For those who don't know this was a 3 year union between Egypt and Syria from 1958-1961...it was named the United Arab Republic
During the 50's Gamal Abdel Nasser and his pan-Arab ideas were extremely popular among the masses...one of those places was Syria...
Background in Syria
The Communist party was gathering strength...and Nasser warned Quwatli (Syrias ruler) that Syria was at risk...this is when the request to unify came from Quawatli...Syria was a democracy at the time and the idea for unification was a popular one...and with that Nasser became President...
Opening Moves...
The introduction of a plebiscite...
The dissolution of all political parties...
The removal of the army from politics...
The final two caused a lot of dissention...
Now the army wielded a lot of power and used political parties to implement their will so this was a massive move...and an unexpected one...the army did however fear communism as did the politicians so they acquiesced...they also had issues with right wing groups...were disunified themselves...and they understood at that time just how popular Nasser was so even if the conditions set by Nasser weren't what was hoped...it was better for them to agree...and of course among those who disagreed there were of course many army officers and politicans who agreed with Nassers vision...
That said what the Baath party had hoped for at the time is that there wouldnt be single rule...and that is exactly what happened...
Prioritising Egyptians
Initially the army and political elite chose unity over social discontent but their frustration begun to increase...the Baath having their party dissolved and the army their influence reduced made them resent their reduced position..
And here is one of the really important mistakes Nasser made...in his mind Syria was disunified and Syrians weren't apt at running a state...and consequently he decided to place Egyptians in the most important roles in terms of running the state...those such as the Foreign Minister who had made the unity happen were finding themselves demoted and replaced by Egyptians...
Using your 'own' to control an annexed area isn't a good idea...but one can understand I guess Nasser's thought process...but not having diversity in important positions caused a lot of discontent...where the feeling of 'subordinates' came in...
Centralisation
Nasser in short saw the UAR as his baby and took control...centralisation of the government was in Egypt with Nasser making the decisions...the Syrian elite weren't part of the decision making process anymore...and whilst there was a Syrian ministry they generally weren't being consulted when policies were being devised and implemented...again another failure for Nasser...when you have centralised authority the union feels less like a union and more like a colony...
Exile?
Syrian politicians and officers were being sent to Cairo...and for them it was viewed as a way to keep them away from Syria...this is a fair argument as often in Cairo these guys weren't doing meaningful work...most sources point to the fact that this was a deliberate way of Nasser dealing with those who disagreed with him...he would simply demote and exile them...which lead to greater feelings of one man rule...
In short history shows in the Middle East that rulers have no interest in opposition opinions and actually do everything in their power to silence these voices...having a society where skilled personnel fear voicing their opinions is not how to run a state...this fear of opposition idea is deep rooted and actually is a self fulfilling prophecy in my view...you shut down opposition because you fear it but its by shutting it down that you empower it...
Breakdown
Many politicians resigned in the first year...and this just made Nasser more involved...one can understand his position...he was worried about the union being destroyed so took more control...but what he failed to acknowledge is that it was his emphasis on control that led to these resignations in the first place...increasing control simply led to more resentment...
Egyptian View of the Union
Its worth noting that in many ways Syrians and Egyptians are just different and viewed themselves as such...what unified them was Nasser...not each other...Syrians loved Nasser but had no special bond with Egypt...what they can unify on is language, religion and a hatred for Israel but is that enough for unity?...many suggest failure of the union was doomed before it started because the people themselves werent ready...
Other Arab States
Pan-Arabism bothered the other Arab despots for obvious reasons and they supported opposition to Nasser...an Arabist coup in Iraq made that worry real...Jordan and Lebanon actively asked the US for assistance against what they viewed as an impending threat on their power...
Naturally there will always be those who benefit more from division than unity and will do their best to disrupt a union...
The End
The final nail in the coffin was Nassers nationalisations...and the declaration that the government would have ownership of property and land...this was the final straw for the elites...
And stricter policies...banks were nationalised as were import/export firms...the cotton industry...90% tax was imposed on everyone who earned over 10k a year...
Whilst some of his policies satisfied the rural masses...eg the growth of agriculture, profit sharing, lower interest rates on borrowing, shorter work day among others...the elites were furious...
This was soon followed by a coup...demands were made to Nasser for the preservation of the union and Nasser declined...
Its interesting that he said I entirely reject bargaining and half measures...in reference to declining negotiation with the leaders of the coup...it essentially was his way or nothing...and his position here is somewhat romanticised but being uncompromising was just another negative trait...
Conclusion
I've kind of left out the views of the masses for the most part because they usually have very little to do with the mechanisms of power...Nasser was popular among the masses and some of his socialist reforms were popular among the general people...
But where Nasser failed miserably was with the elites...economically the nationalisations were a step too far...as was the new taxation system...
But more so than this Nasser failed because he wanted to run the show...he saw the Syrians of incapable of ruling themselves and thus demoted Syrians and replaced them with Egyptians...
He attempted to reduce the influence of the army and elites through exile...this backfired also...as was centralising power...and what is unfortunately so typical in the Middle East...he suppressed opposition...and when there was revolt he responded by increasing suppression...if Syrians are revolting because you are replacing them with Egyptians then the response surely shouldnt be...'we need to replace more Syrians because they are revolting'
...
It sounds simple but all of the issues the elite had were dealt with in the worst possible way...
The failure of the UAR is a nice primer on how not to build a new state...
During the 50's Gamal Abdel Nasser and his pan-Arab ideas were extremely popular among the masses...one of those places was Syria...
Background in Syria
The Communist party was gathering strength...and Nasser warned Quwatli (Syrias ruler) that Syria was at risk...this is when the request to unify came from Quawatli...Syria was a democracy at the time and the idea for unification was a popular one...and with that Nasser became President...
Opening Moves...
The introduction of a plebiscite...
The dissolution of all political parties...
The removal of the army from politics...
The final two caused a lot of dissention...
Now the army wielded a lot of power and used political parties to implement their will so this was a massive move...and an unexpected one...the army did however fear communism as did the politicians so they acquiesced...they also had issues with right wing groups...were disunified themselves...and they understood at that time just how popular Nasser was so even if the conditions set by Nasser weren't what was hoped...it was better for them to agree...and of course among those who disagreed there were of course many army officers and politicans who agreed with Nassers vision...
That said what the Baath party had hoped for at the time is that there wouldnt be single rule...and that is exactly what happened...
Prioritising Egyptians
Initially the army and political elite chose unity over social discontent but their frustration begun to increase...the Baath having their party dissolved and the army their influence reduced made them resent their reduced position..
And here is one of the really important mistakes Nasser made...in his mind Syria was disunified and Syrians weren't apt at running a state...and consequently he decided to place Egyptians in the most important roles in terms of running the state...those such as the Foreign Minister who had made the unity happen were finding themselves demoted and replaced by Egyptians...
Using your 'own' to control an annexed area isn't a good idea...but one can understand I guess Nasser's thought process...but not having diversity in important positions caused a lot of discontent...where the feeling of 'subordinates' came in...
Centralisation
Nasser in short saw the UAR as his baby and took control...centralisation of the government was in Egypt with Nasser making the decisions...the Syrian elite weren't part of the decision making process anymore...and whilst there was a Syrian ministry they generally weren't being consulted when policies were being devised and implemented...again another failure for Nasser...when you have centralised authority the union feels less like a union and more like a colony...
Exile?
Syrian politicians and officers were being sent to Cairo...and for them it was viewed as a way to keep them away from Syria...this is a fair argument as often in Cairo these guys weren't doing meaningful work...most sources point to the fact that this was a deliberate way of Nasser dealing with those who disagreed with him...he would simply demote and exile them...which lead to greater feelings of one man rule...
In short history shows in the Middle East that rulers have no interest in opposition opinions and actually do everything in their power to silence these voices...having a society where skilled personnel fear voicing their opinions is not how to run a state...this fear of opposition idea is deep rooted and actually is a self fulfilling prophecy in my view...you shut down opposition because you fear it but its by shutting it down that you empower it...
Breakdown
Many politicians resigned in the first year...and this just made Nasser more involved...one can understand his position...he was worried about the union being destroyed so took more control...but what he failed to acknowledge is that it was his emphasis on control that led to these resignations in the first place...increasing control simply led to more resentment...
Egyptian View of the Union
Its worth noting that in many ways Syrians and Egyptians are just different and viewed themselves as such...what unified them was Nasser...not each other...Syrians loved Nasser but had no special bond with Egypt...what they can unify on is language, religion and a hatred for Israel but is that enough for unity?...many suggest failure of the union was doomed before it started because the people themselves werent ready...
Other Arab States
Pan-Arabism bothered the other Arab despots for obvious reasons and they supported opposition to Nasser...an Arabist coup in Iraq made that worry real...Jordan and Lebanon actively asked the US for assistance against what they viewed as an impending threat on their power...
Naturally there will always be those who benefit more from division than unity and will do their best to disrupt a union...
The End
The final nail in the coffin was Nassers nationalisations...and the declaration that the government would have ownership of property and land...this was the final straw for the elites...
And stricter policies...banks were nationalised as were import/export firms...the cotton industry...90% tax was imposed on everyone who earned over 10k a year...
Whilst some of his policies satisfied the rural masses...eg the growth of agriculture, profit sharing, lower interest rates on borrowing, shorter work day among others...the elites were furious...
This was soon followed by a coup...demands were made to Nasser for the preservation of the union and Nasser declined...
Its interesting that he said I entirely reject bargaining and half measures...in reference to declining negotiation with the leaders of the coup...it essentially was his way or nothing...and his position here is somewhat romanticised but being uncompromising was just another negative trait...
Conclusion
I've kind of left out the views of the masses for the most part because they usually have very little to do with the mechanisms of power...Nasser was popular among the masses and some of his socialist reforms were popular among the general people...
But where Nasser failed miserably was with the elites...economically the nationalisations were a step too far...as was the new taxation system...
But more so than this Nasser failed because he wanted to run the show...he saw the Syrians of incapable of ruling themselves and thus demoted Syrians and replaced them with Egyptians...
He attempted to reduce the influence of the army and elites through exile...this backfired also...as was centralising power...and what is unfortunately so typical in the Middle East...he suppressed opposition...and when there was revolt he responded by increasing suppression...if Syrians are revolting because you are replacing them with Egyptians then the response surely shouldnt be...'we need to replace more Syrians because they are revolting'
...It sounds simple but all of the issues the elite had were dealt with in the worst possible way...
The failure of the UAR is a nice primer on how not to build a new state...
