By Tessa van Gelderen BEFORE Sadat took over, when Nasser was in power, Egypt represented the way forward for hundreds of thousands of Arabs in the Middle East.
Nasserism was the representative of locals du caul.
It opposed the control of the economy by imperialism, large landowners and the Arab bourgeoisie.
Under Nasser the Suez foreign capital expelled ane unere was arce scale expansion of the state secalised industries, ding bureaucracies.
This apparent undermining of the ruling class. along with the agrarian rethe nationalisation of the banks and Uil enthusiastically wel was comed bv the Arab masses masses.
fact, these measures, accompanied by social reforms, did lead to improvement the conditions or certain sec• tions of the labour force, and did raise many Egyptians out of the most grinding poverty.
But the Egyptian middle class still held power as bureaucrats and parasites, cole lie naval of the major sectors of the economy. practice, Nasserite policies systematically stifled the independent activities of the Egyp workie cass ance allies In the first two years of Nasser's military coup against the Farouk monarchy all political forces that had taken an active part in the Egyptian anti-imperialist movement were suppressEven at moments of national danger, such as 1956 and the Suez canal crisis, and 1967 and the six day war, the regime jailed and suppressed any Nasserism always had two contradictory tendencles winin il. one was the the populatior Whose main interest lay in both the total destruction of the system.
was those who derived from the middle class, and those members of the state apparatus will been stymied under the old regime by its anti-national structure and the obstruction of Egyptian capitalist development.
Their aim was to seize power 'from above', without involving the masses, and free national capitalism Anglo-French imperialist constraints.
This contradictory nature of Nasserism highlighted by the defeat of Egypt in the six day with Israel in June 1967 Incapable of competing technological v Zionist state armed by imhansul. LIC Nasserite regime was unable to arm and mobilise ine masses 10 the degree needed defeat Israel.
After the June 1967 defeat, Egypt, like the other Arab regimes which had previously posed as anti-imperialist, moved to the right. Nasser's successor, in 1970, Anwar elSadat, took that process further.
The new regime assumed a more virulent and repressive form, bul class oppression, opportunism and anti-communism had been inherent in Nasserism the Sadat the bourgeoisie was restored. The Nasserite bureaucracy was eliminated and the regime about progressively dismantling nationalisation measures fecting the interests of the Egyptian bourgeoisie.
Yet, despite the shift to the right there was radicalisation of the masses. The 1973 Wal was staged to stop this wave of rising struggles.
It was perhaps therefore fitting that Sadat met his end celebrating Egypt's Israel eight years earlier.
The Sadat government had set itself the task of the removal political sions in the area was this prerequisite for future develonment of the capitalist economy that dominate the years of the Sadat regime.
For this reason Egypt, sadal broke decisively with the Soviet Union and instead looked towards American perialism.
Yet despite kowtowing to US and Zionist policies poor Sadat has recently been out of favour with the administration Reagan. The US had begun to reassess its relations with Egypt, just before Sadat's assassination.
There were doubts whether Egypt could any longer play the role it had in carrying out American policy in the area miscau. Iside was seen to be a greater military and politica asset, the oil-rich Saudis were in much better position than Egypt to pay the Flop price. for American military aid.
The US aims for direc deployment of their forces the region air, ground and naval. Egypt lacked the stability make such provisions.
Sadat was well aware of this change in American policy. That was why he was anxious to deal with any opposition internally as quickly and as repress ively as possible The failure of Sadat is further proof that the naLullai Arab country cannot be put before the interests of the Arab masses throughout the Middle East.
The company they keep: Nasser and Nikita Khruschov Anwar el-Sadat, never made any pretence that he was on the side of the What he did manage to do was to conpeople that al agreement between Israel and Egypt could bring peace to the troubled Socialist Challenge region. But an agreeme that is not in the intere Arab Palestinians in ucular. can Only the even:... successful OLLCOME their struggle can ache:: that.
Page"