Back in my college days, my friends and myself used to argue on whether Gamal Abd Al-Nasser was the greatest president to ever head an Arab country. We had this youthful exuberance, not only as political science students, but also that our debates were brought up after the January 25th Revolution, 2011. Nasser's image was printed on banners and flags all over Tahrir Square, a representation of "Us against Them", people vs. tyrants.
Some of my friends and I were labelled by some as "Nasser fanatics" or "Nasserists". We had Iphones, Ipods, the latest laptops and clothes. So no, we were not any of the above. I am not implying that as a Nasserist, one should be pertaining to a unified code of dress or take to the streets and revolt for Arab Unity or even be a socialist, something that would take time to discuss. We simply believed that Nasser projected a certain image. An image that echoed across the years and generations for its views and actions, positives and negatives. A controversial figure. From 1952 till his death in 1970, his name was synonymous with rebellion and revolt.
It has been widely put by several politicians, youth, government officials and even foreign representatives that our current Defense Minister Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi resembles, in his method of operation, the late president. Al-Sisi, who has been greatly expected to be the next presidential nominee, was a chief actor in the disposal of the former Islamist president Mohamed Morsi.
What I mean to address here are the kinds of facets and elements that made the comparison between them viable, at least to the public mainstream. I will try to actually debunk such comparison for several detailed reasons.
Politicians and public alike relate Sisi to Nasser as a result of their influence on the events of 2013 and 1952 simultaneously. They are probably right. But can it be viable? By viable I mean can we really see Al-Sisi as the new Nasser? Nasser ruled Egypt from 1954 till his death in 1970. 16 years of presidency, with its ups and downs, triumphs and failures, success and losses. Al-Sisi has, without a doubt, managed to acquire people's admiration and in a small period of time. They even see him as the current leader and "head" of the Egyptian state, which will be the basis of the next paragraph.
Let's turn the tables around a little bit. Let's just say that people subconsciously tend to compare them for their negative aspects, not their positive ones. Nasser banned the Muslim Brotherhood after the attempt of his assassination. Al-Sisi was among those who helped excluding the group after similar cases of assassinations and plots nationwide. Martial Law was imposed obtrusively in Nasser's time, whereas "Zwar Al-Lail" (Night Visitors) negatively shaped the lives and souls of the individuals who were imprisoned without prior judicial discourse or investigations. Protest law was applied and regulated heavily with the help of the Armed forces, headed by Al-Sisi. Even the events of 1952 and 2013 are sometimes labelled as coups not revolutions by some analysts and political commentators, and Al-Sisi and Nasser were both at the helms of them.
The only thing I see in Al-Sisi that resembles Nasser is the personal charisma that they both acquire. They both, with varying degrees notwithstanding, succeeded in mobilizing the public. They managed to grab their attention with the sometimes overly-sentimental speeches, something that I personally do not have a problem with. Such type of leader, especially in our parts of the world, can affect peoples' way of life and decision-making process.
On the international scene, Al-Sisi was also perceived as a man of the people, a leader among leaders. But how did he handle foreign powers? Nasser for one prime example once stated that American aid is dispensable and unnecessary. He also went further on to say that "Our shoes are better than any American help". And he kept his words, because he had options and alternatives to support such strong statement represented in the Soviet Union. Eventually the Americans were the ones who sought to help Egypt at its times of need. Al-Sisi on the other hand in a famous Washington Post interview kept using the same sentimental tone in "blaming" the Americans for their aid suspension, urging them to continue their support for Egypt post-Mohamed Morsi. Although Russia is back on the rise politically, it is very hard to see Al-Sisi say those words publicly. Some might argue that different political elements shape the new world order and we are not back in the cold war where two superpowers take roles. Even if there were not two powers in play, Nasser would have said it again and again. He proved it in 1956 Aggression War against not two powers, but three(Britain, France, Israel). The Americans even aided the three belligerents in military supply.
There is not a hint of doubt in my mind that Al-Sisi respects and loves the Egyptian people. He wants to lead Egypt into prosperity and progress and I can vouch for that. But we cannot, by all means, compare him to the likes of Gamal Abd Al-Nasser. Nasser was seen as Hercules, a demi-god, an Arab liberator and conqueror for some people's minds. But what if Al-Sisi's reign came to end for some reason? Would his name be still heard in say five years, ten years? Well, I am a man of the current moment. I have heard of a man that his life resonated into the span of 44 years, and would still echo into the next 44 years to come.
