Kumane through History: Resilience, Revolution, and National Pride – In this category, we explore the deep connection between Kuman and the struggle for freedom, analyzing historical events and their impact on contemporary understanding of national identity.

Share this page on social media

Unjust Land Distribution in the District: Conflict Between Poor Peasants and Privileged Landowners
Featured

Unjust Land Distribution in the District: Conflict Between Poor Peasants and Privileged Landowners

It is well known that the issue of the division, leasing, and use of wetland arose from the very first days of the establishment of the District and remained unresolved throughout its existence. This was due to the fact that the Chamber had feudal rights to all that land, while the District leased it for a relatively high price on a long-term basis. To meet its obligations to the Chamber, the District further subdivided this land and leased it to individuals for a limited time. The division of land was carried out by a commission, which led to many abuses. Those closest to the authorities, rather than the landless poor, were most often the ones who received land.

This situation led to dissatisfaction and conflict, not only between the residents and the District authorities but also among the residents themselves. Two factions emerged: the Carbonari and the Factors. The former were the land dividers who made up the majority of the population. They were mainly landless and poor peasants who received poor-quality land. Therefore, they energetically demanded a new, fairer distribution of land. The latter were the non-dividers—Factors—who constituted a minority of the population but were a decisive factor in society at the time. They were landowners of larger land complexes and enjoyed considerable land privileges because they were close to the district and state authorities. They were staunch opponents of a new land division.

These opposing forces became particularly evident in 1826 when the Carbonari in Kumane sought elections for a new municipal administration and demanded that their supporters be allowed to run, even though the term of the old administration had not expired. The administration discussed how to avoid this situation and recommended that neutral candidates—those not belonging to either faction—be put forward. However, as there were none, it was decided to nominate three candidates from both parties. In the end, they lacked the courage to do even that, fearing a Carbonari victory. Consequently, the Magistrate decided "not to nominate any of the leaders who have been negotiating and making 'collectives' for complaints for the past seven years," but instead proposed their own candidates: for judge, Živan Sekulić, and for the oath-takers (eshkutes, councilors), Toša Živković and Kuzman Ćurčić. Kuzman Mučalov was a reserve candidate for judge.

There are no records of the election results. It can be concluded that the Carbonari party must have been numerous and combative to have attempted to impose their candidates for municipal administration on the Magistrate.

When preparations were made for the municipal administration elections in 1841, the Magistrate proposed candidates through the supervising senator: Steva Nikolić for judge, Marko Blažić, Pavle Nikolajević, Steva Stančić, Acko Zokić, Jevta Odžić, Mija Maksić, Steva Baračkova, Paja Ubavića, Proka Kovačeva, and Proka Borjanova. Steva Nikolić was first, Marko Blažić second, and Pavle Nikolajević third. In case one of them declined the nomination, the Magistrate proposed Acko Zokić as a reserve candidate.

According to the instructions from the supervising senator on the day of the elections, "the entire municipality will gather from house number to number and propose candidates for judge, excluding from voting all those who do not own houses and real estate, and voting will be done freely by grains, according to the established custom, to elect both the judge and the oath-takers. After the restoration (elections), the chosen ones will take an oath, and the Magistrate will receive inventories and instructions that were provided to the newly elected court."

From this, it is clear that the rural poor without houses or property had no voting rights in the election of local authorities, despite making up a significant portion of the rural population.

Related Articles

Comments

0