Is the Egyptian labour movement ready to assume the role of an agent for political change? In these times of war, recession and unemployment, writes Fatemah Farag, it might still be possible As the world marks May Day, the labour movement in many countries across the globe can look back at this year and see the potential for change. Social movements -- including environmentalists, women's movements, agricultural labour organisations and an array of trade union and labour movements -- have been manifesting their new-found power at anti-capitalist globalisation rallies, pro-Palestine demonstrations and most recently against the US and British invasion of Iraq. As UK writer and anti-capitalist activist Jonathan Neale told anti-globalisation activists in Cairo last October, "Where the [anti-capitalist globalisation] movement is at its strongest is where it has a large number of workers... where there is a strong trade union movement." With this, the working classes in many parts of the world are taking a prominent place among the forces daring to challenge the foundations of what just a few years ago has been hailed as the peak of human development, marking "the end of history": the global capitalist system. This year in Brazil, the labour movement brought President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva to power, whose government today is considered the foremost genuinely participatory democracy in the world. Yet in Egypt, the working class has been conspicuous by its political inactivity. This is despite the fact that the invasion of Iraq has precipitated a new political mood. Arguments for the need to open up the political system and initiate democratic reform have never been more fervent. In addition, the Egyptian "street" is more politicised than it has been in over 20 years. Images from the second Intifada and the resistance of the Iraqi people in the face of a deadly adversary have served to fuel anger and a sense of injustice. Workers have not been immune to the strong tides of national wrath, pride and sense of humiliation that have taken the country by storm; eye-witnesses told Al-Ahram Weekly that on the day that Baghdad fell, men in the working-class district of Helwan watched the scenes on the televisions screens of their neighbourhood coffee shops and wept. However as a labour movement, they have not mobilised. "There is frustration amongst the working class just as there is frustration amongst the people of Egypt. The question is why the working class is no longer engaging in national battles. But that is a question that can only be addressed when we find out why the working class is incapable of defending itself," said Kamal Abbas, head of the Centre for Trade Union and Workers' Services (CTUWS) and a long-time trade-union activist. Historically, the pattern of the Egyptian labour movement had been conditioned on nationalist politics. In their pioneering study of the Egyptian labour movement, Workers on the Nile: Nationalism, Communism, Islam, and the Egyptian Working Class, 1882-1954, Joel Beinin and Zachary Lockman note that the "political orientation and behaviour of the workers' movement was also a product of the inextricable interlocking of class and national consciousness among the vast majority of Egyptian workers." They go on to explain that "the specific character of the Egyptian workers' movement was shaped by the fact that from 1882 to 1956 Egypt was subject to British colonial domination and that until the late 1930s nearly all of the large-scale employers were also foreigners whose economic power was enhanced and protected by the British occupation. Under these conditions economic demands and demands for greater autonomy and respect in the workplace were seen as part of the nationalist struggle." A landmark date within that dynamic was the 1919 Revolution "in which the demands of the emergent working class merged with the political movement for national independence in a mutually reinforcing pattern." The 1952 Revolution again co-opted the labour movement within a nationalist framework. Under the populist regime of the late President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the working class became a cornerstone of the "Alliance of Popular Working Forces" in the struggle to achieve economic independence and bolster Arab socialism. In return for better wages, job security and other social benefits, the working class relinquished its right to independent trade union and political organisation and labour came under the hegemony of the government-controlled General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) and the Ministry of Manpower. In his first May Day speech, given in 1963, Nasser summed up his regime's discourse vis-a-vis labour as follows: "My brothers, the workers: from the first day in the 23 July, 1952 Revolution, it was clear that this revolution was undertaken for the working people, for dissolving differences between classes, for establishing social justice, for the establishment of a healthy democratic life, for abolishing feudalism, for abolishing the monopoly and control of capital over government and for abolishing colonialism." These aspirations, however, did not materialise; after the 1967 defeat, the social contract was broken. "A certain level of awareness developed that the anti-imperialist struggle meant discipline at home -- the idea that the home front must be a united front ultimately meant that class conflict should be kept under wraps. This dynamic became very apparent in the 1970s," explained a leading leftist activist who preferred not to be named. "The national question came to represent a double bind for the working class. On the one hand, they joined the rest of the population in their feelings of national humiliation and oppression while at the same time this very nationalism was used as justification for their continued impoverishment and subjugation." By 1971, labour struggles, in upsurge as a direct result of the loss of credibility and legitimacy caused by the June 1967 defeat, focussed primarily on a rear-guard defence of gains made under the populist "social contract". For the most part, this took the form of fighting off the government's attempt to reduce the variable part of public sector workers' wages (incentives, bonuses and other benefits). In the 1970s, the system not only dropped the anti-imperialist struggle but also began its long march towards a free market economy. In 1992, the government adopted a full-blown programme of structural adjustment and privatisation. These changes in political and economic orientation have had drastic effects on the structure and nature of labour. Privatisation has divided the formal working class into two distinct sections: those in the public business sector and those employed by the private sector. The number of public sector workers, who accounted for the bulk of formal labour, was drastically cut by about 60 per cent, as a result of the liquidations, down-sizing and early retirement schemes. For example, at the Helwan Factory for Spinning and Weaving, once a hotbed of labour activism, the work force has been reduced from over 15,000 workers to 6,000, half of whom work only nominally and go to the factory once a month to pick up their much reduced pay-checks. Since the government-controlled trade union structure is made up almost exclusively of public business sector workers -- all public sector workers automatically become members of the union -- its constituency has by definition been reduced drastically. As for the private sector, which is concentrating labour in the new industrial cities, most factories remain uncovered by the current trade union structure. According to independent estimates, out of nearly 1,000 factories in the city of 6 October, there are only six trade union committees. In the industrial city of the 10th of Ramadan, there are 12 trade union committees and over 500 factories. "The class has become very divided," said the leftist activist. "The old cadres are for the most part retired, many through the early retirement scheme. The new majority of the working class has no trade union experience -- even within the corporatist structure. Many of these are working in satellite cities, which must be very alienating. Mobilising resistance in your community is very different from mobilising resistance in the middle of the desert. Add to that the fact that the intelligentsia is not concerned with the labour movement and then factor in the class-based nature of police repression -- a working-class man can be picked up off the street for no reason whatsoever," he said. While some may argue that these changes in the structure of the working class have been going on for a long time, Abbas argues that this is not true. "The process of liquidation [of the public sector] is ongoing. As for the private sector, this has been established within a context of severe unemployment, which created a balance of power giving the business sector almost absolute authority over labour. The private sector continues to be comprised of workers between the ages of 10 and 30 who have had no contact with trade union activists. The political parties do not even deign to set up offices in new satellite cities, let alone show any serious concern towards this sector." To address the current conditions of the working class, independent labour activists for years have highlighted the inadequacy of the current trade union structure, the problems faced by those working in a shrinking public sector, the inability of concerned parties to fund the controversial early-retirement scheme and worrisome features in the patterns of employment generated by new investment. One example of the disparity between the rights of employers and employees is the fact that many workers are asked to sign the infamous "form number six", preemptively announcing resignation, before they can be hired. At the same time, workers continue to be blighted by poverty. For the past several years, the Egyptian economy has been reeling from a protracted recession that was exacerbated by the 11 September attacks in the US. Prime Minister Atef Ebeid announced at the Donors Conference in February last year that as a result of global recession, Egypt would lose the ability to generate 370,000 jobs per year, 30 per cent of which would be losses in the tourism sector (see related article opposite page). These losses come at a time when an estimated 800,000 people enter the job market annually and unemployment ranges between 7.6 per cent to 20 per cent of the work force, according to various estimates. It is officially acknowledged that unemployment is increasing; expatriate labourers often work under appalling conditions; foreign labour markets are shrinking and that the structural adjustment programme has negatively impacted the standard of living of the poor. It is also generally accepted that the economy is characterised by increased disparity between rich and poor, with poverty (defined as those living on less that US$2 per day) estimated at 50 per cent of the population and basic public services such as health and education eroding within the framework of structural adjustment. Globalisation is not expected to improve the situation. As early as 1999, economist Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil said, "Globalisation, structural adjustment and technological advances in production processes are seen to reduce rather than increase demand for the bulk of labour in the Middle East and North Africa region. As the public sector shrinks and the number of people employed in agriculture decreases, workers find that they lack the skills for new types of jobs." In response to this situation, and to commemorate May Day, official labour representatives announce a "wish list" each year. It includes passing the draft Unified Labour Law, amending the Social Insurance Law, organising the travel and insurance of expatriate labour, implementing the National Training Programme, matching labour skills with the needs of the market, compensating and protecting workers who have lost jobs as a result of factory closures and reducing child labour. This year, one wish was granted: the Unified Labour Law was not only passed but has been ratified by President Hosni Mubarak. Developed in little more than a year through tripartite negotiations among government, business leaders (represented by the Egyptian Federation of Industries and Businessmen) and labour leaders (represented by the GFTU) and financed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the first complete working draft was announced in December 1994. In January 1996, this draft was revised by the Legislation Department of the State Council. Afterwards, it literally disappeared and, until it finally made its début in parliament this year, it was little more than a rumour which independent labour activists, the government and business leaders would either critique or support. The rumor circulating among GFTU members was that business leaders were pressuring the government to amend the draft in their favour. Independent labour activists claimed that the GFTU was in collusion with the business sector to legalise already deteriorating labour-business relations. The government reiterated many times that no worker would be harmed under the current regime. The new law will apply to businesses currently governed by Labour Law 137, which was passed in 1981. Coverage will exclude those in government administration, domestic workers, members of an employer's family, those in short-term employ (defined as work lasting less than six months), principal management positions and the self-employed. Workers engaged in purely agriculture labour are also excluded from the employment conditions meant to protect women and minors. Opponents of the law have argued that the exclusions are a significant gap in the legislation, highlighting the fact that a large proportion of working women are unskilled and work in domestic services and are thereby deprived of protection under the "unified" code. However, Abbas insists, "They can take their law and eat it. Like the laws that preceded this one, as long as it does not address problems on the ground it will not be enforced." Abbas drives his point home by documenting four strikes that have taken place since the ratification of the law, in open breach of the "legal" strike procedures. "For example at the Nasr car factory in Helwan, the administration did not pay the variable wage and workers mobilised on the spot and held a one-day strike. According to new procedures, they should have attained the approval of the General Syndicate first. But these have become obsolete or at best ineffective, and in many strikes the workers are also taking action against the formal trade union. Further, the Ministry of Manpower does not have the power to enforce the articles of the law vis-à-vis business, which means that the law will only be implemented when a worker goes to court." "Forty-six demonstrations, 26 sit-ins and 24 strikes (both labour strikes and hunger strikes) took place in 2002," said the Land Centre for Human Rights' annual report for 2002 on shop-floor action released last March. "Forty-nine of these took place within the private sector, 25 in the government sector and 22 in the public business sector, with complaints ranging from non- payment (18 cases), lay-offs (31 cases), sale and liquidation of factories (six cases), forced early retirement (two cases), and reduction of wages (four cases) as well as 15 cases of maltreatment on the job." Yet, Abbas says that labour action remains disjointed and defensive. "You can only say that there is direction and accumulation of experience in the movement when it starts developing beyond defensive action in the face of single transgressions," he argued. "We can no longer fight on the factory level within the current economic crisis and structural changes that have taken place," said the leftist activist. This is important because everyone seems to agree that there can be no effective political role for the labour movement if it remains incapable of organising around new realities and does not adequately defend the rights of workers. According to Abbas, "The battle that developed just before the new labour law was passed was good, although limited. We were able to make minor adjustments in the draft that was finally passed. This is a good experience if people are to learn to stand up for themselves. Consider Italy. Only weeks before the huge anti-war demonstration took place, millions went on strike against new labour legislation." It is noteworthy that the Unified Labour Law in Egypt entered parliament weeks before the US and British invasion of Iraq began. "Workers' own experience at home is that resistance to imperialism -- which comes at a very high cost -- has invariably lead to defeat. The labour movement will not be able to join an effective solidarity movement against war, globalisation or anything else unless they have achieved successes as a labour movement and build up the ability to defend their immediate rights. And at some point in time something has to break," said the leftist activist. "It is not that the working class is apathetic," urged Abbas. "It is in a state of disorientation. It is still reeling under the effects of the structural changes that have taken place." Democracy, according to Abbas, is key. "To overcome the terrible frustration everyone is feeling with what is happening in Iraq, one issue has become paramount: democracy. We must fight for democratic reform," he says.
