Nationalism as a Political Force in the Middle East in the first half of the Twentieth Century

Nationalism played a crucial role in shaping the Middle East after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. German Historian Peter Alter (1994) defines nationalism as both an ideology and a political movement, which mobilizes people by holding the nation to essential intrinsic values (p.2). Nationalism in the Middle East served as a reaction to Western imperialism and as a crux for achieving statehood and sovereignty. Anti-colonialism and nationalism were often interlinked as many regions as possible in the Middle East post Ottoman Empire resisted foreign mandates. The Ottoman Empire, having ruled much of the Middle East for centuries, acted as a unifying force, governing over a multi-ethnic and religious region. The collapse left a power vacuum taken over by Britain and France, who, via the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, divided territories, disregarding existing communities. Through this context we can see how nationalism became a powerful force due to a combination of external imperialist pressures and internal desires for independence and sovereignty which led to the formation of nationalist movements fueled by anti-colonial struggles and the goal of statehood, which fundamentally changed the region’s political landscape. Using the examples of Egypt’s struggle for independence, the emergence of Iraqi nationalism in response to British colonial rule, and the emergence of Pan-Arabism, outline how nationalist movements not only opposed colonial rule, but sought to build cohesive, independent states. 

The Role of the Wafd Party in Egypt’s Independence Movement

A key example of nationalist movements as a political force within the Middle East is that of Egypt. The case of Egypt illustrates how nationalism unified diverse groups under a common goal of independence, centering on anti-British resistance and the broader struggle for self-determination. The formation of the Wafd Party in 1918 was key to the Egyptian nationalist movement, dedicated to ending British colonial rule and securing independence. Led by Sa’ad Zaghloul, the Wafd Party united Egyptians in their desire for sovereignty and freedom from British occupation. Albert Hourani argues that the Wafd Party legitimized Egyptian nationalism, pushing for internal changes like economic reforms, women’s participation, and reduced Turkish influence (Hourani, 1983). This is seen in one of Zaghloul’s speeches where he said, “external independence has no value unless there is also an internal liberation” (Hourani, 1983). Zaghloul argued that the Wafd was not purely a political party, but “a delegation empowered by the nation expressing its will… the matter of complete independence” (Hourani, 2005). The Wafd Party was able to successfully rally different social and political groups under the goal for self-determination. However, the Wafd’s internal divisions and perceived conciliations with the British reduced its revolutionary appeal (Ufheil-Somers & Beinin, 1981). Nevertheless, this critique underscores the centrality of nationalism in Egypt’s resistance to foreign control; even when compromised. The early successes of the Wafd served to underscore the power of collective mobilization against colonial forces, making nationalism an enduring foundation for anti-colonial action in Egypt and beyond. This foundation was put to the test when the British, in an effort to quell nationalist momentum, exiled Zaghloul and other Wafd leaders leading to the widespread protests of the 1919 Egyptian Revolution, which resulted in strikes, civil disobedience, and demonstrations. The Revolution was formed by a wide variety of collectives within Egypt, including rural villages, students, educated women and urban workers, all unified under the Wafd Party’s promise of independence. The Revolution was an important turning point in Egypt’s fight for independence, with James Jankowski (2000) emphasizing that the breadth of the participation underscored the national consciousness that unified class and religious groups (p. 153). Despite the British response to the uprising involving violent military crackdowns, the resilience of the Egyptian people forced Britain to adopt more pacificatory policies. In 1922 Britain granted Egypt nominal independence, a significant victory for Egyptian nationalists. However, many historians argue that the partial independence granted by Britain was ultimately a strategic move to maintain control over Egypt’s foreign policy and defense, thus preserving British influence without the responsibilities of direct governance (Darwin, 2014), as Britain continued to exercise control over Egypt for years to come (Genell, 2013). Despite this, Egypt’s nationalist struggle served as inspiration for many other anti-colonial movements within the Middle East and aided in fostering the growth of Arab nationalist sentiments. Rashid Khalidi (1991) wrote that Egypt’s experience with the British framed Arab nationalism as a movement for independence as well as a regional solidarity to counterbalance Western Control. Egypt’s anti-colonialist nationalism, spearheaded by the Wafd Party and the 1919 Revolution is a foundational case for Arab resistance against Western imperialism. Egypt’s partial success demonstrates the power of popular mobilization and solidified it as a symbol of hope for other nationalist movements within the Middle East, fostering a sense of shared Arab identity and purpose within other groups striving for independence. 

Monarchical Nationalism in Iraq

Building on the momentum of anti-colonial sentiments like Egypt’s 1919 Revolution, Iraq became a focal point of nationalist resistance in the Middle East. As with Egypt, the end of World War I left Iraq in a precarious position, caught between the remnants of Ottoman rule and the realities of British imperial ambitions. Under a mandate established by the League of Nations, Iraq became a British protectorate, with the goal of guiding Iraq towards self-governance. However, British policies reflected a different mission, one largely driven by the region’s oil resources. Britain’s reluctance to relinquish control over Iraqi politics eventually led to the 1920 Iraqi Revolt, uniting a large portion of Iraqi society against British control. The revolt brought together Shi’a tribal leaders, Sunni urban elites, and Kurdish nationalists, underscoring a shared sense of Iraqi identity in opposition to colonial rule. In response to anti-British sentiment within the country, Britain appointed Faisal ibn Hussein as Iraq’s monarch in 1921. Despite the attempted unification under a monarch, Tony Dodge (2003) argues that the coalition of groups that took part in the revolt joined due to strategic interests, rather than a shared sense of Iraqi identity. Dodge writes that the British placement of Faisal was a stabilizing compromise rather than a genuine concession to nationalist demands (Dodge, 2003). The appointment of Faisal ibn Hussein was controversial, as Iraqis saw the appointment of Faisal as yet another colonial imposition. Even so, the monarch worked to cultivate an Iraqi nationalist identity, emphasizing unity across sectarian lines. Faisal’s approach to nationalism in Iraq fostered a sense of unity away from purely anti-colonial movements, instead becoming a symbol of unification while gradually distancing itself from direct British control. This is further outlined by Charles Tripp (2005), who argues that monarchical nationalism became a distinct feature in Iraq’s post-mandate identity. Iraq’s case underscores how nationalism evolved uniquely in response to colonial pressures, channeling anti-colonial sentiment into a state-centered identity. This adaptation to both internal diversity and external control reflect the broader concept of how nationalism in the Middle East was forged through the interaction between foreign occupation and internal aspirations for sovereignty. The legitimization of the monarchy in Iraq through nationalism led to the creation of a national consciousness of the monarchy as a protector of Iraqi interests against British control. Lisa Anderson (2000) outlines the importance of monarchies is nation building, especially within the Middle East, writing that monarchies, unlike nationalist regimes, are better suited to serve as a core to encourage heterogeneity amongst their subjects. Her work helps to contextualize the importance of the monarchy in the development of a national Iraqi identity, and how Iraq provided an alternative to radical change driven by anti-colonial sentiments. However, this view is not shared by all, Abbas Kadhim (2012) argues that the monarchy’s reliance on the British compromised its legitimacy, creating tensions between the ideal of sovereignty and the reality of British influence. The Iraqi experience highlighted the possibility of achieving sovereignty within existing frameworks, a perspective that would later influence nationalist leaders across the region, such as Jordan and Morocco. Iraq demonstrates the diverse expressions of nationalism emerging after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as a response to both external and internal factors. The case of Iraq highlights the complex and adaptive nature of nationalism in the Middle East, with their monarch-based nationalism balancing national identity and independence with a relationship with the West.

Pan-Arabism as a Rhetoric

Lastly, by examining the rise of Pan-Arabism as a transformative ideological movement within the region, we can see how the creation of a collective Arab identity emerged as a response to fragmentation under Western mandates. A key Pan-Arabism leader was Sati’ al-Husri, often referred to as “the philosopher of Arab nationalism” (Kenny, 2024), who argued that the Arabic language and shared heritage served as the foundation for political unity. His “principle of rights of nationalities” advocated the need for a state to be founded on the basis of nationality, the formation of separate states, and the importance of independence from another nation’s control (al-Husri, 1944) significantly influenced the early Pan-Arab Congresses in the 1920s-1930s. These Congresses became important platforms in promoting Arab solidarity against colonial divisions and rule. Historian Albert Hourani (2013) argues that the congresses promoted Arab unity as the solution to arbitrary state borders imposed by colonial powers, framing Pan-Arabism as essential to the Arab national struggle for independence. However, not all share this view; Elie Kedourie (1957) critiqued Pan-Arabism as an ideological construct that imposed an unrealistic sense of unity on an otherwise diverse Arab world. Kedourie went on to argue that the emphasis on a singular Arab identity led to tensions as local identities clashed with the Pan-Arab ideal. Additionally, Benjamin White (2012) wrote that the Congresses often appealed to the intellectual elites, rather than the broader Arab population, arguing that Pan-Arabism lacked deep-rooted support across all social categories. In spite of White’s critiques, academics argue that Pan-Arabism was a political language used by Arab leaders to rally support from the masses (Khalidi, 1991). The dialogue started by Pan-Arabism helped to align local nationalist movements and created a discourse of unity and collective identity across Arab states, strengthening nationalist ambitions and solidarity against colonial powers. Pan-Arabism underscored the interconnectedness of Middle Eastern nationalist movements, demonstrating the adaptability of Arab nationalism in responding to the complex colonial legacy of the region. 

Concluding Thoughts

As we can see, nationalism in the Middle East emerged as a key force shaped by anti-imperialist sentiment and the ambitions for independent nation states. Nationalist movements took a variety of forms, from Egypt’s anti-British mobilization and Iraq’s monarchical nationalism, to the spread of Pan-Arabism rhetoric. Each movement responded uniquely to the conditions created by external control, yet they shared a common objective: the pursuit of self-determination and the reclamation of national identity. The ideological foundations established during this period, emphasizing self-rule, unity, and opposition to foreign influence—continue to influence Middle Eastern politics. The legacies of these movements reveal how nationalism not only contested foreign rule but also became integral to defining state identities and regional alliances. These early movements underscore the significance of nationalism as both a unifying force and a tool for asserting autonomy, highlighting its lasting impact on the political dynamics of the Middle East. To better understand international relations, it is necessary to understand the underlying currents that drive political movements and help explain recent events. 

References:

Abbas Kadhim. (2012). Reclaiming Iraq. University of Texas Press.

al-Husri, S. (1944). Lectures on the Rise of the Idea of Nationalism.

Alter, P. (1994). Nationalism (p. 2). Edward Arnold.

Anderson, L. (2000). Dynasts and nationalists: why monarchies survive. Middle East Monarchies: The Challenge of Modernity.

Beinin, J. (1981, January 28). Formation of the Egyptian Working Class – MERIP. Middle East Research and Information Project. https://www.merip.org/1981/01/formation-of-the-egyptian-working-class/

Benjamin Thomas White. (2012). Emergence of Minorities in the Middle East. Edinburgh University Press.

Darwin, J. (2014). Unfinished empire : the global expansion of Britain. Bloomsbury.

Dodge, T. (2003). Inventing Iraq : the failure of nation building and a history denied. Hurst.

Doran, C. (2019). Postcolonialism, Anti-colonialism, Nationalism and History. International Studies, 56(2-3), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020881719840257

Elie Kedourie. (1957). PANARABISM AND BRITISH POLICY. Wiley Online Library, 28(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923x.1957.tb01860.x

Genell, A. (2013). Empire by Law: Ottoman Sovereignty and the British Occupation of Egypt, 1882-1923. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161445826.pdf

Hourani, A. (1983). Egyptian Nationalism. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798–1939, 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511801990.010

Hourani, A. (2005). Collected works. Middle Eastern Studies, 41(5), 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263200500233232

Hourani, A. H. (2013). A history of the Arab peoples. Faber.

Jankowski, J. P. (2000). Egypt : a short history (p. 153). Oneworld.

Karsh, E., & Karsh, I. (1996). Reflections on Arab Nationalism: Review Article. Middle Eastern Studies, 32(4), 367–392. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4283833

Kenny, L. M. (2024). Sāṭi’ Al-Ḥuṣrī’s Views on Arab Nationalism on JSTOR. Jstor.org, 17. https://doi.org/10.2307/4323606

Khalidi, R. (1991). Arab Nationalism: Historical Problems in the Literature. The American Historical Review, 96(5), 1363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2165275

Khalidi, R., Anderson, L., Muslih, M., & Simon, R. (1991). The Origins of Arab Nationalism. https://cyberdandy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Rashid-Khalidi-et-al.-eds.-The-Origins-of-Arab-Nationalism-Columbia-University-Press-1993.pdf

Kramer, L. S. (1997). Historical Narratives and the Meaning of Nationalism. Journal of the History of Ideas, 58(3), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.1997.0026

Ramdani, N. (2016). The Rise of the Egyptian Nationalist Movement: The Case of the 1919 Revolution NABILA RAMDANI. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4240/1/Ramdani__Rise-Egyptian-nationalist-movement.pdf

Rubin, Z. (2015, June 22). Third Place – Advancing Deterrence And Eradicating Agency: The 1920 Iraqi Revolt And The Emergence Of Aerial Control In Iraq – The Yale Review Of International Studies. Yris.yira.org. https://yris.yira.org/essays/third

place-advancing-deterrence-and-eradicating-agency-the-1920-iraqi-revolt-and-the-emergence-of-aerial-control-in-iraq/

Tripp, C. (2005). A history of Iraq. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Ufheil-Somers, A. (1981, January 28). Formation of the Egyptian Working Class. MERIP. https://merip.org/1981/01/formation-of-the-egyptian-working-class/