March 2008 “Local self-governance de jure vs. de facto”
12.03.2008 | Publications
This article will consider internal and external perspectives on local self-governance development in
De jure “The legal code supplies the following definition: Local self-governance in Belarus is a mechanism for citizens to participate in resolving social, economic, political or cultural issues of local importance via either independently directed activities or elected bodies; taking into account the overall public interest, the specifics of local administrative and territorial development and utilising local material and financial resources and privileges”, says Mr. Kobasa. Now, let us analyze whether the theory corresponds to the practice: De facto “A mechanism for citizens...”. First of all it is necessary to note that in
“Direct or electoral democracy”
“Independently directed activities”: this implicitly raises the question: “using what legal mechanisms?” Local governments have a legal right to hold referenda however there currently exist no precedents, even though there have been attempted initiatives. There are other mechanisms for decision making, such as: organising local meetings, proposing legislative initiatives and other forms of public participation, however all of these mechanisms are highly bureaucratic and consume much time, nervous energy and (in extreme cases) even the “health” of those who attempt to follow such a route. Moreover, the existing legislative framework allows executive authorities to interpret matters in any way they wish. Consequently, resolving issues ‘directly’ is only a theoretical proposition in reality.
“Via elected bodies”, i.e. via Deputies… This has been discussed many times before and there seems little point in restating the obvious. I am only surprised that the competent authorities continue to claim that the de facto practice is defensible, transparent and compliant with the legislation. If they are so secure then why are they so reluctant to allow opposition representatives onto election committees? Is there something wrong? If one is completely confident that the people genuinely vote for those who eventually become Deputies, then there should be nothing to fear from giving a hearing to the representatives of opposition parties! However, this is an issue that should be addressed by the Central Election Commission.
“Social, economic, political or cultural issues of local importance”.
This basically encompasses all aspects of local, community life so, what does Belarusian legislation say about this? There are four clauses in the Constitution that are primarily relevant, and these relate to: the approval of the social and economic development plan, budget approval (within the competence of the Local Council), local tax collection (which constitutes only 0.5-1.5 % of overall tax income), distribution of community property and administration of local referenda (theoretically. These are basic competences of the Local Councils and naturally they do not and will not solve the existing problems.
Who makes decisions? Let us look around: transport is functioning, lights are on, shops are open and cities are clean. Who makes decisions about all that? Primarily, the Executive Committees. According to our legislation, the executive committees cannot be held directly accountable by the electorate, they are accountable to the higher state executive bodies, including the Presidential Administration, but not to the citizens.
In reality, those we vote for, i.e. Local Council Deputies, do not really decide anything of significance. This is not due to a failure on their part, but due to their narrowly defined competence in current legislation. The officials materially responsible for organisation of our daily lives are not accountable to us and report to other officials, all of whom exist at the taxpayer's expense.
“Local financial resources”.
This concept borders on the mythological. The State Budget is organized centrally and resources are distributed in a vertically descending manner. At local level there is practically no funding available, only budget proposals. There is a Law on Local Self-governance, which implies that Local Councils form their own budgets. Allow me to quote from a relevant document: “Approve the budget proposals of the Regional Council for region X and for Village Council X in 2008”. This is not a proper budget since it does not specify any monetary amounts. Most of the funding available constitutes expenses of the state and state bodies of a general character. Where housing and community services are concerned the resources available are tiny. Due to the aforementioned factors, one cannot consider Councils to have a stable or predictable economic position. A Local Council has legal status as an entity and should therefore have its own bank account, accountant and assets. In reality such material and financial grounds don’t exist and funds are only allocated for the salaries of the Council Leader, a driver and an assistant. Why prosecuting authorities remain silent in the face of such flagrant disregard for the law is not clear, however it is the reality.
Local Councils are denied the right to act collectively and community property constitutes a part of general state property. The administrative and territorial divisions are a problem per se. They have not changed in 45 years whilst the demographic situation has changed markedly. Seventy seven per cent of population now inhabit cities. If only 23 persons live in a village, they cannot organize effective self-governance for themselves. This means that radical reform of electoral boundaries is a prerequisite for improvements regarding more routine matters.
I believe that the executive authorities have started realising this too. Last year a Commission on Relations with Local Councils was formed by the Council of the Republic. I think this is a step forward. In addition, the 21st Decree of the President was adopted to emphasise the role and significance of Local Councils. However to date this Decree has not been fully implemented.
We may therefore draw some conclusions, based on the facts listed above, as to whether local self-governance exists in a meaningful sense.
Local Governance
There is a legal definition of Local Governance, i.e. an organisational structure for local executive bodies for resolving issues of local importance within the overarching framework of broader interests of the state. Interests of local citizens may be taken into account later, perhaps…
There is a Local self-governance Charter in
One of the principal incompatibilities is that according to Belarusian legislation Local Councils constitute a part of the state governmental system. That is de facto nonsense. In reality, Belarusian Local Councils have no real influence upon any matters of material importance; they cannot build, destroy or develop on their own initiative. The Charter itself is not dogmatic – this is not the central issue, rather the question is: “Where are the people?” The electorate do not get involved in the decision making process and they don’t see any opportunities to influence the policies of the executive authorities. There is a huge gap between the State and its citizens, between de jure and de facto.
12.03.2008
Interview by Julia Dranchuk
[email protected]
-
03.01
-
07.10
-
22.09
-
17.08
-
12.08
-
30.09
