Protecting Farmers' Interests Is the Prerequisite for Releasing the Dividends of Land Reform
Xi Jinping chaired the seventh meeting of the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reform on the 2nd. The meeting reviewed the "Opinions on the Pilot Work of Rural Land Expropriation, Entry of Collective Operational Construction Land into the Market, and Reform of the Homestead System." The meeting pointed out that the three bottom lines must be upheld - the nature of public ownership of land must not be changed, the red line for cultivated land must not be breached, and farmers' interests must not be harmed - and that progress should be advanced in an orderly manner on the basis of pilot projects. This also means that the curtain on a new round of land reform is about to officially rise, and other supporting documents concerning rural land reform will also be introduced one after another, driving rural land reform forward in depth.
As is well known, land is the most basic factor of production and life. Over the years, urban land has been severely activated, and in some places it has even been over-activated. Rural land, however, has long remained in a relatively lagging and rigid state, without forming a normal circulation mechanism, which has resulted in low efficiency in both the use and operation of land, and has even led to abandoned and idle land in many places. Even when circulation occurs, many contradictions and problems have arisen because the relevant legal systems are not properly matched or coordinated. In particular, the lack of protection for farmers' interests has already made farmers fearful and worried about land circulation.
Obviously, the new reform opinions make "farmers' interests not being harmed" one of the three bottom lines that cannot be breached, adding a safety net to the new round of land reform and also adding a psychological line of defense for the broad masses of farmers. Because without this line of defense, the broad masses of farmers would resist land reform and might even become the greatest obstacle to rural land reform.
This is indeed the case. Looking back over more than thirty years of reform work, whenever the interests of the masses have been placed in a prominent position, reform has generally been easier to advance. Conversely, when that has not been done, it has been much more difficult to advance. Comparing reforms in the medical system, the education system, and state-owned enterprises, all have seen problems in which the interests of the masses were not safeguarded and were harmed. In particular, reform of the real estate market seriously damaged the interests of the broad masses, leaving huge hidden dangers for economic and social development and creating a serious psychological shadow for the broad masses.
Because rural land reform involves a broader scope and more people, and because land is the main source of livelihood and the main guarantee of life for farmers, as well as the survival condition on which farmers most depend, if in the course of reform we cannot fully learn the lessons of the past and cannot fully consider and protect farmers' interests in the design of reform plans and the formulation of supporting policies, so that farmers do not suffer harm to their interests because of land reform, this is the key to the success or failure of rural land reform and the prerequisite for whether the dividends of land reform can be effectively released.
Judging from the explorations and practices in rural land reform in various places in recent years, although it has also been emphasized that the lawful rights and interests of the broad masses of farmers must be safeguarded and that their interests must not be infringed upon, in actual operation the phenomenon of harming farmers' interests still occurs from time to time and can be seen everywhere. For example, in land expropriation, it is basically a matter of a single document and a single notice transferring the land operated by farmers to the name of the government or an enterprise, and compensation to farmers is also at an extremely low standard. It is impossible to know how much benefit some enterprises have seized from farmers in this way. Nor is it possible to know how many farmers have lost their source of livelihood and basic living security because of land expropriation. Another example is the issue of homestead land. When the government and enterprises requisition farmers' homestead land, because there are no corresponding legal title certificates, compensation standards are all very low, which objectively also creates the phenomenon of harm to the broad masses of farmers' interests. In particular, the transfer of land management rights is so low in value that it can almost be ignored. As a result, farmers in many places already have a strong psychological resistance to land being expropriated or transferred.
Judging from the content of this reform, although it includes three aspects - land expropriation, entry of collective operational construction land into the market, and reform of the homestead system - the core is to liberalize land management rights, that is, under the conditions that ownership remains unchanged and contracting rights remain unchanged, to make management rights "active" through land circulation, to make land "active," and to raise the efficiency and level of land use. When land management rights are involved, farmers' interests are inevitably involved, as is the question of whether farmers' interests can be placed in a prominent position in the process of transferring land management rights. Because among the three bottom lines, local governments, enterprises, and investors generally do not dare to touch the issues of land ownership and the cultivated land red line, and they understand the stakes involved. Moreover, the relevant approval systems and land-use plans will also impose effective constraints and limits on them. The annual land inspections supervise these aspects. It is only the issue of farmers' interests not being harmed that is often insufficiently rigid and too flexible, leaving local governments and enterprises ample room to maneuver. In recent years, the various mass incidents and rectification cases surrounding land have mostly been related to the lack of protection for farmers' interests and to harm done to farmers' interests.
More importantly, even after mass incidents and serious cases occur, in the process of handling them it is often impossible to fully and completely protect farmers' interests, and the interests of farmers and land are not truly linked together. Precisely because of this, whether a new round of land reform can truly release the dividends of reform depends on whether farmers' interests are protected, which has become the prerequisite and a problem that must first be clarified and resolved. Therefore, when formulating relevant reform plans and supporting policies, it is essential first to solicit the opinions of the broad masses, to listen to what thoughts and suggestions the broad masses of farmers have about these reform policies and plans, so as to ensure to the greatest extent that farmers' interests are not damaged. In that way, resistance to reform will be greatly reduced.
In short, rural land reform will inject new vitality into rural economic and social development and will also add strong momentum to the entire economic and social development. The key lies in how we treat farmers, how we treat farmers' interests, and how we treat farmers' rights, which have never existed before.