Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

Balance in local government reform 249metaphor would be Dolittle’s pushmepullyu – the fictional two-headed creature.Unless it walked sideways, movement forward for one half required theother half to retreat. 5 In terms of local government, efforts to centralizeauthority in the name of order or equality require concessions that are likely toundermine meaningful participation or local responsiveness, and vice versa:decentralized authority may provide schools of democracy and innovation, yetfoster localism and raise the risk of corruption.Local government reform in post Soviet Russia perpetuates a pursuit foran elusive golden mean. In all political systems, a perfect balance can onlybe approached rather than captured. Economic, social and political dynamicsconstantly impact the equation, and if an effective equilibrium is found atone moment, or in one policy arena, the equilibrium can become quicklyoutdated or inapplicable in another context. To chronicle the many challengesfor Russian local government since 1991, we begin with the recognitionthat Russia possessed little experience with pursuing such balance, andhistorically erred on the side of central control rather than local autonomy.Second, the political, economic, and social flux of the past two decadesmakes it impossible for any one solution to satisfy all interests.The historical context for local government extends well beyond the legislativeframework of the post Soviet era. Local government reform has beenan enduring theme of Russian politics for most of the past 150 years.Historians often highlight local government reform to cast light on thechallenges of reforming autocracy and on Russian social development.Counterfactual history posits the ‘what if’ question, suggesting that zemstvoreforms of the second half of the nineteenth century, or the Stolypin reformsof the early twentieth century, might have provided a solid foundation for aliberal and democratic Russia. 6 Yet local reforms in pre revolutionary Russiawere well described by Gradovskii in 1907, when he suggested that in thehands of (state) offices and officials ‘remained power without competence; inthe hands of the zemstvo institutions were concentrated competence withoutpower’. 7 Although liberal values were part of the motivation for local governmentreforms, the primary purpose for decentralization was the promotionof state interests, extending and strengthening the reach of the statethroughout the territory it purported to govern. The consequences of suchreform reflected the tension inherent in extending the reach of the statethrough decentralization. Reforms were thus matched by counter-reforms,seeking to repair administrative disorder by tightening central authority. 8Similar tension between decentralization and administrative order wasfound during the Soviet period. 9 In the early years of the Bolshevik regime,the very coherence of the state was threatened by mnogovlastie, power fracturedinto smaller pieces, each struggling against the other. Vertical authoritywas best asserted through the ranks of the Communist Party, yet Sovietadministration and inner Party politics also wrestled with the tensionbetween centre and periphery. Efforts to invigorate local soviets and localparty committees in any meaningful way challenged the authority of the