Dialogues of Naguib Mahfouz: Between two revolutions By Mohamed Salmawy Salmawy: Your novels deal with the country's history throughout the twentieth century, in particular the 1919 and 1952 revolutions. What is your position on these events? Mahfouz: I was only seven when the 1919 Revolution broke out. I saw groups of people congregating and chanting. I saw people attacking foreign facilities, then being shot and injured. I saw British cavalry carrying rifles and shooting at Egyptians. The memory of it has stayed with me ever since. In time I came to understand the goals of the revolution and identify with Saad Zaghloul and then Mustafa El-Nahhas. It became clear to me that the revolution aimed to secure independence from the British and also from the tyrannical monarchy. It became also clear to me that the British were fighting to stay in Egypt and that the monarchy was fighting to stay in power. Salmawy: How about the 1952 revolution? Mahfouz: The 1952 Revolution was different in many ways. It initiated a spirit of national dignity that captured our imagination and in that sense it was a continuation of the uprisings I saw as a child. But it surpassed the 1919 Revolution in its achievements. The problem is that the relation between the regime and the people remained unchanged. The ways of monarchical rule were never eradicated and this is something that bothers me to this day. Salmawy: Didn't the 1952 Revolution achieve many things, giving land to poor peasants and defending the rights of workers? Such achievements were unthinkable under the old regime, and the nation benefited from them. Mahfouz: You're right. I don't deny these achievements. I am only talking about the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. That relationship didn't change much. The revolution ousted a tyrannical monarchy and replaced it with a modern republic, but it copied the ways of the old regime and failed to abide by the constitution. The worst thing about the monarchical regime was its failure to comply with the constitution. The main quarrel between patriotic forces and the monarchy was over precisely that point. The patriotic movement kept calling on the king to abide by the constitution but to no avail. As you said, the 1952 Revolution made remarkable achievements. These achievements went beyond anything the national movement had been able to achieve. The revolution brought us independence and created a new social system in which education and work were worth more than high birth and money. The changes ushered in by the 1952 Revolution did not stop at Egypt's borders but spread to other Arab countries. But I never liked the way the regime treated the people. Had the revolution been more democratic many troubles would have been avoided, including the 1967 defeat. Salmawy: For someone who speaks so highly of the 1919 Revolution, would you consider yourself a foe of the 1952 Revolution? Mahfouz: I was never a foe of the 1952 Revolution. But then again I wasn't a full-hearted supporter either. My feelings were mixed. I supported some of its actions and objected to others. Some people had nothing but hate for the 1952 Revolution. I am not one of them.
