 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||
LGI / Resources / CEE and CIS 1994 /RussiaMasha Lipman, Lyudmila Lapteva Moscow, 1994 Commissioned by the Institute for Local Government and Public Service INTRODUCTION A. Federative Organization Subjects of the Federation The Russian Federation is a federative state. It consists of 89 subjects of the federation. They include: – 21 republics (each republic is an ethnic administrative unit named after an indigenous ethnic group which in most cases constitutes a minority in this territory) – 6 krais (territorial units which incorporate smaller ethnic administrative units) – 49 oblasts (territorial units based on and named after large cities) – Moscow and St Petersburg (two cities with federal status) – Jewish autonomous oblast – 10 autonomous areas Governments and Charters Each of the 21 republics has its own constitution and its own president. Krais, oblasts, cities with federal status, the autonomous region and autonomous areas have charters and heads of administrations (governors). Each subject of the Russian Federation has its own legislative and executive bodies. Division of authority The division of authority between the Russian Federation and the subjects thereof is generally defined in Articles 71–3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Levels of Jurisdiction The Constitution of the Russian Federation defines two levels of jurisdiction: the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation; the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the subjects thereof. B. Legal Disorganization in Today's Russia Unsettled division of authority It should be pointed out, however, that even though the Constitution de jure defines the division of authority, de facto the situation is unsettled and disorganized. It is important to understand the existing tensions between the federal government and the subjects of the Russian Federation, since according to Article 72 of the Constitution, 'establishment of general guidelines for the organization of the system of bodies of state power and local self-government' falls under joint jurisdiction. Republics vs. oblasts: dispute over status Ever since it proclaimed its sovereignty in 1990 the Russian Federation has been caught in the controversy over the degree of autonomy of the subjects of the Russian Federation. There are two main aspects of this controversy. Even though Article 5 of the Constitution states that all the subjects of the Russian Federation are equal, the republics insist on a higher status and more authority. Oblasts do not agree and have repeatedly expressed harsh indignation over the republics' claims. This dispute dramatically aggravated the framing of the Constitution in 1993 and repeatedly drove the constitutional process into a deadlock. One episode in this struggle was the attempt in 1993 by the Sverdlovsk oblast to proclaim itself the 'Ural republic', with its own constitution and president, thus securing a higher status for itself. By his Decree of November 1993, President Yeltsin declared the self-proclaimed republic illegitimate and disbanded the unruly legislators. It would be wrong to believe, however, that this finally resolved the problem. The new legislature of the Sverdlovsk oblast is currently discussing a new charter which is reported in the press to be barely different from the annulled constitution of the abolished Ural republic. Moreover, the dismissed former governor of the Sverdlovsk oblast who once aspired to become the Ural republic president is going to run for governor in the next elections. Degree of autonomy of the constituent republics The second aspect of the controversy is the degree of autonomy granted to the constituent republics. In 1990 President Yeltsin made a historic statement that has been repeatedly quoted by the republics' leaders ever since: 'Take as much sovereignty as you can swallow.' Today, of the 21 republics listed in the Constitution, one, the Chechen republic, can be regarded in many respects as an independent state. It does not pay any federal taxes, and its leaders officially declared they would not delegate any authority to the federal powers in Moscow. There is hardly anything the federal authorities can do, except make hopeful statements that Chechnya 'will come back', as the speaker of the lower house of the Russian parliament said in early June 1994. The constitutions of several other republics, such as Tatarstan, Tuva, and Bashkortostan, include provisions defining a degree of sovereignty that is in conflict with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. For example, Tatarstan has secured special status for itself and even made a bilateral treaty with the Russian Federation. Other republics, such as Bashkortostan and Yakutiya, show interest in making similar bilateral treaties with the federal government that would provide them with special status too. Both issues mentioned above have been repeatedly used as bargaining points by the federal government in its attempts to enlist the support of the regional leaders in various political clashes. C. Rule by Decree Abolition of representative branch The legislative muddle dramatically increased in the aftermath of the events of September–October 1993 when President Yeltsin disbanded the Supreme Soviet, the federal legislative body of the country, thereby halting the federal law-making process in Russia. Subsequent decrees suspended the operation of representative bodies at all levels, delegated their authority to respective administrations, and ordered that representative bodies be reformed and new elections be held. Legislative muddle The absence of vitally important laws in the Russian legislation pushes the country towards continued rule by decree. On the other hand, the combination of presidential decrees, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the constitutions and charters of the subjects of the federation and the uncoordinated laws made by legislators of different levels result in legal entanglements and confusion. In May and June 1994 the State Duma (lower chamber of the Russian parliament) made an attempt to bring the constitutions and charters of the subjects of the federation into line with the Russian Constitution. Also, hearings were held on the gaps in both federal and regional legislation and the lack of coordination between law-makers of different regions and levels. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that the Constitutional Court is still banned from executing its functions (its operation was halted by President Yeltsin's decree following the events of September – October 1993). This legislative chaos appears to have serious implications for self-government in the Russian Federation. There are cases of arbitrary rule by the authorities of subjects of the federation, when they interfere with or even prevent the development of the system of local self-government on their territories. (See section 2.4 for more details.) D. Varied Systems of Local Government The existing legislation on local self-government offers a broad range of local government arrangements varying from a rigidly centralized soviet-type organization, as in the Republic of Mordovia, to a reinstituted pre-revolutionary system of volost self-government, as in the Yaroslavl oblast. 1 BASIC STATISTICAL DATA 1.1 Size of territory and population Size of territory: 17.1 million square kilometres Population: 148.7 million (1993) Number of pensioners: 36.4 million (1993) Number of school-age children: 35.2 million (1993) Population density: approximately 8.7 inhabitants per square kilometre Major ethnic divisions: Russians account for 81.5 per cent of the population of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as RF). Non-Russian inhabitants of the RF can be divided into three groups: – indigenous peoples who have their own ethnic territorial units in the RF (41 peoples, collectively accounting for 12 per cent of the population of the RF; Tatars are the most numerous people [3.8 per cent] of this group); – indigenous peoples of the former republics of the USSR (14 peoples, collectively accounting for 5.3 per cent of the population of the RF; Ukrainians are the most numerous people (3.0 per cent) of this group; – peoples who do not have ethnic territorial units in Russia or the former USSR (37 peoples, collectively accounting for 1.2 per cent of the population of the RF). 1.2 Per capita GDP and unemployment Per capita GDP: 1,720 USD (1993) Unemployment rate: 1.4% (May 1994) (expected to reach 1.7% by mid-summer 1994) Inflation rate: 8.1% (monthly rate of May 1994) It is hard to estimate the share of local government budgets in the GDP or the share of local government budgets in general government expenditure, since as of this writing (June 1994) the 1994 state budget is still an issue of heated debate in parliament and a matter of harsh conflict between its two chambers. 1.3 Number of settlements by size (1991) Cities, towns and 'urban settlements'
Of these, 'urban settlements' account for about two-thirds, and towns and cities for about one-third. The number of rural settlements (1991): Number of selsovets (groups of villages): over 23,000. More detailed information unavailable. 1.4 Number of local governments and middle-tier governments (1991) – 89 governments of the subjects of the federation. – Over 3,000 town and city local self-governments. – About 400 raion governments with an indefinite status (see section 3.1.1). – About 23,000 selsovet self-governments. 1.5 Number of civil servants The law on civil service in the RF has been drafted but not yet passed. So there is no official definition of 'civil servant'. The State Agency of Statistics explained that they will no sooner begin collecting this information than there will be a definition. 2 LEGAL BASIS 2.1 Constitutional provisions 2.1.1. Legal authority and types of local governments Local self-government in the Russian Federation shall ensure an independent solution, by the population, of local issues, and of the ownership, use and disposition of municipal property (Article 130, provision 1, Constitution). The bodies of local self-government shall independently manage municipal property, form, approve and execute the local budget, establish local taxes (Article 132, provision 1, Constitution).Local self-government shall be guaranteed the right to judicial protection, compensation for any additional expenses arising from the decisions passed by the bodies of state power (Article 133, Constitution). The territory of the RF is divided into 89 subjects of the federation. They are further divided into smaller administrative units (raions [districts]; cities and towns; selsovets [groups of villages] and villages) in which local governments operate. Every municipality has its own elected representative body. The two federal cities (Moscow and St Petersburg) have special status and special organizations defined in pertinent presidential decrees. (See also the Introduction.) 2.1.2 Roles and responsibilities assigned The subjects of the federation may act within the joint jurisdiction (see Introduction, section A). Outside of the jurisdiction of the RF and the joint jurisdiction, the subjects of the RF shall exercise the entire spectrum of state power. Since currently there is no standing law on local self-government, the competence of local self-government is undefined. In general, the municipal governments carry out the tasks concerning local affairs and those delegated to them by the subjects of federation. The decision to allocate a task to the local government is taken by the administration of the subject of the federation. 2.2 Major specific laws on public administration and local governments – Law of the RF of 6 July 1991 on Local Self-Government in the RF (largely modified by most of the decrees listed below, and will be replaced by a new Law on General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the RF, drafted and currently submitted to the parliament) – Law of the RF of 15 April 1993 on the Fundamentals of Budget Rights and the Rights to Form and Use Off-Budget Funds of the Representative and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Republics within the RF, the Autonomous Region, Autonomous Areas, Krais, Oblasts and Cities of Moscow and St Petersburg – Presidential Decree No. 1617 of 9 October 1993 on the Reform of Representative Bodies of Power and Local Self–Government Bodies in the RF – Presidential Decree No. 1723 of 23 October 1993 on the Fundamentals of the Organization of State Power in the RF – Presidential Decree No. 1738 of 24 October 1993 in Support of the Effort by the Governments of Moscow and Moscow Regional Soviet of People's Deputies to Reform the Bodies of State Government and Local Self-Government in Moscow and Moscow Region – Presidential Decree No. 1760 of 26 October 1993 on the Reform of Local Self-Government in the RF – Presidential Decree No. 2125 of 10 December 1993 on the General Principles of Administrative and Territorial Division and Organization of Local Self-Government in Moscow – Presidential Decree No. 2252 of 21 December 1993 on the Reform of the State Government Bodies in St Petersburg – Presidential Decree No. 2265 of 22 December 1993 on the Guarantees of Local Self-Government in the RF – Presidential Decree No. 557 of 21 March 1994 on Measures to Enforce the Reform of Local Self-Government – Cabinet Resolution No. 918 of 16 September 1993 on Certain Issues of the Organization and Operation of Voluntary Associations of Economic Cooperation Between the Subjects of Federation and the Bodies of Local Self-Government 2.3 Civil service legislation Presidential Decree No. 2267 of 22 December 1993 on Establishing the Provisions for Federal Civil Service 2.4 Major legal reforms in progress and their context The first stage of local government reform was marked by the adoption in 1991 of the Law on Self-Government in the RF. This law was passed with a view to reforming the old, rigidly centralized system of the soviets. In fact, the 1991 law provided for an organization quite similar to the hierarchical system of the soviets, rather than introducing local self-government in Russia. A new stage of reform began after the events of September – October 1993 when President Yeltsin suspended the operation of the representative branch by a series of decrees (see Introduction 2.1). By his Decree No. 1723 the President laid the basis for the reform of state power bodies in the subjects of federation and scheduled the elections to the representative bodies thereof to be held during the period from December 1993 till March 1994. (In several subjects of federation the elections have not been held yet.) Decree No. 1760 scheduled the elections of the representative bodies of local self-government for the period from December 1993 till June 1994 (it was recently extended until the autumn of 1994). The organization, election procedure and operation of local self-government bodies were largely left to the discretion of the legislators of the subjects of the federation. The latter, however, had yet to be elected. So in most subjects of the federation the legislators failed to come up with laws on local self-government in time. Since the federal Law on the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the RF (hereinafter referred to as Draft Law on Local Self-Government) has been only recently drafted and not yet adopted, the localities are currently electing the self-government bodies each in their own way. According to a presidential decree, the new local governments shall be elected in 1994 for a period of two years. An important reservation should be made here. In the absence of elected bodies of local self-government the municipalities are governed by the (appointed) administrative bodies. These bodies can hardly be referred to as self-government in the strict sense of the word, since they still remain part of the administrative hierarchy that has always existed in Russia. Only after representative bodies are elected will it be possible to reform local administrations, so that together they would constitute a system of more or less independent self-government. The Draft Law on Local Self-Government, with its general trend towards more self-rule and away from centralization, if and when it is adopted will significantly contribute to this process. The above remarks should be borne in mind when reading sections 3 to 5. What is described in these sections should by no means be considered as common practice. Rather, it is what the system of local self-government should be like according to pertinent presidential decrees and the newly drafted law, and what it may be like today in some parts of Russia (for example, self-government is being actively introduced in Yaroslavl oblast and is totally non-existent in Mordovia). 3 HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF AND COOPERATION 3.1 Main governmental subdivisions in the country 3.1.1. Hierarchical structure of the national and local administrations The Russian governmental system has three types of structure. The first one is the federal structure. It consists of federal ministries, state committees and other agencies with nationwide authority which operate through a hierarchical network of territorial bodies subordinated to them. Territorial administrative bodies may be organized from subjects of the federation or lower-tier administrative units. Federal jurisdiction includes issues such as finance and the budget, management of federal property, state security, defence, law enforcement and so on. The Constitution of the RF provides for a 'single system of executive power in the Russian Federation' (Constitution, Article 77). The second type of government structure is the system of governments of the subjects of the federation. The republics have their own republican ministries and prime ministers, while other subjects of the federation have administrations subdivided according to their areas of authority, and the heads of the administrations. The governments of the subjects of the federation operate in the framework of the joint jurisdiction of the RF and the subjects thereof. By agreement between the federal organs of executive power and those of the subjects of the federation, part of the executive authorities of the federal powers may be delegated to the subjects of the federation and vice versa. The third type of government structure is the system of local self-government. Its organization is defined by the administration of the subject of the federation, based on the principles defined in the federal law. Units of local self-government operate in raions (districts); cities and towns; selsovets (groups of villages) and villages. The status of raion self-government is not entirely clear. In the Leningrad oblast, for example, raions have only heads of administration, who are appointed and not elected, and no representative bodies. In the Amur oblast, raions have only administrative bodies and may elect a representative self-government body if they wish. The federal control over the operation of the subjects of the federation and local self-governments is executed by the Representative of the President, nominated by the head of the presidential administration, appointed by and directly subordinate to the President. He controls the operation of the bodies of local government. He makes statements of violations of presidential decrees and government resolutions and submits them to the bodies of local government. He also informs the Prosecutor's Office about these violations. The Representative of the President has no right to interfere with the operation of local government. Federal government or governments of the subjects of the RF cannot limit the rights of local self-government defined in the Constitution or federal legislation. 3.2 General distribution of functions among local, The functions of federal government are listed in section 3.1.1. The functions of the government of krai, oblast, federal city, autonomous region and autonomous area are defined in Presidential Decree No. 1723. They include the drawing up of the budget, management of that region's property, law enforcement and other matters of regional significance. The bodies of self-government should handle the 'matters of local significance' (defined in the Draft Law on Local Self-Government). In the event that the municipalities are delegated some part of the federal authority or the authority of the subject of the federation, appropriate subsidies should be provided for the implementation of the delegated functions. 3.3 Specific public services for which local governments are responsible The main functions of local governments are as follows: – local development – housing and public utilities – local public transport – consumer services and trade – municipal health care – municipal education: pre-school, secondary school and vocational school, in accordance with government educational standards – preservation of the local historical and cultural traditions – support of sports activities – maintenance of public order – environmental protection – establishment of the list of items of municipal property 3.4 Legal relationships between local and central government, and The resolutions passed by municipalities may only be annulled by the court. In the event that a body of self-government is delegated some part of the federal authority or the authority of the subject of the federation, its decisions may be cancelled by the appropriate government. Representatives of the President may also supervise the operation of municipal governments. For example, recently in several subjects of the federation (Yaroslavl oblast, Vologda oblast and some others) legal proceedings were instigated on the initiative of the Representatives of the President after violations of the law in the course of the municipal elections had been discovered. 3.5 Specific public services for which middle-tier See section 3.1.1. 3.6 Mandatory and voluntary forms of cooperation Since the system of local self-government has not yet fully developed and the existing local governments, in fact, operate as elements of the executive hierarchy (see section 2.4), there is barely a need for special forms of cooperation. However, some associations are being created in order to make joint efforts in carrying out certain tasks. Presidential Decree No. 918 of 1993 was issued in order to regulate their operation. Several public associations have been created with a view to promoting the idea of self-government in the RF in general, and to ease the plight of municipalities in particular: The Union of Small Cities, the Union of Russian Cities, and the Russian Union of Self-Government. 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND ACTIVITIES The current system of local government and local self-government will exist for two years (until 1996), i.e. during the period of the constitutional reform. This system consists of heads of administration of the subjects of the federation, representative bodies of these territories and lower-level government: administrations of raions, cities and towns, rural settlements and representative bodies of local self-government of the latter. 4.1 Electoral system In accordance with a presidential decree, universal, equal and direct elections have been held in the subjects of the federation over the period from December 1993 until the present (in several subjects of the federation the elections have not yet been held). The representative bodies of the subjects of the federation (called duma or otherwise) consist of no more than fifty people. The elections of the representative bodies of local self-government should be held before the autumn of 1994. Specific structures and forms of local self-government (for example, direct or representative democracy) shall be determined by the local community. In the localities in which the elections have already been held, representative bodies display a broad variety of arrangements. They are not even necessarily elected bodies. Thus, for example, in the Udmurt republic, the Mary El republic and the Kaliningrad oblast, only towns and raions (but not villages or selsovets) have representative bodies; in the Ryazan oblast only towns and villages (but not raions or selsovets) have them; in the Adygeya republic rural districts have bodies of self-government, while raions and towns have only units of state government subordinate to higher-level administration. The Yaroslavl oblast has a thoroughly elaborate system of local government of its own design. This list can be continued. 4.2 The internal structure of the legislative body Since all these bodies have only recently been elected (and some still have not), they are currently at a stage of formation and it is hard to tell anything about their internal structure. It can be predicted, however, that their internal structure will vary significantly in different territories. 4.3 Distribution of power between the legislative and the administrative body 4.3.1 Distribution of functions The representative body of the subject of the federation carries out legal regulation within its jurisdiction. It is a standing body. It discusses and approves the budget submitted by the head of the administration. It controls the execution of the adopted acts, the implementation of the budget and the disposition of the property of the subject of the federation. The representative body may organize its office and hire specialists on contract. At a lower level (raion, city, etc.) representative bodies of local self-government operate. According to a presidential decree of October 1993, they are non-standing bodies convoked by the head of the local self-government. The latter approves decisions taken by the representative body. The representative municipal body approves the local budget, levies local dues and taxes, approves the programme of local development and adopts the charter of local self–government. The representative body may hire specialists and set up commissions. The competence of the newly elected representative bodies is sometimes unlawfully reduced. For example, in Maritime krai or the Kaliningrad, Kurgan, Omsk, Orenburg and Perm oblasts, the representative bodies of local self-government are not endowed with any competence whatsoever. 4.3.2 Decision–making process and conflict resolution The main figure of the local government or self-government is the head of administration. He approves major decisions taken by the representative body pertaining to the budget and local taxes. The right of the representative body to control the operation of the administration is barely exercised. The charter of the Yaroslavl oblast provides for a conflict-resolution procedure by setting up reconciliatory commissions. 4.4 The administrative body The administrative bodies of local self-government have barely been formed yet. In most subjects of the federation the old administrative hierarchy still operates. It goes as far down as the city, town, raion, and sometimes even village level. These local administrations have large staffs which take orders from their superiors and implement the decisions taken by a higher-level administrative body. Since those higher-level administrative bodies are also entrusted with drawing up charters of local self-government, in many cases they draw them up so that the authority of those self–government bodies would be substantially diminished. 4.5 Institutions and companies run or controlled by local governments Local government maintains the majority of hospitals, schools, pre-school institutions and nursing homes. They also control personnel policy in these institutions. Recently municipal contribution to the financing of these areas has somewhat decreased, since private institutions have appeared. All the utilities, however, are still provided by municipalities. 4.6 Mechanisms for the redress of citizens' rights Since the law on local self-government has not been passed yet and local charters have not been finally approved either, the liabilities of local governments remain largely undefined. Following age-long tradition, the Russian citizens tend to file their complaints to the supreme authority, preferably the president of the country. 4.7 Citizens' participation in decision-making processes In some subjects of the federation, the local self-government in small rural and urban settlements (under 5,000 inhabitants) may be executed directly by the inhabitants in the form of a skhod (assembly). A local referendum shall be called on issues such as the redrawing of the borders of the administrative territorial unit, or confidence in the representative body. The decision to take a local referendum is made by the administration. Local administrative officials organize regular meetings with the inhabitants of the locality. 5 PUBLIC FINANCE 5.1 Major sources of revenue for the local government budget The subjects of the federation have secured a certain degree of economic independence (the degree varies significantly in different subjects of the federation; see also Introduction, section B). They have a relatively high share in the tax revenues collected in their territories. Each subject of the federation has its own established budget. Not infrequently the subjects of the federation unlawfully withhold a substantial part of the federal tax revenues. The municipalities, on the other hand, are almost fully economically dependent on the subjects of the federation and are practically deprived of their rights. The income structure of the local budget consists of the following elements: local dues and taxes, shared revenues, state grants and subventions, and bonds. Such is the theory. In fact, local taxes and dues account for an insignificant fraction of the income. Shared revenues consist of several items: profits tax imposed on enterprises, value added tax, personal income tax, enterprise property tax, revenues from the privatization of state and municipal property, revenues from the lease of municipal property, and some others. The representative bodies of the subjects of the federation establish within their jurisdiction the size of the local share of the revenues collected in raions, cities, towns and villages. The municipalities all over Russia express concern that an unfairly large share of the revenues collected in a city, town, village, etc. is taken away by the subject of the federation. The subjects of the federation have full discretion to establish this share, and the range is sometimes dramatic. For example, in 1993 the city of Tver was allowed to keep 3 per cent of the profits tax revenues, 4.3 per cent of value added tax and 5 per cent of personal income tax in the city budget (the rest was taken away by the Tver oblast administration). In the city of Yaroslavl these percentages amounted to 12, 10 and 80 per cent respectively. The legislation of some subjects of the federation does not provide guarantees of economic independence for the local self-government. Nor does it assign to the local budgets any concrete, permanent sources of financing. In some cases the budgets of cities, towns and villages have been abolished altogether, thus bringing to naught the very concept of local self-government. Some improvement may be expected after the Draft Law on Local Self-Government has been passed. Local budgets have traditionally relied on state grants. In rural settlements this income element is especially substantial. (See also Burning Issues, item iv) 5.2 Distribution of local government expenditures The expenditures are determined by the specific authority of the bodies of local self-government. They include items such as education, health care, heating, sport and culture. Since charters on local self-government have not been finally approved yet, the structure of expenditures still remains undefined. 5.3 Partnership between the public and private sectors Partnership between the public and private sectors is now emerging. Sometimes local businesses undertake the maintenance of some public institutions (such examples can be found in the Yaroslavl oblast). 5.4 Forms of financial cooperation among local governments No established forms of financial cooperation exist at the present moment. In case of necessity (for example, during natural disasters) the municipalities can solve problems jointly, including joint financing. 6 BURNING ISSUES Throughout its history Russia has always been a strong state with heavily centralized power. The first system of self-government in Russia (zemstvo), which developed rapidly for a few decades beginning in the 1860s, was totally wiped out by the Bolsheviks, and its experience was entirely forgotten. The Soviet regime, with its rigid centralization of power, diminished the role of law and tremendously expanded the role of the state, effectively eradicating the sense of responsibility, private incentive and community spirit (as opposed to Soviet collectivism) in the Russian people. (i) At present the system of self-government in Russia is being created from scratch, and even at its incipient stage it is already seriously endangered: a growing number of self-governments have recently been abolished by arbitrary decisions taken by the administrations of the subjects of the federation (see also section 2.4). By their acts the subjects of the federation encroach on the authority of the local bodies of self-government. They unlawfully diminish the competence of these bodies, dispose of the municipal property, form the local budgets and appoint the heads of administration as well as the members of the representative bodies of local self-government (this material was collected by a group of experts of the Duma Committee on Local Self-Government). This alarming tendency may be attributed to a noticeable shift in the political leadership of Russia towards a stronger and more centralized state. (ii) There is no appropriate legal basis; first and foremost there is no law on local self-government (see also section 2.4). (iii) There is no consensus among the subjects of the federation on the general concept of self-government or even on whether there should be self-government at all. The federal constitution, which provides for self–government in the RF, is not regarded as an unconditional mandate, at least by a few subjects of the federation. (iv) The municipalities do not have the financial independence that they are supposed to have in their capacity as the units of local self-government. Local taxes and shared tax revenues account for only a small fraction of self-government budgets. Otherwise, the municipalities are forced to beg for subsidies from either the federal government or the governments of the subjects of the federation. These governments then begin to encroach upon the authority of the municipality. This essentially leads to a restoration of the soviet-type system. (v) The concept of municipal property is still vague. The process of privatization is currently under way, and it is impossible to tell at this point what items will end up as federal, regional or municipal property. Consequently, it is unclear what property, business or real estate will be liable to municipal tax, or how much tax revenue the municipality can count on in the future. (vi) Psychologically, the inhabitants and leaders of small-size, especially urban, municipalities are not ready for self-government. The newly elected (or in some cases appointed) heads of local self–governments would rather seek advice from regional authorities (whom they still largely regard as their bosses) rather than from the members of their own community. (vii) The administrations of 'enterprise-centred' towns are encountering very serious problems related to privatization. Those cities were built in the Soviet past specially to serve the needs of big enterprises. The plant would be the raison d'etre as well as a source of means of subsistence for the city. The housing, the utilities, the services, all belonged to the enterprise. These days, as soon as the plant becomes a joint-stock venture it stops financing the infrastructure, since it is not profitable. The infrastructure then weighs upon the meagre municipal budget, which cannot bear this burden. In most cases this leads to a collapse of municipal services. Some municipalities try to attract private businesses to run the services and utilities. Most of the municipalities, however, feel discouraged, since they fear that the tax revenues collected from these businesses will be taken away by the administration of the subject of the federation. (viii) There is essentially no system of judicial protection of local self-government, first and foremost as far as property issues are concerned. There is an urgent need for administrative justice regarding local self-government, which would serve as a guarantor of the observation of human rights by both the bodies of local self-government and the state government. POSTSCRIPT: After the completion of this paper the chairman of the Duma Committee on Local Self-Government, in an interview with a Russian newspaper, expressed deep concern about the situation surrounding local self-government in the RF. He pointed out the following problems: – Many current acts, both federal and those of the subjects of the federation, do not confirm to the constitution of the RF. This is the situation despite the fact that the President, in February 1994, issued a decree requiring all acts regarding local self-government to confirm to the constitution within a one-month period. – The population of many raion centres (towns) has been deprived of the right to local self-government. – The authority of local representative branches has often been taken over by heads of local administration (appointed by a higher-tier administrative body) or by the local administrative body, whose members are also appointed from higher up. – Many bodies of local self-government have been stripped of their authority to dispose of municipal property or to form their local budget. – The majority of territories do not have any elected bodies whatsoever. Opposition to the development of local self-government in the RF (as explained in the interview) is due to the reluctance of higher-tier governments (federal and those of the subjects of the federation) to share power, property and finances with local governments. The Duma Committe on Local self-government thus stated their belief that the President should interfere and take measures to stop constitutional violations and to promote self-government in the RF. Acknowledgment: The authors would like to thank Gleb Chirkov and Ivan Gribakin of the Institute of State and Law for their help. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Economy of the Russian Federation in 1990 [Statistical Reference Book] (Republican Information Publishing Centre, Moscow, 1991; in Russian). 2. Code of Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (Official Publication of the Government of the Russian Federation, 1993, 1994 ; in Russian). 3. M.A. Krasnov, Introduction to Municipal Law (Law University Publishers with the Institute of State and Law, Moscow, 1993, in Russian). 4. Russian Federation (Bimonthly edition of the Russian government, issues 1 to 5, 1994), section 'Local Self-Government', in Russian. Other materials used in this paper are working materials of government agencies and research institutions and were obtained directly from government officials and research assistants. Romania < Index > SlovakiaLGI / Resources / CEE and CIS 1994 / |
|
