Various theories of local self-government are a set of ideas and views that explain the essence and organization of municipal self-government. These scientific disciplines appeared as research based on the knowledge of the centuries-old historical experience of mankind. There are several such theories. They differ from each other - some slightly, others dramatically.
History of self-government
Modern systems of municipal self-government in most of Europe, the US and Japan were established after the reforms of the XIX century. However, their forerunners - communities and polis democracies - arose in antiquity.
The term "municipality" appeared in ancient Rome, when there was a republican system. This was the name of the city community administration, which took on the responsibility of solving economic problems (including distributing tax funds). In the modern international tradition, a municipality can also be a rural settlement.
The first theories of local self-government originated in the Roman Republic. At first, a small town on the Tiber lived according to the decisions of the immediate head of state. However, the influence and size of Rome grew. Julius Caesar in 45 BC e. decided to delegate some of its powers to local authorities. The commander, who spent months at war in distant provinces, did not have time to deal with the economic problems of the capital.
Free Community Local Government
There are certain criteria by which theories of local self-government differ. We can single out the most important and fundamental of them: the way the institution was created, the number and nature of jurisdictional cases, as well as the relationship with the highest state power.
The German scientific school, based on the analysis of these characteristics, formulated the theory of the free community. The founders of this doctrine are the researchers Ahrens, Gerber, Meyer, Ressler and Laband. The main principle they adhered to was that the community has the right to manage its own affairs independently. 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 arose as a response to the economic decline, which was the result of the mismanagement of government officials. Therefore, the new system that arose in Germany in the 19th century had the most realistic rationale, caused by everyday life.
Principleswork of municipalities
However, the adherents of the new doctrine needed to prove its correctness from a theoretical point of view as well. So German scientists came to the conclusion that the community arose before the state, which means that it is its root cause. That is, the right to self-government arose from the very nature of human society.
In the 19th 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 the free community of local self-government drew a historical example from the experience of the German city republics. They enjoyed independence through profitable trade with their neighbors. The well-being of the inhabitants of such cities was much higher than the national average. Supporters of the theory of local self-government cited this example from the Middle Ages as an example.
So many principles were formulated by which citizens lived under the municipality. First, it is the election of members of the local self-government body. Every member of the community has the right to vote under such a system. Secondly, all cases managed by the municipality are divided into two main groups. These are instructions given by the central government, and their own problems that local self-government solves.
Thirdly, the state has no right to interfere in decisions made by the municipality. It should only see to it that the community does not go beyond its own competence.
Application of the free community theory
The abovethe merits and demerits of the 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, the municipal government was recognized as the "fourth" power along with the executive, legislative and judicial. This event was a breakthrough for the entire ideology of local self-government. Even in modern society, the thesis of the “fourth estate” is not formally fixed in most countries. Therefore, such a reform in the first half of the 19th century is especially impressive.
However, by the end of that century, the theory of the free community proved untenable. Why did this happen? Large territorial units were federal in nature, that is, they depended on the center. In this state of affairs, it was extremely difficult to prove the independence of the communities.
Social Theory
When the theory of the free community remained in the past, a new one came in its place, which became known as social, or socio-economic. What were the differences between these two ideas? Previously, it was believed 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 flowed 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 to her wascommunity activities. The government was left to decide only state affairs. Many theories of the emergence of local self-government, as well as public ones, are based on the fact that the community was placed in spite of the entire central power machine. Supporters of the idea of freedom of municipalities clearly delimited the powers between these two systems.
It is important to understand that the social theory of local self-government has its drawbacks. They lie 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, for cultivating the land, then they can leave such a group if they wish. Territorial units (that is, municipalities) are not in a position to disband of their own free will. 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 radically changed the structure of provincial society, especially in agricultural regions.
The Zemstvo reform followed the peasant reform. It consisted precisely in changes in local self-government. The Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions of 1864 deliberately emphasized the fact that the economic activities of the Zemstvos existed separately from the administrative decisions of the authorities.
About municipalSlavophil publicists wrote a lot about the reform. For example, Vasily Leshkov believed that the independence of the community from the state came from a centuries-old Russian tradition that existed back in princely times.
Living and flexible self-government was opposed to inefficient and slow bureaucracy. State decisions are always made "from above". The official only carries out the order given to him by the chief. Such a disinterested attitude and lack of responsibility among civil servants is strikingly different from the activity of zemstvos. The municipality has given local residents 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 has borne fruit in just a few years. New farms and enterprises were founded. Money flowed into the province through trade. The 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 subjected to criticism and scolding. Its opponents did not like the fact that the municipality exists separately from the central government. Among these thinkers, the state theory of local self-government emerged. Its main provisions were developed by German researchers Lorenz von Stein and Rudolf Gneist. "Statesmen" also took root in Russia, where such views were usedpopular as part of the program of conservatives who did not like alien liberalism. This theory was developed by pre-revolutionary lawyers Nikolai Lazarevsky, Alexander Gradovsky and Vladimir Bezobrazov.
They and their supporters believed that local self-government had common roots with the state system, which made it necessary to keep the municipalities in the system of state institutions. At the same time, officials could not work in zemstvos and similar institutions. Only people from the local population who were interested in the high effectiveness of municipal meetings were supposed to be there. The state machine is too large and complex to effectively cope with, for example, economic tasks. Therefore, they delegate some of their powers to the Zemstvos.
Political and legal theory
The founders of the state theory Lorentz von Stein and Rudolf Gneist disagreed on several fundamental theses. Therefore, within the framework of their common doctrine, two separate directions appeared. Gneist became the creator of political theory, and Stein developed legal theory. How were they different? Gneist stated that the electivity of local governments does not yet guarantee their independence. This is due to the fact that when a person gets into a public position, he becomes dependent on the authorities because of the salary. That is, an official elected as a representative to the municipality is not an independent figure. Its decisions can be influenced by the central government. To this contradictiongives the features of the political system.
How could elected representatives be made independent? Gneist suggested reformatting their posts into uncompensated ones. This would give the members of the municipality freedom from power, because only people who went there on their own initiative and convictions would come to these bodies. Gneist believed that honorary representatives of the local community should have been appointed to these positions. 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 the municipalities should exist separately from the central government. At the same time, the state delegates some of its powers to them. Therefore, local governments solve some administrative tasks without being part of the bureaucracy. These are the state theories of local self-government. The table shows their features.
| Theory | Features |
| Free Community | Local government separate from the state |
| Public | The municipality solves only economic problems |
| Governmental | Local government is part of the state |
| Political | Elected representatives work pro bono |
| Legal | The state delegates some of its powers to local self-government |
| Dualism | Municipality is a public and state phenomenon |
Dualism
Interestingly, modern theories of local self-government include elements of theories that emerged in the 19th century. Scholars define current municipalities as decentralized bodies within the state system. There are other definitions as well. For example, in Denmark, local government is called “a state within a state.”
This system of relations between authorities and municipalities reflects the dual principle of such activities. It is defining in the system of views called "the theory of dualism of local self-government".
The main principle in it is the following assumption. If elected representatives perform part of the state functions, then they themselves become part of the state machine. At the same time, local governments that do not address administrative issues are inefficient and useless. For example, it is extremely difficult to solve economic issues without affecting the city budget. Therefore, municipalities are naturally integrated into the state in order to have influence on the current affairs of the territory for which they are responsible.
Modern domestic self-government
The theory of dualism of local self-government had the greatest influence on the modern Russian system of municipal government. Thisthe relationship is reflected in the fact that elected bodies work both on public and state principles, 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 this is the most effective way to regulate urban life. 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 you call municipalities only a social phenomenon, then such a statement will be nothing more than a loud declaration. Modern provincial-level elected bodies somehow have to interact with the state in order to effectively help people live better and happier lives. And this situation concerns not only Russia.
