This was the first government formed by Mustafa El-Nahhas, the prime minister who had the most incumbencies in the pre- revolutionary history of the modern Egyptian government. El- Nahhas headed seven governments. Only one other prime minister came near that record: Hussein Sirri served as prime minister five times. But this is not the only record El-Nahhas holds. In this same period (1878 to 1952), five royal edicts were issued to dissolve the government. Four of these involved governments formed by El-Nahhas; the fifth dismissed Prime Minister Fakhri Pasha in 1893. Moreover, the dismissal of the Fakhri government was not the result of tension between it and the palace. On the contrary, Khedive Abbas II had invited Fakhri to form a government without consulting British High Commissioner Lord Cromer, who then forced Abbas to dissolve it. 

Of all the governments El-Nahhas formed, only one was a coalition government, his first. Perhaps his ordeal as the head of a coalition made El-Nahhas resolve never again to take that kind of risk, whatever the pressure or enticements. 
 

On 15 March, King Fouad summoned El-Nahhas and officially charged him with forming a new government. Following his audience at the palace, the Wafd leader headed directly to the House of the People where he held separate meetings with each of his party colleagues "to solicit their advice on the composition of the new cabinet and who they would recommend in the event some of the current ministers decided to step down." Al-Ahram continues: "Each member offered his opinion. Their proposals centred around exerting all possible effort towards keeping the outgoing Tharwat cabinet line-up intact, with the exception of those ministers who could not be persuaded not to step down." 

As has always been the case on such occasions, there was a spate of rumours over the composition of the forthcoming cabinet. Egyptians kept track of El-Nahhas' movements during that short interval following his departure from the palace and his subsequent return to present the king with his list of candidates for the next cabinet. However, conjecturing quickly ended when the new prime minister called upon the members of the former government, chief among whom was former Prime Minister Tharwat himself. During this visit, Al-Ahram writes, "the two men expressed their mutual affection and friendship which cannot be diminished by differences of opinion, exchanged views on political matters and affirmed that their friendship will remain unchanged." Subsequently El-Nahhas made another important visit, to Murqos Hanna Pasha, minister of foreign affairs under Tharwat. Alongside Hanna in the meeting was his son-in-law, Makram Ebeid, who would enter the new cabinet as minister of transportation. 

As was also the custom on such occasions, Al-Ahram featured brief biographical sketches of the new cabinet members. 

Ebeid, writes Al-Ahram, "studied law in Paris and Oxford. Upon his return to Egypt he was appointed secretary to British adviser to the Ministry of Justice. It was in this capacity that he submitted his famous memorandum describing the true nature of the national spirit and which had a great impact in political circles. He was then appointed professor of civil law at the Royal Academy of Law. He was beloved by all students in whose hearts he lit the fire of patriotism." 

Since Ebeid had become the number two man in the Wafd following the death of Zaghlul, it was only natural that Al-Ahram's biography should deal at length with his contribution to the nationalist movement, his support for Zaghlul, his dismissal from his job, his membership in the Wafd Central Committee, his exile with Zaghlul to the Seychelles and his membership in parliament. The account concludes, "He is a highly renowned lawyer whose law offices are among the most famous and profitable in Egypt." 

Mohamed Safwat Pasha, who was to be the minister of agriculture, was "a legal expert who rose in the ranks of the Ministry of Interior until he was appointed deputy governor of Alexandria," but was dismissed from that post under the Ziwar government because of his pro-Wafd leanings. In 1927 he was elected to the senate, where "he demonstrated great enthusiasm in drawing up and defending the reports of the Senate committees." 

The third new face in the cabinet was Ibrahim Fahmi, former deputy minister and now minister of public works. "He began his career as an engineer and was promoted to chief projects engineer in Alexandria, then to director of public works in Tanta before becoming deputy minister of public works. A skilled and energetic engineer devoted to his profession, Fahmi advanced, by virtue of his dedication and competence, through the ranks of the ministry faster than his peers." 

There was little controversy over Safwat and Fahmi who were more technocrats than politicians. But classified British documents reveal that El-Nahhas' task of forming a government was still formidable. In particular, he had to contend with pressure from Liberal Constitutionalist leader Mohamed Mahmoud whose agreement to join was conditional upon El-Nahhas discarding three former Wafdist ministers: Fathallah Barakat, Murqus Hanna and Osman Muharram. There was also pressure from the palace which insisted that El-Nahhas remove former Minister of Justice Zaki Abul-Saoud. 

It was perhaps testimony to El-Nahhas' strength of character that he succeeded in stitching together a government in only two days. The royal decree announcing the new cabinet was issued on Saturday 17 March 1928 amidst great fanfare as expressed in the flood of congratulatory letters and telegrams that poured into the House of the Nation, many of which were published in Al-Ahram. However, lest the euphoria went to the heads of the new ministers, the newspaper was careful to strike a sober note and alert them to the duties that awaited them. The Ministry of Interior was in need of a number of reforms and the first task of the new minister was to purge it of nepotism and ensure that officials in the provinces were more vigilant in assessing the needs of the fellahin. With summer approaching, topping the agenda of the Ministry of Public Works was the need "to concern itself from this moment on with the equitable distribution of water." The newspaper exhorted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to "become more active and to benefit from its staff abroad." The Ministry of Agriculture was required to increase agricultural and livestock exhibitions while the Ministry of Economy had to actively monitor the expenditures of all government departments and draw up a national economic programme. 

On 19 March, El-Nahhas delivered the new government's address to parliament. That his speech was peppered with frequent references to "our constitutional king" was clearly intended to caution Fouad against attempts to undermine his constitutionally-formed government. He also sought to reassure the Liberal Constitutionalist Party: "This government will spare no effort to promote and consolidate the coalition of political parties and to foster a climate free of resentment and rancour."

More important, however, were El-Nahhas' statements regarding Egyptian-British relations, the main reason why the previous government had resigned. His government, he said, was determined "to safeguard our full rights in Egypt and in Sudan in a manner commensurate with our dignity and the glory of our national revival." Referring to the Tharwat--Chamberlain negotiations of the previous year and the results that were reached, he said they conflicted with the independence and sovereignty of Egypt and, therefore, did not form a feasible basis for negotiations between the two countries. Egypt wishes to reach an agreement with Britain but "an agreement between friends, not between master and slave," he declared. 

Naturally, these portions of Tharwat's speech rankled in British colonialist circles as was evident from the British news commentaries that Al-Ahram relayed to its readers. The Times, noted for its close connections with Foreign Office circles, observed that the address had "an effect that was frustrating" and that "it emulated the speeches of Saad Zaghlul." It added, "The current parliament is reminiscent of the one in which Zaghlul was prime minister." 

Although the Daily Telegraph saw some positive points in El- Nahhas's speech, it remarked, "The Wafd Party has not moved a hair's breadth away from its original programme as outlined by Zaghlul, and now El-Nahhas Pasha has driven this home once again. The Wafd policy in 1924 was to bide its time until British public opinion had come around to accepting the full or partial dismantling of Britain's place in Egypt as the cost of resolving the Egyptian problem. Meanwhile, the Wafd would extract the most from this position through its control of the executive authority, whether its leader was in power, as is the case today, or whether the prime minister was of another party directed by the Wafd behind the scenes. In short, the Wafd believes that time is on its side." 

These commentaries prompted the Al-Ahram editor-in-chief to respond with an editorial under the headline "British policy and El-Nahhas Pasha," in which he charged that the British attitude towards Egyptian leaders was arrogant. "However, whatever the British may think, El-Nahhas is a man of unique calibre and it will be futile to try to bend him to their will, by enticement or intimidation, to force him to accept the treaty and persuade Egyptian public opinion to accept it." 

Simultaneously, in an appeal to rationality on the basis of the higher interests of both sides, Dawoud Barakat presented an analysis of the current state of Anglo-Egyptian relations. An impartial observer must concede that the British high commissioner had been hostile to every cabinet, he wrote, and every contact that a British official had with a representative of the Egyptian government was inevitably laden with threats, cautions and warnings. "As for concord, calm, civility and cooperation between the two countries, no one can recall such a state ever existing." This is why Egyptians perceived that the high commissioner had only one function in Egypt: "to usurp Egyptian rights and intimidate those in charge of the affairs of government," whereas the proper task of every ambassador and political envoy is "to seek reconciliation, overcome differences and clear the air of all anxiety and tension." 

As attention focused on the Egyptian-British problem, El-Nahhas moved to strengthen his hand against the dual forces of the palace and the British authorities. Towards this end he pursued a course that set a precedent for future government leaders. Up until then, several barriers were thrown up in front of journalists wishing to interview any minister, let alone the prime minister. Within days of becoming prime minister El-Nahhas met all editors-in-chief of the major newspapers, "without showing prejudice to their diverse political colours and creed." He told them that he intended to establish a new practice which would apprise them of all matters of importance in government affairs "because you are the intermediaries between the government and public opinion and are responsible for presenting the public with the facts." 

Naturally, the representatives of the press applauded the new system which served the welfare of the nation before the welfare of the press. It would liberate Egyptian newspapers from their reliance on reports in the British press, with its inherent bias towards Egypt's most crucial affairs. In addition, it demonstrated "respect for the public, which has the right to know all the facts, and for transparency and freedom of expression." 

Our explanation of this commitment is that El-Nahhas had not yet attained the stature of Saad Zaghlul and he knew that in his forthcoming battles he would need to mobilise public opinion on his side and that the Egyptian press held the key to that goal.