What ways have international events influenced individuals and families and/or groups narratives?

The Egyptian Revolution influenced individuals and families mainly through the
economy and foreign affairs. This is evident in the Agrarian Land Reform, change in leadership,
and the agricultural reform. Revolutions happen because something isn’t working and change is
needed. As time goes on countries need to improve and assess what they’re doing wrong, or
could be doing better. If they don’t, things can get worse. The Revolution of Egypt in 1952 was a
significant event in Egyptian history, as well as history in general. Egypt was transitioning from
a monarchy run by King Farouk to a republic run by President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The
president who followed after Nasser’s death was Anwar Sadat. This significant change in
leadership was the main cause of all the effects of the revolution. Everything can be tied back to
the person who was in power at the time.

It is extremely important that the person in charge of ruling a country is fit to do so. They
should be chosen by the people and meet very specific requirements when being put in power.
However, that was not quite the case when Nasser was chosen to rule in 1952. He was the only
candidate. The worst decision Gamal Abdel Nasser made was in 1953 when he took over the
factories and had them run by the government. They did not know how to run the factories
properly, put the wrong people in charge of things, and ended up leading to crowded working
environments. All students who graduated were guaranteed a job, but since there were too many
people, most had nothing to do. This allowed them to do no work, yet still get paid. In an
interview with Ahmed Elkamah, a native of Egypt for 80 years, he expresses his opinion on the
issue saying, “...if Nasser just gave the workers more rights and more pay, it would've been
better than taking the factories over. This proved to be true later when the factories ended up
collapsing, not literally obviously, but because the government wasn’t specialized enough to run
them.​1​” Nasser was simply not very functional in this line of work and thus led to many negative
effects down the line. He did try to explain his reasoning for it, saying:

“This system of foreign rule was built on the corrupt monarchy and the feudal system that
had been instituted under Mohammed Ali, who reigned from I805 to I849. He had taken
for himself an absolute monopoly of land and resources treated farmers as slaves, and
created a new feudal class formed by his own family and his clique composed mainly of
aliens.”​2

This clearly did not work and should not have happened the way it did at all. Nasser attempted to
fix things but only ended up making more harm than good. This was clearly a bad thing for
Egypt. Instead, the enterprises should have been left as they were or done in a better way. This
had the biggest impact on the factory owners because they lost their main source of income. It
wasn’t right for the government to do this and it’s even more important that other countries don’t
do this as well, or at least do it in a better, more efficient way. They would be just fine if the right
people had been chosen for the job. From a journal on The Economic Development of Egypt, it
says, “The economic policy of 1951-1956 proved that the officers that took the power in July
1952 did not have a well-defined economic ideology.​3​” If this task was to be carried out
correctly, someone more qualified should have been in charge of managing it. “Except for the
agricultural reform they did not have clear ideas concerning the future path of the economy.​4​”
Egypt has still been at work to restore its economy since the revolution. This is mostly due to the
lack of thought put in by the Egyptian government. They had their heads down throughout the
process and did not think to look into the long-term effects.

The interview source is somewhat a credible source because the people interviewed have
lived in Egypt their whole lives and know what’s good for the country. They’ve witnessed all the
major changes since the 1940s and can make very good comments and opinions based on what
they’ve seen/experienced in the past. The second source from Abdel Nasser is very reliable
because everything is coming straight from him and no words are being twisted by media or
outside source. It is important because it explains why he chose to do what he did, as well as puts
his actions in perspective. The third source on the economic development of Egypt is somewhat
credible because the author, Dr. Ezzat Molouk Kenawy, has done much more research on Egypt
about the stock market, economic effects of the Suez Canal, and the banking system. He knows
the country very well, is native of Egypt, and is part of the Commerce- Economic Department at
Kafr Elsheikh University.

Another everlasting decision Nasser made was the choice to distribute land. When the
Agrarian Reform Law was passed on September 9, 1953, it led to a major distribution of land
owned by the people of Egypt. This was one of the best things Nasser has done for Egypt. He
took land from the wealthy and set a 200-acre maximum of how much land could be owned. In a
journal on economics and sociology, Stella Margold explains what exactly was done with this
land. She says, “The royal family lands are being sold or rented to peasants. The income
obtained by the government for the sale of the royal lands is being used for education and
medical services, such as schools, student aid, hospitals, and social centers.​5​” Because there was
such an outcry from the lower and middle classes, Nasser chose to help them by trying to balance
the power. Wafa’a Elkamah, a native of Egypt for 75 years, had land taken from her family and
experienced the impact of this decision first-hand. When asked if she believed this was fair, she
responded with, “Definitely, the people that needed it thought it was fair because before, they
didn't have enough to eat and weren’t able to send their kids to school. The majority of people
were happy and pleased with Nasser’s choice. However, most of those it got taken from did
not.​6​” The land was divided up for good reasons and with good intentions. Nasser wanted to
distribute the power and change up old systems that were in place before him. Luckily, he did
just that. This was fair because it benefited the majority and led to a lot of positive effects. In a
country that is as populated as Egypt, you cannot please everyone, but this pleases most. The
way it affected individuals and families was financially and how much money they were earning.
The effects and impact this had on the United States was the value for USD 1 had increased.
Eight years later in 1960, the Egyptian pound’s value was among the highest in the world at
about USD 3.​7​ It maintained this for about 10 years. This was a very good reason for more
people to migrate from Egypt, and over to the United States because they would be getting
wealthier, but also a good reason to stay in Egypt, too.

The first source from Stella Margold is credible because the journal was written close to
the time that the event happened, as well as the fact that she has many other journals written on
foreign affairs and things that other countries have dealt with. The second source is also credible
because the information was gathered by Aswat Masriya who has her own page on a website
dedicated to news about Egypt called Egyptian Streets, as well as her own personal website.

People are not always satisfied with the person put in charge or elected. It is evident in
the United States with Donald Trump, and in foreign countries like North Korea with Kim Jong
Un. Another example of this is King Farouk and the Egyptian Revolution. The people disagreed
with what King Farouk, the last king of Egypt, was doing and ended up overthrowing him. The
government wanted someone who was part of the military in power, which shows Egypt’s
preference on the people they want to lead. And it wasn’t just the government that wanted him
out, it was the people as well. From a civilian’s perspective, Wafa’a Zamzam said, “As a king,
he wasn't taking care of the needy and was mainly focused on the rich. He didn't give poor
people what they deserved and the rights they should have had.​8​” The majority of people were
not so wealthy, so the majority were not so happy. This was the main reason for the revolution
and choice to overthrow King Farouk. With the new republic, all of this changed. People were
given a say in who they wanted to lead them and had their voices heard. Following Nasser’s
death, the first president of Egypt, there was an election in which Anwar Sadat won 90% of the
votes.​9​ The major aftereffects of this allowed for a peace treaty to be signed between Egypt and
Israel on March 26, 1979. This proves why a republic is better because it gives people a bigger
role and say in the decisions that will be made. With this new government, the people of Egypt
should be content because the majority is getting what they want. The same goes with any other
country. In a monarchy, this would not be possible. If it wasn’t for the revolution, there would
not have been a republic, and Sadat would have never been elected. Being able to have a choice
in leadership led to countless lives being saved by ending the war with Israel. The United States
had a significant role in helping form the peace treaty. Without President Nixon and the United
States’ involvement in rekindling ties with Egypt, a deadly war between Israel and Egypt could
have emerged. This also relates to citizens being able to speak up and express who they want to
lead them. If the United States wasn’t a democracy and weren’t able to vote Nixon would have
never been elected and the outcome of this situation could be completely different. Though
people don’t always agree with the decisions people in power make, this one was for the better.
However, since Egypt is so heavily based on its military, many people saw the peace treaty as a
cowardly move. This ultimately led to Sadat’s assassination by 4 gunmen, which resulted in 11
deaths and 28 injured. The bigger picture of all this is that leadership impacts people in positive
and negative ways. Those who lived were able to live in peace due to the peace treaty being
signed, but those 11 who died, including Sadat, were heroes who pushed for a better Egypt.
When the people are given more of voice, and the right to vote, better leaders are chosen. When
those leaders make the right decisions, it ultimately benefits the people. Sadat had the power to
keep fighting a war or create peace, and he chose peace. That is why it is so essential to be able
to vote and have a say in these significant choices. Sadat made the right call, even if people
didn’t agree with it. In an journal on Sadat’s visit to Israel prior to signing the peace treaty, it
states, “A most astonishing feature of the Sadat visit has however been the Arab reaction to the
visit; almost every Arab leader who has commented upon it has condemned it unequivocally,
with the exception of the Sudanese President.”​10​ Regardless of what everyone else thought of it,
Sadat proceeded to do what he knew was the right thing for the betterment of Egypt. He took the
proper groundbreaking steps in the direction of a better life for those in Egypt and Israel. Any
proper leader would do so. This source is credible because it is a news report near the time of the
event and provides official information.

This all leads back to a bigger question: why do revolutions happen? They mainly stem
from the economy. A country runs through its economy, without a good one, things go wrong.
Knowing this allows us to understand why money is prioritized in most, if not all countries. It
helps us see and comprehend how bad economies differ from good ones, as well as why that is.
We are able to see what went well, distributing the land and giving people more freedom, but
also what didn’t go so well, such as the agricultural reform. By knowing information like this,
future leaders may be able to learn and make the right adjustments to keep people content.
Changes in leadership and allowing people to vote has allowed for Egypt’s relationship with
Israel to change for the better. In a monarchy, there would be no voting; the person who would
rule was already predetermined. This problem with this is the person “next in line” may not be fit
to lead. The great majority of people may not always support what the king at the time is doing,
or just the king himself. The people of Egypt didn’t want to sit and be told to “deal with it.” In
such a system, the only choice the people had was to push altogether in hopes of change. The
Egyptian Revolution influenced individuals and families mainly through the economy and
foreign affairs.
 Endnote Section
1. Elkamah, Ahmed, and Wafa’a Zamzam. Telephone interview . Hamden/ Alexandria,
CT/Egypt. 2018 11, 2018.

2. Nasser, Abdel. "The Egyptian Revolution." Last modified January 1955. Digital file.

3. Kenawy, Ezzat. “The Economic Development in Egypt During the 1952-2007 Period.”
Last modified 2009. Kafr Elsheikh University Digital file.

4. Kenawy, Ezzat. “The Economic Development in Egypt During the 1952-2007 Period.”
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

5. Stella Margold. "Agrarian Land Reform in Egypt."

6. Zamzam, Wafa'a. Telephone interview. Hamden/Alexandria, America/ Egypt. December

1, 2018.\

7. Masriya, Aswat, and Mahmoud Negm. "Timeline: The Egyptian Pound Over the Last
Five Decades." Egyptian Streets. Last modified November 3, 2016. Accessed December
16, 2018.
https://egyptianstreets.com/2016/11/03/timeline-the-egyptian-pound-over-the-last-five-de
cades/​.

8. Zamzam, Wafa'a. Telephone interview. Hamden/Alexandria, America/ Egypt. December

1, 2018.

9. ​D. Nohlen, M. Krennerich & B. Thibaut (1999) Elections in Africa: A data handbook

10. "The Sadat Visit." ​Economic and Political Weekly​ 12, no. 48 (1977): 1955.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4366105​.