Local self-government is a logical response of municipal authorities to the increasing pressure of the country's leadership, the expressed desire of people to independently solve at least part of their issues on the spot, and not to wait each time for instructions from above (as a rule, which turns out to be incorrect, unreasonable and practically useless).
What is local government?
There is no single concept for all countries, forms of ownership or government. The rights of local self-government can be either the broadest, allowing you to make decisions that are significant for a settlement or region, or insignificant, aimed exclusively at the small elements and characteristics of a particular population that the country's leadership does not want to deal with. From the point of view of scientists Plokker K. and Holis G., local self-government is the right granted to a separate territorial unit to independently make decisions that are significant for its inhabitants. The European Charter of Local Self-Government (approved in 1985) states that these are not only rights, but also opportunities to fulfill their functions. In addition, the boundaries of all this are specified. So, any decisions made and other features inherent only in a particular territory must be within the framework of the laws of the state common to all.
Do not confuse the concepts of “local government” and “local government”. In the first case, the conversation really goes about all of the above. But the second refers to persons appointed by senior management whose task is to implement laws adopted at the state level in a certain territory.
In the Russian Federation, local self-government is regulated by law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003.
Short story
The first rudiments of the activity of local self-government can be attributed to the period of Ancient Greece and its polis cities. However, this cannot be called completely true, because at that time the state was such a city. So it would be more accurate to call the heyday of the general principles of local self-government Europe in the Middle Ages (approximately XI-XIII centuries). It was then, after a long period of decline due to the collapse of the Roman Empire, that the cities began to develop rapidly again, and quickly realized that the authorities in the capital did not always correctly understand what would be better for a particular settlement.
For the first time, something similar was documented in Magdeburg (Germany) in 1188. Over the next centuries, similar norms spread to many other cities in Europe. At the same time, as such a concept as "self-government" first began to be massively used in France, during their revolutions. And finally, in official science, the term "local government" arose in the 19th century with the filing of Rudolf Gneist.
There are various theories that describe the general principle of the work of a local society of people. Based on them, the rights, opportunities and features of the work of territorial authorities dealing exclusively with their problems, but with an eye on the state as a whole, are built.
Theory of Free Communities
Proponents of this system were such prominent figures as Rössler, Laband, Meyer, Arena and Gerber. Of all the basic theories of local self-government, it stands out in that it calls for complete independence from the state, but recognizes its existence as such. Thus, it is believed that the community as such was formed much earlier than the country as a whole and therefore it is in the first place, and not vice versa. The only option in which the state is recognized as free communities is a federation that brings together several groups of people.
Characteristics:
- Any official in the leadership of the community cannot be state, but only local.
- The community receives almost complete autonomy.
- All problems are solved only at the territorial level.
As historical practice proves, such a system is not too viable. Separated groups of people, even the largest, only in rare cases can competently organize themselves. At least even to repulse the external enemy. From the history we can give an example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where all the nobles had all the power and in their lands they created absolutely everything that they wanted. The king was rather a decorative figure. As a result, internal disagreements, conflicts and unwillingness to come forward against the threat led to the fact that this once great power was destroyed and split into several smaller countries.
Social theory
Such a system appeared a little later. It is very similar to one of the basic theories of local self-government presented above, but excludes the possibility of the community influencing state policy. Only local economic and social issues remain under the jurisdiction of the local authorities, and they have no right to intervene in anything else. In turn, the state can influence its territorial units to a certain limit, forcing them to follow the general "party policy", but has no power in local issues. The law on local self-government strictly regulates who can and should do what.
Despite the rather high reasonableness of the idea itself, in fact, a society built on such a theory is also not viable. A lot depends on the strength of the central government or local owners. As a rule, in the end, such a system smoothly passes into the free state theory described below or presented below.
State theory
This is the toughest and uncompromising version of the country's development. It differs from other basic theories of local self-government in the complete absence of local authorities as such. All management is appointed only from above and can work exclusively within the framework of the current legislation. In this case, the law on local self-government allows you to do something only within those frameworks that are not regulated by the state as a whole.
In the modern world, such a structure of society can be seen in the United States. There are general rules for everyone, federal laws and local authorities, which in fact cannot do anything beyond the scope of the above. On the one hand, this approach is completely devoid of flexibility and does not take into account the interests of different communities. On the other hand, a well-built system does not require excessive microcontrol in each settlement and the only thing required is to appoint a leadership whose task will be to follow the established laws. As current practice proves, this is one of the most viable theories, although it has nothing to do with the freedom of the individual or community (despite all the US democracy).
Soviet theory
This is a more modern structure of society. As the main theory of local self-government, it existed in the Soviet Union and still successfully works in China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. It is interesting that in fact such a system is not considered to be local government, but rather a part of state bodies delegated to territorial units. The main task of a community created according to Soviet theory is to activate the mechanisms set by the state and ensure the effective functioning of the entrusted settlement or region. As a rule, feedback is present, but in a minimal amount (although in fact it should be full).
In practice, such a system can be considered the most viable of all presented above. If you do not take into account the collapse of the USSR, which occurred for completely different reasons, and China, which is confidently becoming one of the leading world powers, in other cases, this theory allows countries to exist quite well even in almost complete isolation.
Dualism theory
In this case, municipal authorities work according to a system adjacent to the state and public theories. On the one hand, all laws and decisions that are significant for the country are binding and there can be no workarounds. On the other hand, the activity of local self-government regarding issues of arranging people here and now is practically unlimited. The main thing is that planned targets are met, growth is visible and there will be no problems.
Theory of Social Services
Among all the general principles of local self-government, the most interesting are the features of this system. Its essence lies in the complete provision of each individual member of society with absolutely everything necessary. At the same time, the state remains the role of service personnel, who simply must take into account the requirements of the country's inhabitants and strive to fulfill them with all their might. At the moment, this principle of the organization of local self-government can be considered utopian and completely unviable. Such ideas can work and fully live only in a society striving for self-improvement and the peaks of society, where the basic needs of each individual are harmoniously interwoven with the survival of the whole species and the further development of the state. In the modern world, this does not occur, unfortunately.
Summary
Territorial local government is the basis of any democracy. At least that's what it is stated. Nevertheless, modern forms of government are in fact extremely far from democratic and more reminiscent of authoritarianism (with rare exceptions). Most of the freedoms of individual territories were just in the same period of the Middle Ages, since the power of the king (or any other leader, whatever you call them), although absolute, was constantly confronted with numerous restrictions. For example, when trying to force a free city to do what he does not want, one could lose much more than gain (from tax cuts to the treasury and ending with a full-fledged uprising).