Russia: The Reinvention of Local Government?

Abstract

The ideological conflict between forces for and against reform in Russia represents only one dimension of the political crisis which has become the normal state of affairs in Russia since the re-introduction of democracy under Gorbachev in 1989–90. Of equal importance has been a parallel conflict over the nature of democracy and the distribution of powers between State institutions — including the role and relative autonomy of local government.¹ This institutional conflict may be said to have two main components: the respective powers and competences of the legislature and the executive; and the respective powers and competences of central, regional and local administration. The two are linked through the prevalence in Russia of two contrasting (but mutually-reinforcing) views of how democratic institutions should work. The first (Top-down) view argues that there should be a single line of command, whereby a democratically-elected ruler appoints and controls the ‘ruler’ at the next level down, who in turn does the same for the next level, and so on. According to the alternative (Bottom-up) view, a democratic mandate at any level is taken as absolute, and it excludes any interference from the next level up (or below), regardless of any democratic mandates these other levels may themselves have. These extreme and mutually opposed views on the nature of the democratic mandate are operating in a political culture which lacks a strong tradition of popular participation or public accountability. On both sides of the argument democracy often appears to be seen purely in terms of the power attached to a political office, rather than as a process involving representation of legitimate interest groups. To an extent the conflicts referred to derive from tensions which occur in any democratic state, between politicians and administrators/professionals, between centre and periphery. In Russia they are not only taken to extremes, but also compounded by the political culture’s inclination towards monopoly of power, the pursuit of political power being regarded as a ‘zero-sum game’. The collapse of the Soviet system gives rise to more fundamental issues of constitutional relationships and styles of government than was the case in former-Communist central Europe, where, to varying degrees, traditions of more or less democratic government and administration were there to he rediscovered. Although, where Russia is concerned, there is a need to resist the temptation to seek superficial explanations drawn from Russian history, the experience of local and regional government since 1992 suggests that, in the absence of other native traditions, many of the characteristics of Tsarist provincial government have returned, albeit in a modified form. At the same time the emergence and ongoing restructuring of local government in Russia are part of evolving local and national political processes and form part of a revolutionary cycle which is still in progress.