Leftist Revolutionary Regimes in the Arab World

Throughout the inter-war period, Arab labor activists were among the most prominent and important advocates for anti-colonial struggle and national independence. Why then were the Arab revolutionary regimes that ultimately emerged in the 1950s and 1960s so wary of Leftists and labor movements? Why were these regimes so reluctant to allow leftists and labor movements a voice in national affairs?

During the anti-colonial struggle, the Arab nationalists had a strong ideology for forming one nation. They believed this one nation, starting from the Atlantic and ending in the Indian Ocean, can be held together due to common language, politics, history, and culture. Their main goal had been to end the western influence within the Arab world. In contrast, the leftists endorsed social equality in society, particularly for the disadvantaged people (Willis, 1990). They opposed the old regime and stood firm with the French revolution. However, the nationalists believed that it was appropriate to deny the leftists a voice in national affairs, even after these Arab labor activists fought against the western influence and their people’s freedom.

The leftist believed and worked towards improvement in the socio-economic status of those subjected to unequal treatment in the society. They also stood for substantial civil and workers’ rights in the country. For example, they were opposed to various exploitative conducts of globalization, which favored specific races. With the labor movements, the leftists promoted the idea of inclusive growth. They denounced capitalism in which a few individuals own private companies and, through exploitation, maintain the rich-poor divide (Willis, 1990)

Moreover, the leftists believed in sharing resources with the people through decentralizing power and authority. They wanted an economy wherein the people managed the national assets and resources. For instance, the leftists advocated for an economy run by groups and organizations such as cooperatives, municipalities, trade unions, and workers councils, amongst others, instead of the state and private partners. This move aimed to protect the rights of small traders, workers, and the poor in the country (Abul-Magd, 2013).

The leftist believed that the world should be owned collectively by its people, and in doing so, they can provide justice to the poor and landless people. Leftists further argued that people should work to protect and improve the collective conditions of the masses instead of claiming divine ownership on this planet. These ideas led to several environmental-safety movements, which paved the way for environmental laws. These movements further signify how leftists had a progressive and inclusive idea of growth and ought to have been allowed to contribute to matters of national affairs. Notably, most of the environmental degradation activities were carried by the rich who owned companies while disproportionately affecting poor communities. Of importance, the leftists expressed a deep sense of concern for the environment and projected their country’s love. (Willis, 1990).

Subsequently, the old regime’s firm belief in Arabic and Islam as the only pillars of the nation was discriminatory and a war recipe. This ideology was opposed by the leftists who stood for a liberal country that is not discriminatory and biased but values, respects, and upholds its citizens’ rights irrespective of race or religion. With ideal consideration, any country that minds its future progress, peace, and development should never be founded on pillars of ethnic differences, as was the old regime’s interest. Undoubtedly, the Arab nationalist had developed selfishness and was likely to take a retrogressive trajectory in handling national interest issues. (Provence, 2011)

Thus, the old regime’s inter-war middle-class modernity was on vernacular language; therefore, escalating more division, other than enhancing national unity. This prompted the leftists to oppose, resulting in the wary relationship between them and the Arab labor activists. Consequently, the Arab nationalists’ activities and political engagements were no longer in line with the core plan for which they fought to remove Western influence. On the other hand, the leftists’ accused Arab labor activists of inhuman treatments witnessed during the inter-war middle-class modernity. Therefore, the leftists were justified for their actions and deserved an opportunity to offer national affairs guidance (Singerman, 2006).

Sadly, the state engaged in activities like heavy taxation that discriminated against and exploited the poor. Nonetheless, leftists fighting for equality condemned the government’s taxation mode and called for its abolishment in totality. However, that did not auger well with the state. Furthermore, the declaration of a state of emergencies and the introduction of heavy punishment were considered by the leftists to violate human rights. Other labor movements also argued that human rights protection is paramount in any democratic society governed by law and should not be left at the authorities’ discretion. Undoubtedly, the State became dictatorial and worked against her people’s interests (Provence, 2011). Such contestations between the leftists and the old regime further eroded their relationship.

Meanwhile, Arab labor activists also played a crucial role in fighting for their people’s freedom and independence. It was not an easy task to remove the western influence from their world. It needed determination, selflessness, and commitment to achieve their goal. Notably, several activists and nationalists suffered tremendously and lost much of their property pursuance of freedom (Willis, 1990). With such a struggle, they as well-deserved opportunities to lead and voice the concerns of their people. In fact, during the Arabs uprising, the so-called leftists did not organize themselves to help fight for the independence of the Arab world. (Abou?El?Fadl, 2015)

Moreover, the Arab labor activists viewed the leftists as betrayers and antagonists who merged with their oppressors to bring them down. For this reason, they lost trust with the leftists, hence got wary with them on issues of national affairs. This was due to fear that leftists could be working for the interest of western powers. Meanwhile, with Pan Arabism’s initiation, the nationalists’ focus was to establish a nation that promotes social justice and national unity. Therefore, the proliferation of dissenting voices of the left-wing politicians and some labor movements were seen by the old regime as an attempt to undermine social and national justice (Duboc, 2015). Equally, the leftists’ activities were primarily seen as political and a scheme to gain power and public influence.

On the contrary, the heightened inflation rate witnessed by the Arabian leadership as Nasser got into power raised the alarm on its economic prowess. As a result, the poor could hardly afford a piece of bread due to low purchasing power (Watenpaugh, 2003). Hence, prompting protests from some labor movements and leftists in solidarity with the poor who felt abandoned. This equally created a lousy spirit between the state and labor movements (Duboc, 2015).

Besides, the leftists blamed the government for disrespecting workers’ rights (Watenpaugh, 2003). In contrast, the labor organizations that were mandated to fight for the workers’ rights made laws and clauses that did not favor the workers. The labor organizations sided with the state, prompting workers to engage in protests to demand their rights. A move that the state perceived could be due to the opposition’s influence to overthrow the state out of power. However, even though the opposition had a larger number of members in the protest, members participated in an individual capacity. (Willis, 1990).