Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

Balance in local government reform 255head of administration. In either model, as Wollmann points out, the regionaladministration has increased capacity to influence the local executive,including broader powers over dismissal.Critics of the reform, both foreign and domestic, routinely describe thelaw as a step backwards for democracy, the ‘emasculation of local democracy’.24 Without attempting to obfuscate, it is clear that the theoreticalfoundation of local self-government is weakened by the new law. But what isyet unclear is whether the practice of local government will also be weakened.Surely, the actual status of local government in Russia never matchedits early promise. Absent a history of divided power, Russia wrestled withreconciling political differences across administrative boundaries. Economicdecline and private interests intensified such differences. And society grewincreasingly impatient with paeans of optimism about democracy andimproved quality of life – the notion that more local self-government wouldusher in a radiant future ceased to resonate with government and society.Instead, the new law on local government and the reforms that have followedhave attempted to do more with local government by granting less autonomyand less authority – or, in the words of comrade Lenin, better, fewer butbetter. It would be too hasty to pass judgment on the consequences of thelaw while the law has not yet been fully implemented. We can, however, lookat some of the trends and early returns, and then offer an interim assessment.We examine here six major issues and concerns.The first concern stems from ongoing reforms of the reform of reform.Since being passed in 2003, the new law on local self-government has beenamended and been impacted by more recent legislation that intersects withlocal government, and not consistent with what was established in law No.131. The implementation of the local government reform, originally targetedfor January 2005, was first postponed until 2006, and then pushed backfurther until 2009. This second postponement occurred as late as September2005, even though more than half the regions had implemented the law bythe end of that year. 25 These postponements reflect both the challenges ofreform, and the persistent reluctance in a number of different regions to alteradministration. Besides buying more time, however, the postponement alsoaltered the process, granting regional governments greater influence in localmatters until 2009, and, perhaps, beyond. In the original design, the budgetwas intended to help force a realignment of authority in accordance withfederal guidelines. But the postponement allows those regions that have yetto reform a freer hand in local budget decisions, influence that will provedifficult to overcome. 26 Other laws, such as Federal Law No. 198, whichintroduced changes to the Budget Code (dated 27 December 2005), reducedthe coefficient that determined a maximum for local budget autonomy. Priorto the amendment, local budgets could be up to two times higher per capitathan the regional average. The new law reduced that factor to 1.3, afterwhich 50 per cent of excess funds could be confiscated by higher levels ofgovernment. Federal Law No. 199 (on introducing changes to certain