Theories of local government: table. Advantages and disadvantages of local government theories. The theory of a free community of local self-government. The theory of dualism of local self-government

Various theories of local government are a set of ideas and views that help to explain the essence and organization of municipal 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 cardinally.

History of the origin of self

Modern systems of municipal government in most countries of Europe, the United States and Japan were established after the reforms of the XIX century. However, their harbingers - communities and polis democracies - arose in the ancient era.

The term "municipality" appeared in ancient Rome, when there was a republican system. This was the name of the city communal administration, which assumed the responsibility to solve economic problems (including distributing funds from taxes). In the modern international tradition, the municipality can also be a rural settlement.

The first theories of local self-government were born in the Roman Republic. First, a small city 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 on the war in distant provinces, did not have time to deal with the economic problems of the capital.

Local self-government of a free community

There are certain criteria for different theories of local government. One can single out the most important and principal of them: the way the institution is created, the number and nature of subordinate cases, as well as the relationship with the highest state power.

The German scientific school, basing itself on the analysis of these characteristics, formulated the theory of a free community. The founders of this exercise are the researchers Ahrens, Gerber, Meyer, Ressler and Laband. The main principle that they adhered to was that the community has the right to independently manage its 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 arose as a response to the economic decline that resulted from the mismanagement of government officials. Therefore, the new system that arose in Germany in the XIX century, had under itself the most realistic, caused by commonness, justification.

Principles of work of municipalities

However, the adherents of the new doctrine needed to prove it right from the theoretical point of view. So the German scientists came to the conclusion that the community originated before the state, and therefore, is its primary 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 the German city republics. They enjoyed independence due to profitable trade with their neighbors. The welfare 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, according to which citizens lived at the municipality. First, it is the election of members of the local government. Every member of the community has the right to vote under such a system. Secondly, all the affairs that the municipality manages are divided into two main groups. These are assignments given by the central authority, and own problems, which are solved by local self-government.

Thirdly, the state has no right to interfere with the decisions taken by the municipality. It should only ensure that the community does not go beyond its own competence.

Applying the theory of a free community

The above advantages and disadvantages of the theories of local self-government were actively discussed in the European society of the first half of the XIX century. In the 1830s-1840s. Some of these principles have been adopted in the legislation of Belgium. In the constitution of this country, for the first time, municipal authority was recognized as the "fourth" power on an equal basis with the executive, legislative and judicial powers. 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 XIX century is particularly 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. With this state of affairs, it was extremely difficult to prove the independence of the communities.

Public theory

When the theory of a free community has been left in the past, a new one has come to replace it, which has become known as the social, 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. Supporters of social theory looked at this subject differently. According to their dogmatics, the rights flowed from the economic activities of the municipality. And it was she who became the priority.

The economic theory of local government recognized the community as a subject of law, independent of the state. The key to her was a community service. The government was left to decide only state affairs. Many theories of the emergence of local self-government, as well as the public, are based on the fact that the community was set against the entire central power machine. Supporters of the idea of freedom of municipalities clearly delineated the powers between the two systems.

It is important to understand that the social theory of local self-government has its drawbacks. They consist in the fact that municipalities mix with private associations, which are also engaged in economic activities. If people are cooperating on their own initiative, for example, for cultivating the land, then they can leave this group if they wish. Territorial units (that is, municipalities) are not able to disband voluntarily. 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 also be found in Russian history. In the 1860s, Emperor Alexander II held his famous reforms. First of all, he freed the serfs. This dramatically reversed the structure of provincial society, especially in agricultural regions.

Zemsky followed the peasant reform. It consisted precisely in changes in local self-government. The Provision on Zemstvo institutions of 1864 deliberately stressed the fact that the economic activities of zemstvos existed separately from the administrative decisions of the authorities.

Publicists-Slavophils 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.

A vivid and flexible self-government was opposed to an inefficient and slow bureaucracy. State decisions are always made "from above". The official only fulfills the order given to him by the chief. Such disinterested attitude and lack of responsibility among civil servants is strikingly different from that of zemstvos. The municipality gave the locals the tools 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, bore fruit in a few years. New farms and enterprises were founded. Money flowed to the province through trade. Zemstvos became yeast, on which grew Russian capitalism, which made the Russian Empire one of the largest economies in the world.

State theory

At the same time (in the XIX century) social theory was criticized and spaced. Its opponents did not like the fact that the municipality exists separately from the central government. In the midst of these thinkers, a state theory of local self-government emerged. Its main provisions were developed by the German researchers Lorenz von Stein and Rudolph Gneist. "State officials" took root also in Russia, 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 structure, because of what it was necessary to keep the municipalities in the system of state institutions. At the same time, officials could not work in zemstvos and similar institutions. There should be only natives of the local population who are interested in the high effectiveness of the meetings of municipalities. The state machine is too large and complex to deal effectively, for example, with economic tasks. Therefore, it delegates part of its powers to zemstvos.

Political and legal theories

The founders of the state theory Lorentz von Stein and Rudolf Gneist disagreed in several principal theses. Therefore, in the framework of their common doctrine, two separate directions emerged. Gneist became the creator of political theory, and Stein developed a legal one. How did they differ? Gneyst stated that the election of local self-government bodies does not guarantee their independence. This is due to the fact that when a person falls into a public position, he becomes dependent on the authorities because of his salary. That is, the official chosen by the representative to the municipality is not an independent figure. Central government can influence its decisions. The peculiarities of the political system lead to this contradiction.

How could elective representatives be made independent? The Gneist proposed reformatting their posts into non-qualifying ones. This would give the members of the municipality freedom from power, because these bodies would be visited only by people who went there on their own initiative and beliefs. The Gneist believed that these posts needed to be given honorary representatives of the local community. However, his point of view did not find wide support.

Lorentz von Stein formulated another idea, which turned out to be the legal theory of local 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 some of its powers to them. Therefore , local government bodies solve some administrative tasks without being part of the bureaucracy. These are the state theories of local self-government. The table shows their features.

Dualism

It is interesting that modern theories of local self-government include elements of theories that emerged in the XIX century. Scientists define the current municipalities as decentralized bodies within the state system. There are other definitions. For example, in Denmark, local government is called a "state in the state".

Such a system of relations between the authorities and municipalities reflects the dual principle of such activities. He is the determining factor in the system of views called "dualism theory of local self-government."

The main principle in it is the following assumption. If elected representatives perform part of the state functions, they themselves become part of the state machine. At the same time, local government bodies that do not address administrative problems are ineffective and useless. For example, it is extremely difficult to solve economic issues without affecting the budget of the city. 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

On the modern Russian system of municipal power, the greatest influence was exerted by the theory of dualism of local self-government. This relationship is reflected in the fact that elective 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 the local 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 the city's 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 social institutions. It fully reflects the dualistic or dualistic theory of local self-government.

If we call municipalities only a public phenomenon, then such a statement will be nothing more than a loud declaration. Modern provincial elected bodies somehow have to interact with the state to effectively help people live better and happier. And this situation does not apply only to Russia.