Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

Balance in local government reform 251against hypercentrism or as leverage for the federal government against theregions was overshadowed by greater needs to provide much-needed servicesand foster administrative order. In this light, calls for administrative efficiencyand the reassertion of central authority did not originate with theascent of Vladimir Putin in 2000, but were increasing in volume and in frequencywell before President Yeltsin resigned at the end of 1999. Putin’sreforms were hardly an illegitimate response to the needs of Russian societyand the Russian state. That the reforms required a diminution of localautonomy and the concomitant negative consequences of centralization is asmuch a consequence of the realities of public administration as a manifestationof Russian political culture.Perhaps a snapshot of local government at the end of the Yeltsin era canprovide further perspective on Putin’s reforms. Three elements of this snapshotdraw our immediate attention. First, federal efforts established generalprinciples of local self-government and left some important details to regionallegislatures. Thus, different structures were the direct result of regionalgovernments exercising their prerogatives in designing local administration,responding to socio-cultural factors and local political interests. Throughoutthe Russian Federation, a wide variety of models and regional practicesemerged. Among eighty-nine regions of Russia, thirty-seven regions establisheda single tier of local government at the district (raion) level. Sixregions based local government at the settlement, or village level. Thirtyregions developed a two-tier system of local government, but only seventeenof those had budgets for both tiers. Another sixteen regions, includingMoscow, St Petersburg, and nine national republics, had more complicatedversions of local government that do not fit with the simpler categories notedabove. 12 In all cases however, local executives were accountable locally.Mayors were elected either by direct elections by the public, or indirectelections through an elected council. Not all regional decisions concerninglocal government structures and practices were always in accordance withfederal guidelines, but federal and local governments could appeal to theConstitutional Court to defend the principles of self government, such as theright of citizens to elect their local leaders. 13 In all, the 1995 law led to 24resolutions (postanovlenie) and 137 decisions (opredelenie) by theConstitutional Court. 14These various structures and practices coupled with disparate dynamics inintergovernmental relations to blur some of the images of local governmentand make it very difficult to engage in comparisons across the Federation. Interms of elections, for example, the manipulation of elections by regional orlocal actors could be manifest through either high or low voter turnouts, orthe postponement of elections altogether, depending on the time and place inquestion. Other factors, such as multiple- or single-member electoral districts,the incumbency of candidates, rural and urban voting patterns, electoralfraud, and the candidates themselves, led to huge variations in voterparticipation, even among local communities within the same region. Most