WI: No Egyptian revolution of 1952

Nasser and company never come to power (using a POD of your choice) and the Kingdom of Egypt keeps kicking. Will the nation of Egypt be better or worse off than today without the Nasser Era and all of the aftereffects? And of course how would this effect the Arab Cold War and larger Cold War as a whole?
 
Nasser and company never come to power (using a POD of your choice) and the Kingdom of Egypt keeps kicking. Will the nation of Egypt be better or worse off than today without the Nasser Era and all of the aftereffects? And of course how would this effect the Arab Cold War and larger Cold War as a whole?

I think it's very difficult to keep the Egyptian monarchy in power for the long term. The country's growing middle sectors will demand economic development and political reform of some kind, and there were multiple strong revolutionary movements active at the time against the country's endemically corrupt and pettily authoritarian monarchy and political class. Absent Nasser, I think you're much more likely to get either a communist revolution or, more likely than that, a Muslim Brotherhood-supported military coup than a persisting Egyptian monarchy and aristocratic parliamentarism.
 
I think it's very difficult to keep the Egyptian monarchy in power for the long term. The country's growing middle sectors will demand economic development and political reform of some kind, and there were multiple strong revolutionary movements active at the time against the country's endemically corrupt and pettily authoritarian monarchy and political class. Absent Nasser, I think you're much more likely to get either a communist revolution or, more likely than that, a Muslim Brotherhood-supported military coup than a persisting Egyptian monarchy and aristocratic parliamentarism.
The bigger difficulty is getting the government to support land reform, the amount of land the Egyptian nobility owned was insane. As you mentioned corruption was common. Iliteracy was epedimic. In short as you mentioned rather difficult.

Then there is also the character of Farouk himself. I am not sure you could find a better example of a king to be a lighting rod for revolutionaries. The many was corrupt, autocratic, gluttonous(apparently he ate like 800 oysters a week), oh and a kleptomaniac(famously stealing a watch from winston churchill and a sword from his brother in law the shah of Iran.)

There is also the problem of the Abedin Palace incident that made many dissillusioned with the monarchy, though the appointment of Sidiqi also was a contributing factor as he as basically a dictator and it made the Wafdists and Sa'dists not very happy with him or the monarchy to put things mildly.
 
The bigger difficulty is getting the government to support land reform, the amount of land the Egyptian nobility owned was insane. As you mentioned corruption was common. Iliteracy was epedimic. In short as you mentioned rather difficult.

Then there is also the character of Farouk himself. I am not sure you could find a better example of a king to be a lighting rod for revolutionaries. The many was corrupt, autocratic, gluttonous(apparently he ate like 800 oysters a week), oh and a kleptomaniac(famously stealing a watch from winston churchill and a sword from his brother in law the shah of Iran.)

There is also the problem of the Abedin Palace incident that made many dissillusioned with the monarchy, though the appointment of Sidiqi also was a contributing factor as he as basically a dictator and it made the Wafdists and Sa'dists not very happy with him or the monarchy to put things mildly.

It would not be an enormous POD to have his first son Isma'il, born in 1896, survive infancy. If you have a king who, say, fought in the First World War as a junior officer and wasn't a huge spoiled brat failson like Farouk, you could have a successor who is well-respected and competent enough to keep the monarchy intact. While King Isma'il probably dies during the 1960s or 70s, he could be an authoritarian developmentalist modernizer like the Shahs rather than a corrupt buffoon, albeit without oil funds to spend (or pilfer). While the pressures for the monarchy to fall will still be significant, the survival of the monarchy becomes plausible IMO.
 
It would not be an enormous POD to have his first son Isma'il, born in 1896, survive infancy. If you have a king who, say, fought in the First World War as a junior officer and wasn't a huge spoiled brat failson like Farouk, you could have a successor who is well-respected and competent enough to keep the monarchy intact. While King Isma'il probably dies during the 1960s or 70s, he could be an authoritarian developmentalist modernizer like the Shahs rather than a corrupt buffoon, albeit without oil funds to spend (or pilfer). While the pressures for the monarchy to fall will still be significant, the survival of the monarchy becomes plausible IMO.
Ah I did not think of Isma'il. That seems like a good model for Egypt to go down.

Also this does lead to one noticable difference. Egyptian Identity. In the era before the 1952 revolution, the conception of what Egyptian was, well was being debated. Pan-Arabism was just one of the ideas for what Egyptian meant, and didn't become established till after the revolution with Nasser. But at the time the majority of Egyptians didn't really consider themselves Arabs; best exemplified with the idea of Pharaonism. Which in turn means no attempts to merge Egypt with other nations throughout the Cold War. So no United Arab Republic, no United Arab States and no Federation of Arab Republics.

That might just butterfly the Arab Cold War itself. As the Arab Cold War was between the more traditional kingdoms on one hand and secular republics on the other. Who thanks to Nasser was trying to unify into one nation. It also IMO likely means that Egypt would be at least somewhat more richer. Adding to the wealth is the fact that Egypt would likely be an ally of the United States. Not sure if Egypt still fights Israel or not though. .
 
Top