Recently, an incident in Kailu County, Inner Mongolia, about farmers contracting land and being obstructed by village cadres, has attracted widespread attention on the Internet.
According to the disclosure, as early as 2004, some farmers in Shuangsheng Village, Kailu County, had signed a 30-year land contract agreement with the village committee. At that time, it was agreed that the 5,600 acres of saline-alkali wasteland would only need to pay a contract fee of 0.94 yuan per mu per year.
However, over time, this former saline land has been cultivated by farmers and has become fertile and high-quality arable land. Just as the peasants were about to start spring ploughing, the village cadres suddenly called "911" and demanded that all peasant households pay an additional 200 yuan per mu per year as a "supplementary contract fee", otherwise they would not be allowed to enter the field to farm.
This demand is undoubtedly like a slap in the face, which makes the contracted farmers feel extremely wronged.
As soon as the news was exposed, it immediately sparked a heated discussion on the Internet. In the field of public opinion, the merits of the actions of the two sides are basically polarized:
Just when the two sides were fighting with each other, you came and went, the Kailu County Government also responded. In a notice, the county government said that the village and town cadres involved in the incident had violated the rules and had been removed from relevant leadership positions, but it seemed that the question of whether the contract fee should be increased was still somewhat secretive and vague.
Looking back at the ins and outs of the whole matter, it is not difficult to see that there is a fundamental difference of interest between the two sides.
Although the farmers contribute a lot of labor and costs, they may also lack the awareness of thinking about the village collective. Otherwise, if a dynamic fee adjustment mechanism had been established in the first place, or the sharing ratio had been stipulated, it would not have led to today's predicament.
Therefore, in order to resolve this difference, the two sides need to listen to each other's demands with empathy, in addition to more communication on specific policies and measures. Only by understanding each other and actively looking for the convergence of interests with an inclusive mind can we truly achieve a win-win situation.
Ideally, the ultimate solution to such disputes should undoubtedly be to establish an institutionalized and standardized adjustment mechanism that clearly defines the rights and obligations of the government, the collective, and the peasant households, so as to prevent the destruction of individual interests and the damage to collective interests.
In this process, the village committee and relevant departments must enhance the awareness of openness and transparency, absorb the public opinion at the grassroots level as much as possible, and obtain the greatest public recognition. After all, the vitality of any system comes from the support and support of the masses.