Peasant protests, urban solidarity
* Egypt The regime recently arrested left activists involved in the solidarity movement with peasants protesting against legislation liberalising land rents and making it easier for landlords to expel tenant farmers. Our correspondent Sayyed Murshid spoke to Khaled and Taha after their release. Taha: Of the eight activists detained with me, three were Nasserians, three Islamonationalists from the Labour Party, and three Marxists. Later, three peasant leaders from the Guizah region were imprisoned with us. After a couple of weeks, we were all released, except Kama Khalif, who had outspoken attack authorities at a public meeting.
This was the first time Marxists had been arrested since the steelworkers strike in Helwan (south Cairo) in 1989. The regime wants to frighten people into passivity. After all, the Marxist left proved capable of adopting and defending a radical position of total opposition to the • What is the peasant protest about? Taha: Egypt is undergoing a series of privatisations and capitalist liberalisations. One obstacle to this process is the land management system: agricultural land is split into very small units, which creates limits to the quantity and quality of pro-
The capitalists realise that the only way to insert Egyptian agriculture into the world market is to encourage a concentration of land ownership. This is the only way they can imagine a transformation of the system of agricultural production. At the centre of this project is the 1992 law which liberalises the land rent system. It affects about one third of agricultural land in the country.
The law allowed an increase in land rent, and, in a transitional period of five years, regulated the total replacement of existing land-holding agreements, many introduced in the Nasser period. This, they hoped, would enable the major landowners to increase their holdings.
The peasants about six million people are affected by the law) could not believe that this was happening, that the government was attacking the land-management system. In our long prison discussions, peasant leader Ahmed Bor'ei explained how, after a moment of scepticism, the peasants began to turn to the Tagammu'
Party, to defend their interests. But the hesitations, slowness and ambiguousness of the reformist left led the peasants in the
24 International Viewpoint #296
It was only towards the end of 1996 that the peasants fully understood the government's plans. When they came to collect grain and fertiliser from the centralised distribution system, they realised that their land-rental contracts were being modified. This led to a first wave of violent incidents, particularly near Beni Sweif in upper Egypt. And the movement
There were unsuccessful initiatives, from the official side and from moderate opposition milieus, to promote discussions and negotiations leading to a "peaceful
But although the peasant movement was strong, with a wide range of activities (public meetings, road blockades, occupations, leaflets, and graffiti) it was soon clear that there was little unity among the protesters.
The movement split up almost as quickly as it had formed. The lack of a real political consciousness was very
And the regime skilfully encouraged and exploited divisions within the movement to split it up. They did not apply the law everywhere in Egypt: in regions, they will not implement it until 1999 or 2000! And where there has been protest, they have not always deployed the central security forces, which recruit mainly among the peasants.
Instead, the favourite technique has been to call peasants individually to the police stations, and there to oblige them, including physically, to sign a cancellation of their old rent contract, and then a new contract with the landowner.
The authorities have also been able to exploit tribal and family solidarities, which are particularly strong in Upper Egypt. The regime has preferred to deal
As a result, resistance, and explosions of social anger, have been confined to
The regime has been relatively successful. The peasant movement is in decline as a collective force. Though the preconditions for resistance, struggle and outbursts are still present.
We may even see rural riots, at least as serious as the urban riots of 1977.
Certainly, the regime is expecting a high
Khaled: I don't agree with you on this last point. In fact, the regime has scored a complete victory over the peasants, because of the absence of a structure, an organisation of the movement. The peasant movement is really atomised now.
Defeat is only a matter of time.
Some sections of the radical left are too optimistic about these peasant struggles and the solidarity campaign. It is certainly an important solidarity activity, but what is really happening among the workers?
The absence of a real working class opposition is cruelly felt. The class struggle in this country is not just unclear, it is virtually non-existent. There is nothing more than individual, isolated struggles.
The lack of a radical perspective, and solution, is a central problem. times one could hear, in the peasant mobilisations, people asking "what can we win from this struggle?" The lack of structures was another real problem. • How have the Islamic fundamentalists reacted? Taha: When the land law was voted in 1992, neither the Muslim Brothers nor the radical Islamists expressed an opinion. Although they draw their audience elsewhere [i.e. from the poor - Ed.] their social base is above all among the landowners. And these people certainly supported the new law. Taha: The solidarity campaign with the peasants was an important, useful experience. For the first time in a long time, the different currents of the radical Marxist left were able to overtake the Tagammu' party and the Nasserians, and make life difficult for them.
They were able to speak to a mass audience. For the first time in a long time, the radical left found itself linked to a real, active mass movement. Kamal Khalil was able to speak to audiences of three or four thousand people, in the rural areas.
Before, the left was isolated, confined to cafes and its own meetings, apart from the occasional small struggle, and the workers strikes in the 1980s. With the peasant movement, Marxism was no longer just an element in intellectual debate, but a tool of action.
As a result, Marxist activity, particularly among young people, is again perceived by the regime as a nuisance.
The accumulation of experiences like this is important for the future. The form that the solidarity movement took, and the development of a pluralist committee regrouping various tendencies, currents and personalities is also something new and
Let us hope that this contributes to future radicalisations, particularly those which will emerge in opposition to the new labour code, and the planned privati-