Organization of local government in the Soviet period. Development of local self-government during the Soviet period
ABSTRACT
on the topic: “Local self-government in Soviet Russia and the USSR"
Literature:
I . Main
Burov A. N. Local self-government in Russia: historical traditions and modern practice. M., 2000.
Velikhov L.A. Fundamentals of urban management. General teaching about the city, its management, finances and economic methods. M., 1999.
Eremyan V.V., Fedorov M.V. History of local government in Russia. Part II. M., 1999.
History of public administration in Russia: Textbook / Edited by prof. V. G. Ignatova. Ed. 3rd. Rostov n/a: Phoenix. 2003.
Prusakov Yu. M., Nifanov A. N. Local self-government of Russia. Rostov n/d., 2003.
II . Additional
Institutions of self-government: historical and legal research. Section 1. - M., 1999.
Municipal law Russian Federation. Textbook./ Ed. Kutafina O. E., Fadeeva V. I. - M., 2002.
Local government. Basics systematic approach. Textbook./ Ed. Koguta A.E., Gnevko V.A. - St. Petersburg, 2001.
Constitutional law of the Russian Federation. Textbook. Baglay M.V., Gabrichidze B.N. – M., 2001.
History of local government in Russia. Eremin V.V., Fedorov M.V. – M., 1999.
Introduction
After the October Revolution of 1917, the country developed a system of power in which all representative bodies (from top to bottom) were part of a single system of state power. This, naturally, changed the ideas about local self-government as self-government of the population that existed before the revolution. In other words, local self-government in the form of Councils of People's Deputies actually began to represent the lower level of the unified state apparatus.
Note that until October 1917, as noted by Yu.M. Prusakov and A.N. Nifanov, the Soviets, which arose during the first revolution (1905-1907) and were revived during the period of the Provisional Government, operated for a short period of time - in April 1917 there were more than 700 of them.
According to Professor E.M. Trusova, the Provisional Government carried out the reorganization of local self-government and changes in the electoral system in accordance with its appeal “To the Citizens of Russia” of March 6, which proclaimed the overthrow of the old order and the birth of a new free Russia.
The issue of elections of self-government bodies, in which all major groups of citizens would be represented, became one of the most important on the agenda. On April 15, the government established temporary rules for the elections of city councils and their councils, according to which it was allowed to immediately begin preparing new elections, without waiting for the publication of an electoral law.
The urban masses advocated the creation of democratized self-government without restrictions on their activities by the administration. However, it was quite difficult to achieve independence of municipal bodies. There was confusion in the management system, contradictions: in the structure and powers of the authorities. Preparations for the elections were carried out in the context of an aggravated political situation in the country and the region.
Local authorities were required to quickly respond to pressing life issues and actions. To solve the problems facing them, the Dumas and their councils had to develop flexible management technologies, form their own apparatus of employees, establish strong connections with Petrograd authorities, to establish bilateral information. City councils and executive public committees were involved in preparing the elections for new councils. The latter also temporarily performed the duties of city councils during the election period. The current composition of the Duma elected election commissions.
The elections were held using a proportional system. Government decrees were sent to the localities explaining the procedure for carrying them out. The electoral district in the city could be divided into sections, election commissions were created under the chairmanship of the mayor, as well as three members invited by the chairman from among the voters. Electoral lists were compiled by the city government. Complaints and protests about violations of election proceedings were filed with the district court, whose decisions could be appealed to the Governing Senate.
Voter lists in their final form were prepared by commissions under the general supervision of provincial and regional commissars. The lists were compiled not alphabetically, but in the order in which they were nominated. The list number was assigned by the commission in the order in which it was received for registration. Any group of city residents or social movements or political parties could nominate their candidates. However, it was required that the number of persons declaring a list of their candidates was at least half the number of public officials in a given city to be elected according to government regulations: City councils accepted complaints from citizens about the incorrect completion of the lists or their absence from them. The procedure for holding elections was explained orally and in the press. In the cities of the region, leaflets “Techniques for elections to the City Duma” were posted.
The October Revolution made fundamental changes in the formation of the system of local authorities and its structure.
1. Councils as a combination of elements of state power and self-government.
In October 1917, there were over 1,430 Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies and over 450 Soviets of Peasants' Deputies. Let us note that in the Don and Kuban there were also Soviets of Cossack and Peasant Deputies.
But for the most part, they based their activities not on legislative acts issued by the authorities, but on the opinions and wishes of the masses. The councils themselves most often determined the quantitative composition of deputies and developed their own powers and structure. Naturally, already at the end of 1917 it became clear that the existing Soviets, which to a certain extent possessed elements of independence and autonomy, came into conflict with the strict centralization of state bodies. For the Bolsheviks based the organization of local self-government on the principle of the sovereignty of the Soviets and their unity as bodies of state power.
As noted by A.N. Boers, the role and importance of local Soviets were initially politicized, they were considered as the primary cells for the implementation of the “proletarian dictatorship”. They were presented not only and not so much as bodies for solving local problems on the basis of public initiative, but rather as bodies through which the “working and exploited masses” would realize their class interests.
Analyzing the reform of local self-government in Russia at the end of 1917, V.V. Eremyan and M.V. Fedorov noted that since October 1917, the fate of zemstvo and city self-government structures was largely determined by the recommendations of the Soviet government sent to local Soviets to use the apparatus of these bodies to implement and implement locally the first decrees of the new government, as well as the real situation in the corresponding province or city. Already on October 27, 1917, a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars “On expanding the rights of city self-governments in food matters” was adopted, in accordance with which all locally available food should be distributed exclusively through city self-government bodies.
By the end of December 1917, the new government's attitude towards the institutions of the old self-government was changing: December 27, 1917. By decree of the Councils of People's Commissars the Zemstvo Union was dissolved. By the spring of 1918, the liquidation of all zemstvo and city local government bodies was completed. Until March 20, 1918 The People's Commissariat for Local Self-Government operated, but after the Left Socialist Revolutionaries left the coalition government (with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries), it was abolished as an independent institution.
After strengthening the Soviets in provincial and district centers, they immediately began organizing Soviets in volosts and villages.
The concept of “council,” despite the essentially random nature of its origin, was destined to play an outstanding role in the state and political system of Russia. The origins of the formation of this concept, according to V.V. Eremyan and M.V. Fedorov, were ideas about democracy as a system of governance with the help of boards. The College (or Council) is the ideal form in which democratic government is embodied, from the point of view of Calvin, the English Puritanists, the Jacobins or the Russian Marxists. Initially, the creators of the Soviet system were unlikely to grasp the meaning of such an order of organization. They rather approached the first Soviets from a utilitarian perspective. The origins of the peasant community that served long years the form of organization of exclusively land and economic relations nourishes the “embryo” of the Soviet system.”
Analyzing the legislation of that period, scientists most often identify three characteristic features inherent in local Soviets. Firstly, local Councils were bodies of power and control operating within the boundaries of the then existing administrative territories. Secondly, there was an organizational relationship and vertical subordination. And, finally, when determining the competence and limits of powers of local Councils, their independence in resolving issues of local importance was established, but their activities were allowed only in accordance with the decisions of the central government and higher Councils.
Note that zemstvo traditions influenced the Soviets of Soldiers', Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. That is, one part of the population was isolated, and subsequently all social groups of the population received representation in the Soviets. Another thing is that the principle of trash in them was replaced by the principle of selection, which was carried out by party structures. This is what needed to be changed, and not destroy the very principle of representation on a socio-professional basis.
The process of transfer of local state power to the Soviets would not be short-lived: for a certain time, zemstvo and city bodies, local self-government functioned parallel to the local Soviets, and they did not always oppose themselves to the latter. In December 1917, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (Narkomvud), on behalf of the Soviet government, gave an official clarification regarding the relationship of the Soviets with local governments. This clarification stated that zemstvos and city dumas that oppose or sabotage their decisions are subject to immediate liquidation, local government bodies loyal to the Soviets are preserved and under the leadership of the Soviets, on their instructions they perform the functions of local government.
Historians note that even if “traditional” local government bodies were preserved for a given period of time, there could be no talk of any equality of rights with the Soviets. In this way, the position of the Bolsheviks was radically different from the position of other political parties. Thus, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, advocating the preservation of zemstvos and city dumas, proposed dividing the functions of local government between them and the Soviets. The councils, in their opinion, were supposed to perform political, cultural and educational functions, and all issues of economic life would remain in the zemstvos and city dumas.
The Appeal of the People's Commissariat of Wood and to all Councils and the Instructions on the rights and responsibilities of the Councils, published at the end of December 1917, were essentially the first legislative documents that not only consolidated the system of local councils, but also determined their general competence.
Subsequent decrees issued by the Congresses of Soviets, the government and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee until the adoption of the first Constitution of the RSFSR in 1918 and concerning the activities of local Soviets expanded and specified their rights. At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets it was noted that “all local affairs are decided exclusively by local Soviets. Behind supreme councils the right to regulate relations between lower Councils and resolve disagreements arising between them is recognized.”
Naturally, very important issue the activities of local councils there was a problem of their financing. On February 18, 1918, the People’s Commissar of Wood recommended that local Soviets seek a source of livelihood locally by mercilessly taxing the propertied classes.” This “right” soon began to be realized: the “property classes” were subject to a special tax. However this source with such “merciless taxation” it could not but dry up soon, so the problem of ensuring the material base of local Soviets came more and more to the fore.
The sphere of competence and activity of local Councils expanded. By the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 27, 1918, local Soviets were given the right to decide the issue of boundaries between individual administrative territorial units. In the same month, departments were established under the executive committees of the Soviets, starting with the volosts, to assign pensions to military personnel who were injured. In February 1918, by decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, all provincial and district executive committees were invited to organize road sections that would assume from local governments all rights and responsibilities in this area. The powers of the Soviets of this period extended quite far. They organized the work of local enterprises that were subject to nationalization, protected industrial facilities, and controlled enterprises that were still in the hands of the old owners.
IN social sphere The Soviets began to carry out activities to provide for the urgent needs of the population, and above all the working class. They organized public canteens and hostels, tried to regulate issues of labor and wages, developed tariffs together with trade unions, and carried out various measures to protect labor and solve housing issues.
In the field of public education and cultural and educational activities, the Soviets created public primary and secondary schools, took measures to publish new textbooks and teaching aids, reorganized gymnasiums and real schools into Soviet primary and secondary schools. On their initiative, the network of orphanages, playgrounds, libraries, reading rooms,
In the health sector, the Soviets implemented measures to provide free medical care and carried out various activities in the field of sanitation, hygiene and prevention.
In the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, the tasks of local Soviets were defined as follows:
a) implementation of all decisions of the highest bodies of Soviet power;
b) taking all measures to improve the given territory culturally and economically;
c) resolution of all issues of purely local (for a given territory) significance;
d) unification of all Soviet activities within a given territory.
Very important in this regard is the fact that all income and expenses of local Soviets were placed under the control of the center.
At the end of 1919 VII All-Russian Congress The Soviets adopt an official policy towards decentralization. The Congress placed the Soviets between the People's Commissariats and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The Soviets received the right to suspend the orders of the People's Commissariats if their decisions contradicted the interests of the localities. At the same time, it was stipulated that the suspension of the orders of individual people's commissariats could only take place in exceptional cases, and the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, when considering this issue, has the right to bring to justice the guilty party - either the anesthetist who gave an order that was clearly contrary to the laws, or the leaders of the provincial executive committee who illegally suspended the order of the people's commissariats. commissariat.
In other words, the councils received the right to protect their interests. At the same time, units of local government were determined regardless of size (province, district, parish, city, village). They began to be called communes. Special bodies (communal departments) were created in the Soviets to manage the “municipal services”. In April 1920, a central regulatory body was created - the General Directorate of Public Utilities.
After civil war During the restoration period, expanding the powers of local authorities, giving them the character of local self-government for the Soviet government was a forced step, but at that stage it was necessary. But it was short-lived.
2. Position self-government in the USSR in the conditions of the formation and development of totalitarianism (1924-1953).
The independent economic activities of the Soviets began in the fall of 1924 with the allocation of independent city budgets. With the development of commodity-money relations, local Councils have funds to form their own budgets. They are based on revenues from newly restored taxes, payments for housing and other utilities.
In 1924, discussions began on expanding the rights of the Soviets not only in economic activities, but also in political and administrative ones. A broad campaign “for the revival of local Soviets” is being launched in the press. In April 1924, a meeting was held on issues of Soviet construction and “improving the work of local Soviets as the power that organizes the independent activities of the many millions of working people.” In 1925, the Regulations on the City Council were adopted, which declared the new role of the Council as “the highest authority in the city and within its competence.”
Professor L.A. Velikhov, in his book “Fundamentals of Urban Economy,” published in 1928, paid considerable attention to the analysis of the “Regulations on City Councils.” It was adopted by the 2nd session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the 12th convocation and published in Izvestia on January 3, 1926.
What areas of responsibility were assigned to city councils?
City councils in the field of administration, protection of public order and public safety received the right to issue resolutions, form election commissions for re-elections, determine electoral districts and the procedure for holding elections.
In paragraph 26 of Chapter III of the “Regulations...” it was written that in the field of “economic and industrial, city councils operate enterprises under their jurisdiction directly or by leasing, organize new enterprises of a production and commercial nature, promote the development of industry in the city and trade and regulate them within the limits of existing legislation, provide full support and assistance to all types of cooperation.
In the field of land and communal services (according to paragraph 28), city councils are in charge of the operation and leasing of urban lands and lands, carry out work related to the city limits, land reclamation, planning, allocation of land plots for development and agricultural use, arrange and develop, in within the city limits, pasture, meadow and forestry, cattle breeding, gardens, etc., organize veterinary care.
By the end of 1927, the destroyed urban economy was restored to the level of 1913. Attention was again beginning to be paid to issues of improvement. Various urban planning projects are emerging. A number of schools in large cities are being transferred to the balance of public utilities. Thus, there is a fairly clear manifestation of the “autonomization” of local Soviets; their attempt to play a more or less independent role in public life. In general, the “NEP” period of Soviet activity was characterized by:
Some decentralization of the unified hierarchical Soviet system, redistribution of prerogatives towards some strengthening of the rights and powers of its lower levels;
Expanding the socio-economic powers of local Councils represented by their executive bodies through their absorption of local territorial bodies, central government structures, the formation of special public utility management bodies;
Attempts to more or less broadly involve the “working masses” in the local electoral process, to revive the Soviets while maintaining strict political control on the part of the ruling party;
Formation of an independent financial and material base of local Councils, restoration of the taxation system in the conditions of revival of commodity-money relations;
Creation of a regulatory framework that ensured a certain “autonomization” of local Councils.
The completion of the NEP stage led to a significant change in the financial situation municipalities.
In April 1927, the XV Party Conference of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks announced a course towards the centralization of power and control. Since 1928, the “otkom-munkhozes” and city departments of public utilities have been closed, and “cleansing” of the apparatus of local Soviets and the central apparatus has been carried out. A new law on the finances of local councils is adopted, which introduces the residual principle of financing (after the costs of industrialization) of local farms.
Cities were deprived of budgetary independence: at first, by decision of the party bodies, some of the city enterprises were united into trusts, and with the creation in 1932 of the system of sectoral industrial people's commissariats, the trusts came under their direct subordination. In 1930, the municipal services departments of local Soviets were liquidated, and thus the independent activities of the Soviets ceased altogether. This was, as A. N. Burov notes, the actual killing of city councils, since the city from a relatively independent entity turned into an appendage of industry. In 1933, a new Regulation on the City Council was adopted, in which they again began to be declared as bodies of the proletarian dictatorship, called upon to carry out the policies of the central government at the local level.
The Constitution of the USSR of 1936 and the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1937 transformed local Soviets of workers, peasants and Red Army soldiers into Soviets of Working People's Deputies, which in legal terms should be considered as a step towards democratization. With the abolition of congresses, the Soviets became permanent bodies of power and administration. They were formed on the basis of universal, equal, direct suffrage by secret ballot. Local Councils were proclaimed as sovereign bodies on their territory and were called upon to resolve the most important issues of state, economic, social and housing construction. In fact, under the conditions of the formed totalitarian regime, the Soviets were very far from real sovereignty and democracy.
In the pre-war years there appears new form participation of Soviet deputies in practical work. From their composition, permanent Commissions are formed, including budgetary, school, defense, etc. The position of the executive committees of the Soviets has also changed. They began to represent executive and administrative bodies, accountable to the Soviets, which, under the watchful eye and guiding influence of the party, carried out the day-to-day management of all economic and cultural construction on their territory, the activities of local industrial enterprises, agriculture, and public education institutions.
Great Patriotic War made significant adjustments to the development of local self-government.
On the basis of the Decree “On Martial Law,” all functions of state authorities in the front-line territories were transferred to the Councils of fronts, armies and districts. All power was concentrated in the hands State Committee Defense. This extraordinary supreme body of the country's leadership was entrusted with the main management functions related to the war, ensuring material and other conditions for conducting military operations. The resolutions of the State Defense Committee were subject to unquestioning execution by all government bodies, public organizations and citizens. Local defense committees were created in a number of regional centers and cities. And the Soviets had to act alongside and in the closest unity with these bodies that arose during the war. In this regard, the constitutional terms of elections, the regularity of sessions, and the reporting of the Soviets were violated almost everywhere. The role of executive and administrative bodies (executive committees) has increased even more. Issues that required collegial consideration at sessions were often resolved by executive committees and departments. In turn, party committees often replaced the activities of Soviet bodies, and many functions of executive committees were performed individually by their leaders and heads of departments.
3. Attempts to reform territorial self-government (1958-1964). The period of stabilization in the development of local councils (1964-1982).
In 50-80 XX century. In the USSR, many resolutions were adopted on the problems of improving local self-government. These are resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee “On improving the activities of Soviets of Working People’s Deputies and strengthening their ties with the masses” (1957), “On the work of local Councils of Working People’s Deputies of the Poltava Region” (1965), “On improving the work of rural and town Councils of Working People’s Deputies "(1967), "On measures to further improve the work of district and city Councils of People's Deputies" (1971), resolution of the CPSU Central Committee, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On further enhancing the role of Councils of People's Deputies in economic construction "(1981), etc.
Many documents expanded the financial rights of local authorities. So in 1956, local Soviets began to independently distribute cash your budget. A step forward should also be recognized as the right granted to local Councils to direct additional revenues identified during the execution of budgets to finance housing and communal services and social and cultural events. In the regulations on village councils of the RSFSR, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on September 12, 1957, local authorities received the right, when the revenue part of the rural budget was exceeded, to direct budget funds to additional expenses for the formation of economic and cultural activities (except for increasing wages). The very procedure for approving these budgets was changed: now they were approved at a session of the village Council, whereas previously they were subject to approval by the executive committees of the district Councils.
The sources of income going directly to the budgets of local councils have also expanded. For example, the laws on the State Budget of the USSR for 1958 and 1959 established that income received from income tax on collective farms, agricultural tax and tax on bachelors, single and small-family citizens are fully credited to the republican budget. Then a significant part of these funds was transferred to local budgets.
But, as historians note, these innovations did not give the desired result: the command played its role administrative system. The fact is that, while establishing new rights of the Soviets in the next act, the center “forgot” to provide them with material, organizational and structural mechanisms, and these innovations were doomed to be declarative.
In addition, the dependence of the Soviets on their own executive bodies arose, when in fact the apparatus began to dominate the Soviets, forming and directing their activities together with the entire deputy corps.
A significant place was given to the development of local self-government in the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 and the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1978. These Basic Laws established the principle of the supremacy of the Soviets as the only unified bodies of state power. While consolidating the sovereignty of the Soviets, they established that all other government bodies were controlled and accountable to the Soviets. A special chapter of the Constitution of the RSFSR was devoted to local authorities and management. The functions of local councils were more clearly and fully developed. They were in charge of a significant part of the enterprises of the local, fuel and food industries, industry building materials, agriculture, water and reclamation management, trade and public catering, repair and construction organizations, power plants, etc.
How was the system of local self-government characterized in the USSR, including in the Russian Federation in the 80s? XX century?
According to the USSR Constitution of 1977, local Soviets were supposed to manage state, economic and socio-cultural construction on their territory; approve plans for economic and social development and local budget; exercise management of government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations subordinate to them; ensure compliance with laws, protection of state and public order, and citizens' rights; contribute to strengthening the country's defense capability.
Within the limits of their powers, local Councils were required to ensure comprehensive economic and social development on their territory; exercise control over compliance with legislation by enterprises, institutions and organizations of higher subordination located in this territory; coordinate and control their activities in the field of land use, nature conservation, construction, use of labor resources, production of consumer goods, socio-cultural, consumer and other services to the population.
Decisions of local Councils, adopted within the powers granted to them by the legislation of the USSR, Union and Autonomous Republics, were binding on all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on the territory of the Council, as well as officials and citizens.
District, city and regional councils in cities could form departments and administrations of executive committees, approve and dismiss their leaders; overturn decisions of lower Councils; create supervisory commissions, commissions on juvenile affairs, commissions to combat drunkenness under the executive committees of the Soviets, committees of people's control, approve their composition, appoint and dismiss their chairmen; approve the structure and staff of the executive committee, its departments and directorates, based on the standards adopted in the republic and the number of administrative and managerial staff established for the executive committee.
Rural and township Councils at sessions pooled and directed funds allocated by collective farms, state farms, and enterprises for housing and communal services, cultural and community construction and improvement; approved and dismissed heads of schools and other institutions subordinate to them; considered comments and suggestions on the charters of agricultural artels; approved submissions to the executive committees of higher-level Councils on issues related to changes in the administrative-territorial structure.
In addition to the above, local Councils were authorized to consider and resolve at sessions any issues falling within their jurisdiction by the legislation of the USSR, union and autonomous republic.
Local Councils themselves determined the advisability of considering a particular issue by the Council or a body reporting to it. In principle, local Councils had the right to consider and resolve any issue within their jurisdiction. However, local Councils did not need to replace the governing bodies subordinate to them and consider all issues of economic and social development themselves. In practice, they took into consideration only those issues that were of the most importance.
The scope of rights and responsibilities of local Councils depended on their level. Thus, regional and regional Soviets concentrated in their hands all the threads of leadership of economic and social development. They directly supervised enterprises, institutions and organizations subordinate to them, as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations subordinate to lower Councils.
The District Council, as the key link of local authorities, acted as the organizer of the development of all sectors of the local economy, directly supervised the development of local industry, all social, communal, cultural, trade services for the population, public education, and healthcare. This was due to the fact that most enterprises and institutions in the service sector were directly subordinate to the district councils. The District Council also acted as the direct organizer and leader of the development of agricultural production.
Planning and regulatory principles occupied a much smaller place in his activities and were manifested in leadership exercised through rural, township Councils and Councils of cities of district subordination.
City Councils were characterized by activities primarily in the sphere of management of industry, urban management and public services. They managed the enterprises subordinate to them, took measures to develop the production of consumer goods and local building materials based on local raw materials, exercised control over the construction ongoing on their territory, and organized housing, communal, cultural and community construction. City Councils supervised cultural institutions, state and cooperative trade, public catering, consumer service enterprises, urban improvement, and public utilities. They were in charge of managing all school activities, out-of-school education of children, work on medical and pension services for the population, etc.
The peculiarities of the competence of rural and settlement Councils were manifested in their tasks and rights in the field of agriculture and socio-cultural services to the population. Rural and settlement Soviets controlled the activities of collective and state farms and assisted them in the development of agricultural production.
Let us pay attention to the competence of local Councils in relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations. The competence of local Councils in relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations affected a variety of areas of their activity.
The widest range of rights to local councils was granted in the area related to serving the population. Local Councils controlled the activities of all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on their territory in housing, communal construction, construction of social, cultural and domestic facilities, production of consumer goods, development and implementation of measures in the field of education, cultural health, land use, nature conservation , use of labor resources.
In all organizations, regardless of their subordination. The Soviets monitored the observance of socialist legality, the state of protection of the rights, freedoms and interests of citizens, and the work with letters, complaints and statements from workers.
Closely related to the powers of local Councils in relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations were their rights to ensure unified state management of all processes of economic and socio-cultural construction on their territory, i.e. their rights to exercise coordination functions. They applied to the entire territory subordinate to the local Council and to all without exception (both subordinate and non-subordinate and non-subordinate) enterprises, institutions and organizations. In other words, we were talking about a broad integrated approach to the development prospects of the respective territories. This directly implied the need to combine the capabilities, efforts and resources of all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on the territory of the Council, in order to ensure the most effective development of all processes of economic, state, administrative and socio-cultural construction, protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, and ensuring law and order.
Differences in the subordination of enterprises, institutions and organizations to local Councils influenced not the presence or absence of local Councils' right to influence a certain range of subjects, but the degree of this influence in various fields of activity.
Local Councils were authorized to manage subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations in full and all aspects of their activities.
In relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations, the sphere of influence of local Councils was narrower and had a different character: in matters directly affecting the interests of the population (so-called issues of local importance), the Councils had the right to coordinate and control their activities almost in full. By exercising control over non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations, hearing reports from their leaders, and making decisions on them, local Councils thereby exerted a direct guiding influence on them. Proposals and recommendations contained in decisions of local Councils addressed to enterprises, institutions and organizations of higher subordination located on the territory of the Council must be considered by the heads of these organizations, and the results are reported to the Council within the period established by law.
Adopted within the limits of the rights granted to the Councils, their decisions were binding on all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on the territory of the Council. In case of failure to comply with their demands, the Councils acted through the relevant higher bodies: they made their proposals, if necessary, and came with proposals to impose disciplinary sanctions on the leaders who did not comply with the Council’s decisions, up to and including dismissing them from their positions.
Many local councils pooled funds from enterprises, institutions and organizations of higher subordination allocated for housing, cultural and public utility construction, and acted as a single customer.
The implementation of the competence of local Councils was carried out in various organizational and legal forms, complementary to each other, connected into a single system. The versatility and complexity of the Council's functions determined the significant differentiation of this system and the specialization of its individual elements.
The variety of organizational forms of activity of the Soviets required their correct balancing, strict consideration of their characteristics and appointment in common system leadership carried out by each government body.
The main organizational and legal form of activity of local Sonnets is sessions.
A session of the local Council is a general meeting of Sonet deputies convened in accordance with the procedure established by law, empowered to resolve all issues within its competence. It was at the session that the Council acted as a representative body of power, supreme on its territory. At the sessions, the Councils considered all the most important issues within their competence, controlled and directed the activities of standing commissions, deputy groups, executive committees, as well as other government bodies.
The frequency of sessions of local Councils was determined by the Constitutions of the union and autonomous republics and the laws on local Councils: sessions of regional, regional Councils, Councils of autonomous regions, autonomous okrugs, district, city and regional in the cities of the Soviets were held at least 4 times a year. The frequency of sessions of village and town Councils in the RSFSR, Kazakh SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Moldavian SSR is 6 times, and in other republics - 4 times a year. The constitutions of the autonomous republics established the same frequency of sessions of local Soviets as the Constitution of the union republic, which included this ASSR. Sessions were held evenly: at least once every three months (if the session frequency is 4 times a year) and once every two months (if the session frequency is 6 times a year).
Trying to give political, economic and social significance to Soviets at all levels, the CPSU Central Committee brought these issues to special plenums. Thus, among other issues, on April 10, 1984, the regular Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee considered the issues of party leadership of the Soviets and increasing their role in communist construction. However, at it, for the umpteenth time, the thesis was only declared that the Soviets are the political basis of the state. Nevertheless, in the mechanism of legal support for comprehensive local economic development, elements were identified that indicate an expansion of the powers of local councils.
It was assumed that local Councils would participate in the consideration of draft plans of associations, enterprises, organizations of higher subordination located on the territory of local Councils of People's Deputies, in the approval of consolidated current and long-term plans for the development of the socio-cultural sphere, in resolving issues of pooling funds for their use in construction of social and cultural facilities and general purpose facilities.
4. The place and role of local authorities in the Soviet state.
How do historians, lawyers, and political scientists evaluate the Soviet period of development and functioning of local self-government in Russia?
According to V.V. Eremyan and M.V. Fedorov, the Soviet period was characterized by:
Firstly, strict hierarchy social relations, the structure of local self-governing units (corporations) determined the installation of vertical subordination of individual institutions. Therefore, by the autumn of 1917. The Soviets began the process of unification with the development of appropriate principles of functioning vertically: volost (or city) - district - province - region - state;
Secondly, democratic methods of managing a corporation did not always form corresponding ideas about the structure of relationships between individual institutions of self-government and local government bodies and institutions of state power. (For example, local Soviets considered the decisions of all higher-level Soviets, All-Russian meetings and congresses of Soviets as binding);
Thirdly, the functional content of a local self-governing unit (corporation) - a village, district, etc., as, on the one hand, a regulator of political mobilization, should ultimately form a dual understanding of the nature of the Soviets. At the same time, the development of the Soviets, their transformation from self-government bodies into local bodies of state power and administration were greatly influenced by historical conditions Russia. One of the first signs that showed a change in the fundamental principles of the functioning and activities of local Councils was the abandonment of elections and the transition to a system of so-called “liberated workers” appointed to leadership positions by higher-level Councils. Finally, the inclusion of the Soviets in the system of state power and the transformation of the country into a republic of Soviets from top to bottom initially contradicted the self-governing nature of the Soviets.
A. N. Burov paints a very detailed final picture. In his opinion, this period in the development of local self-government in Russia was distinguished by the following factors:
1. The emergence of the “Soviet” system of local self-government was a consequence of the creative activity of the “working masses”, their desire for true democracy. This was also consistent with the doctrinal provisions of the Bolshevik Party with its thesis about the need to abolish the state as such and the transition to “communist public self-government.” At the same time, zemstvo and city self-government were rejected as a “bourgeois relic.”
2. However, in contrast to the doctrinal communist utopia, the real practice of Bolshevism took the path of constitution political system totalitarianism with its all-encompassing control of the public and private lives of citizens. Within the framework of the constructed totalitarian socio-political system, local Soviets acted as a lower cell of the rigid hierarchical system of Soviets, which “usurped” both legislative, executive and administrative, and sometimes judicial functions.
3. The abolished “bourgeois” principle of separation of powers was replaced by the principle of unity of power, which in reality turned into the dictates of the party bureaucratic apparatus. Within the framework of a single political process, a peculiar expansion of a single subject-object construct took place (“reverse usurpation” of any significant management functions by the Soviets).
4. Within the framework of an integral political system of totalitarianism, local Soviets actually acted not as a subject, but as an object of power and management influence in resolving the most important issues, manifesting themselves as lower-level bodies of state power. In this case, they performed a purely decorative function of masking the totalitarian essence of the political regime that had formed in Russia.
5. When resolving secondary issues of local life, the Soviets in a number of cases acted as a subject of the management process, but the extremely narrow field of their functioning did not allow them to act as a real body of public initiative. This function, to a certain extent, allowed them to compensate for the extremes of totalitarianism, channeling the energy of the “working masses” into a Procrustean bed of local actions and initiatives that did not affect the essence of the formed socio-political regime. In ideological terms, this created among the population of local communities the illusion of “democracy”, “involvement” in the affairs of society and the state, thus contributing to the stabilization of the political system of totalitarianism.
6. During the period of the apogee of totalitarianism (“late Stalinism”), local Soviets were relegated to the role of a “cog” in a super-hierarchized political system and could no longer perform the above-mentioned compensatory function. The over-centralization of the political system disrupted the stability of its supporting pillar, kept afloat by the authority of a charismatic leader.
7. To restore the dynamic “equilibrium of the system, the party-political elite followed the path of well-known (i.e., having its limits) decentralization, which relieved social tension and gave the lower levels of the Soviet system (local Soviets) a certain dynamics. The expansion of their rights and powers, some strengthening of their material base, a certain democratization of their structuring and functioning, and the involvement of the wider masses of “workers” in local initiative prevented the collapse of the totalitarian system, giving it, as it were, a second wind.
8. At the same time, the well-known democratization of the political system (“Khrushchev’s thaw”) weakened the all-encompassing control of the party apparatus over the socio-political life of the country, which came into conflict with the essence of the totalitarian system itself. As a result, a new round of “swinging of the pendulum” emerged: the totalitarian system, having by that time exhausted the possibilities for its further growth, entered a period of decline and degradation (the era of “stagnation”).
9. The all-encompassing process of degradation of Soviet society also resulted in the degradation of the lower levels of the political system (local Soviets). They increasingly lost their already very “sparse” independence, lost their connections with the masses, without whose support and without financial independence they ceased to be at all self-governing bodies, embodying through their activities only local state power. This explains the dependent nature of this social institution during the period of “developed socialism”.
10. The decisions taken by the central government to develop the economic independence of local Soviets did not curb departmental monopoly, because it is organic for the command-administrative system. The absence of market relations doomed local Soviets to fatal dependence on the distribution center(s), extremely narrowing their material base.
11. The measures taken during the period of “perestroika” to democratize the activities of the Soviets contributed to their next “revival,” thus creating the preconditions for a decisive breakthrough in the formation of local self-government.
12. At the same time, the “perestroika” measures showed the exhaustion of the possibilities for reforming local Soviets within the framework of a totalitarian political system that was dying on its last legs, when the task arose of dismantling it and changing the social system, forming a civil society with a fundamentally different political structure: on a democratic basis and with social oriented market economy, allowing the formation of real local governments.
13. The transition to a system of local self-government logically followed from the previous social development of the country. This was necessary in order to effectively solve local problems that could no longer be properly resolved “from above.” The seventy-year “zigzag” of history was not in vain; relevant lessons were learned from it, in particular, the urgent need for local self-government as such became clear.
The country entered a complex and contradictory period in the formation of a democratic political system, within which local self-government had to find its rightful place, take a position that would contribute to the manifestation of its inherent features, the optimal performance of the functions inherent in this most important link in public life.
Naturally, one can argue with the author of these assessments on individual provisions, but one must agree on the main thing: local Soviets only formally expressed true democracy, because they did not have real rights of independence and financial security.
Conclusion
During the years of perestroika, the new leadership of the CPSU Soviet government tried, for the umpteenth time, to intensify the process aimed at increasing the role of local Soviets.
In July 1986, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution “On measures to further increase the role and strengthen the responsibility of the Councils of People's Deputies for accelerating socio-economic development in the light of the decisions of the 27th Congress of the CPSU.” It provided for measures to ensure comprehensive economic and social development of the territories, improve the management of industries directly related to meeting the needs of the local population, improve the use of natural and secondary resources, increase the interest of the Councils of People's Deputies in increasing the efficiency of associations, enterprises and organizations, and the development of democratic principles in the work of the Councils of People's Deputies and strengthening the apparatus of Soviet bodies.
But two years later it became clear that there were no fundamental changes in the activities of local Soviets, and the XIX All-Union Conference of the CPSU in 1988 again returned to this issue.
The conference developed a program for the restructuring of all aspects of the activities of the Soviets. The basic, “bearing” principle was formulated as follows: Not a single state economic or social issue can be resolved apart from the Soviets.” In this regard, the conference recognized the need to strengthen the legislative, managerial and control functions of the Councils, transfer to their consideration and resolution of all important issues of state, economic, socio-cultural life, and restore the leadership position of elected bodies in relation to the executives and their apparatus.
Attention to the problems of self-government in our country increased in the second half of the 80s, when the need for a transition from administrative to predominantly economic methods of management was recognized. Gradually, the view began to be established that local self-government is an independent level of exercise by the people of the power constitutionally belonging to them, that a democratic structure of society is possible only with the separation of local self-government from state power.
The beginning of democratic transformations in Russia led to the fact that the idea of separating local self-government from the system of state power, which existed during the revolutionary period, began to come to life. It went through several stages of constitutional consolidation.
Bibliography
1. Ignatov V.G. Formation of public administration and local self-government in modern Russia. - Rostov n/a: North Caucasus. Academician State services, 2001.
2. Ignatov V.G., Butov V.I. Local self-government: Russian practice and foreign experience. Tutorial. Moscow – Rostov n/d: “March”, 2005.
3. Fadeev V.I. Territorial organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation // Regional management and local self-government. M., 2003.
4. Municipal management: Textbook for universities. / Ed. V.N. Ivanova. M., 2002.
The zemstvos were to be replaced by new bodies of self-government, which were the Soviets. followed by an appeal from the People's Commissariat for internal affairs to all councils of workers, soldiers, peasants and farm laborers' deputies on the organization of local self-government, where the Soviets were called upon to more boldly and decisively take the solution of local issues into their own hands. The authors of the projects saw the councils not as a military weapon of the proletariat, but only as a local government body similar to zemstvos. Introduction of the Soviets in the first period of formation Soviet power...
Share your work on social networks
If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button
Soviet period of development of local self-government
After the October Revolution, many traditions of Russian self-government were rejected. The zemstvos were to be replaced by new bodies of self-government, which were the Soviets. The transfer of all power to the Soviets was finally and legally confirmed II Congress of Soviets on November 8 (October 26), 1917. This, despite the fact that one of the first decrees of the Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government spoke about expanding the rights of local self-government: “On the expansion of the rights of city governments in food matters” (published on October 28, 1917 .), "On the rights of city governments in the matter of regulation housing issue"(published on October 30, 1917), "On volost land committees" (resolution of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of November 1917), it soon became clear that the new government would not get along with the previous system of "patriarchal virtues."
In November 1917, a zemstvo congress was held, which tried to outline ways to overcome the crisis, but already on December 19, 1917, signed by the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Ulyanov Lenin, a decree “On the establishment of a commissariat for local self-government” was published, formed for the good the goal of “unifying the activities of all city and zemstvo institutions.” The newly created department was transferred from the Commissariat of Internal Affairs to: the main department for local economic affairs, the cash office of city and zemstvo credit, which never became a Bank, and other institutions related to local self-government. On December 24, 1917, an appeal was made by the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs to all councils of workers', soldiers', peasants' and farmhands' deputies "On the organization of local self-government", where the Soviets were called upon to boldly and decisively take the solution of local issues into their own hands." And by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars dated 27 On December 1917, the composition of the Zemstvo Union was dissolved, the Union itself was liquidated, and a committee was formed to dissolve the zemstvos in general.
From that time on, zemstvo institutions essentially ceased to exist throughout the territory controlled by the Bolsheviks. Many zemstvo leaders ended up in the ranks of the White Army. In the territories occupied by it, the zemstvo actively functioned for several more years. November 30 December 8, 1918, the Congress of Zemstvo and City Self-Governments of the South of Russia was held in Simferopol, which tried to take upon itself “the work of unifying Russia and establishing democratic statehood”; but over the next few years, almost throughout the entire territory of the former Russian Empire The power of the Soviets was established, quickly turning into elements of a rigid administrative structure of control.
However, already in the process of preparing the first Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, when working on Section 3 “Construction of Soviet Power” (Part B “Organization of Soviet Power in the Local Areas”), most of the proposed projects for the organization of local power (“Establishment of Soviets” of the left Socialist Revolutionaries, projects of the Socialist Revolutionaries maximalists P.P. Rengarten, M.A. Reisner and others), although they declared the “triumph of Soviet power,” were built on the system and experience of zemstvo and city self-government, and were permeated with their ideology. The authors of the projects saw the councils not as a military weapon of the proletariat, but only as a body of local self-government, similar to zemstvos. Naturally, all these projects were rejected by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee commission or simply were not considered by it. The Constitutional Commission sought to reflect the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Constitution, repeatedly transforming its own, “ideologically verified” project.
The introduction of Soviets in the first period of the formation of Soviet power took into account where they were created: 1) Councils of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies; 2) Councils of workers' deputies; 3) Councils of Sailors' Deputies; 4) Councils of Peasant Deputies; 5) Councils of Cossack deputies.
Then they are united into the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. This name was enshrined in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918. In 1937, they were transformed into the Councils of Working People's Deputies. The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1978 introduced the concept of Councils of People's Deputies. In 1993, they were abolished by decree of the President of the Russian Federation.
The liquidation of zemstvo self-government bodies was carried out on the basis of a circular of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs dated February 6, 1918, in accordance with which city and zemstvo self-government bodies, which, in turn, opposed Soviet power, were subject to dissolution. The rest of the self-government bodies were part of the apparatus of local Soviets. This was carried out so that there would not be two homogeneous bodies in charge of the same work. Thus, power passed into the hands of city councils, which extended their powers to the territory of the corresponding provinces and districts.
The basis for the organization of local power was the principle of the unity of the system of Councils as bodies of state power, where local Councils and their executive committees acted as local bodies of state power and administration, while being a structural part of a single centralized management apparatus. Thus, a unified state Soviet management system was formed.
In the first years of Soviet power, the administrative-territorial division of the country into provinces, districts, and volosts still remained. The highest body of local government was the Congress of Soviets (regional, provincial, district, volost), as well as city and rural Councils. They were free informal meetings without clearly defined functions. The tasks of local Councils were to implement the decisions of the highest authorities; resolving issues of local importance; coordinating the activities of the Councils within a given territory; carrying out activities for the economic and cultural development of territories.
There were direct elections to village and city councils. These Councils were elected directly by the population. The Village Council consisted of a chairman, a secretary, and was elected by the village residents; in rare cases, it could be appointed by the volost executive committee. City Councils were formed on a production basis, that is, through elections at plants, factories, or through trade unions from one deputy from one thousand people of the population, which was no less than fifty and no more than a thousand members. If we take large cities, then district councils were created in them. Elections to regional bodies were a multi-stage system. This system was built as follows. Representatives of rural Soviets were elected to the volost congress of Soviets, and their representatives were elected to the district congresses of Soviets. District congresses and city councils sent their representatives to provincial congresses of councils. Provincial and regional congresses elected delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Thus, the Congresses of Soviets were formed on the basis of multi-stage elections.
The current work was carried out by executive committees (executive committees), which were executive and administrative bodies. Executive committees were the highest authorities that managed all aspects of society. The executive committees, in turn, were divided into departments and administrations. Based on the need, subdivisions, committees and commissions could be created.
The years of civil war left their mark on the process of formation of democratic forms of government. Under these conditions, a rigid centralized administrative control system was formed, which allowed the Bolsheviks to survive in war conditions. After the civil war, the right of workers to participate in management gradually began to be restored. The admission of private property during the NEP period and the resulting process of complication of forms of economic activity required changes in local authorities.
In 1925, the Regulations “On the City Council” were adopted, according to which the City Council is the highest authority in the city within its competence. Thus, granting local authorities during this period relative independence in resolving issues of local life, simultaneously with the admission of private capital, solved the problem of the most rapid restoration of the country after the civil war.
By the beginning of the 1930s it became clear that local authorities were not complying central system power, as well as restored state property, and therefore, in 1933, a new regulation “On the City Council” was adopted. In it, city councils acquire the role of an organ of the proletarian dictatorship, with the policy of the center being carried out locally. It was this period that marked the final nationalization of local authorities. During this period there is also an increase social forms self-government of house committees, street committees, etc. During the Patriotic War, local authorities and management continued to function along with the highest and central ones. During this period, structural changes took place in them, which were aimed at maximum centralization of political, economic and military leadership.
The reign of N.S. Khrushchev marked the division of the Soviets structurally into industrial (urban) and rural. Centralized control over the collective and state farm system weakened during this period, and management was reorganized. This reorganization contributed to improving the specialization and cooperation of regions and the development of local enterprises. The 1977 Constitution enshrined the provision “On developed socialism” in the preamble and openly approved the power of the party-Soviet apparatus. According to the Constitution, the basis of local power and administration was the Councils of Working People's Deputies. The form of work of the Councils was sessions. In their work, the Soviets relied on permanent and temporary commissions. Direct management was carried out by executive committees. Executive committees, through departments and departments, managed sectors and areas of local life.
Thus, the organizational principle of the construction and functioning of local bodies was democratic centralism, in accordance with which higher-level Councils managed the activities of lower-level Councils. Real local power was in the hands of party bodies, and their will, as we know, was carried out by the Soviets. Local Councils were dependent on the executive bodies, so we can conclude that the Council system was imperfect.
PAGE 5
Other similar works that may interest you.vshm> |
|||
| 331. | Pre-revolutionary period of development of local self-government | 31.85 KB | |
| The first early stage of the development of local self-government occurs during the period of division of power into central and local. However, according to the majority of historians and legal scholars, the countdown of Russian experience of local self-government should begin with the reign of Ivan IV. The legal foundations of local self-government in Russia were established in such acts as the Establishment of Governorates of 1775. | |||
| 307. | Issues of local importance and their distribution by levels of local government | 10.6 KB | |
| State authorities and local self-government bodies implement their functions by exercising their rights and obligations, which are characterized as powers. The concept of issues of local importance is used in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 130 it follows that resolving issues of local importance is an integral part of local government in Art. | |||
| 291. | Principles of local government | 13.03 KB | |
| Each principle is a generalization of the long-term practice of local government lawmaking in the application of municipal law, studying the historical and regional experience of local government and the development of municipal law. In the theory of municipal law, there is no single point of view on the classification of the principles of local self-government. The principles of local self-government are the fundamental principles and ideas determined by the nature of local self-government that underlie the organization and activities of the population of the bodies it independently forms... | |||
| 290. | Functions of local government | 12.2 KB | |
| Based on the tasks solved in the process of municipal activities and the powers of local self-government, the following main functions of local self-government can be identified: a ensuring the participation of the population in resolving issues of local importance; b management of municipal property with financial resources of local government; to ensure comprehensive socio-economic development of the municipality; g ensuring the satisfaction of the basic living needs of the population in the areas falling under the jurisdiction of municipal... | |||
| 289. | Theories of local government | 10.27 KB | |
| Differences are manifested in the organizational forms of municipal government: on the basis of local self-government; on the basis of state local government and in combination of state government with local self-government. The American and French revolutions gave rise to organized and relatively uniform systems of local government, giving them the function of expressing and protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. The theoretical foundations of local self-government are actively developed by government scientists and used... | |||
| 8408. | 18.1 KB | ||
| Institute of local self-government in the Russian Federation. The concept and relationship between the terms of social management of local government and local self-government. The legal nature of local government and its basic legal properties. The structure of local government bodies and their general characteristics. | |||
| 306. | Competence of local government | 14.82 KB | |
| Thus, local government bodies are endowed, in accordance with the charters of municipalities, with their own competence in resolving issues of local importance. The concept and structure of the competence of local self-government. Competence is also defined as a set of legally established powers, rights and obligations of a specific state body of local government or an official who determines his place in the system of state bodies of local government3. | |||
| 6883. | Constitutional foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation | 7.45 KB | |
| Constitutional foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation. The principles of organization and activity of local government bodies are enshrined in Art. Local self-government is a method of organizing and exercising local power that ensures that the population independently resolves issues of local importance regarding the ownership, use and disposal of municipal property. Principles of organizing local self-government: guaranteed by the Constitution as an expression of the power of the people; The boundaries of the territories of municipalities are established and changed by laws... | |||
| 327. | Territorial foundations of local self-government | 27.64 KB | |
| Like the norms of other municipal legal institutions, the norms devoted to the territorial organization of local self-government are contained in federal and regional regulations, as well as in the charters of municipalities. 12 provided that the territories of municipalities are established in accordance with the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, taking into account historical and other local traditions. With this model, it is impossible to change the municipal structure without changing the administrative structure; regional law provides for relative... | |||
| 326. | Economic foundations of local government | 22.51 KB | |
| The economic basis is closely related to population size and the territorial basis of local government. The presence of these three elements in their close dialectical connection is the most important condition providing a real guarantee of the formation and development of local self-government. As an institution of municipal law, the economic basis of local self-government is a set of legal norms that consolidate and regulate social relations associated with the formation and management of municipal property using local... | |||
After October 1917, a course was set for the liquidation of the old local government bodies, which was carried out in accordance with the circular of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of February 6, 1918. As part of this course, city and zemstvo bodies that opposed Soviet power were abolished, and the rest joined the apparatus of local Soviets .
The basis for the organization of local power was the principle of the unity of the system of Soviets as bodies of state power. As a result, the idea of local self-government, which presupposes a certain decentralization of power, independence and independence of self-government bodies, came into conflict with the practical tasks of the state of the proletarian dictatorship, which is by its nature a centralized state.
The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 established a system of local government bodies, which included regional, provincial (district), district (district) and volost congresses of Soviets, city and rural Soviets, as well as executive committees elected by them. After the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 and the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1937, all parts of the representative system in the Russian Federation, as in other union republics, began to be elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.
Local Councils were the most numerous bodies of state power. In the USSR there were over 50 thousand of them, and in the RSFSR - about 28 thousand. Deputies of local Soviets exercised their powers without leaving work or service. In their activities, they were obliged to be guided by national interests, take into account the needs of the population of the electoral district, and ensure that the orders of voters are implemented.
The main organizational principle of the construction and functioning of the Soviet system was Democratic centralism. Higher Councils supervised the activities of lower government bodies. Their acts were binding on lower Soviet authorities. Higher Councils had the right to cancel decisions of lower Councils that were contrary to the law, which were fully accountable and controllable to them.
One of the organizational and legal expressions of democratic centralism was the double subordination of the executive bodies of local Soviets - executive committees, departments and directorates. They were accountable to the local Councils that formed them, and at the same time subordinate to the corresponding bodies of the apparatus of the higher Councils.
An important feature of the organization and activities of the Soviets is their Party leadership.
At the end of the 1980s, attempts were made to improve the organizational structure of the Soviets: presidiums of local Soviets and chairmen of the Soviets appeared, who were supposed to carry out some functions that previously belonged to the executive committees. On April 9, 1990, the USSR Law “On the General Principles of Local Self-Government and Local Economy in the USSR” was adopted. In accordance with it, the main link in the system of local self-government was to become local Councils as representative bodies of power. On July 6, 1991, the RSFSR adopted the law “On Local Self-Government in the RSFSR.” It gave impetus to the process of transforming local authorities and forming a system of local self-government in the Russian Federation.
During this period, the first steps were taken towards the establishment of other principles for organizing management at the local level than those that were characteristic of Soviet organization authorities. However, an attempt to introduce local self-government through the adoption of the Union and then the Russian law on local self-government, without essentially reforming the previous system, did not produce the expected results.
Self-government in the USSR in the conditions of the formation and development of totalitarianism 1924-1953. Attempts to reform territorial self-government 1958-1964. Stabilization of the development of local councils 1964-1984. Local authorities in the Soviet state.
ABSTRACT
on this topic: « Local self-government in Soviet Russia and the USSR»
Literature:I. Main
Burov A. N. Local self-government in Russia: historical traditions and modern practice. M., 2000.
Velikhov L.A. Fundamentals of urban management. General teaching about the city, its management, finances and economic methods. M., 1999.
Eremyan V.V., Fedorov M.V. History of local government in Russia. Part II. M., 1999.
History of public administration in Russia: Textbook / Edited by prof. V. G. Ignatova. Ed. 3rd. Rostov n/a: Phoenix. 2003.
Prusakov Yu. M., Nifanov A. N. Local self-government of Russia. Rostov n/d., 2003.
II. Additional
Institutions of self-government: historical and legal research. Section 1. - M., 1999.
Municipal law of the Russian Federation. Textbook./ Ed. Kutafina O. E., Fadeeva V. I. - M., 2002.
Local government. Fundamentals of the systems approach. Textbook./ Ed. Koguta A.E., Gnevko V.A. - St. Petersburg, 2001.
Constitutional law of the Russian Federation. Textbook. Baglay M.V., Gabrichidze B.N. - M., 2001.
History of local government in Russia. Eremin V.V., Fedorov M.V. - M., 1999.
INTRODUCTION
After the October Revolution of 1917, the country developed a system of power in which all representative bodies (from top to bottom) were part of a single system of state power. This, naturally, changed the ideas about local self-government as self-government of the population that existed before the revolution. In other words, local self-government in the form of Councils of People's Deputies actually began to represent the lower level of the unified state apparatus.
Note that until October 1917, as noted by Yu.M. Prusakov and A.N. Nifanov, the Soviets, which arose during the first revolution (1905-1907) and were revived during the period of the Provisional Government, operated for a short period of time - in April 1917 there were more than 700 of them.
According to Professor E.M. Trusova, the Provisional Government carried out the reorganization of local self-government and changes in the electoral system in accordance with its appeal “To the Citizens of Russia” of March 6, which proclaimed the overthrow of the old order and the birth of a new free Russia.
The issue of elections of self-government bodies, in which all major groups of citizens would be represented, became one of the most important on the agenda. On April 15, the government established temporary rules for the elections of city councils and their councils, according to which it was allowed to immediately begin preparing new elections, without waiting for the publication of an electoral law.
The urban masses advocated the creation of democratized self-government without restrictions on their activities by the administration. At the same time, it was quite difficult to achieve independence of municipal bodies. There was confusion in the management system, contradictions: in the structure and powers of the authorities. Preparations for the elections were carried out in the context of an aggravated political situation in the country and the region.
Local authorities were required to quickly respond to pressing life issues and actions. To solve the problems facing them, the Dumas and their councils had to develop flexible management technologies, form their own apparatus of employees, establish strong ties with the Petrograd power structures, and establish two-way information. City councils and executive public committees were involved in preparing the elections for new councils. The latter also temporarily performed the duties of city councils during the election period. The current composition of the Dumas was elected by election commissions.
The elections were held using a proportional system. Government decrees were sent to the localities, explaining the procedure for carrying them out. The electoral district in the city could be divided into sections, election commissions were created under the chairmanship of the mayor, as well as three members invited by the chairman from among the voters. Electoral lists were compiled by the city government. Complaints and protests about violations of election proceedings were filed with the district court, whose decisions could be appealed to the Governing Senate.
Voter lists in their final form were prepared by commissions under the general supervision of provincial and regional commissars. The lists were compiled not alphabetically, but in the order in which they were nominated. The list number was assigned to the commission in the order in which it was received for registration. Any group of city residents or social movements or political parties could nominate their candidates. At the same time, it was required that the number of persons declaring a list of their candidates was at least half the number of public officials in a given city to be elected according to government regulations: City councils accepted complaints from citizens about the incorrect completion of the lists or their absence from them. The procedure for holding elections was explained orally and in print. In the cities of the region, leaflets “Techniques for elections to the City Duma” were posted.
The October Revolution introduced fundamental changes in the formation of the system of local authorities and its structure.
1. Councils as a combination of elements of state power and self-government.
In October 1917, there were over 1,430 Soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants' deputies and over 450 Soviets of peasants' deputies. Let us note that in the Don and Kuban there were also Soviets of Cossack and Peasant Deputies.
But for the most part, they based their activities not on legislative acts issued by the authorities, but on the opinions and wishes of the masses. The councils themselves most often determined the quantitative composition of deputies and developed their own powers and structure. Naturally, already at the end of 1917 it became clear that the existing Soviets, which to a certain extent possessed elements of independence and autonomy, came into conflict with the strict centralization of state bodies. For the Bolsheviks based the organization of local self-government on the principle of the sovereignty of the Soviets and their unity as bodies of state power.
As noted by A.N. Boers, the role and importance of local Soviets were initially politicized, they were considered as the primary cells for the implementation of the “proletarian dictatorship”. They were presented not only and not so much as bodies for solving local problems on the basis of public initiative, but rather as bodies through which the “working and exploited masses” would realize their class interests.
Analyzing the reform of local self-government in Russia at the end of 1917, V.V. Eremyan and M.V. Fedorov noted that since October 1917, the fate of zemstvo and city self-government structures was largely determined by the recommendations of the Soviet government, sent to local Soviets, to use the apparatus of these bodies to implement and implement on the ground the first decrees of the new government, as well as the actual situation in the relevant province or city. Already on October 27, 1917, a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars “On expanding the rights of city self-governments in food matters” was adopted, in accordance with which all locally available food should be distributed exclusively through city self-government bodies.
By the end of December 1917, the new government's attitude towards the institutions of the old self-government was changing: December 27, 1917. By decree of the Councils of People's Commissars the Zemstvo Union was dissolved. By the spring of 1918, the liquidation of all zemstvo and city local government bodies was completed. Until March 20, 1918 The People's Commissariat for Local Self-Government operated, but after the Left Socialist Revolutionaries left the coalition government (with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries), it was abolished as an independent institution.
After strengthening the Soviets in provincial and district centers, they immediately began organizing Soviets in volosts and villages.
The concept of “council,” despite the essentially random nature of its origin, was destined to play an outstanding role in the state and political system of Russia. The origins of the formation of this concept, according to V.V. Eremyan and M.V. Fedorov, were ideas about democracy as a system of governance with the help of boards. The College (or Council) is the ideal form in which democratic government is embodied, from the point of view of Calvin, the English Puritanists, the Jacobins or the Russian Marxists. Initially, the creators of the Soviet system were unlikely to grasp the meaning of such an order of organization. They rather approached the first Soviets from a utilitarian perspective. The origins of the peasant community, which for many years served as a form of organization exclusively for land and economic relations, feed the “embryo-on” of the Soviet system.”
Analyzing the legislation of that period, scientists most often identify three characteristic features inherent in local Soviets. Firstly, local Councils were bodies of power and control operating within the boundaries of the then existing administrative territories. Secondly, there was organizational interconnection and vertical subordination. And finally, when determining the competence and limits of powers of local Councils, their independence in resolving issues of local importance was established, but their activities were allowed only in accordance with the decisions of the central government and higher Councils.
Note that zemstvo traditions influenced the Soviets of Soldiers', Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. That is, one part of the population was isolated, and subsequently all social groups of the population received representation in the Soviets. Another thing is that the principle of trash in them was replaced by the principle of selection, which was carried out by party structures. This is what needed to be changed, and not destroy the very principle of representation on a socio-professional basis.
The process of transfer of local state power to the Soviets would not be short-lived: for a certain time, zemstvo and city bodies, local self-government functioned in parallel to the local Soviets, although they did not always oppose themselves to the latter. In December 1917, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (Narkomvud), on behalf of the Soviet government, gave an official explanation regarding the relationship of the Soviets with local governments. This clarification indicated that zemstvos and city dumas that oppose or sabotage their decisions are subject to immediate liquidation, local government bodies loyal to the Soviets are preserved and under the leadership of the Soviets, on their instructions they perform the functions of local government.
Historians note that even if “traditional” local government bodies were preserved for a given period of time, there could be no talk of any equality of rights with the Soviets. In this way, the position of the Bolsheviks was radically different from the position of other political parties. Thus, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, advocating the preservation of zemstvos and city dumas, proposed dividing the functions of local government between them and the Soviets. The councils, in their opinion, were supposed to perform political, cultural and educational functions, and all issues of economic life would remain in zemstvos and city dumas.
The appeal of the People's Commissariat of Wood and to all Councils and the Instructions on the rights and responsibilities of the Councils, published at the end of December 1917, were essentially the first legislative documents that not only consolidated the system of local councils, but also determined their general competence.
Subsequent decrees issued by the Congresses of Soviets, the government and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee until the adoption of the first Constitution of the RSFSR in 1918 and relating to the activities of local Soviets expanded and specified their rights. At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets, it was noted that “all local affairs are decided exclusively by local Soviets. The Supreme Councils are recognized as having the right to regulate relations between lower Councils and resolve disagreements that arise between them.”
Naturally, a very important problem in the activities of local Soviets was the problem of their financing. On February 18, 1918, the People’s Commissar of Wood recommended that local Soviets seek a source of livelihood locally by mercilessly taxing the propertied classes.” This “right” soon began to be realized: the “property classes” were subject to a special tax. At the same time, this source, with such “merciless taxation,” could not but dry up soon, so the problem of ensuring the material base of local Soviets came more and more to the fore.
The sphere of competence and activity of local Councils expanded. By the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 27, 1918, local Soviets were given the right to decide the issue of boundaries between individual administrative territorial units. In the same month, departments were established under the executive committees of the Soviets, starting with the volosts, to assign pensions to military personnel who were injured. In February 1918, by decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, all provincial and district executive committees were invited to organize road sections that would take over from local governments all rights and responsibilities in this area. The powers of the Soviets of this period extended quite far. They organized the work of local enterprises that were subject to nationalization, protected industrial facilities, and controlled enterprises that were still in the hands of the old owners.
In the social sphere, the Soviets began to carry out activities to provide for the urgent needs of the population, and, above all, the working class. They organized public canteens and hostels, tried to regulate issues of labor and wages, developed tariffs together with trade unions, and carried out various measures to protect labor and solve housing issues.
In the field of public education and cultural and educational activities, the Soviets created public primary and secondary schools, took measures to publish new textbooks and teaching aids, and reorganized gymnasiums and real schools into Soviet primary and secondary schools. On their initiative, the network of orphanages, playgrounds, libraries, reading rooms,
In the health sector, the Soviets implemented measures to ensure free medical care and carried out various activities in the field of sanitation, hygiene and prevention.
In the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, the tasks of local Soviets were defined as follows:
a) implementation of all decisions of the highest bodies of Soviet power;
b) taking all measures to improve the given territory culturally and economically;
c) resolution of all issues of purely local (for a given territory) significance;
d) unification of all Soviet activities within a given territory.
Very important in this regard is the fact that all income and expenses of local Soviets were placed under the control of the center.
At the end of 1919, the VII All-Russian Congress of Soviets adopted an official course towards decentralization. The Congress placed the Soviets between the People's Commissariats and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The Soviets received the right to suspend the orders of the People's Commissariats if their decisions contradicted the interests of the localities. At the same time, it was provided that the suspension of the orders of individual people's commissariats could take place only in exceptional cases, and the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, when considering this issue, has the right to bring to justice the guilty party - either the anesthetist who gave an order that was clearly contrary to the laws, or the leaders of the provincial executive committee who illegally suspended order of the People's Commissariat.
In other words, the councils received the right to protect their interests. At the same time, units of local government were determined regardless of size (province, district, parish, city, village). They began to be called communes. Special bodies (communal departments) were created in the Soviets to manage the “municipal services.” In April 1920, a central regulatory body was created - the Main Directorate of Public Utilities.
After the civil war, during the restoration period, expanding the powers of local authorities, giving them the character of local self-government for the Soviet government was a forced step, but at that stage it was necessary. But it was short-lived.
2. Positionself-government in the USSR in the conditions of the formation and development of totalitarianism (1924-1953).
The independent economic activities of the Soviets began in the fall of 1924 with the allocation of independent city budgets. With the development of commodity-money relations, local Councils have the means to form their own budgets. They are based on revenues from newly restored taxes, payments for housing and other utilities.
In 1924, discussions began to expand the rights of the Soviets not only in economic activities, but also in political and administrative ones. A broad campaign “for the revival of local Soviets” is being launched in the press. In April 1924, a meeting was held on issues of Soviet construction and “improving the work of local Soviets as a power that organizes the independent activities of many millions of working people.” In 1925, the Regulations on the City Council were adopted, which declared the new role of the Council as “the highest authority in the city and within its competence.”
Professor L.A. Velikhov, in his book “Fundamentals of Urban Economy,” published in 1928, paid considerable attention to the analysis of the “Regulations on City Councils.” It was adopted by the 2nd session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the 12th convocation and published in Izvestia on January 3, 1926.
What areas of responsibility were assigned to city councils?
City councils in the field of administration, protection of state order and public safety received the right to issue resolutions, form election commissions for re-elections, determine electoral districts and the procedure for holding elections.
In paragraph 26 of Chapter III of the “Regulations...” it was written that in the field of “economic, economic and industrial, city councils operate enterprises under their jurisdiction directly or by leasing, organize new enterprises of a production and commercial nature , promote the development of industry and trade in the city and regulate them within the limits of existing legislation, provide full support and assistance to all types of cooperation.
In the field of land and communal services (according to paragraph 28), city councils are in charge of the operation and leasing of urban lands and lands, carry out work related to the city limits, land reclamation, planning, allocation of land plots for construction and agricultural use, arrange and - establish, within the city limits, pasture, meadow and forestry, cattle breeding, gardens, etc., organize veterinary care.
By the end of 1927, the destroyed urban economy was restored to the level of 1913. Attention is again beginning to be paid to issues of improvement. Various urban planning projects are emerging. A number of schools in large cities are being transferred to the balance of public utilities. Thus, there is a fairly clear manifestation of the “autonomization” of local Soviets; their attempt to play a more or less independent role in public life was declared. In general, the “NEP” period of Soviet activity was characterized by:
Some decentralization of the unified hierarchical Soviet system, redistribution of prerogatives towards some strengthening of the rights and powers of its lower levels;
Expanding the socio-economic powers of local Councils represented by their executive bodies through their absorption of local territorial bodies, central government structures, the formation of special public utility management bodies;
Attempts to more or less broadly involve the “working masses” in the electoral process locally, to revive the Soviets while maintaining strict political control on the part of the ruling party;
Formation of an independent financial and material base of local Councils, restoration of the taxation system in the conditions of revival of commodity-money relations;
Creation of a regulatory framework that ensured a certain “autonomization” of local Councils.
The completion of the NEP stage led to a significant change in the financial situation of municipalities.
In April 1927, the XV Party Conference of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks announced a course towards the centralization of power and control. Since 1928, the “otkom-munkhozes” and city departments of public utilities have been closed, and “cleansing” of the apparatus of local Soviets and the central apparatus has been carried out. A new law on the finances of local councils is adopted, which introduces the residual principle of financing (after the costs of industrialization) of local farms.
Cities were deprived of budgetary independence: at first, by decision of the party bodies, some of the city enterprises were united into trusts, and with the creation in 1932 of the system of sectoral industrial people's commissariats, the trusts came under their direct subordination. In 1930, the municipal services departments of local Soviets were liquidated, and thus the independent activities of the Soviets ceased altogether. This was, as A. N. Burov notes, the actual killing of city councils, since the city from a relatively independent entity turned into an appendage of industry. In 1933, a new Regulation on the City Council was adopted, in which they again began to be declared as bodies of the proletarian dictatorship, called upon to carry out the policies of the central government at the local level.
The Constitution of the USSR of 1936 and the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1937 transformed local Soviets of workers, peasants and Red Army soldiers into Soviets of Working People's Deputies, which in legal terms should be considered as a step towards democratization. With the abolition of congresses, the Soviets became permanent bodies of power and administration. They were formed on the basis of universal, equal, direct suffrage by secret ballot. Local Councils were proclaimed as sovereign bodies on their territory and were called upon to resolve the most important issues of state, economic, social and housing construction. In fact, under the conditions of the formed totalitarian regime, the Soviets were very far from real sovereignty and democracy.
In the pre-war years, a new form of participation of Soviet deputies in practical work appeared. From their composition, permanent commissions are formed, including budgetary, school, defense, etc. The position of the executive committees of the Soviets has also changed. They began to represent executive and administrative bodies, accountable to the Soviets, which, under the watchful eye and guiding influence of the party, carried out the day-to-day management of all economic and cultural construction on their territory, the activities of local industrial enterprises, agriculture, and public educational institutions.
The Great Patriotic War made significant adjustments to the development of local self-government.
On the basis of the Decree “On Martial Law,” all functions of state authorities in the front-line territories were transferred to the Councils of fronts, armies and districts. All power was concentrated in the hands of the State Defense Committee. This extraordinary supreme body of the country's leadership was entrusted with the main management functions related to the war, ensuring material and other conditions for conducting military operations. The resolutions of the State Defense Committee were subject to unquestioning execution by all government bodies, public organizations and citizens. Local defense committees were created in a number of regional centers and cities. And the Soviets had to act alongside and in the closest unity with these bodies that arose during the war. In this regard, the constitutional terms of elections, the regularity of sessions, and the reporting of the Soviets were violated almost everywhere. The role of executive and administrative bodies (executive committees) has increased even more. Issues that required collegial consideration at sessions were often resolved by executive committees and departments. In turn, party committees often replaced the activities of Soviet bodies, and many functions of executive committees were performed individually by their leaders and department heads.
3. Attempts to reform territorial self-government (1958-1964).The period of stabilization in the development of local councils (1964-1982).
In 50-80 of the XX century. In the USSR, many resolutions were adopted on the problems of improving local self-government. These are resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee “On improving the activities of Soviets of Working People’s Deputies and strengthening their ties with the masses” (1957), “On the work of local Soviets of Working People’s Deputies of the Poltava Region” (1965), “On improving the work of rural and village Councils of Working People's Deputies" (1967), "On measures to further improve the work of district and city Councils of Working People's Deputies" (1971), resolution of the CPSU Central Committee, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR " On further enhancing the role of the Councils of People's Deputies in economic construction" (1981), etc.
Many documents expanded the financial rights of local authorities. So in 1956, local Soviets began to independently distribute funds from their budget. A step forward should also be recognized as the right granted to local Councils to direct additional revenues identified during the execution of budgets to finance housing and communal services and social and cultural events. In the regulations on village councils of the RSFSR, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on September 12, 1957, local authorities received the right, if the revenue part of the rural budget was exceeded, to direct budget funds to additional expenses for the formation of economic and cultural activities (except for increasing wages ). The very procedure for approving these budgets was changed: now they were approved at a session of the village Council, whereas previously they were subject to approval by the executive committees of the district Councils.
The sources of income going directly to the budgets of local councils have also expanded. For example, the laws on the State Budget of the USSR for 1958 and 1959 established that income received from income tax from collective farms, agricultural tax and tax from bachelors, single and small-family citizens are fully credited to the republican budget. Then a significant part of these funds was transferred to local budgets.
But, as historians note, these innovations did not produce the desired result: the command-administrative system played its role. The fact is that, while establishing new rights of the Soviets in the next act, the center “forgot” to provide them with material, organizational and structural mechanisms, and these innovations were doomed to be declarative.
In addition, the dependence of the Soviets on their own executive bodies arose, when in fact the apparatus began to dominate the Soviets, forming and directing their activities together with the entire deputy corps.
A significant place was given to the development of local self-government in the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 and the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1978. These Basic Laws established the principle of the supremacy of the Soviets as the only unified bodies of state power. Reinforcing the sovereignty of the Soviets, they established that all other government bodies were controlled and accountable to the Soviets. A special chapter of the Constitution of the RSFSR was devoted to local authorities and management. The functions of local councils were more clearly and fully developed. They were in charge of a significant part of the enterprises of the local, fuel and food industries, the building materials industry, agriculture, water and land reclamation, trade and public catering, repair and construction organizations, power plants, etc.
How was the system of local self-government characterized in the USSR, including in the Russian Federation in the 80s? XX century?
According to the USSR Constitution of 1977, local Soviets were supposed to manage state, economic and socio-cultural construction on their territory; approve plans for economic and social development and the local budget; exercise management of government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations subordinate to them; ensure compliance with laws, protection of state and public order, and the rights of citizens; contribute to strengthening the country's defense capability.
Within the limits of their powers, local Councils had to ensure comprehensive economic and social development on their territory; exercise control over compliance with legislation by enterprises, institutions and organizations of higher subordination located in this territory; coordinate and control their activities in the field of land use, nature conservation, construction, use of labor resources, production of consumer goods, socio-cultural, household and other services to the population.
Decisions of local Councils, adopted within the powers granted to them by the legislation of the USSR, union and autonomous republics, were binding on all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on the territory of the Council, as well as officials and citizens.
District, city and regional councils in cities could form departments and departments of executive committees, approve and dismiss their leaders; cancel decisions of lower-level Councils; create supervisory commissions, commissions on juvenile affairs, commissions to combat drunkenness under the executive committees of the Soviets, committees of people's control, approve their composition, appoint and dismiss their chairmen; approve the structure and staff of the executive committee, its departments and directorates, based on the standards adopted in the republic and the number of administrative and managerial staff established for the executive committee.
Rural and township Councils at sessions pooled and directed funds allocated by collective farms, state farms, and enterprises for housing, communal, cultural and community construction and improvement; approved and dismissed heads of schools and other institutions subordinate to them; considered comments and proposals on the charters of agricultural artels; approved submissions to the executive committees of higher Councils on issues related to changes in the administrative and territorial structure.
In addition to the above, local Councils were authorized to consider and resolve at sessions any issues within their jurisdiction by the legislation of the USSR, union and autonomous republic.
Local Councils themselves determined the advisability of considering a particular issue by the Council or a body reporting to it. In principle, local Councils had the right to consider and resolve any issue within their jurisdiction. At the same time, local Councils did not need to replace the governing bodies subordinate to them and consider all issues of economic and social development themselves. In practice, they took into consideration only those issues that were of the most importance.
The scope of rights and responsibilities of local Councils depended on their unit. Thus, regional and regional Soviets concentrated in their hands all the threads of leadership of economic and social development. They directly supervised enterprises, institutions and organizations subordinate to them, as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations subordinate to lower Councils.
The District Council, as the key link of local authorities, acted as the organizer of the development of all sectors of the local economy, directly supervised the development of local industry, all social, communal, cultural, trade services for the population, public education, and healthcare. This was due to the fact that most enterprises and institutions in the service sector were directly subordinate to the district councils. The District Council also acted as the direct organizer and leader of the development of agricultural production.
Planning and regulatory principles occupied a significantly smaller place in his activities and were manifested in leadership exercised through rural, town Councils and Councils of cities of district subordination.
City Councils were characterized by activities primarily in the sphere of management of industry, urban services and public services. They managed the enterprises subordinate to them, took measures to develop the production of consumer goods and local building materials based on local raw materials, exercised control over the construction ongoing on their territory, organized housing, communal, cultural and community construction. City Councils supervised cultural institutions, state and cooperative trade, public catering, consumer service enterprises, urban improvement, and public utilities. They were in charge of managing all school activities, out-of-school education of children, work on medical and pension services for the population, etc.
The peculiarities of the competence of rural and settlement Councils were manifested in their tasks and rights in the field of agriculture and socio-cultural services to the population. Rural and township Soviets controlled the activities of collective and state farms and assisted them in the development of agricultural production.
Let us pay attention to the competence of local Councils in relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations. The competence of local Councils in relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations affected a variety of areas of their activity.
The widest range of rights to local councils was granted in the area related to serving the population. Local Councils controlled the activities of all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on their territory in housing, communal construction, construction of social, cultural and domestic facilities, production of consumer goods, development and implementation of measures in the field of education , cultural health, land use, nature conservation, use of labor resources.
In all organizations, regardless of their subordination. The Soviets monitored the observance of socialist legality, the state of protection of the rights, freedoms and interests of citizens, and the work with letters, complaints and statements from workers.
The powers of local Councils in relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations were closely related to their rights to ensure unified state management of all processes of economic and socio-cultural construction on their territory, i.e. their rights under the OS - implementation of coordination functions. They applied to the entire territory subordinate to the local Council and to all without exception (both subordinate and non-subordinate and non-subordinate) enterprises, institutions and organizations. In other words, we were talking about a broad, integrated approach to the development prospects of the respective territories. This directly implied the need to combine the capabilities, efforts and resources of all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on the territory of the Council, in order to ensure the most effective development of all processes of economic, state, administrative and socio-cultural construction, protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens , ensuring law and order.
Differences in the subordination of enterprises, institutions and organizations to local Councils influenced not the presence or absence of local Councils' right to influence a certain range of subjects, but the degree of this influence in various fields of activity.
Local Councils were authorized to manage subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations in full and all aspects of their activities.
In relation to non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations, the sphere of influence of local Councils was narrower and had a different character: in matters directly affecting the interests of the population (so-called issues of local significance), the Councils had the right to coordinate and control their activities practically in in full. By exercising control over non-subordinate enterprises, institutions and organizations, hearing reports from their leaders, and making decisions on them, local Councils thereby exerted a direct guiding influence on them. Proposals and recommendations contained in decisions of local Councils addressed to enterprises, institutions and organizations of higher subordination located on the territory of the Council must be considered by the heads of these organizations, and the results are reported to the Council within the period established by law.
Adopted within the limits of the rights granted to the Councils, their decisions were binding on all enterprises, institutions and organizations located on the territory of the Council. In case of failure to comply with their demands, the Councils acted through the relevant higher bodies: they made their proposals in necessary cases, came with ideas to impose disciplinary sanctions on the leaders who did not comply with the decisions of the Council, up to and including releasing them from their positions.
Many local councils pooled funds from enterprises, institutions and organizations of higher subordination, allocated for housing, cultural and public utility construction, and acted as a single customer.
The implementation of the competence of local Councils was carried out in various organizational and legal forms, complementary to each other, connected into a single system. The versatility and complexity of the Council's functions determined the significant differentiation of this system and the specialization of its individual elements.
The variety of organizational forms of activity of the Soviets required their correct balancing, strict consideration of their features and appointment in the general system of leadership carried out by each government body.
The main organizational and legal form of activity of local Sonnets is sessions.
A session of the local Council is a general meeting of Sonet deputies convened in accordance with the procedure established by law, empowered to resolve all issues within its competence. It was at the session that the Council acted as a representative body of power, supreme on its territory. At the sessions, the Councils considered all the most important issues within their competence, controlled and directed the activities of standing commissions, deputy groups, executive committees, as well as other government bodies.
The frequency of sessions of local Councils was determined by the Constitutions of the union and autonomous republics and the laws on local Councils: sessions of regional, regional Councils, Councils of autonomous regions, autonomous districts, district, city and district Councils in cities were held at least 4 times a year. The frequency of sessions of village and town Councils in the RSFSR, Kazakh SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Moldavian SSR is 6 times, and in other republics - 4 times a year. The constitutions of the autonomous republics established the same frequency of sessions of local Soviets as the Constitution of the union republic, which included this ASSR. Sessions were held evenly: at least once every three months (if the session frequency is 4 times a year) and once every two months (if the session frequency is 6 times a year).
Trying to give political, economic and social significance to Soviets at all levels, the CPSU Central Committee brought these issues to special plenums. Thus, among other issues, on April 10, 1984, the regular Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee considered the issues of party leadership of the Soviets and increasing their role in communist construction. At the same time, for the umpteenth time, it only declared the thesis that the Soviets are the political basis of the state. Nevertheless, in the mechanism of legal support for the integrated development of the local economy, elements were identified that indicate an expansion of the powers of local Councils.
It was assumed that local Councils would participate in the consideration of draft plans for associations, enterprises, organizations of higher subordination located on the territory of local Councils of People's Deputies, in the approval of consolidated current and long-term plans for the development of the socio-cultural sphere, in resolving issues of pooling funds for their use in the construction of social and cultural facilities and general purpose facilities.
4. The place and role of local authorities in the Soviet state.
How do historians, lawyers, and political scientists evaluate the Soviet period of development and functioning of local self-government in Russia?
According to V.V. Eremyan and M.V. Fedorov, the Soviet period was characterized by:
Firstly, the strict hierarchy of social relations and the structure of local self-governing units (corporations) led to the installation of vertical subordination of individual institutions. Therefore, by the autumn of 1917. The Soviets began the process of unification with the development of appropriate principles of functioning vertically: volost (or city) - district - province - region - state;
Secondly, democratic methods of managing a corporation did not always form the corresponding ideas about the structure of relationships between individual institutions of self-government and local governments and institutions of state power. (For example, local Soviets considered the decisions of all higher-level Soviets, All-Russian meetings and congresses of Soviets as binding);
Thirdly, the functional content of a local self-governing unit (corporation) - a village, district, etc., as, on the one hand, a regulator of political mobilization, should ultimately form a dual understanding of the nature of the Soviets. At the same time, the development of the Soviets, their transformation from self-government bodies into local bodies of state power and administration, was greatly influenced by the historical conditions of Russia. One of the first signs that showed a change in the fundamental principles of the functioning and activities of local Councils was the abandonment of elections and the transition to a system of so-called “liberated workers” appointed to leadership positions by higher Councils. Finally, the inclusion of the Soviets in the system of state power and the transformation of the country into a republic of Soviets from top to bottom initially contradicted the self-governing nature of the Soviets.
A. N. Burov paints a very detailed final picture. In his opinion, this period in the development of local self-government in Russia was distinguished by the following factors:
1. The emergence of the “Soviet” system of local self-government was a consequence of the creative activity of the “working masses”, their desire for true democracy. This was also consistent with the doctrinal provisions of the Bolshevik Party with its thesis about the need to abolish the state as such and the transition to “communist public self-government.” At the same time, zemstvo and city self-government were rejected as a “bourgeois relic.”
2. At the same time, in contrast to the doctrinal communist utopia, the actual practice of Bolshevism took the path of constituting a political system of totalitarianism with its all-encompassing control of the public and private lives of citizens. Within the framework of the constructed totalitarian socio-political system, local Soviets acted as a lower cell of the rigid hierarchical system of Soviets, which “usurped” both legislative and executive-administrative, and sometimes judicial functions.
3. The abolished “bourgeois” principle of separation of powers was replaced by the principle of unity of power, which in reality turned into the dictates of the party bureaucratic apparatus. Within the framework of a single political process, a peculiar expansion of a single subject-object construct took place (“reverse usurpation” of any significant management functions by the Soviets).
4. Within the framework of an integral political system of totalitarianism, local Soviets actually acted not as a subject, but as an object of government and managerial influence in resolving the most important issues, manifesting themselves as lower-level bodies of state power. In this case, they performed a purely decorative function of masking the totalitarian essence of the political regime that had formed in Russia.
5. When resolving minor issues of local life, the Councils in a number of cases acted as a subject of the management process, but the extremely narrow field of their functioning did not allow them to act as a real body of public initiative. This function, to a certain extent, allowed them to compensate for the extremes of totalitarianism, channeling the energy of the “working masses” into a Procrustean bed of local actions and initiatives that did not affect the essence of the formed socio-political regime. In ideological terms, this created among the population of local communities the illusion of “democracy”, “involvement” in the affairs of society and the state, thus contributing to the stabilization of the political system of totalitarianism.
6. During the period of the apogee of totalitarianism (“late Stalinism”), local Soviets were relegated to the role of a “cog” in a super-hierarchized political system and could no longer perform the above-mentioned compensatory function. The over-centralization of the political system disrupted the stability of its supporting pillar, kept afloat by the authority of a charismatic leader.
7. To restore the dynamic “equilibrium of the system, the party-political elite followed the path of well-known (i.e., having its limits) decentralization, which relieved social tension and gave the lower levels of the Soviet system (local Soviets) a certain dynamics. The expansion of their rights and powers, some strengthening of their material base, a certain democratization of their structuring and functioning, and the involvement of wider masses of “workers” in local initiative prevented the collapse of the totalitarian system, giving it, as it were, a second wind.
8. At the same time, the well-known democratization of the political system (“Khrushchev’s thaw”) weakened the all-encompassing control of the party apparatus over the socio-political life of the country, which came into conflict with the essence of the totalitarian system itself. As a result, a new round of “swinging of the pendulum” emerged: the totalitarian system, having by that time exhausted the possibilities for its further growth, entered a period of decline and degradation (the era of “stagnation”).
9. The all-encompassing process of degradation of Soviet society also resulted in the degradation of the lower levels of the political system (local Soviets). They increasingly lost their already very “sparse” independence, lost their connections with the masses, without whose support and without financial independence they ceased to be any kind of self-governing bodies, embodying through their activities only local state power. This explains the dependent nature of this social institution during the period of “developed socialism.”
10. The decisions taken by the central government to develop the economic independence of local Soviets did not curb departmental monopoly, because it is organic for the command-administrative system. The absence of market relations doomed local Soviets to fatal dependence on the distribution center(s), extremely narrowing their material base.
11. The measures taken during the period of “perestroika” to democratize the activities of the Soviets contributed to their next “revival,” thus creating the preconditions for a decisive breakthrough in the formation of local self-government.
12. At the same time, the “perestroika” measures showed the exhaustion of the possibilities for reforming local Soviets within the framework of a totalitarian political system that was dying on its last legs, when the task arose of dismantling it and changing the social system, forming a civil society with a fundamentally different political structure: on a democratic basis and with a socially oriented market economy, allowing the formation of real local government bodies.
13. The transition to a system of local self-government logically followed from the previous social development of the country. This was necessary in order to effectively solve local problems that could no longer be properly resolved “from above.” The seventy-year “zigzag” of history was not in vain; relevant lessons were learned from it, in particular, the urgent need for local self-government as such became clear.
The country entered a complex and contradictory period of the formation of a democratic political system, within the framework of which local self-government had to find its rightful place, take a position that would contribute to the manifestation of its inherent features, the optimal performance of the functions inherent in this most important element of public life.
Naturally, one can argue with the author of these assessments on certain provisions, but one must agree on the main thing: local Soviets only formally expressed true democracy, because they did not have real rights of independence and financial security.
Conclusion
During the years of perestroika, the new leadership of the CPSU Soviet government tried, for the umpteenth time, to intensify the process aimed at increasing the role of local Soviets.
In July 1986, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution “On measures to further enhance the role and strengthen the responsibility of the Councils of People's Deputies for accelerating socio-economic development in the light of the decisions of the 27th Congress of the CPSU.” It provided for measures to ensure comprehensive economic and social development of the territories, improve the management of industries directly related to meeting the needs of the local population, improve the use of natural and secondary resources, and increase the interest of the Councils of People's Deputies in increasing the efficiency of the associations. , enterprises and organizations, the development of democratic principles in the work of the Councils of People's Deputies and the strengthening of the apparatus of Soviet bodies.
But two years later it became clear that there were no fundamental changes in the activities of local Soviets, and the XIX All-Union Conference of the CPSU in 1988 again returned to this issue.
The conference developed a program for the restructuring of all aspects of the activities of the Soviets. The basic, “bearing” principle was formulated as follows: Not a single state economic or social issue can be resolved apart from the Soviets.” In this regard, the conference recognized the need to strengthen the legislative, managerial and control functions of the Councils, transfer to their consideration and resolution of all important issues of state, economic, socio-cultural life, restore the leadership position of elected bodies in relation to executors and their apparatus.
Attention to the problems of self-government in our country increased in the second half of the 80s, when the need for a transition from administrative to predominantly economic methods of management was recognized. Gradually, the view began to be established that local self-government is an independent level of exercise by the people of the power constitutionally belonging to them, that a democratic structure of society is possible only with the separation of local self-government from state power.
After the October Revolution, the widespread liquidation of zemstvos began (the Bolsheviks considered zemstvo self-government a legacy of the bourgeois system), which was completed by the summer of 1918.
It must be emphasized that the attitude towards local self-government in the early days of Soviet power was ambiguous. In December 1917, the People's Commissariat for Self-Government Affairs was even created, which, however, lasted only three months.
The liquidation of the zemstvo was a completely natural process, because local self-government provides for the decentralization of power, economic, social, financial and, to a certain extent, political independence, independence, and the ideas of socialism were based on the state of the proletarian dictatorship, i.e. the state is centralized by nature.
The bodies of zemstvo and city self-government were replaced by a system of councils. The Soviet system is based on the principle of unity at all levels and strict subordination of lower bodies to higher ones. All councils operated under the control of the Communist Party.
However, the need to quickly overcome the devastation after civil The war brought to life a new economic policy (NEP) with a certain assumption of market economic methods, some decentralization of power and the organization of local economic self-government. In 1920-1923 while maintaining the party leadership, the following were transferred to local management: land management, landscaping, part of industry, water supply and sewerage, local transport, fire fighting, and funeral services. Municipal power plants appeared, and communal (municipal) banks began to be created.
In 1925 The Regulations on City Councils were adopted, and in 1926 g. - Regulations on local finances. These acts clearly defined the competence and financial resources of local councils in the economic sphere. Municipal science was actively developing, the largest representative of which was Professor L.A. Velikhov. His fundamental work “Fundamentals of Urban Economy,” published in 1928, remains relevant today.
In 1927 and 1928 A new period of development began in the USSR - the period of the “great turning point” and accelerated industrialization, characterized by a sharp increase in the centralization of economic life. An administrative-territorial reform was carried out, instead of rural volosts and counties, larger districts were created, better suited for centralized leadership. All the beginnings of self-government in cities and in the countryside were eliminated, and the term “self-government” itself disappeared from use for a long time. Professor L.A. Velikhov was repressed. The newly established rigid centralized system of leadership (formally quite democratic, with universal, equal and direct suffrage) was enshrined in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR and remained almost unchanged until the end of the 1980s.
5. The current state of local government in the Russian Federation
The modern history of local government in Russia can be divided into several stages:
1989-1991 - the initial stage of restoration of local self-government;
1991 - 1993 - local government bodies are removed from the system of state authorities;
1993-1995 - regulation of local government issues within the framework of constitutional reform;
1995-2003 - implementation of the first Federal Law of August 28, 1995 No. 154-FZ “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation”;
from 2003 to the present - transition to the implementation of the new Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation.”
Interest in the idea of local self-government returned in the second half of the 1980s. with the beginning of perestroika. Since the early 1980s. The state policy in relation to local authorities and the territories under their jurisdiction has repeatedly changed. It all started with strengthening the responsibility of local authorities for the comprehensive, balanced economic and social development of territories without actually expanding their real rights and economic opportunities. Then it was announced that there would be a transition to regional self-financing, which seemed very difficult given the dominance of command and distribution relations in the country. And finally, since the early 1990s. began to lay the foundations of regulated market relations, thereby creating an economic mechanism for local self-government.
The initial stage of development of local self-government (1989-1991) associated with the spontaneous process of formation of territorial public self-government. At the same time, such a form of self-government as the election of councils of labor collectives was introduced at enterprises.
The development of small businesses and the expansion of local initiatives in the economic sphere required adequate changes in the local government system. At the same stage, the creation of a legal framework for local self-government began. The USSR Law “On the General Principles of Local Self-Government and Local Economy in the USSR”, which came into force in accordance with Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated April 9, 1990 No. 1418-1, was the first act in the history of Soviet power that introduced local self-government into the state system and abolished the previous status of local Councils of People's Deputies. For the first time, the concept of communal property was legislated.
At the next stage (1991-1993), which began with the collapse of the USSR, the process of creating a legal framework for the formation of local government institutions continued. The main legal act that determined the formation of local self-government institutions in Russia was the RSFSR Law of July 6, 1991 No. 1550-1 “On Local Self-Government in the RSFSR” (as amended on October 25, 1991), the adoption of which was preceded by its inclusion in the Constitution RSFSR 1978 section “Local self-government in the RSFSR” instead of the section “Local government bodies”. The law clearly established the boundaries of local self-government (within the boundaries of districts, cities, districts in cities, towns, rural settlements). In law established a unified federation for the entire Russian Federationtions model of the local government system with a fairly strong head of administration. These laws made it possible to begin the revival of local self-government on a new basis, with democratic, alternative elections and in a multi-party environment. The system of executive committees with collegial responsibility for decisions made was replaced by a system of heads of administration operating on the principles of unity of command.
The adoption of the law stimulated the process of formation of local government institutions, especially territorial public self-government in cities and towns. However, its implementation was hampered by the growing political crisis that led to the August 1991 events.
In 1992, for the first time, local government bodies were removed from the system of state authorities. However, their new status was not sufficiently clarified.
Next stage ( 1993-1995) characterized by the regulation of local self-government issues by Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation within the framework of constitutional reform. In 1993, the system of Soviets was liquidated, the powers of local Soviets were temporarily assigned to local administrations, and elections were scheduled for new representative bodies of government; guarantees have been created for the implementation of the population's rights to local self-government. Work has begun on the preparation and adoption of a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. As part of the constitutional reform, the process of decentralization received its logical conclusion: the institution of local self-government was proclaimed as an independent structure in the system of public power, with organizational isolation. Local government received: allocated competence (issues of local importance); financial and economic independence in resolving issues of local importance - based on the right to have its own budget, formed through revenue and expenditure powers transferred to local self-government; wide independence in choosing organizational forms. However, the development of local self-government did not occur immediately after the adoption of the Constitution. Until August 1995, only nine heads of local government (mayors) were elected, mostly in large cities.
The next stage in the formation of local self-government in the Russian Federation (1995-2003) associated with the adoption and implementation of the Federal Law of August 28, 1995 No. 154-FZ “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation”, the entry into force of this Federal Law began the real revival of local self-government in Russia. New local government bodies were elected. On December 27, 1995, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted the Federal Program of State Support for Local Self-Government. Then the Federal Law of November 26, 1996 No. 138-FZ “On ensuring the constitutional rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to elect and be elected to local government bodies” was adopted (as amended by the Federal Law of June 28, 1998 No. 85-FZ), on the basis of which Elections were held in almost all subjects of the Federation. Then Federal Laws of September 25, 1997 No. 126-FZ “On the financial foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation” and of January 8, 1998 No. 8-FZ “On the foundations of municipal service in the Russian Federation” came into force (as amended by the Federal Law dated April 13, 1999 No. 75-FZ). On April 11, 1998, our country ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government. On October 15, 1999, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation approved the “Basic provisions of state policy in the field of development of local self-government in the Russian Federation.” To organize the interaction of local government bodies with government bodies, the Council on Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation, headed by the President of the country, and the Council of Heads of Local Government Bodies on Problems of Social and Economic Reform under the Government of the Russian Federation were created.
At the same time, the implementation of local self-government revealed a number of serious shortcomings and unresolved problems. Political instability in the second half of the 1990s. did not allow us to focus on such an important area of reform as the formation of local self-government. Changes in tax and budget legislation significantly undermined the financial base of local government and turned most municipalities into heavily subsidized ones. Local governments were entrusted with a significant amount of government powers that were not provided with funding.
In order to intensify the process of formation of local self-government, the Government of the Russian Federation developed and adopted the Federal Program of State Support for Local Self-Government. However, it turned out to be inadequate to the scale of the reforms that had begun.
In general, the necessary conditions have not been fully created for the implementation of the Federal Law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation.” Underestimation of the importance of local self-government reform, which resulted in unsettled inter-budgetary relations, contributed to a constant reduction in local budget revenues and an increase in their deficit, as a result of which the municipal economy in 2000 actually exhausted its resources.
CURRENT STATE OF REFORM AND PROBLEMSLOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Since 2002, administrative reform has begun in Russia, designed to increase the efficiency of all levels of public authority, clearly delimit powers and responsibilities between them, and bring the financial resources of each level into line with the scope of powers. An essential component of this reform was the reform of local government. In 2003, a new Federal Law No. 131 - F3 “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation” was adopted. Subsequently, a number of changes and additions were made to it. The new law on local self-government came into full force on January 1, 2009, and was implemented as an experiment in the Stavropol Territory and the Novosibirsk Region.
In the Stavropol Territory, legislative acts have been adopted: on the boundaries of municipalities, on the organization of local self-government in the territories of districts and on interbudgetary relations. Specified regulations change the structure of local authorities, consolidate a two-level local budget (the formation of 9 urban districts, 26 municipalities at the district level and 280 at the settlement level is recorded, the total number of municipalities in the Stavropol Territory is 315) and regulate the relationship between state authorities of the Stavropol Territory and local authorities self-government of municipalities that are part of the Stavropol Territory.
Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation” outlined the next stage of local government reform, the purpose of which is, on the one hand, to bring local government bodies closer to the population, on the other hand the other is to make them accountable to the state. As a result, the legal conditions for organizing local self-government have improved. The provisions of the Federal Law of 2003 pay more attention to the regulation of the budget process in municipalities and equalization processes in relation to different types of municipalities.
Thus, approaches to regulating municipal relations indicate the desire of the President of the Russian Federation and the federal legislator to improve the country’s municipal system, to create conditions for the development of initiatives and responsibility of the population in resolving issues of life support for municipalities, strengthening democracy at the local level. This gives grounds to conclude that a new stage in the reform of local self-government has begun as one of the important areas of reform of the entire system of governance of society and the state, based on the principles of constitutional federalism and democracy.
The reform of local self-government in modern Russia should be considered as part of the general process of formation of a new Russian statehood, which causes significant qualitative changes in many spheres of life of society and the state. Naturally, this process is associated with a whole complex of economic (the protracted process of transition to market relations), financial (limited revenue base and imbalance of local budgets), social (collapse of the existing social infrastructure, a sharp decline in the standard of living of the population, etc.), political ( decline in public trust in government institutions) difficulties .
The following problems of the development of local self-government in the Russian Federation are identified:
financial weakness of local government, the gap between the responsibilities assigned to it and their resource support; the inability for financial reasons to fulfill its obligations to the population undermines the authority of local authorities, often destabilizing the situation on the ground;
weakness of civil society, low level of public activity, low legal culture of the population, lack of knowledge about the essence and possibilities of self-government;
resistance to bureaucracy at all levels, which sees local self-government as a threat to its well-being and traditional methods of management;
underestimation of the importance of local government reform, which resulted in unsettled inter-budgetary relations;
shortage of qualified personnel in the self-government system, especially in rural areas, etc.
