Egyptian Peasants under the New Postrevolution Government
The successive agriculture ministers since the 25 January 2011 revolution reflect the desire and attitudes of the current majority political force in Egypt, al-Ikhwan al-Muslimīn (the Muslim Brotherhood) to control everything under what the liberal and other forces call akhwanat (brotherhoodification) of the state, its institutions and authorities. Current Prime Minister Hisham Qandil represents the Freedom and Justice Party, the political extension of Ikhwan, which took the presidency on the first of July 2012.
Nothing has been changed, whether in agricultural policy, or mitigating the burden of debts and costs of production to the Egyptian farmers, particularly the small-scale producers. The Minister of Agriculture Salah Abdul Mu`min recently spoke at a 10 January 2013 “preparatory workshop” in Cairo for a project to be implemented in five governorates (Fayūm, Bani Swaif, Assyūt, Suhāg and Aswān) and financed by Italy with EGP 20 million with cooperation of the FAO. So what will be the difference for Egypt’s farmers.
The attitudes of current government reflect a process of both a new pro-Islamism and pro-neoliberal economic policy. The adoption of the new Constitution upset farmers, who feel that they will be suffering the same problems they used to struggle against during the Mubarak regime. The constitutional process witnessed many NGOs such as the Committee of Land-reform Peasants and independents peasants’ syndicates raising demands of peasants, particularly related to their needs and means of production.
However, all has been in vain so far. The recent statements of the minister of agriculture confirm the contradictions between the declarations that the government gives to the media to mobilize voters and the reality of farmers and impoverished people.
Ignoring the Peasants’ Electoral Role
The ruling party so far has not presented any initiative to demonstrate care of farmers, who played a great role in the elections that gained Ikhwan its majority in the parliament as well as the presidency. For instance, the president has talked of canceling farmer debts, but that has turned out to be only propaganda, while the new Constitution neglects farmers’ rights to land tenure and fair chances at development and participation in policy making.
Policy Continuity with the Ancient Regime
The minister of agriculture said that the president asked him to provide farmers with production inputs such as seeds and fertilizers, and cancel the debts up to EGP 10,000. However, what actually happened?
- Providing the farmers with the agricultural needs has faced three well-known obstacles:
- High market prices after adding distribution and handing costs;
- The monopoly of authorities of the agricultural means of production and distribution;
- State restrictions on the distribution and allocation of these means to landlords and tenants on condition that land owners consent to Agriculture Law No. 30 of 1966, article 90.
2. Cancelling the debts is not the needed remedy, as long as new debts mount with high-interests loans and with administrative costs raised to 19%. These terms apply mainly in the agricultural credit banks that have transformed into commercial banks. Moreover, the authorities continue to control the credit banks and capital of agricultural coops, and grant loans for proposes unrelated to agriculture.
3. The official priority of increasing potato exports serves only the rich farmers and the members of producers and exporters associations, and is of little import to small farmers, who raise wheat, rice, sugar cane, corn, clover and cotton;
4. In his comments at the workshop, the minister discussed the encroachment on the farmland in Egypt, ignoring that most of culprits are—as before—investors and ministers. The law remains impotent at punishing the abuse of farmland and corruption of authorities who are responsible actually to protect the farmland.
5. He claimed that he will increase the income of the poor through small- and micro-enterprises that do not need large capital. He should be reminded of most similar projects overseen by the Social Development Fund failed drastically as the poor could not repay the loans to the fund.
6. The minister also failed to speak about the right of farmers to form their own syndicates/unions, even though he recognizes that farmers are the only sector in Egypt without any such right under law. Without such legal rights, farmers will remain as dispersed individuals without a body to unite them together in their own interests, as demonstrated throughout the elections in which they recently participated. As such they will continue to be unwittingly exploited by political Islam.
Therefore, neither the minister nor any current official seeks legislation to grant farmers the right to form associations to bring them together and unify their voices so as to transform them into social group with weight and an effective political role. Helping farmers organize in unions or within representative political parties is indispensable to enable them to differentiate between what is in their interests and what is not. Thus, the current authorities responsible to the agricultural sector persist in dismissing the interests and priorities of Egyptian farmers, only adding to their deprivation.
|
