Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

Balance in local government reform 253organizations allowed local governments either to recognize or to ignoreorganizations already recognized by federal authority and local groups orindividuals. Many local officials were either ignorant of their responsibilities,exercised personal bias, or were influenced by private interests to violate civicrights in their decisions, something more often the norm than the exception.The easiest solution to such predicaments required increased supervision byfederal ministries over local officials – a weird paradox where federalauthorities were forced to violate principles of local self-government in orderto promote civic rights. 21 Weak administration became more problematic aspublic security and terrorism became a more critical policy arena for thefederal government, particularly in light of Russia’s conduct in the ChechenWar and terrorist activities in Russia and abroad. Policing, the registration ofcitizens, and public security all became directly linked to effective publicadministration at all levels of government.These three characteristics from this snapshot of local government arevery much interconnected. While the differences in structure and processes ofadministration across regions testified to the regional and local influence inself-government, they also left the federal government in an administrativequandary. The transfer of federal funds to local governments, and thesupervision of federal policies and regulations at the local level, were bothmade exceptionally challenging due to the varied structures and organizationsof local administration dotting the country. A federal ministry relyingon local delivery or implementation, for example, might have to deal withdistrict level local governments in one region, and settlement level localgovernment in another. Regardless of whether or not the regional administrationwas in compliance with federal directives, the differences among localgovernments across regions muddied the process of administration. The lackof uniform local administration might be considered by some to be a positiveconsequence of the 1995 law, but since important social policies were sharedbetween federal and regional governments, some measure of consistency inlocal administration seems to be a reasonable expectation.In light of these very real deficiencies in local government and administration,the decision to draft new federal reforms can be characterized asboth responsible and necessary. Critics of the status quo on the eve of reformcould highlight inequality of services across communities, the limited capacityof most local governments in terms of personnel and financial resources,and the failed implementation of federal standards. They could also point toconcerns of parochialism and the limited reach of the state. Of course, theactual details of legislation and implementation of reform determine the realimpact and final assessment of how well reform responds to these criticisms.But it ought to be widely recognized that the status quo prior to Putin’sascent to power was a poorly governed state. The public had grown weary ofslogans and promises, weary of democracy and blurred accountability. Localgovernment reforms passed into legislation in 2003 are thus best characterizedas reform of a reform, which is something altogether different from a