EGYPT

Egypt lived under a number of foreign rulers among whom included the Romans between 341 B.C. to 642 A.D., the Arabs between 642 A.D to 1249 A.D.  Later they were under the Mamelukes until 1515.

The Arab’s empire which had brought Islamic religion and Arabic culture broke up due to the collapse of the political unity of Islam which subsequently paved way for the ex-slaves who were not Africans but had been recruited from Turkey and Southern Russia.  These are what came to be referred to as the Mamelukes.  However, in 1517, the Ottoman empire during its expansionism defeated the Mamelukes and took over control of Egypt in what later came to be Turko-Egypt.

Similarly between 1798-99, Egypt came under the French conquest during Napoleon Bonaparte’s ambitious campaigns.  However, following the mysterious withdrawal of France, after being defeated by the British, Egypt returned to a state of anarchy and it is during this state of affairs that the Sultan of Turkey sent Mohammed Ali an Albanian by origin to restore law and order in Egypt and to make the Sultan’s rule more effective.  Taking advantage of the prevailing situation  in the country, Muhammad Ali proclaimed himself ruler of Egypt between their years of 1805-1849.

Mohammad Ali who ruled Egypt from-1805 - 1849 made the foundation for the modern state of Egypt. Before the reign of Mohammed Ali, Egypt had suffered series of succession invasions such as the French and finally the Nationals of Turkish Empire.

During the time of Mohammed Alt, he struggled to make Egypt independent from the Turkish rule but he failed. Despite this, he undertook measures to strengthen Egypt militarily, economically and socially.

He was profoundly influenced by modernised ideas of the French and he admired European ways of life. In his internal policy, he employed many European experts in Agriculture, Education, industry and civil service. His aim was to create a modern state like that of Prance.

To improve Agriculture, he constructed canals, improved irrigation schemes and promoted cotton growing. In-the sector of industry, he started an iron and steel industry set up ship building plants and textile industries. In the field of Education he encouraged the growth of educated class with Western civilisation. He set up schools and employed European teachers. By the time of his death in 1849, he had brought Egypt on the way to modernisation by promoting education, agriculture industry and commerce.

In his foreign policy, Mohammed Ali wanted to promote Egypt's glory abroad and secure her independence from Turkey. In 1820 he invaded and occupied Sudan and formed the Turko-Egyptian government partly because he wanted glory and partly for economic exploitation of Sudan's resources. By 1849, he had cooperated with Britain and France and exported this alien influence to Sudan.

In 1849, the foundation for modern Egypt had been complete under the efforts of Mohammed Ali. By using European ideas, he had created a sound economy, developed and promoted education for growth of western cultures made Egypt strong producer of cotton worldwide and established a national army that was inherited by his successors.

More important was that he had maintained a successful foreign policy and he had avoided "traps" of European moneylenders.

Mohammad Ali achieved all this using Egyptian resources. His successors therefore inherited a sound economy with no debts. It was the mismanagement of the economy and the borrowing excessively from the European money lenders by his successors that endangered Egyptian independence that was taken over by Britain in 1882 in attempts to recover the borrowed money by Egyptian kings.

Muhammad Ali’s leadership transformed Egypt from a poverty striken country into a modern state.  In otherwords Muhammad Ali laid a foundation for the modernisation of Egypt but largely based on western models for he was a product of French education.  It is during this time that military reforms were carried out in Egypt and the expansion of the Egyptian tentacles embarked on towards Sudan, Ethiopia among others..

Ali encouraged spread of western education through sending some Egyptian students to study in Europe.  He improved the economy especially in the field of development of cotton growing as a measure of agricultural activity in the history of Egypt.  This was done through irrigation schemes, introduction of new methods of farming and industrialisation such development of steel and iron, building plants and textile factories.

Externally, Muhammad Ali attempted to make Egypt independent of the Turkish rule but he died before the accomplishment of his mission.  He attempted to extend the Egyptian leadership to Sudan which availed him with timber, slaves and gold.

His death therefore in 1849 was a great tragedy for Egypt for none of his successors seemed to have the ability to continue his development programmes as evident in the leadership of Abbas I who succeeded Muhammad Ali and ruled between 1849-1853, an Islamic fundamentalist who greatly opposed the modernization programme of Muhammad Ali and was only interested in advancing Egyptian nationalism.  His leadership was uneventful according to historical records and he was later succeeded by Muhammad Seyid who ruled between 1854-63, a product of western education who promoted imperialism in Egypt through welcoming western investors, the most outstanding of which was a French man Ferdinard de Lesseps who he invited to build the suez canal that was began in 1859.

The invitation of western investors gradually began to undermine the independence of Egypt for it made Egypt a hunting ground for the European powers.  The climax of which occurred during the reign of Khedive Ismail Pasha who ruled between 1863-79.

REGIME OF ABBAS 1 (1849-1853).

After the death of Mohammed All, Egypt was taken over by people who lacked his qualities. Abbas 1 who ruled from 1849-53 was almost an exact opposite of Mohammed Ali, He was a deeply conservative Muslim fundamentalist who destroyed modernisation that Mohammed Ali had attempted to develop.

He was totally opposed to Western influence which he considered dangerous to the development of Islam in Egypt. His first step was to expel all European experts employed formally by Mohammed Ali.

The Schools, Factories and agriculture were all abandoned after dismissing the European adviser. His opposition to western influence was the only achievement of his regime. Although it contributed nothing to the real development of Egypt. Such a kind of frustration in Egypt couldn't continue for long. In 1853 he died with his unbecoming nationalism.

REGIME OF MOHAMMED SAID (1853 - 1963)

He had been educated in France and therefore highly Westernised as France was considered the most cultured European society. Although a moslem, he had very many Christian European friends whose words he trusted most. He hoped to continue with Mohammed All's idea of modernising Egypt but he lacked Ali's shrewd sense of realism and therefore his policies were full of exaggerated ambitions.

For instance to strengthen economic prosperity for commercialists in Egypt, he lifted all restrictions on private enterprises and restored private ownership of land. He abolished monopolies in trade and allowed foreign goods to be imported untaxed. He was so short sighted enough that he could not see the negative impact such policies would cause to Egyptian economy.

During his reign, Egypt became a centre for European groups as one historian observed that;

"In his regime, Egypt became a happy hunting ground for promoters of various schemes of improvement that attracted European bankers in Egypt who were only eager to advance loans to Egyptian economy on conditions favourable to themselves".

His regime witnessed an excessive influx of Europeans fully intentioned to exploit Egypt. One of the schemes of investment attempted by Mohammed Said was the building of the Suez canal to link the Mediterennean sea to the Red sea. The concession to construct the canal was granted to a French engineer called Ferdinard De Eesseps on terms that were not favourable to Egypt at all. For example;

That Egypt was to provide labour for the construction of Suez canal and provide substantial proportion of other costs. Therefore, Egypt was to pay for construction of the canal in their own land and yet Europeans had excessive benefits in the project!

THE ADMINISTRATION OF KHEDIVE ISMAIL 1963-79

Khedive Ismail was a grandson of Muhammad Ali a progressive and an enlightened ruler with the best interests of Egypt at heart, but fell victim of European treachery.  He was a moderniser but took westernisation for modernization.  His major aims were modernise Egypt and to find an African empire.

A lot of credit goes to Khedive Ismail who during his reign Egypt was greatly improved through the expansion of communication networks such as telegraphs railways, ports, bridges and the Suez canal whose construction started in 1859 during the reign of Muhammad Abbas and was completed in 1869.  This greatly improved the communication network in Egypt and subsequently led to economic growth and development.

Closely related, banking facilities were extended with the creation of the Bank of Egypt, the opening up of the branches of the Ottoman bank, the French bank, Credit facility banks. Cairo the capital was rebuilt with modern streets, hotels, theatres, operas among others..  This gave Egypt a new outlook, thanks to the reign of Khedive Ismail.

Socially Ismail developed a national state supported school system which saw an increase in the number of schools, increase in enrolment, establishment of specialized colleges for professions such as law, administration, teaching and the birth of Azhar University with employment of European teachers and lecturers.  His policy saw a number of Europeans in Egypt rising by this development, Khedive Ismail had made Egypt a hunting ground for the European powers, whose loss of independence in 1882 came as no surprise to historians.

Politically, Khedive Ismail secured from the Sultan of Turkey the right for his family to rule on hereditary basis.  In addition, the Sultan bestowed on him the title of a “Khedive” (ruler).  In otherwords, in effect this new title meant that Ismail was elevated from a viceroy to a status of a sovereign in his own right.  In addition, Ismail obtained from the Sultan of Turkey the right of Egypt to have independence in all her internal affairs.

Economically, Ismail developed the system of irrigation by constructing new canals which helped the farmers to grow more crops especially cotton and sugar cane growing.  As a result, Egypt’s annual cotton production rose from 5m pounds to 25m pounds.

Infrastructure was improved through construction of hospitals, schools, mosques and the subsequent employment of European personnel as doctors, nurses, religious leaders among others.

Externally, the conquest of Sudan that was started by his grandfather Muhammad Ali was extended towards southern Sudan for in 1869, Khedive Ismail employed the services of Sir. Samuel Baker an a two year contract to conquer the territories of the upper Nile section of Sudan and to suppress slave trade which was an embarrassment to the westernisation process of Ismail.  Baker extended the Egyptian control up to the Ugandan boarders, conquered the Bahr-el-Ghazel region in South Western Sudan.  In otherwords, Khedive Ismail expanded the Egyptian control abroad.  However it did not last long for the Sudanese nationalists revolted against the Turko-Egyptian control in what came to be the Mahdist revolt of 1881 - 1885.

Ismail also conquered the territories in the East such as the Red sea ports of Suakin and Massawa which were ceded to the Sultan of Turkey.  Using these as his bases, Ismail sent expeditions to Ethiopia with the aim of conquering more territories, although these expeditions were abortive for the Egyptians were defeated in the Eritrean highlands.

Despite the achievements of Khedive Ismail his leadership was characterized by a number of weaknesses the greatest of which was the loss of the Egyptian independence.

THE SHORT COMINGS OF ISMAIL’S REIGN

Despite some achievements of Ismail for which he qualifies as an asset in the history of Egypt, Khedive Ismail had a number of weaknesses among which included his westernisation ventures which he mistook for modernization and subsequently laid a fertile ground for the loss of Egyptian independence 1882.  His employment of European doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers.  Teachers grew from about 1000 in 1864 to 100,000 in about 1876.

Ismail was believed to have been an extravagant ruler who plunged his country into a financial crisis for it’s believed that at his palace in Cairo, Ismail lived in complete luxury, he squandered money at public and private functions.  For example, it is said that Khedive Ismail at the opening of the Suez canal spent more than  £1,000,000 on entertainment.  This may not have been historically valid but it serves to illustrate the degree of extravagance of Khedive Ismail’s reign.

Khedive Ismail’s expenditure is analysed from the background on how it undermined the sovereignty of Egypt.  For it’s vital to note that although Ismail was on enlightened ruler, he lacked a sound financial judgment for when he realised that he did not have enough fund to pay for the ambitious projects, he started borrowing healthy from the European money lenders especially the British and French.  This placed Egypt at the mercy of European powers because Ismail had poorly spent the money out of extravagance, paying bribes to the Sultan of Turkey and his ministers to secure more autonomy and expansion of Egyptian empire towards Sudan and Ethiopia.  When it was realised that Ismail could not settle his debts, both Britain and France got involved in the Egyptian affairs in order to protect their nationals’ interests who had lent money to Khedive.  It was under these circumstances that the independence of Egypt began to gradually be eroded for even by this time, Khedive Ismail had lost the support of the masses, especially the peasants.  This is partly because Khedive Ismail’s modernization only served a few especially the Egyptians in big towns such as Alexandria and Cairo such that the masses in the country-side remained in abject poverty under servitude.  Heavy taxation with little or no social services such as schools, hospitals and other forms of infrastructure were rampant and in this case to peasants, the reign of Khedive Ismail was a period of hard work and sacrifice.

Hence from 1876, the Egyptian independence began to disappear into thin air for Khedive Ismail’s incapability of paying his debts worried the British and the French, who had the majority of creditors.  Hence Great Britain and France decided to put pressure on Khedive Ismail in order to force him repay the debts.  This was through the establishment of an Anglo-Franco financial commission under the leadership of Stephen Care whose main concern was to regulate the Egyptian finances in order to enable her pay the debts of the European money lenders.

Ismail at first thought that this commission was to work as a mere observer, but later on found himself in serious clashes with the commission for it tried to stop him from his mismanagement of the state funds especially by using it extravagantly and in response, he dismissed the commission.

The dismissal of the commission was a great political miscalculation; for Britain and France answered this action by putting much pressure on the Sultan of Turkey and forced him to depose Ismail off from power in Egypt.  Ismail was replaced by his son in the name of Tawfiq who became Khedive of Egypt from June 1879.

As soon as Tawfiq came to power, he unconditionally brought back the commission which had been dismissed by his father to once again manage the Egyptian finances.  This greatly annoyed many of the Egyptian nationals i.e the traders, intellectuals and the peasants and the army in general who greatly denounced the British and French interference in the financial affairs of Egypt.

The Commission which was established in Egypt to regulate its finances also began interfering with the army for many Egyptian officers were to be dismissed or retired from the army to a tune of 2,500 officers.  In addition, most of the commissioned ranks in the army were reserved from the Turkish officers unlike for the Egyptian nationals.

It’s therefore not surprising that the army played a very important role in the overthrow of Tawfiq’s leadership in Urabist revolt led by colonel Arabi pasha.

Furthermore, the army also shared the growing hatred of the common man especially the farmers who were jealous of the privileged classes of the wealthy Turks and relatives of Khedive’s family.

It’s also argued that the commission was riddled with corruption, mismanagement of Egyptian finances, over taxation of the local populace such as the civil servants, the peasants and the elite class.  It’s therefore not surprising that the rebellion  was inspired by a great scholar in the names of Al-Afhani who was a lecturer at the University of Cairo or Azhar University.  He was joined by educated Moslems who had acquired some familiarity with the contemporary western thought, other liberal nationalists such as Muhammed Abolol, Mustafa Kamir a journalist and an Anti-British dominion of Egypt.  This inspiration of intellectuals was put in practice by one of their military students, Col. Arabi Pasha who led a coup d’etat in June 1882 by attacking Alexandria, killing 50 Europeans.  Britain and France were highly alarmed and so decided to form a joined action to force Arabi out of power.  Unfortunately, France had internal problems pre-occupied in the events in Tunisia which left Britain as the sole player in the Egyptian Arena.  They organised their forces under General Wolseley and in the battle of Tel-el-Kabir, the Urabists rebellion was suppressed, subsequently Pasha was captured and  deported to Ceylon where he later died.

The suppression of the Urabist rebellion became a concluding phase of the loss Egyptian independence such that three days later, the British occupied Cairo under the leadership of Lord Crommer, an event that has been described to have sparked off the scramble and partitioning of Africa as asserted in the famous works of professor Robinson and Gallagher, “AFRICA AND THE VICTORIANS”.

“It was Egypt and Egypt alone that led to the Scramble and Partitioning of Africa”.

In conclusion therefore, its important to note that the British occupation of Egypt in 1882 was because of its position i.e on the route to India, Egypt was of imnense importance strategically.   Therefore European powers only exploited the westernisation process, poor expenditure of Khedire Ismail to take over the economic independence as one writer rightly concludes:

“If Ismail had restricted his expenditure to worthwhile projects of modernisation and refrained from conspiourous luxury and from imperial adventures abroad ...., he would have kept his country out of the grip of European economic imperialism”.

THE URABIST REVOLT 1880-1881

The eclipse of Khedive Ismail came with a number of changes. When the foreigners overthrew Ismail and replaced him with Tewfiq, the Egyptian independence had almost gone. Tewfiq was a mere puppet who never helped the Egyptians to organise their economy in their own interests.

 

New social political and economic policies all aiming at helping the joint financial commission to recover debts in Egyptian economy were put in place regardless of their sour effects to the natives. This was spark to the long existing grievances against Ismail's government. This revolt is sometimes called a nationalistic movement because all classes of people were involved for example the Fellahins (peasants), the army, civil servants, the elite group and the rest of the masses participated in the war against Ismail and his foreigners.

MAIN CAUSES OF THE WAR

Overtaxation: In a bid to attain true financial target as quickly as possible, taxes were raised in order to increase government revenue. This greatly affected the Fellahins class (peasants) who were poor while some rich able ones were exempted from this taxation and therefore their fiscal and financial policies made the revolt inevitable.

Discontented army: To squeeze the government expenditure, the army privileges were drastically reduced and the size of the army was also cut down for example their salaries, food rations, and the number of uniforms among others. all reduced. On top of this, the Europeans reserved high posts in the army for foreign soldiers, and not for the nationals. They hated the European advice of army demobilisation up to 1500 soldiers only. With this number of solidiers, in case of any conflicts with the Europeans as it was expected, Egyptians had to be defeated.

Reduction of the state expenditure: To reduce the government expenditure, the number of Egyptians employed was reduced and most schemes of development started by Ismail were abandoned. Luxurious expenditure at king's court was cut down and this led to complaints emerging out of the nobility class.

Grievances of civil servants: Civil servants were also not happy because of the reduction of their salaries and their numbers. On top of this, most of the top posts in the government were taken over by Europeans. They therefore hoped to re-instate their rights by joining the Urabist revolt.

Hatred of current tax officials: The replacement of Egyptian nationals with corrupt and inefficient Europeans was another cause for war. Most of government departments were put under the control of the weak French, British and Turkish officials. Their mode of work greatly targeted at serving interests of foreigners that resulted into 1880-1881 Urabist revolt.

Foreign control of Egyptian finances: The revolt also broke out because the Egyptians hated the foreign Anglo-French management of their economy. Because of this policy, Egyptians conditioned them to fulfil their international debt obligations which Egyptian kings had incurred worldwide, This proposal was rejected by the Anglo-French officials. This rejection caused frustrations to the Egyptian resulting to nationalistic outburst.

The elite class grievances: This provided the philosophical backbone of the Urabist uprising. Naturally they hated foreign administration in their finance and political affairs. This made them become unemployed. Up set by the level of corruption and inefficiency in their offices at the hands of foreigners, the educated nationalists started demanding Tewfiq to chase away the foreigners from their country hence Urabist revolt becoming inevitable.

The problem of Nepotism: Worse still they hated the system of Ismail who was succeeded by his son Tewfiq who never improved the situation either since he was a puppet of Europeans. The elite class felt they would make a change given a chance to administer Egypt.

The use of Turkish language was also a pain to the traditional Egyptians: Apart from undermining the integrity for the country, such a language was real evidence for lack of sovereignty and hence it sparked off the nationalists' feelings of Egyptians.

The traditional Muslim Egyptians hated the Christian Europeans. To them it seemed as if Europeans (Christians) were out to inherit the Muslim world. The French had occupied the Muslim State of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881. Their influence was also being increased in the Muslim Moroccan State at the time. Therefore the Muslim Egyptians tried to curb down the Christianity influence in their country.

Emergency of Colonel Urabi Pasha: This influenced the whole struggle since for a long time the causes for the revolt had been accumulating but without a leader to lead them into war. The leadership of the revolts was taken by one of the army officers Colonel Urabi Pasha, hence the origin of the name Urabist Revolt. The army took the lead because they were armed and they had been hit hardest by abolition of their privileges by European commission.

Having joined the army at an early age of 17, Urabi Pasha just like most Egyptians had suffered at the hands of the Senior Turkish officers. He therefore inspired the revolt and led the armed struggle with a lot of confidence. He won the support of the junior Egyptian officers in the army. This kind of support gave the movement a nationalistic outlook.

THE COURSE OF THE REVOLT

Urabi Pasha prepared a confrontation and started fortifying Alexandria. At that time, France was busy dealing with a revolt in TurfUsia and had lost many soldiers in 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian war. Therefore, no French soldiers were in Egypt at the beginning of this Urabist revolt. This gave Britain a chance to act alone in silencing the revolt.

On 11^th July 1882, the British Navy power bombarded Alexandria. On 13th September 1882, General Wolsley defeated the Urabist forces at the battle of Tel-el-Kabir. Two days later, Urabi Pasha was captured in Cairo and exiled in Ceylon where he remained until 1891 when he was allowed to return to Egypt.

After the defeat of Urabist revolt, Egypt had lost her total independence that it had gained in 1876 from the hands of Turkish empire. Britain took this chance to occupy Egypt alone since France had not participated in the defeating the Urabist revolt.

The Urabist movement was almost successful but it was finally crushed by British military might. The British had a very strong navy and well trained soldiers. Urabist forces couldn't challenge the superior military machines of the British forces. The British determination to protect their interests in Suez Canal couldn't let the Urabist Movement succeed.

EFFECTS OF EGYPTIAN LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE IN 1882.

These were categorised into political, economic and social aspects.

Political effects

Egyptian nationalism was silenced and the independence which Egypt had attained costly as late as 1876 from the hands of the Turkey, in 1882 its control was taken over by Britain until 1956. Urabi Pasha was exiled and Egyptians settled down for dictates of colonial rule. The first British administrator in Egypt was called Lord Crommer who governed Egypt from 1883-1907.

There was constitutional reforms in Egypt. A new constitution was proclaimed and organic law of British setting was established in Egypt in 1883. This followed a number of judicial reforms where most of the native Egyptian law was replaced by British law4o fit the interests of colonial administration.

An efficient police force and civil service was established headed by British nationals. Some of these were local Africans who had attained some education in Europe or in elementally schools and universities established by Egyptian kings especially Khedive Ismail. However these occupied lower offices in police force and in civil service as top ones were reserved for whites.

There was emergence of a radical group in Egypt known as "Offendiya" which consisted mainly the Egyptians of Fellahin origin. This was the most unprevilleged group in Egypt and strongly anti-British policies. They attributed all problems in Egypt after 1882 to British. After world war I, this group led the Egyptians in 1922 in demand for their independence although it was not successful.

The 1882 British take over of Egypt resulted into the Fashoda incident. France was a rightful country to colonise Egypt but when Britain silenced the Urabist rebellion in absence of French soldiers, it declared Egypt as its colony. As a matter of revenge in 1896, French forces led by captain Merchand from West Africa attempted to take over Sudan. When Britain learnt of it, it dispatched its soldiers led by Lord Kitchener into Sudan so as to safeguard the flow of River Nile banks. The two forces almost erupted into a war at a place called Fashoda.

This was followed by the Anglo-Egyptian conquest of Sudan in 1898. In Fashoda incident, French forces were inferior militarily and decided to withdraw leaving Britain in Sudan in 1896. By the end of two years, Britain had weakened the Mahdist government ofCalipha Abdallah and a condominium government (two foreign states in a joint control of another country) was formed in Sudan.

Economic.

British colonialists made attempts to stabilise the Egyptian financial base. The sole purpose! of this was to organise the Egyptian revenues in a bid to pay back the sunk loans in Egyptian economy to Britain and France.

There was improvement in agriculture following the introduction of modernised irrigation schemes after the construction of Aswan high dam whose establishment was in 1898 - 1902. Cash crops especially cotton boosted in this period.

Procesing industries were set up in Egypt. This was to assist in breaking down the bulky cotton raw materials into small valuable form that can easily be shipped to Lancashire industries in Britain. It should be noted that the development of manufacturing industries was discouraged to eliminate competition for raw materials and market for British goods in Egypt.

There was improvement in transport and communication network in Egypt. This was necessary if desirable raw materials was to be accessed to processing plants from their extraction centres. Equally important, the delivery of British goods would be made to respective markets in Egypt using these roads. European administrators and troops also used this communication system to execute their duties. Navigation system along river Nile was also developed.

Egyptians were overtaxed. This was in form of cash and in kind. The commonest were gun, hut and poll taxes. The sole purpose of taxation was to make Egypt meet the costs of her colonial administration, contribute in paying off the European debts and the surplus would be used for infrastructural development in Egypt.

Social effects.

 Lord Crommer ignored the education sector in Egypt. Universities that had begun by Khedive Ismail almost collapsed during colonial rule period. He only encouraged elementally education that would produce secretaries, office messengers, clerks, house girls and shamba boys to work as cadres of colonial rule. High school fees was charged from students.

There was introduction of protestant religion in Egypt. This met a stiff resistance as it found islam strongly rooted among Egyptians. Some churches were established in urban centres of Egypt although they were poorly attended.

The health sector was also ignored. The few medical centres established were meant to serve the white men. To generate enough money to meet the Egyptian debt burden, little money was allocated to health and education sector of Egypt.

LORD CROMER’S ADMINISTRATION 1882 - 1905

Examine the importance of Lord Cromer in the history of Egypt.

Following the defeat of the Urabish rebellion, the British established their administration from 1883 and passed a new constitution under which the position of the Khedive was recognised as the ruler of Egypt with powers to choose his ministers who would be responsible to him.

It set up a legislative council and an assembly under which the Egyptians were to run their own affairs.  Egypt was to legally and theoretically remain under the suzereignity of the Ottoman empire, although like in any other British colonies, these policies were not in practice implemented for the Egyptians did not run their own affairs for even the Egyptian administration was run by a British agent this leaving the Khedive as a mere political stooge with the Egyptian ministers as figure heads under the control of British inspectors.  Even the Ottoman Sultan had no say in the Egyptian affairs which annuls the earlier constitutional impression that the Ottoman over Lord still ruled Egypt.

This administrative and constitutional re-organisation saw the emergency of Evelyn Baring later known as Lord Cromer who ruled Egypt between 1883-1907 potrayed as;

“A first class administrator and a financial expert who created modern Egypt”.

Therefore all the British successes are greatly accredited to the leadership of Lord Cromer.

Lord Cromer’s administration was a combination of achievements and failures depending on the school of thought.  It’s greatly credited for having been the brain behind the construction of the Aswan High Dam which greatly improved the Egyptian social-economic prosperity.

Furthermore, Lord Cromer is believed to have re-organised and managed the Egyptian finances such that the country was able to become self reliant and pay off her foreign debts and boosting the economic growth especially in agricultural production, communication system notably the management of the Suez canal which increased the Egyptian revenue that rose between 1883-1906 from  £4,500,000 to  £11,500,000.  This generally was due to the improved irrigation techniques which saw an increase in sugar and cotton yields that had tripled by 1893.

Despite the improved agricultural development, scholars have greatly criticized Cromer for having improved the economy for the British benefit.  Like any other colonial economies, production of crops such as cotton seems to have been greatly intended to satisfy the British textile industries.  It is little wonder therefore that by 1902, cotton accounted for 80% of Egyptian exports value.

The above analysis can be demonstrated by the failure of the British to establish a textile mill in Egypt for this attempt by the British investors was frustrated by Lord Cromer in the interest of protecting the textile industries of Lancashire.

In addition, Lord Cromer frustrated the attempts to industrialize Egypt by imposing 8% customs duty on imported coal and iron.

Likewise he destroyed the tobacco industries by threatening heavy taxes.

Closely related, it is also argued by the Egyptian schools of thought that although Cromer reformed the Egyptian finances, he did not manage to pay of all the debts Egypt owed to the European money lenders but only paved way for the Egyptian exploitation by Britain.

Socially, Lord Cromer is believed to have improved the education system in order for the Egyptians to manage their own affairs.  However like any other institutions, the kind of education that was given to the Egyptians only made them British admirers and executors of the British system.  He greatly detested the introduction of western education into the minds of the Egyptians for it would be a weakness to the British system as he is quoted to have said;

       “Provision of a real form of western education would be detrimental to the British administration”.

To which case therefore what the Egyptians acquired was not liberal education but vernacular education for all the masses.  It is therefore not surprising that the schools that were set up were for low grade clerical and technical jobs.  To which case Cromer was greatly against university education and it is no wonder that there was no evidence of one during his reign.

Politically, in as much as the constitution seemed to call for the Egyptian involvement in their own affairs, most work of administration was run by British officials i.e key posts such as finance, justice, internal and foreign affairs were run by British officers.  This therefore made the Egyptians maintain their status quo as back benchers in their own affairs.

Lord Cromer ruled until 1907 until the emergency of Mustafa Khamil and later Abdel Nasser who regained the Egyptian independence from the British.

In conclusion therefore, in as much as Lord Cromer had largely been criticised especially by the Afro-Centric schools of thought, he succeeded to identify himself as a charismatic ruler, an effective administrator especially to the interests of the British as one scholar rightly concluded;

“The reign of Lord Cromer was a test period of the so-called British intentions to re-organise the Egyptian government and economy”.