Preview

Russian Law Journal

Advanced search

Local Legislative Process in Russia: Perspectives and Barriers

https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2021-9-3-83-110

Full Text:

Abstract

The legislative process is an important tool of direct democracy for creating checks and balances on public authority. Making local laws is an essential function of the local government that is linked to direct communication between public officials and citizens. This paper sets out to evaluate the opportunities, constraints and challenges in the practices of local direct democracy in Russian municipalities, and to describe the frameworks and capacities that municipal authorities provide for citizens. The paper analyzes the political and legal circumstances for law-making initiatives at the local level and examines citizens’ activities in the local legislative process. The research question is whether citizens have the capacity and opportunity to participate in the local legislative process and to what extent barriers and challenges prevent them from doing so. To answer the research question the authors use methods of context analysis to study Russian legislation and municipal legal documents, a case study of several Russian municipalities and a survey with representatives of local communities in Tyumen, a Russian mid-sized city located in Western Siberia. The results of the study show a reluctance on the part of local residents to engage in the various aspects of direct democracy and a lack of the necessary skills, knowledge and willingness to participate in the initiative process. The results further show that the initiative process is frequently not well planned and lacks clear objectives, requirements and guidelines. The study concludes that seminars and professional training as well as roundtable workshops are effective ways to support local law-making initiatives. One promising step towards modernizing initiatives would be to organize them in e-forms. Many citizens demonstrate their ability to use electronic options that can expand the possibilities for their participation in the local legislative process.

About the Authors

Victoria Mamontova
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation

Victoria Mamontova – Associate Professor, Public Administration Department

6 Volodarskogo St., Tyumen, 625003



Elena Gladun
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation

Elena Gladun – Professor, Public Administration Department

6 Volodarskogo St., Tyumen, 625003



References

1. Allen R.J. The National Initiative Proposal: A Preliminary Analysis, 58(4) Neb. L. Rev. 965 (1979).

2. Arnstein Sh. A Ladder of Citizen Participation, 35(4) J. Am. Plan. Ass’n 216 (1969).

3. Aulich Ch. From Citizen Participation to Participatory Governance in Australian Local Government, 2 Commonw. J. Local Gov. 44 (2009). https://doi.org/10.5130/cjlg.v0i2.1007

4. Bullock K. Citizen Participation and Democracy in Bullock K. Citizens, Community and Crime Control, Crime Prevention and Security Management 25 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137269331_2

5. Callahan K. Citizen Participation: Models and Methods, 30(11) Int. J. Public Adm. 1179 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701225366

6. Chowdhury M.S. & Aktaruzzaman M. Citizen Participation in Urban Local Government: A Case Study of Kanaighat Paurashava in Bangladesh, 19 Commonw. J. Local Gov. 119 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5130/cjlg.v0i19.5451

7. Citizen as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States (Shaun Bowler et al. eds., 1998).

8. Clarke J. Beyond Citizen and Consumers? Publics and Public Service Reform, 2(2) NI SP. J. Pub. Adm. & Pol’y 33 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2478/v10110-009-0003-z

9. Cole M. Democracy in Britain (2006).

10. Cree N. Direct Legislation by the People (1892).

11. Duţu A. & Diaconu M. Community Participation for an Open Public Administration: Empirical Measurements and Conceptual Framework Design, 4(1) Cogent Bus. & Mgmt. 1287980 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1287980

12. Duvivier K.K. E-Legislating, 92(9) Oregon L. Rev. 9 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2230124

13. Fischer J.R. Exercise the Power, Play by the Rules: Why Popular Exercise of Legislative Power in Maine Should be Constrained by Legislative Rules, 61(2) Maine L. Rev. 503 (2009).

14. Golubović D. An Enabling Framework for Citizen Participation in Public Policy: An Outline of Some of the Major Issues Involved, 12(4) Int’l J. Not-for-Profit L. 2 (2008).

15. Hajnal G. & Máthé R.Z. Civil-Society Organizations’ Capacity Building in the Local Government Sector: Is it Working? A Case, 10(1) NISP. J. Pub. Adm. & Pol’y 61 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1515/nispa-2017-0003

16. Haruţa C. & Radu B. Citizen Participation in the Decision Making Process at Local and County Levels in Romanian Public Institutions, 31E Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 76 (2010).

17. Hirsch A. Direct Democracy and Civic Maturation, 29(2) Hastings Const. L.Q. 185 (2002).

18. Ivanova K. Electronic Legislative Initiative as a Tool to Improve Citizens’ Public Activity in Cyberspace: Common Issues in the BRICS Countries, Europe and the Russian Federation, 6(1) BRICS L.J. 102 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2019-6-1-102-126

19. Karp J.A. The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns in Citizen as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States 149 (Shaun Bowler et al. eds., 1998).

20. Magleby D.B. Governing by Initiative: Let the Voter Decide? An Assessment of the Initiatives and Referendum Process, 66(1) U. Colo. L. Rev. 13 (1995).

21. McCuan D. et al. California’s Political Warriors: Campaign Professionals and the Initiative Process in Citizen as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States 55 (Shaun Bowler et al. eds., 1998).

22. Michels A. Citizen Participation in Local Policy Making: Design and Democracy, 35(4) Int’l J. Pub. Adm. 285 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.661301

23. Nemec J. et al. Local Government in Slovakia in Decentralization: Experiments and Reforms (1998).

24. Organ J. Decommissioning Direct Democracy? A Critical Analysis of Commission Decision-Making on the Legal Admissibility of European Citizens Initiative Proposals, 10(3) Eur. Const. L. Rev. 422 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1017/s157401961400131x

25. Ploštajner Z. & Mendeš I. Citizens Participation in How to Improve Development on Local Level Handbook with Best Practice Examples from South-East Europe 97 (2004).

26. Radzik-Maruszak K. & Bátorová M. Citizen Participation and Engagement in Urban Governance: Perception of Finnish and Polish Local Officials, 8(1) NISP. J. Pub. Adm. & Pol’y 85 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1515/nispa-2015-0005

27. Shandurski D. Representative Actions in Russia, 6(1) Russian L.J. 100 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-1-100-118

28. Shkabatur J. Cities @ Crossroads Digital Technology and Local Democracy in America, 76(4) Brooklyn L. Rev. 1413 (2011).

29. Smith D.A. & Tolbert C.J. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States (2004). https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11467

30. Stepanov O. & Pechegin D. Legal View on the Introduction of New Technologies, 6(3) Russian L.J. 149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-3-149-171

31. Wehle K.L. Defining Lawmaking Power, 51(4) Wake Forest L. Rev. 881 (2016).

32. Wenzel J. et al. Direct Democracy and Minorities: Changing Attitudes About Minorities Targeted by Initiatives in Citizen as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States 228 (Shaun Bowler et al. eds., 1998).

33. Zimmerman J.F. The Initiative: Citizen Lawmaking (2nd ed. 2014).


For citation:


Mamontova V., Gladun E. Local Legislative Process in Russia: Perspectives and Barriers. Russian Law Journal. 2021;9(3):83-110. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2021-9-3-83-110

Views: 206


ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)