Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

242 Hellmut Wollmann and Elena GritsenkoParliament. The Parliament was forcibly dissolved through the use of militaryforce on 3 and 4 October 1993. In addition, the entire structure of regionaland local councils that had been elected in March 1990 for four years was alsodissolved and the development of LSG suffered a severe set-back.The adoption of the Federal Constitution of December 1993 and theenactment of the 1995 Law provided the legal basis for new developments inlocal politics. It was particularly during the late years of the Yeltsin era –when federal power was eroding and the power of the regional governorswas rising – that, local self-government in some regions experienced a significantrevival, at least in larger cities. Some observers, such as SergeyMitrokhin (who, as a Yabloko deputy of the Russian State Duma, was one ofthe chief promoters of the 1995 Law) went so far as to speak of a ‘municipalrevolution’. 72After Vladimir Putin became President in 2000 he embarked on a ‘federalreform’ which hinged on a decentralization of political and financial powersat the federal level and which aimed at bringing the regions as well as localgovernment back under federal control. Against this backdrop, the 2003Law contains a number of ambivalent propositions. On the one hand, itcontinues to subscribe to the political and institutional principles of localself-government, which have been part and parcel of Russia’s local governmentschemes since 1991. As far as the stipulation of democratic and participatoryrights of local citizens and the scope of decision-making powers ofthe elected local council are concerned, the 2003 Law not only falls in linewith (West) European local government systems (and with the EuropeanCharter), but in some respects gives even wider rights and powers to thecitizens and the councils. On the other hand, however, the 2003 Law isimbued with the centralist logic of Putin’s ‘federal reforms’, which aims to‘streamline the Federation’s entire political and administrative system. Localgovernment is now much more amenable to political, administrative andfinancial controls from the centre. An array of provisions and mechanismshave been inserted in the 2003 Law, which are directed at ‘integrating’ localgovernment structures into (federal and regional) state structures. Thisapplies particularly to the upper level of municipal districts and city districtsand their responsibilities to carry out ‘delegated’ state functions. In thiscontext, it should be stressed, that with regard to the newly introducedposition of a ‘contractual’ (‘city manager’) head of administration, as distinctfrom the head of municipality, regional authorities have now been givena powerful voice in defining the ‘contracts’, the professional qualificationsrequired for such posts, and details of the recruitment and selection process.Somewhat pointedly, these ‘city managers’ might be seen as ‘Trojan Horses’whose role is to provide additional state influence, particularly on the upperlevels of LSG, thus fostering the ‘statesization’ of local government.Among the mechanisms that are meant to place local authorities understate control and possibly discipline and sanction them, mention should alsobe made of the comprehensive state control over ‘delegated’ tasks, the