The character of the market economy is determined by the land market
HASAN HALILI
Minister of Agriculture and Food
Built on the economic foundation of the market economy, the Democratic Party’s Program would be absurd and unacceptable if it did not focus on, and make provision for, the land market. As immovable property, land obviously has many features and specific characteristics compared with other assets, which must be borne in mind; otherwise, undesirable consequences will be unavoidable. Added to this are the particular features of the path of land ownership—features that, looking only at the last five decades and going no further back, we can safely say are unique. We would like to illustrate this with an example: In Hungary, although kolkhoz-type cooperatives operated, the buying and selling of land was permitted, whereas here the purchase and sale of land did not exist even in the market economy. A landowner, meeting his personal needs to some extent by cultivating a very small part of his property, does not see a need to sell the rest, sometimes at any price offered, owing also to the highly conservative character of landowners. It is a fact that the proportion of land sold in our country before 1945 was not considerable.
Another point we would like to emphasize is that there can be no such thing as a communist agrarian reform; what is called communist reform is nothing other than a prelude to its destruction. This is not about politicizing the issue, but it would in no way serve the interests of land reform today if we based it on the Agrarian Reform of 1946, since these lands did not become fixed in the memory of ownership, if we may call it that, given that the duration of private ownership before collectivization was very short, sometimes only a few years. In any case, offering alternatives in relation to implementation is the easiest part, but whatever alternative for land reform we pursue, I do not think there is any alternative that does not take into account the time at which it is proposed. No one disputes the fact that, had these changes taken place before the 1970s, the shape of land reform would have been entirely different in terms of scale, form, and so on, all because social relations are now entirely different from those of that period.
In our surroundings, absurdities such as these can be seen: title deeds are considered “papers” issued by the government. Let us ask: in which country in the world are title deeds issued by cultural and sports associations rather than by governments? Moreover, this right belongs to our government, even though, I repeat, it was the heaviest burden, also because under the 1976 Constitution land was considered state property. We ourselves know what we did for 50 years and have seen the consequences. The path we are following has proved effective, since it has been followed by those countries we regard as models of democracy and the market economy.
—Given that farmers themselves are currently requesting the purchase and sale of land, why not register these sale contracts? This would prevent countless cases of disputes, since the land seller might deny having sold the land. (We emphasize that the legislation on registering sales is very comprehensive, was approved with 100% of the votes in parliament, and provides for compulsory registration.)
—Apart from the speculations mentioned above, the approval and entry into force of the law on the purchase and sale of land would make this transaction much more transparent: the price would be recorded for compensation purposes in the event of public construction, and the value of the land for tax purposes would also be determined.
—Since it would be regulated, suffice it to mention that all the necessary restrictions have been provided for, based also on our tradition, as well as the obligation to publish the offer publicly. This creates every possibility for canceling the sales contract when problems are anticipated. Being realistic that the problems of land reform have not reached a critical point, we anticipate difficulties too, but at the same time we see this as an instrument for consolidating the reform. Although the law provides for the sale of land for agricultural purposes only to Albanian citizens, the fear that foreigners, who are wealthier than us, will buy our land and deprive us of our territory is unfounded, since the sale of land to foreigners is permitted in almost all countries, and there is no verified case of a country’s territory being alienated through purchases.
Finally, the purpose of this article was not to respond to attacks against the Democratic Party and the Government, but we cannot remain silent when the false notes are so clear from those sounding the alarm over the “tragedy” that will come when the draft law on the purchase and sale of land enters into force. Attacking does not lend political credibility to those who on the one hand accept the reform and on the other say that the method should be different from the one being implemented in Albania.
example: In Hungary, although kolkhoz-type cooperatives operated, buying and selling land was permitted, whereas here land sales did not even exist in the vocabulary. Likewise, among the Eastern countries, Bulgaria has the highest proportion of rural inhabitants, 23% (in the other Eastern countries this proportion is very low, while here, in the first year of the transition, the figure was 70%). In none of the countries mentioned above was free movement from one area to another, or from village to city, prohibited, making it possible to achieve a more or less uniform distribution of the rural population. Comparisons and comments are unnecessary here.
While attempting to address the necessity of a land market, it is also necessary to say something about land reform in general, since although this reform has been called communist, the draft law on land sales is treated by today’s propaganda, which has replaced the earlier propaganda, as a criminal act.
Land reform has been characteristic of many capitalist countries at different stages of their development. It has been prompted by the evident fact that agricultural production had stagnated, as well as by the need for social change. The reforms in Italy, Germany and France, Japan, and especially Latin America at the beginning of this century, are enough to convince anyone that land reform, although very difficult to carry out, has existed for a long time. Whereas in any other branch of the economy, competition itself establishes acceptable proportions even without state intervention, when it comes to land, reform is unavoidable, since here, to some extent, the operation of the laws of ... is concealed.
... the agrarian reform of 1946, since these lands could may call it that, given that the period a few days.
Changes in territory or cadastral categories, a three- or fourfold increase in the population, and the very high proportion of rural inhabitants, along with many other factors, dictated the need for land reform in order to enter the path of a market economy, unlike the various forms of highly centralized economy that we had, without needing to dwell on them.
At the outset of a market economy and political and economic pluralism, there were two paths: either land reform (as we did) or leaving the land in state ownership (as it was). The alternative we chose is a fact that has been welcomed.
Despite the flaws in the “On Land” law, it is a land-reform law, as are the proposals put forward by other parties or associations. The difference, then, lies in the scale of this reform, which, ultimately, is set out and envisaged in the programs of political parties; in other words, these are simply differences between programs. As for departures from, or deviations in implementation compared with, the program, in Albania these can be observed only in the case of the party in power, namely the Democratic Party, since it was the first to come to power at the beginning of the market economy. And it is not just a rhetorical claim to say that there have been deviations.
We do not claim that the “On Land” law is perfect in particular, or that our land-reform legislation is perfect in general. It is also clear that it is very easy to put forward alternatives on land, and although it is easy, the other parties have carefully avoided taking a direct position on the issue.
... the agrarian reform of 1946, since these lands could may call it that, given that the period a few days.
Under the 1976 law, land was considered state property; thus, by taking the opposite path to the nationalization of land, the government can act only through a title of ownership. Whether or not it corresponds to the old title in terms of location, as well as the quantity and quality of the land, is another issue and must never be confused with the first.
No political force in the world, when it assumes the government of a country through the free vote of the people, bears moral responsibility, let alone material responsibility, for the actions of previous governments—and this is even more pronounced in the case of overthrown totalitarian systems.
Nevertheless, the DP, both in its program and in practice, has not only morally rehabilitated those who were discriminated against, but is also making broad efforts to provide material compensation to various strata of the population. But these efforts must always be made in such a way that the measures do not inflict wounds on other strata of the population; otherwise, what meaning would the victory of democracy have?
Since land reform forms the foundation of economic reform in general, it would make no sense for this foundation to be protected “with an umbrella” amid the storm of the market economy.
Or, if buying and selling is one of the most effective ways—if not the only one—to concentrate agricultural production, something sought by all sides, then we should unite to consolidate what has come into being with difficulty, rather than pouncing on it to search with a magnifying glass for its shortcomings; otherwise, we will begin experimenting with
cultural and sports associations, not by governments. All the more reason why this right belongs to our government, although we stress once again that Constitution land was considered state property; therefore, its shortcomings; otherwise, we will begin experimenting with ...
In the early morning hours, KFOR attacked the Kosovo village near the town of Peja, whose inhabitants were Serbs attacking an Albanian-inhabited Kosovo village, official sources in Brussels announced. According to KFOR spokesperson James Sasini, the attack destroyed a Serbian tank and forced 500 Albanian inhabitants to abandon their village. The attack began on 29 March as part of a defensive operation against attacks on the village of Çushë, in which one Albanian was killed and 12 others were wounded. SASINI said that during the four-hour attack, NATO troops arrested eight Serbs, including 10 members of the Kosovo Liberation Army. accompanied by the offering of sacrificial animals happiness during the coming religious holidays. As always, Catholic and Orthodox believers met and embraced with the characteristic Albanian warmth during visits to their Muslim brothers and sisters.
To mark the day, RTVSH broadcast special programs, which added to the festive atmosphere.
TARIK LLAGAMI
About 30 minutes of conversation at the Shijak mosque, along with the Eid al-Adha greetings, were devoted to exchanging views on resolving various problems raised by representatives of the Muslim faith in Shijak. The Presidency was fully represented by President Berisha. The President departed Shijak, once again exchanging greetings with the local people.