A variety of theories of local self-government is a set of ideas and views that help explain the essence and organization of municipal self-government. These scientific disciplines appeared as studies based on the knowledge of the centuries-old historical experience of mankind. There are several similar theories. They differ from each other - some slightly, others dramatically.
History of the emergence of self-government
Modern systems of municipal self-government in most countries of Europe, the USA and Japan were established after the reforms of the 19th century. However, their forerunners - communities and polis democracies - arose in the ancient era.
The term "municipality" appeared in ancient Rome when the republican system existed there. This was the name of the city community administration, which took upon itself the responsibility to solve economic problems (including distributing funds from taxes). In modern international tradition, a municipality can also be a rural settlement.
The first theories of local government originated in the Roman Republic. First, a small city on the Tiber lived according to the decisions of the direct head of state. However, the influence and size of Rome grew. Julius Caesar in 45 BC e. decided to delegate part of his authority to local authorities. The commander, spending months on the war in distant provinces, did not have time to deal with the economic problems of the capital.
Local government of a free community
There are certain criteria by which theories of local self-government differ. The most important and fundamental of them can be distinguished: the method of creating an institution, the number and nature of subordinate affairs, as well as relations with the highest state power.
The German school of science, based on an analysis of these characteristics, formulated the theory of a free community. The founders of this teaching are researchers Ahrens, Gerber, Meyer, Rössler and Laband. The main principle that they adhered to was that the community had the right to independently manage their affairs. This small cell of society is much more important than the state as a whole. Therefore, the central government must respect the interests of the municipality.
The theory of a free community of local self-government emerged as a response to economic decline, which was the result of mismanagement of government officials. Therefore, the new system, which arose in Germany in the 19th century, had the most realistic justification caused by everyday life.
Principles of work of municipalities
However, adherents of the new doctrine needed to prove its correctness from a theoretical point of view. So German scientists came to the conclusion that the community arose earlier than the state, which means it is its root cause. That is, the right to self-government arose from the very nature of human society.
In the XIX century, Germany was not a single state. It was divided into many principalities and kingdoms generated by the feudal system of the Middle Ages. The theory of a free community of local self-government drew a historical example from the experience of German urban republics. They enjoyed independence due to profitable trade with their neighbors. The well-being of residents of such cities was much higher than the national average. Proponents of the theory of local self-government cited as an example this example from the Middle Ages.
So many principles were formulated, according to which citizens lived under the municipality. Firstly, the election of members of the local government. With such a system, every member of the community has the right to vote. Secondly, all the affairs managed by the municipality are divided into two main groups. These are instructions given by the central authority, and their own problems that are solved by local self-government.
Thirdly, the state does not have the right to intervene in decisions taken by the municipality. It should only ensure that the community does not go beyond its own competence.
The application of the theory of the free community
The above advantages and disadvantages of theories of local self-government were actively discussed in European society in the first half of the 19th century. In the 1830-1840s. Some of these principles have been adopted in Belgian law. In the constitution of this country, for the first time, municipal power was recognized as the “fourth” power along with executive, legislative and judicial. This event was a breakthrough for the entire ideology of local government. Even in modern society, the thesis of the “fourth power” is not formally fixed in most countries. Therefore, such a reform in the first half of the 19th century is especially impressive.
However, already at the end of that century, the theory of a free community turned out to be untenable. Why did this happen? Large territorial units were federal in nature, that is, they depended on the center. In this situation, it was extremely difficult to prove the independence of the communities.
Social theory
When the theory of a free community remained in the past, a new one came into its place, which came to be called public, or socio-economic. What were the differences between these two ideas? It used to be that the rights of the municipality were natural and inalienable. Proponents of social theory looked at this subject differently. According to their dogma, the rights stemmed from the economic activities of the municipality. And it was she who became a priority.
The economic theory of local self-government recognized the community as a subject of law, independent of the state. The key activity for her was communal. The government had to solve only state affairs. Many theories of the emergence of local self-government, as well as social self-government, are based on the fact that the community was set up contrary to the whole central power machine. Proponents of the idea of freedom of municipalities clearly delineated the powers between the two systems.
It is important to understand that the public theory of local government has its drawbacks. They consist in the fact that municipalities are mixed with private associations, which are also engaged in economic activities. If people cooperate on their own initiative, for example, to cultivate the land, then they can leave such a group if they wish. Territorial units (i.e. municipalities) are not able to disband on their own. They are strictly limited by law. Their borders and internal structure, in spite of everything, depend on the state.
In Russia
An example of the application of the social theory of local self-government can be found in Russian history. In the 1860s, Emperor Alexander II carried out his famous reforms. First of all, he freed the serfs. This dramatically upheld the structure of provincial society, especially in agricultural regions.
The peasant reform was followed by the zemstvo. It consisted precisely in changes in local government. The Regulation on Zemstvo institutions of 1864 deliberately emphasized the fact that the economic activity of Zemstvos existed separately from administrative decisions of the authorities.
Slavophile publicists wrote a lot about municipal reform . For example, Vasily Leshkov believed that the independence of the community from the state came from the centuries-old Russian tradition that existed in princely times.
Lively and flexible self-government was opposed by an ineffective and slow bureaucracy. Government decisions are always made "from above." The official only fulfills the order given to him by the superior. This disinterested attitude and lack of responsibility among public servants is strikingly different from the activity of zemstvos. The municipality has given locals a tool to implement their initiatives. Zemstvo is a great way to rebuild the economy and make it more efficient.
The reform carried out by Alexander II in the spirit of the social theory of self-government, paid off after a few years. New farms and enterprises were founded. Money flowed into the province through trade. Zemstvos became the yeast on which Russian capitalism grew, making the Russian Empire one of the largest economies in the world.
State theory
Then (in the 19th century), social theory was criticized and scattered. Her opponents did not like the fact that the municipality exists separately from the central government. Among these thinkers appeared the state theory of local self-government. Its main provisions were developed by German researchers Lorenz von Stein and Rudolf Gneist. The “statists” took root in Russia too, where such views were popular as part of a program of conservatives who did not like foreign liberalism. This theory was developed by lawyers of the pre-revolutionary era Nikolai Lazarevsky, Alexander Gradovsky and Vladimir Bezobrazov.
They and their supporters believed that local self-government has common roots with the state system, which is why it was necessary to keep municipalities in the system of state institutions. At the same time, officials could not work in zemstvos and similar institutions. Only natives of the local population who were interested in the high efficiency of municipal meetings should have been there. The state machine is too large and complex to effectively cope, for example, with economic tasks. Therefore, she delegated part of her authority to the zemstvos.
Political and Legal Theories
The founders of state theory, Lorenz von Stein and Rudolf Gneist, diverged in several fundamental points. Therefore, within the framework of their common doctrine, two separate directions appeared. Gneist became the creator of political theory, and Stein developed legal. How did they differ? Gneist stated that the election of local governments does not guarantee their independence. This is due to the fact that when a person falls into a public position, he becomes dependent on his superiors because of his salary. That is, the official chosen by the representative in the municipality is not an independent figure. Its decisions can be influenced by central authority. The features of the political system lead to this contradiction.
How could elected representatives be independent? The Gneist proposed reformatting their posts to be mediocre. This would give the members of the municipality freedom from power, because only those people who went there on their own initiative and beliefs would come to these bodies. Gneist believed that it was necessary to place honorary representatives of the local community in these posts. However, his point of view did not find wide support.
Lorenz von Stein formulated another idea, which turned out to be the legal theory of local self-government. How did it differ from the assumptions of Gneist and his few supporters? Stein believed that municipalities should exist separately from the central government. At the same time, the state delegates part of its authority to them. Therefore , local governments solve some administrative tasks, not being part of the bureaucratic machine. These are state theories of local government. The table shows their features.
Features of theories of public self-government| Theory | Features |
| Free community | Local government separate from the state |
| Public | The municipality solves only economic problems. |
| State | Local government is part of the state |
| Political | Elected representatives work at no cost |
| Legal | The state delegates part of its powers to local self-government |
| Dualism | Municipality - a public and state phenomenon |
Dualism
Interestingly, modern theories of local self-government include elements of theories that appeared in the 19th century. Scientists define current municipalities as decentralized bodies within the state system. There are other definitions. For example, in Denmark, local government is called "state in state."
Such a system of relations between authorities and municipalities reflects the dual principle of such activities. It is decisive in a belief system called the “theory of dualism of local self-government.”
The main principle in it is the following assumption. If elected representatives carry out part of the state functions, then they themselves become part of the state machine. At the same time, local governments that do not affect administrative problems are ineffective and useless. For example, solving economic issues without affecting the city budget is extremely difficult. Therefore, municipalities naturally integrate into the state in order to have an impact on the current affairs of the territory for which they are responsible.
Modern domestic self-government
The modern Russian system of municipal authority was most influenced by the theory of dualism of local self-government. This relationship is reflected in the fact that elected bodies work both on a public and state basis, closely intertwined with each other.
If the issue under consideration is a problem of local importance, then domestic municipalities can count on their own independence from the center. Their decision will be based primarily on the opinion “from below”, because it is in this way that regulating city life is most effective. However, when local governments consider projects related to public policy, they merge with the central government and agree with its position. Such a system was the result of a mutual compromise between different public institutions. It fully reflects the dual or dualistic theory of local self-government.
If municipalities are called only a social phenomenon, then such a statement will be nothing more than a loud declaration. One way or another, modern provincial elected bodies have to interact with the state in order to effectively help people live better and happier. And a similar situation applies not only to Russia.