can be derived from creating a national identity that all Islamists can relate to. By creating an identity for themselves as “the oppressed”, Islamists are able to gain mass support across a country. Additionally, the general desire for democracy in the MENA region has proven to gain much support for Islamists. The Islamists’ essential goal is democracy, and the desire for freedom, fair elections, and a non-dictatorship, is shared by most in the region.