A Review of Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypts Urabi

Movement by Juan Cole

In Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypts Urabi
Movement, Juan Cole makes the case that the upheaval of the Egyptian government in 1882, from the
constitutional crisis in the spring, through the common law period, until the British occupation of Cairo
in September, constituted a social revolution. His approach consists in outlining the major events and
transformations in Egypt under the khedive government from the 1860s to the 1880s that lead to the
formation of a multicultural reform movement1 in 1881 that culminated in the Urabi revolt. Cole
details the structural, organizational and ideological variables of Egyptian society that converged to
create the conditions for the revolution of 1882. He details in turn the conflicts in society over material
conditions, organizational fabric of the population and its potential for mobilization and articulated
visions for change that contributed to the events of the revolution and goes on to assert that it was their
mutual encounter with the jostle of experience2 or their conjuncture that made possible a social
revolution in 1882.
Cole describes a highly stratified populace in Ottoman Egypt during the period 1860 to the 1882.
The Turkish-speaking Ottoman Egyptians who were high ranking members of government and military
and the European expatriate community formed the uppermost layer, the elite of society. The middle
strata consisted of a number of groups including rural notables and village headman, Levantine
merchants and moneylenders as well as a diverse group that Cole calls the intelligentsia. This group
included junior officers of the army, lower level bureaucrats in government, graduates of the civil
training schools, and the ulama, the Muslim clergy and the judiciary of the Islamic court system. Finally,
on the lowest level, were the peasants, artisans and journeyman.
1

Juan Cole, Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypts Urabi Movement
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993; reprinted by American University of Cairo Press, 1999), p. 17.
2
Ibid., 12.

Cole asserts that tensions around material conditions and economic opportunity characterized
the relationship between the elite groups and a broad coalition of the middle and lower strata of society
and built up to the crisis in 1882. Tax policies of the khedive and the Ottoman Empire privileged
European citizens and individuals under protection of European governments. The khedive further
favored this group (and also Levantine Christians) for high positions in the bureaucracy and limited the
advancement possibilities for Arabophone Egyptians in the military. Over time, these issues became
sources of much angst, particularly after the cotton bust and debt crisis of 1876 that triggered a
merciless taxation regime and austerity measures against government spending that threatened the
welfare of the indigenous Egypt populations. Peasants and citizens of the agricultural sector as well as
artisans and merchants saw taxation levels soar to threaten the economic viability of their industries. In
many cases, peasants participating in the cash crop agriculture were forced to borrow money from
European of Levantine moneylenders to survive. Taxation regimes in difficult times brought starvation
in Upper Egypt. After the institution of the Mixed Courts, peasants in economic distress could have their
lands taken from them by foreigners to whom they owed debts, a new practice that was perceived as
foreign and cruel. Guild members saw tax increases that seemed arbitrary, not tied to their profit
margins, and were forced to compete with European merchants who were not taxed. Likewise they
competed with European working class members for jobs. The austerity measures on the part of the
government meant a drastic reduction in troop numbers, police and bureaucracy which led to
unemployment and lack of opportunity for members of the intelligentsia. The ulama, already having
seen a measure of their privilege taken away during the reign of Muhammad Ali, suffered the challenges
of the agricultural sector and also saw their sons, who had been trained for the Army, disappointed and
left idle. Only the rural notables were favored during this period, and this too was temporary. While
they were not subject to the early waves of heavy taxation because of a program wherein landowners

who paid six years taxes in advance were exempt from taxes ever after, the program was later revoked.
Not only did the rural notables face the harsh new taxes, but also felt duped by the khedive.
Cole argues that the variety of interests of this disgruntled Egyptian population coalesced into a
widely held call for reform and that once the crisis of government was underway, the groups distinct
responses came together to enact the revolution collectively. These groups of the middle and lower
strata shared a deeply felt dissatisfaction with the government characterized by a desire to displace the
European elite, end their privileges and reform the khedive within the context of Ottoman rule. (Some
of the intelligentsia also called for further consultative or parliamentary reforms.) Cole asserts that a
developing sense of regional, ethnic, and sometimes religious solidarity also came to the fore. Cohesive
public opinion had only become possible recently due the improved communication through telegraph
and railroad lines and importantly, newspapers. Further, Cole argues that social groups already had
established networks and channels of influence that allowed for the mobilization of their members
around the revolutionary cause. He cites the fact that junior officers could call on their peasant troops,
that ulama could address their communities at the mosque during juma prayers, and that guild
headmasters could mobilize their journeymen all as examples. A series of uncoordinated events, the
British landing warships in Alexandria in May 1882, the spontaneous riots there in June of 1882, and the
decision of the British to bombard in July set the revolution in motion. Urabi and his followers
responded, calling for the removal of the khedive and setting up a common law government while they
awaited approval from the Ottoman Sultan. Until the British arrived in Cairo in September, the
European and Ottoman Egyptian elite were ousted from rule.
Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypts Urabi
Movement provides an account of the Urabi uprising which attempts to account for the agency of a
broad section of Egyptian society. Explicating the interests and possible contributions of individuals

from all strata of society in events around the political upheaval in Egypt in 1882 is a worthy endeavor
and a considerable contribution to the discourse around these events. Nonetheless, several criticisms
can be brought to bear upon the work. First, while the author went to great lengths to offer nuanced
explanations of the political views of a variety of journalists and other individuals, no such details about
Ahmed Urabis positions were offered. An account of Ahmed Urabis political opinions, background
and alliances would have enriched the work. If such information is simply not available, it would have
be worthwhile for the author to mention it in the text. Second, on some occasions the author relied on
very limited information to conjecture about widespread participation in the revolution. Cole used
arrest lists from the Alexandria riot and for those detained as rebels after the British invasion of Cairo as
well as records of provincial court cases tried on similar grounds to extrapolate the participation of
groups like guild members and women in the events of 1882. While the motivation for the participation
of guild members (for example) was made apparent in the text, the data used to show that they actually
did participate did not prove convincing. Certainly this is one of the challenges typically faced by a
historian whose project is to lend a voice to social actors on the margins of society whose activities are
often not recorded. Finally, the work lacked a narrative through-line that tied the social groups that
were so painstakingly described to the actual events of the revolution. Clearly, this volume set out to
achieve a different aim, to substantiate the theory that the revolt was constituted by multiple
revolutions enacted by a number of groups, and a narrative, one might argue, could be left to a different
work. Nonetheless, the evidence of how this coalition of groups actually participated in the revolution
was virtually absent and this fact detracted from its persuasiveness. Critical remarks aside, the volume
should be counted an ambitious work that brought new archival research and a unique argument for the
wider set of available information to the study of this important event in Egyptian and Ottoman history.
Further, Cole should be credited for his attempt to write a wider section of Egyptian society into the
historical record.