Original Material
A CONFESSION BY A LOCAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE
by Tatyana Fedyaeva, deputy to the representative assembly of the Tarussky district in Kaluga region, and deputy chair of the Association of Women- Journalists.
I live in a small, provincial town. The number of people living in such towns in Russia supersedes that of the collective population of Russia's mega-cities. My town is located in a region of central Russia that is very typical on all indicators. Here, there are no ore deposits, no oil rigs. No diamonds. There's a rather low harvest from poor soil, and there's a full set of problems characteristic of the whole country. There is daily life with its struggles and joys. At the beginning of Perestroika, [in the late 1980's when the idea sprung up that the people could actually influence what was going on, when the word 'democracy' became sort of reassuring after having been half forbidden, I decided to run for office. It seemed that having only just begun to work together to build our lives, we could accomplish something. Since that time, I've been elected four times as a deputy to our local self-government assembly, under quite serious competition. I've managed to accomplish some things, to help my constituents solve some urgent problems, although in the depth of my soul, I understand that I've done much less than I wanted to and could have done. My enthusiasm and faith in the idea that it is possible to really change something has significantly declined. If you travel to other regions, you see that in many other places, the situation is approximately the same. Still, a person has to hope!
WHY DO DEPUTIES FORGET ABOUT THEIR CONSTITUENTS?
Each candidate who tries to become a deputy swears his or her love for the voters. And people vote for that -- and also for the candidates' promises to fight crime. But a month or two passes, and it's as if other people have been substituted for the elected deputies.
It was not long ago that the deputies of the Kaluga city Duma adopted a decision to open a new commercial trolleybus route. That is, war veterans previously had to pay only on the express bus. Now they would have to pay on the locals, too. Everything was couched in words about the benefit to the city budget (and hence to the benefit of the voters).
There are many examples of constituents not being able to get hold of their representatives. They say, "When the elections were coming, you came to us, but now we don't know where to find you; we hear nothing about you, and you don't even receive citizens at your office. And the poor voters have no one to complain to!"
A year ago, the representative assembly in the Zhukovsky district, which neighbors my Tarussky district, eliminated several federal laws on their territory. And the problem is that these laws weren't about bee-keeping or some other exotic thing, but rather, they concerned the interests of thousands of citizens. These were laws about veterans and about the "social protection of invalids." The deputies, having been influenced by the head of the local government and the directors of local businesses, analyzed the income situation for municipal transport, the lack of welfare benefits 'from above', the condition of the roads (as a result of which the buses break down quickly), and decided to eliminate at one blow the discounts for certain categories of citizens. At once, the suburban routes were renamed as taxis -- You must pay! That is, in fact, the interests of the executive branch were protected, but not those of the people. Only a few deputies tried to protest against this. Two, Yury Smirnov and Vladimir Kuznetsov, having received many citizens at their offices, turned to the local procuracy, trying to take steps to overturn the decision.
HOW THE DEPUTIES WERE DEALT WITH.
At that time, they didn't know how their first decisive step would end (later, there were complaints to the procuracy about the administration chief's illegal acts, when he bought stock in an enterprise using city budget money; there were lawsuits about illegal acts, and much more), but if they had known, they would have done the same thing -- protested. And it ended with both of the deputies being fired. On the basis of the Labor Code. That is, the citizens voted them in, and the administration chief fired them. The excuse was a fig leaf: in order to conserve budgetary monies.... And also, of course, the excuse was that their firing was "meeting the needs and wants of the workers." It's not worth discussing the matter of how individual citizens' desires could possibly be reflected in such a decree from above. A phrase from the not-far off past applies not only to food products: "The price of sausage has risen again, reflecting the will of the people." Smirnov and Kuznetsov, insisting on their right to protect the interests of the people who elected them, struggled with the head of the municipality and a good half of the deputies of the representative assembly of Zhukovsky district for a year. They won the lawsuit. That is, they defended not only their right to professionally carry out their duties, but also the rights of the people who turned to them for help. But such deputies, stubborn and ready to enter into conflict with others, are more and more rare with each passing year. There are no levers of influence, and to run to the courts over every issue...well, not everyone is inclined to do that. And before long, you'd hear that you're suffering from the "malicious litigation" syndrome. And who wants that?
A PROTECTIVE COVER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, OR PEOPLE'S POWER?
If we're going to talk about local self-government in the Kaluga region, then this is how it looks overall. There are 402 deputies in total. Of them, only 19 work only as deputies (free of other jobs). There are 122 engineers-technical workers. 81 represent the education system. 78 are from the agro-industrial complex, 52 are in health care, 10 are civil servants, 13 are pensioners, and 9 are workers. Women, who represent 53% of society, make up less than a third of the deputies. The most superficial analysis shows that nearly all of the people's chosen deputies work in occupations where their salary is paid out of the state budget. And what does that mean? On the one hand, it means that they should know well the problems of the destitute. But even this speaks to their dependent situation: the leadership of the municipality always has a level of influence over an obstinate deputy. For instance, a deputy who's a school director could say, before the budget is adopted, that the school needs repairs, but this depends on the administration...and that's it. His vote is in the administration's pocket. And what's better for the deputy? To acquire enemies, or to slowly but surely solve his professional problems? In other regions I have visited, the picture is quite similar to this.
So -- why are there so many deputies from the sector that gets paid out of the state budget? There are several plausible explanations. The main one is that small business people do not have time to sit in legislative session. Every day is dear to them; they have to earn their daily bread. Those who are more or less well-off just don't go into local government. If they want to become a deputy, they shoot for the legislative assembly of the region; it's more prestigious and the possibilities are broader. Some part of the active and well-educated population has decided that all this is pointless. Of course, one also must take into account the role played by the well-propagated myth that politics is a dirty business, and that normal (read: honest) people don't go into it, and nothing will change anyhow. But politics, like life in general, is composed of all of us. It is the people who go into politics at all levels who determine the nature of politics itself. And only them.
In nearly all municipalities, the head of the administration (executive branch) runs the representative-legislative branch as well. He is more concerned about the administration, of course. And the representative branch deputies, having been through the difficult selection process of acquiring authority, quickly find that they have become mere stage props. They are a decoration, covering up unattractive acts on the part of the local administration.
Not long ago, the mayor of the city of Obninsk decreed on his own an increase in the costs for city housing maintenance services. This directly contradicts legislation which gives that power only to the deputies. But the deputies were silent. And soon the local citizens had to pay a higher price for their maintenance services.
Instances where the executive branch, hiding behind the submissive representative branch, breaks the law on a daily basis and takes huge sums from the budget and tosses them into the wind, are not few. In Tarussky district, the former administration head gave out (who knows where) bonds worth four million rubles, without telling the deputies. The money was lost. Nobody was punished. Aside, that is, from the city dwellers whose houses needed urgent repair; it was precisely for that purpose that the bonds were issued. The criminal case quietly melted away. And the former head -- as punishment -- was appointed to a high (financial) position in the region's capital city. Now he has access to a much larger field of play.
In the beginning of the 1990s, much hope was placed on the idea of local self government. It seemed that citizens, taking charge of their own problems, would be able to solve them. In recent years, these hopes have begun to melt away. A few of the more active deputies who couldn't take the pressure and the open disregard for the law retired, trying thereby to bring attention to the problem. That's what Tatyana Kotliar from Obninsk did. Those who were close to the administration said things like, "See, she disregards the interests of the voters -- you chose her, and now she's disempowering herself!" But the people understand perfectly that this is not a case of disregard, but instead an act of despair from a person who truly defended their rights. After some time, she ran for office again and became a deputy -- this time to the legislative assembly of the region. What can be done there, if one is knowingly in the minority, when a direct conversation takes place about representing the people's interests?
IS POWER FOR ONESELF OR FOR THE PEOPLE?
But some go into office knowing full well that their first priority is their own business, rather than the problems of the voters. How is it possible to seriously work in the interest of citizens, to defend them at all levels, if you are only working in your elected office from time to time? Take the Legislative Assembly. In the last session, the majority of the elected deputies were heads of municipalities. That is entirely understandable: everyone wants to do something for their own district. And the Legislative Assembly turned into a sort of club for administration heads, people concerned not with creating overall standards, but with lobbying for the interests of their own territories. Later, the law was changed to forbid them from running for office. Now the deputies are all directors or deputy directors of hospitals, of agricultural-industrial enterprises, of schools, departments of executive power, and commercial enterprises...Any of them could work in the Legislative Assembly on a continuous basis. But only four out of forty agreed to do so. Even the regional military committee leader, who is obligated by law to leave the service while working as a deputy, stayed at his military post. 36 people out of 40 appear at the Legislative Assembly on average only 2-3 times a month. Are they prepared to consider laws at that point? And are they willing to risk their own organization by entering into conflict with the governor and administration of the region, knowing -- it's perfectlyk possible, isn't it? -- that the governor and administration could always take over their enterprises?
Not long ago, the legislative assembly adopted some amendments to the region's charter. The period of elective office for the governor and legislators was raised from four to five years; the vice-governor is no longer an elected position, and so on. Of course, the local electoral laws clashed with these changes. Even in the much maligned era of stagnation [1970s-early1980s] there was nothing like this. Draft laws back then were published, and the people had a chance to take part in discussing them. Yes, that discussion was formal and initiated from above. But now, even that is not the case! For comparison: the State Duma sends drafts of federal laws to the subjects of the federation (the regions) for their approval. No discussion happens at the lower level. And the people are further and further alienated from the ostensible process of self government.
It seems as if we have all the right branches of government in place. All of them carry out their functions. But you don't notice that you could wake up in a completely different state. Where the governor's term is now 5 years. And for three possible terms in a row. Where the deputies will meet only to approve of the decisions by the "singular and smartest one."
Of course, the sad thing isn't just that the deputies have little power, but that the executive and representative branches of power are not particularly interested in the opinions of the local people. You want examples? Be my guest! The law says that various development programs can only be adopted by representative bodies. But in one place (again perhaps by the "request of the workers"?) the sale (by street hawkers) of inexpensive goods was outlawed. In another place, the best piece of land was granted to unknown persons. There are dozens of examples. Deputies don't answer for any of it. Isn't that because hardly any of them are working on a constant -- professional -- basis at their deputy jobs? Moreover: the kind of event where deputies have to account for their actions before the voters is also receding into the past. The explanations for this are entirely justified. For instance, that there are no more large work collectives; it's hard to gather people together. Some deputies, feeling a sense of responsibility before the voters, try to speak out in the local papers. But this is not always successful. If they write that they are in complete agreement with the local administration, then there's no problem. But if they write about how the executive branch is somehow not fulfilling its responsibilities or is violating the law, then the deputy's path into the newspaper's pages is blocked. And that is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, the local mass media is controlled by the district administration.
The widespread opinion that deputies should carry out their duties on a voluntary basis is not completely inoffensive. You can go and walk a cat on a voluntary basis, because the cat will walk around on its own. But there's no such thing as exercising power on a voluntary basis. That's fundamental.
Otherwise, all these organs of government are turned into decorations. Nobody thinks that the mayor of a city and the civil service should work for free. Everyone understands that they hold power, they have responsibilities, that their jobs constitute real work. But when it is said that deputies should carry out their obligations without pay, voluntarily, it is understood that their activity is just a fiction, a fig leaf on the tree of democracy. That is why the quality of work of the deputies themselves, and the way they relate to their duties, slowly begins to change.
But after all, you could have a situation where there was no executive branch. According to the law, it is precisely the representative-legislative branch that creates the executive organ -- the administration. But the local government, in accordance with the European Charter and the Russian Constitution cannot exist without a representative branch! We have here a clear tendency for power to reside on the side of the administration. Their attitude toward the deputies is: don't get mixed up in our affairs, don't go mucking about in the budget, and so on. Even if that is never said aloud. In essence, local administration, not having gotten off to a good start in Russia, has begun to be displaced. Earlier, [in theSoviet era] the councils of people's deputies were formed within the system of party [Communist Party] power and the executive committees. Now there's no single party, no single ideology. But the dependency of the deputies remains. Deputies now are dependent on the bureaucrats of the administration, and sometimes on criminal elements, because it's well known that organized crime is not just about interactions between a few citizens. There's always a tie between the bandit and a bureaucrat. Yet some deputies who work honestly on a constant basis can get past the criminal elements and administration into the local organs of self government.
Take this concrete example: I am a deputy in the local assembly. Like the other nine people from my district, I work elsewhere in addition to my deputy duties. The deputies have no office in which to receive citizens, there's no telephone, and no computer or photocopying technology. There's no compensation for expenses on deputy duties. There's no civil service for the representative organs, no lawyers. Most deputies lack even a rudimentary knowledge of laws and of how to work with documents. Some of the deputies are not disturbed by this. Maybe because it's easier and simpler to live like that. And the feeling of responsibility at first becomes deadened, and then goes away entirely.
I'll repeat myself: there has never been any real self-government in Russia. It's only just arising. But, not yet having managed to gain strength, it could become deformed into a dictatorial system. None of this would be so frightening if it were going on only in one district. But this is the case all over the provincial areas of the country. So, it turns out that the people's power, the voluntary part of it, is out walking on its own. Like a cat. But a homeless one. And those always come to a bad end.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
The perpetual question for Russia is, What is to be done? Wait, while things work themselves out? They won't. Struggle? We've already had plenty of struggle, and the results were always far from what was expected. Try to act through the legal organs, insisting on deputies' rights, which are guaranteed by the Constitution? But there are precious few deputies who are prepared to go down that road and risk being labeled as "malicious litigants." And it's the easiest thing in the world to label someone that way.
And perhaps deputies and non-governmental organizations should try to help each other, in order to achieve the goals they hold in common? I don't know how it works everywhere, but in many places in the country that I've visited recently, both the NGOs and the representative assemblies are in crisis. It's hard to overcome this in isolation. This is relevant for women's organizations, too -- which are the most active and take the most initiatives. Either they're taking up social issues, or helping out the administrative organs or being undermined by them. Or they're carrying out endless monitoring, or research, or creating databases for the thousandth time. Wouldn't it be better for the municipal organs just to do their jobs? It's understood that the people, who have lost faith in all the branches of power, look skeptically upon the idea of cooperating with the authorities. And maybe that's right -- if everyone starts to "cooperate," not much will come of it. But why shouldn't women's organizations, which bring together talented, active, educated activists, take part in discussions of the budget, for instance? Why not bring in their input? Why not get them onto the staff of deputies' committees?
Self-management cooperatives and housing cooperatives are mostly headed by women, and they do a great deal in self-government. But, first of all, they are not found everywhere, and second of all, they often work without any connection to deputies. Besides, the mass media reports almost nothing about them. And that also makes sense -- after all, those cooperatives strike at the monopoly on community city services, the very same ones that are run by the local executive branch. And it turns out that everyone who tries to accomplish something is working on his or her own. It's already old and banal to call for unification, and to recall the slogan, "As long as we're united, we will never be defeated." But aside from this banal call, I don't see anything else. Initiatives for uniting to solve concrete tasks will come from smarter people. Otherwise -- I repeat -- we'll wake up in amazement one day: We didn't want to live in THAT kind of country! But by then it will be too late to change anything
Not long ago, a group of deputies from the local self-government in Kaluzhsky region (deputies all from different districts) decided to create a deputies' association. Its basic tasks are to cooperate with NGOs, to educate both deputies and voters, and to form civil society. When will it be possible to say that civil society has come into being? I recall the words of a poet: "...Russia, this is no joke: all your pain pierces me! ... I am in pain, when you are, Russia!" I am deeply convinced that only a society testing itself against these poetic lines can call itself "civil."