Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

ConclusionBalance in local government reform 279Why did what we have termed the ‘triangle’ concept of federal–regional–local relations not take hold in the course of the local government reform ofLaw 131? The reason may have been electoral considerations, as suggestedabove, but an even simpler explanation is possible. From September 2002Dmitri Kozak and his team were preoccupied with getting the law throughthe Federal Council. This brought him into contact with a much betterorganizedlobbying body than the Congress, and compromises (althoughmore in style than substance) were necessary to win support. The Congress,on the other hand, had never managed to evolve into a genuinely powerfulrepresentative body, partly because of its own internecine political problems60 and partly because, as described earlier, it lacked an establishedinterlocutor/relationship at the federal level.Following the establishment of the seven federal districts in 2001, the territorialdirectorate in the Presidential Administration was abolished. Theother main central interlocutor was the Ministry of Nationalities, which wasreorganized and re-created under various names before being incorporatedinto the Ministry of Economy, soon after which its local government relatedfunctions were transferred to the new Ministry of Regional Development,which is only gradually developing a curatorial role for local government. 61This lack of an institutional dialogue meant that the cities and towns thatwere in conflict with regional heads had no standard means of dealing withthe federal state as corporate bodies. It also meant that federal officialsderived their information about the situation on the ground from regionalheads, with whom they were more likely to have official contact.In 2001, when the Kozak Commission was established, the President ofthe Association of Russian Cities (which forms part of the Congress), theMayor of Ekaterinburg, Arkady Chernetsky, asked Kozak personally whetherhe might fill the vacuum and be, in effect, the federal curator for localgovernment, 62 and although this arrangement was never formalized therewas a period during which Kozak appeared to be acting in the capacity ofchampion of local government.Kozak at that stage professed the view that local government should notbe coordinated by a central ministry but through a network or associationcoordinated from the centre. 63 This was the role that clearly seemed to havebeen marked down for the Congress of Municipalities, and in early drafts ofthe Law, the Congress was referred to by name as being responsible fororganizing local authorities, which would be obliged to join the Congress(which may help to explain some of the Congress’s enthusiasm in the earlystages of developing Law 131). Late in 2002 this was changed as it becameclear that this role would deprive the Congress of its voluntary non-governmentalstatus, even if it were to increase its influence. Instead, Law 131 has led toobligatory associations being established in each Subject of the Federation,leaving the Congress in an ambiguous position.