GOLD Report I - UCLG

95I. IntroductionThis chapter analyzes the formation, developmentand recent trends of local selfgovernmentin the states of the Eurasianregion that were formerly member statesof the Soviet Union: Azerbaijan, Armenia,Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, KyrgyzRepublic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,Ukraine and Uzbekistan.Until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991,all these countries shared a unified systemof local government. The main characteristicsof that system were that 1) localsoviets (councils) were part of the state, 2)soviets at each level were subordinate tosoviets at all higher levels, and 3) the executiveat each level of government wasnominally accountable to a representativecouncil but in practice both representativeand executive powers at each level weresubordinated to the ruling party organizationat that level.Taken together these attributes of theSoviet system of sub-national governmentform a legacy that continues to influencethe evolution of sub-national governmentin the successor states. In the early yearsof post-soviet transition this legacy wasevident in terms of the practical difficultiescaused by the collapse of the previoussystem. After 1991 there were difficultiesdue to overlapping functions and sharedcompetencies, as well as the lack of a clearrelationship between functions, responsibilitiesand resources, whether generatedlocally or transferred from higher levels.The removal of party control over the executiveand representative powers opened apower struggle between the two branchesin those countries in the region wheregenuine democratic elections were appliedat sub-national levels.However, it is at the level of ideas –the ideasthat have informed the debate aroundlocal government reform in Eurasian countries–that the Soviet legacy can be seen tohave enduring influence. The legacy ismost clearly evident in regard to the relationshipbetween local government and thestate. On one hand, Soviet-era centralistideas continue to color the ruling elite’sview of local autonomy. On the other, theadvocates of local autonomy and decentralizationoften adopt excessively idealisticviews of local government in their zeal tobreak with the institutional legacy of theSoviet period. The first group sees localgovernment as an integral part of the stateand entirely subordinate to higher-standingstate bodies. The second group typicallyregards local government as a socialinstitution created by the people of thelocal community and entirely separatefrom the state.The ‘social’ or ‘society’ view has provided abasis for defending municipalities againstexcessive intervention from above. It wasthis view that inspired Article 12 of theRussian Federal Constitution, which declaresthat local self-government is not part ofthe state; this has been a central referencepoint in all debates on local government inthe Russian Federation. At the same time itcan be argued that the social view itselflimits the role of local government byemphasizing its role in community representationat the expense of delivering services.The social view can encouragefragmentation into small municipal unitsthat are powerful on paper, but not in practice(as occurred in several of the countriesof Central and Eastern Europe after 1989).However, as long as the ‘state’ view of localgovernment remains influential in governmentalcircles, the social view is necessaryas a countervailing force. The debate betweenthese opposing views of localgovernment tends to coalesce around thekey issue of whether mayors are appointedor elected –or, in a non-mayoral system,whether the elected council has power overthe executive. This matter is effectively theworking litmus test of local autonomy. Thiscan be seen in the recurrent debate withinthe Russian Federation regarding appointmentof mayors. On several occasions inAfter the removal ofparty control overlocal governmentbodies, localgovernmentreforms have beendriven by thestruggle betweenSoviet eracentralist ideasand advocates ofdecentralizationbased on theprinciple that localself-governmentis not partof the state