76 Islam and Modernity
Another important factor in the politics of the area was the creation of Israel
in 1948 and the subsequent wars with the Arab countries and the Palestinian
population. The Arab–Israeli confl ict has continued to be a powerful source of
political themes and symbols, both religious and secular, in the whole region.
A third phase in government regimes may be called the infi tah era, starting in
Egypt in the early 1970s and spreading to other countries. Basically the ‘social-
ist’ model failed, weighed down by cumbersome bureaucracy and corruption.
The Soviet connection was no longer so attractive, compared to the more
tempting American benefi ts and the connection to the oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Sadat of Egypt started the new wave in the 1970s by expelling the Soviets, align-
ing with America and Saudi Arabia, liberalising the economy (within severe
limits of bureaucracy and corruption) and introducing some measure of political
freedom and pluralism, while retaining the dominance of the ruling party. This
was accompanied by a peace treaty with Israel, ushering in a chequered history
of relations with that state. The collapse of communism, starting in 1989, cut the
fi nal connections of some of the nationalist states, primarily Syria, to that camp
and led to the virtual hegemony of the United States in the region. The most
prominent exception to this process was Islamic Iran.
Styles of politics
The two styles of politics noted above, the modern politics of ideology and
organisation, and the universal politics of faction, kinship and patronage, con-
tinue to coexist, with authoritarian governments trying to use the former to their
advantage through mobilisation of the populace behind the government, while
in practice fostering the latter by suppressing political pluralism and encourag-
ing particularistic allegiances as a form of social control.
For example: the Wafd Party in Egypt, in the fi rst ‘liberal’ era, was an ideo-
logical party aiming at national independence and a democratic constitution,
and so fought battles, now with the British, now with the monarchy, to these
ends. The party enjoyed support from ideologically motivated modern strata of
the educated middle class of functionaries, professionals, teachers and students,
as well as sectors of the new working class. These were mobilised in demonstra-
tions, strikes and electoral campaigns, although the party, apparently, never
instituted a system of membership, and branch offi ces operated only for elec-
tions (Owen 1992: 224–30). At the same time, the main electoral support for
party candidates came from peasants and poorer classes, who were in depend-
ent relations of authority and patronage with the rich notables who were the
party candidates. Peasants, for instance, were bound to vote for their landlord.
Some parties, such as the ruling National Democratic Party in Egypt, get their
support entirely from interested groups, seeking jobs, positions, contracts and
benefi ts for particular regions. I should point out that this ‘spoils system’ of