One of the paradoxes we live with is that many who raise the banner of freedom of expression cannot tolerate a difference of opinion. If you discuss an idea or evaluate an experience, the debate shifts from analyzing the content to attacking the speaker\u2014as though criticism were betrayal, and as though disagreement over concepts must inevitably turn into personal hostility.<\/p>\n
The most recent example is the fierce criticism directed at Mr. Amr Moussa, the former foreign minister, by some Nasserists, simply because he described President Gamal Abdel Nasser as a \u201cdictator.\u201d Those critics never asked: What does dictatorship mean? And does its definition apply to Nasser\u2019s rule or not?<\/em> Instead, the matter turned into a blind defense of the leader, as though he were above criticism, and as though political concepts were flexible words to be stretched and twisted at will.<\/p>\n In political science, dictatorship is a system of rule in which decision-making and authority are concentrated in the hands of an individual or a small group, without real mechanisms of accountability or popular participation. Its main features include:<\/p>\n Let us look without bias at what happened in Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s:<\/p>\n These features, compared to the political definition, clearly embody a form of dictatorial rule.<\/p>\n Nasser\u2019s case, however, was unique. Despite the dictatorial nature of his regime, he possessed overwhelming personal charisma and a popular presence that Egypt had never known before and has not known since. In his person combined the inspiring leader who spoke to the national and Arab conscience of the masses, and the absolute ruler who monopolized decision-making.<\/p>\n This combination made his experience more complex: a dictatorial system, but carried on waves of sweeping popularity.<\/p>\n To understand Egypt\u2019s special case, one can compare it with other dictatorships:<\/p>\n Nasser, by contrast, fused dictatorship with mass love. His rule was rooted in a unifying national discourse\u2014Arab unity, resistance to colonialism, and social justice\u2014which made the people identify with his authority and accept it, even see it as an expression of their collective dreams. Here lies the difference: Nasser\u2019s dictatorship was not just repression, but a mix of absolute power, coercion, and collective aspiration.<\/p>\n To describe a regime as dictatorial does not<\/strong> mean denying the economic, social, or national achievements it may have produced in its context, nor does it mean insulting the individual or belittling his historical place. It is rather a scientific description of a political concept.<\/p>\n Nasser himself recognized that he ruled as a single man; he would declare that he was \u201cresponsible for everything.\u201d<\/p>\n His rule ultimately ended with the crushing defeat of 1967, the loss of Sinai, the displacement of the Canal population, the trial of army leaders, and then his death.<\/p>\n Dictatorship can sometimes produce benefits, in my view, but it always degenerates into tyranny if there is no rotation of power to prevent the ruler from becoming a quasi-prophet who cannot be questioned, surrounded by a corrupt elite that can only be removed when he himself departs.<\/p>\n Nasser\u2019s dictatorship did not end with his era; it left a profound imprint on Egypt\u2019s political style for decades afterward. It entrenched the culture of one-man rule, the absence of real institutions, and the dominance of the state over politics and media.<\/p>\n Even after his death, whether under Sadat\u2019s economic openness to the West or Mubarak\u2019s turn toward privatization, the essence of the political system remained rooted in the legacy of July: a single dominant party, hollow elections, and an overwhelming official media narrative.<\/p>\n Thus, Nasser\u2019s dictatorship was not just a passing episode but a foundational model<\/strong> for governance in Egypt and much of the Arab world: the charismatic leader, the single party, the absence of pluralism, and state control over every aspect of public life.<\/p>\n Any nation\u2014East or West\u2014that lives the same experience under different names, with ever-renewed tools, yet based on the same philosophy of unchecked one-man rule, suppression of free expression and opposition, disregard for the constitution, and no rotation of power, is under a dictatorship.<\/p>\n So why the outrage when we apply the definition to describe the reality?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the paradoxes we live with is that many who raise the banner of freedom of expression cannot tolerate a difference of opinion. If you discuss an idea or evaluate an experience, the debate shifts from analyzing the content to attacking the speaker\u2014as though criticism were betrayal, and as though disagreement over concepts must …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12724,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[208,103,16,197],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-2025-collective-articles","category-all-articles","category-articles-by-dr-badrawi","category-translated-articles"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nWhat is dictatorship?<\/h3>\n
\n
\nDoes this apply to Nasser\u2019s era?<\/h3>\n
\n
\nThe great paradox: dictatorship and charisma<\/h3>\n
\n
\nFrom the person to the concept<\/h3>\n
\nThe legacy of Nasser\u2019s dictatorship<\/h3>\n