The reforms of local self-government carried out by Peter I did not differ in consistency and effectiveness. The reorganization of city and local authorities was hampered by officials themselves. We will discuss in what this article was about what caused the new reform of urban governance, what shortcomings of the existing reform it had to correct.
Background of urban reform
The reform of the city administration of Peter the Great began long before the planned reorganization of the central and higher authorities in the state. The main reasons for the reforms were the new public relations in the state, the expansion of its territory and the designation of new functions of the executive branch, which was carried out by the local government in the regions.
City reform. First try
The restructuring of local authorities was dictated by the requirements of the time. Russia tried to secure access to the Baltic Sea, the country's military needs grew. The ancient voivodship and the order form of self-government could not ensure the fulfillment of the tasks set for collecting taxes and recruiting in controlled territories. The paramount task was the distribution of responsibilities between zemstvos and order offices, the introduction of elements of European urban governance. These factors explained what caused the new reform of urban governance and how the renewed authorities were supposed to function. For this, in 1699, the first urban reform was launched.
During the reform of urban governance, an attempt was made to reform Russian cities along the European lines, to endow them with the same rights that the city councils of Western European states had. Russian cities left the subordination of the voivodships, and their control was transferred to the burmists, who were determined by elective means. A burmeister chamber appeared in the capital, before which small-town burmists reported on the state taxes, fees and duties they had collected. In other cities, control levers were transferred to the Zemstvo huts, which were also led by elected Burmists.
Disadvantages of the first reform
The cause of the new reform of urban governance can be judged by the disappointing results of the first reforms. The newly formed system was opaque and not effective enough. The fragmentation of local authorities did not allow to build a clear vertical line of submission. The turmoil was supplemented by many secondary organs. So, Peter I supplemented the bureaucratic power with elective estate institutions. In addition, along with the civilian authorities, there was also a military administration, which was in charge of passport control and collection of poll tax, thus duplicating some of the functions of the civilian authorities.
What caused the new reform of urban governance? Based on the foregoing, it is possible to form several reasons:
- there was still no strict vertical of power;
- the powers of appointed field managers were limited to elected bodies;
- an excessive number of elected posts (burmisters, governors, representatives of estate assemblies) hindered the work of local governments.
Second City Reform
In 1720, the Main Magistrate was created in the new capital of the Russian Empire, to which all elected city magistrates were subordinate.
In 1721, a regulation was adopted that laid down new principles for urban organization. Cities were divided by the number of inhabitants into five large classes. The population was divided into “irregular” and “regular” citizens. Among the "irregular" citizens were mainly representatives of the poorest segments of the population. Wealthy “regular” citizens were left with their former privileges.
Despite the authorities' loyalty to wealthy citizens, the new system of self-government has not proved its effectiveness. In the administration, inflexible, military-bureaucratic methods for solving problems still prevailed, and increasing centralization did not allow elected bodies to conduct local policies.