For months now, I have made it a habit to stop by the vegetable market near my home to buy some of my fresh fruit needs, particularly what they call ‘baladi’ produce. It truly has a unique quality that is hard to compare with its genetically engineered counterparts. Specifically, I have grown accustomed to buying my goods, especially baladi guavas, from a simple rural woman named ‘Um Rida’. She is known for her honesty and perseverance in seeking a livelihood in these difficult times, making a daily journey from Menoufia Governorate to Cairo to sit on the same pavement. However, one day, next to Um Rida, appeared a young rural man with a neat turban and well-groomed moustache, accompanied by a meticulously arranged fruit cart that matched his appearance. Atop his cart was a small sign artistically inscribed with ‘Chinese Honey Guava’, priced at just two pounds. This put Um Rida in an unenviable position, as she sells her guavas for three pounds, not to mention that they are less visually appealing compared to the large, attractive Chinese variety.

The difficult situation faced by this poor woman is a reflection of the tragic plight of the Egyptian farmer across eras and governments. They have always been at the bottom of the ladder, regardless of the changing labels and slogans. During the monarchy, they suffered from poor treatment as serfs to feudal lords. Then came the revolution, which freed them from individual bondage only to enslave them to the system, leaving them worse off as prisoners of the ‘five feddans’ gifted by Abdel Nasser. Now, they are enslaved to an invisible master called the ‘free market economy’, which seems harsher than its predecessors. This harshness has left them unable to earn a decent living for themselves and their land, forcing them to abandon farming and become street vendors in the city or even construction workers. But the question here is: do other capitalist systems treat their agricultural sectors with the same recklessness?

The answer, of course, is no! Many of these capitalist nations, which we have recently orbited, have never abandoned their farmers. On the contrary, they have done much to stand by their farmers against market fluctuations or anything that threatens their food security, even if such support goes against the basic principles of the free market economy. Britain began its agricultural support policies as early as the mid-19th century, while the United States adopted them in 1933 with what was then known as the ‘New Deal Agricultural Reform Act’. Many other countries followed suit. It is indeed contradictory that developing nations like Egypt, with a high percentage of its workforce in agriculture, resort to punishing their farmers with taxes and liberalising the agricultural market by opening it up to foreign imports, contrary to what other capitalist nations do.

However, there are many economists who strongly criticise the idea of agricultural subsidies, arguing that they simply represent a loss of taxpayers’ money from other segments of society. Additionally, they see subsidies as an obstacle to the principle of global trade liberalisation, which many contemporary world leaders support, representing a loss to the global economy from their perspective. On the other hand, there are many economists who support agricultural subsidies even within capitalist systems, justifying them with numerous benefits. These include stabilising agricultural markets, supporting low-income farmers, raising unjustifiably low returns on agricultural investment, developing rural communities, reducing monopolies in agricultural inputs and distribution markets, and ultimately ensuring national food security.

We must fully understand that modern and contemporary economic history, even outside socialist systems, is filled with examples of extensive support and protection for agricultural sectors in many of these nations. Yet, here we are, subjected to extraordinary pressure from major systems represented by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to liberalise all sectors, including agriculture. This is a strange duality, especially when economic studies and research confirm that government subsidies in the European Union and the United States can reach up to 70%—an abnormal and perhaps unethical figure when the same nations impose on us the reduction of agricultural subsidies for our national production. Even more ironic is that our markets are wide open to everyone, while their markets are fortified with high walls and gates barricaded by trade barriers against our exports. What is truly shameful locally is finding among us those who support them and preach the sanctity of removing agricultural subsidies as a magical solution to our problems. The victims, as usual, are the simple folk of this society, like Um Rida, who lost her livelihood because of Chinese guavas.

This article is originally published by AlBorsa in Arabic and later AI-translated by South Push.