Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

254 John F. Youngcounter-reform. The latter would be an effort to turn back the clock to a pre-1991 administration era. The former, in contrast, is a legitimate response toreal circumstances caused by reforms. The 2003 reforms were meant to reestablishadministrative order and promote a functional, well governed state,while holding true to some of the principles that motivated the earlierreforms.The question that then surfaces is the degree to which the 2003 reformsstrengthen any gains made towards self-government. Can administrativeefficiency complement principles of local self-government, or are the twomutually exclusive? President Putin charged trusted colleague Dmitrii Kozakwith leadership of the Presidential Commission for the Demarcation ofPowers Between the Federal, Regional and Municipal Levels ofGovernment. The Commission was comprised of one main body of twentytwomembers (two of whom represented local governments) and severalworking bodies, where local representation was more actively involved. 22The Commission had two primary tasks: bringing regional laws in line withthe federal constitution; and reforming the system of local self-government. Itis the fulfilment of the latter of these two tasks that led directly to Federal LawNo. 131, ‘On the general principles of organization of local self-government inthe Russian Federation’ (2003). 23What does the new law do? In Chapter 10 in this volume HellmutWollmann and Elena Gritsenko highlight many specific features of the law.Among other things, the law establishes two tiers for local government, in anattempt to address the tension that flows from local governments functioningas both agents of the state and as self-governing institutions. By establishinga foundation for two distinct tiers of local government, the federal law relegatesto the higher tier authority over the costlier social services delivered bylocal government. Public education, health care, and social benefits are primarilyreserved for the higher of the two tiers, leaving settlements to dealprimarily with local issues rather than state policies. Although both levelswill possess their own budgets, it is clear that state transfers will flow predominantlyto the district rather than the settlement level. This ensures thatlocal governments at the settlement level will work with smaller budgets, butwill have fewer mandates to implement state policy and greater autonomy inminor local affairs. This same dynamic holds in relation to the higher tier oflocal government and regional governments. In public education, for example,local governments will now only carry the responsibility to maintain propertyand buildings, and teacher salaries will fall under the responsibility ofregional governments. The trimming of local jurisdictions is meant to reflectmore accurately the limited financial capacity that local governments posses.In short, the law seeks to realign authority in conformance with fiscal capacity,rather than vice versa. The law also tightens local executive accountabilityon the vertical axis, undermining horizontal accountability to thelocal council. Local government charters must chose between two models:an elected mayor and a contracted administrative manager, or an elected