Only when farmers' rights are fully in place can the dormant vitality of the countryside be awakened
The General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council recently issued the "Comprehensive Implementation Plan for Deepening Rural Reform." The plan requires that at present and for some time to come, deepening rural reform should focus on five major areas, including the rural collective property rights system. Experts point out that clearly defined property rights are the core of a market economy, and how to bring the countryside's “dormant assets” to life and let farmers enjoy more property rights has become an unavoidable issue for the next stage of rural reform. (Beijing Times, November 3)
At a time when market-oriented reform is advancing in depth, the introduction of this plan is very timely and has set out top-level design thinking for our country's rural reform. Firmly grasping the property rights system, the “ox's nose” of the market economy, also grasps the key to rural reform and is highly targeted.
Starting from the “household contract responsibility system” at the beginning of reform and opening up, China's countryside went through a vigorous period of development: rural productivity was liberated, the country's foundation was stabilized, and the broad masses of farmers also gained tangible benefits. However, with the economic and social development of recent years, especially the advancement of market-oriented reform, the countryside has also faced some severe problems.
The most important of these lies in unclear ownership of collective assets, unclear rights and responsibilities, lax protection, and poor circulation. Under such circumstances, the rights of the broad masses of farmers have been greatly harmed, and they cannot fairly share the fruits of reform. Clearly defining property rights is already a key issue that cannot be avoided any longer.
Specifically, there are mainly two forces harming farmers' rights today: the government's forceful expropriation of farmland in the process of urbanization, and the rural collective's exploitation of farmers' individual rights and interests. Urbanization is the general trend. Only by unswervingly advancing urbanization can China possibly achieve leapfrog development and narrow the wealth gap between urban and rural areas and even among various social groups. But in this process, some local governments use administrative force to deprive farmers of their right to land income, drive farmers upstairs; then resell cheaply expropriated farmland to obtain huge price differences, shifting the cost of urbanization onto farmers. Doing so is obviously problematic.
This time the central government clearly states that it will give farmers more property rights, and explore a paid use system for homestead land and a voluntary paid exit mechanism, and explore effective ways for farmers to mortgage, guarantee, and transfer housing property rights. This should be said to conform to the market economy system and to farmers' rights and interests.
In addition, the problem of rural collective organizations arbitrarily transferring farmland is also very serious. Although the state has always stressed that guidance and supervision of rural grassroots organizations should be strengthened, the effect has not been obvious. Many heads of rural collectives still remain outside supervision, and the phenomenon of “small officials committing huge graft” is very serious. An article in the October issue of China Discipline Inspection and Supervision disclosed that last year, when the Discipline Inspection Commission of Yanta District in Xi'an handled petition letters transferred by the Central Inspection Team, it found that Yu Fan, former director of the Dongtan Community in Zhangba Street, Yanta District, privately transferred collective land, accepting a single bribe of 50 million yuan, with the total amount involved reaching as high as 120 million yuan.
On the surface, these problems are a matter of the quality of individual village officials, but the root cause still lies in the excessive power of rural collectives over land and other issues. Therefore, how to further strengthen constraints on rural collectives and advance reform of the rural collective property rights system deserves in-depth study. At the very least, farmers' specific interests in land should be clarified, and confirmation of collective assets to households should be effectively advanced. Only in this way can repeated obstructive behavior be avoided.
The countryside is the foundation of the country. Only when farmers' rights are truly in place can the erosion and exploitation from all sides be resisted and the countryside's “dormant vitality” be awakened.