Ivan Ivanovich Kontraollov. A tragedy not only on a municipal scale

A tragedy not only on a municipal scale
Ivan Ivanovich Kontraollov

Publication date: March 30, 2000

On March 26 of this year, elections of deputies of municipal councils were supposed to take place in 93 municipalities of St. Petersburg - simply because their term of office had expired. True, for the vast majority they ended in February, but in order to save budget funds, due to the lack of experience of municipalities in holding elections, as well as to increase the legitimacy of those elected by increasing voter turnout, local elections were combined with presidential ones.

However, in fact, municipal councils were elected in full only in 19 municipalities, and in another three they were elected in eligible compositions.

In the rest, the virtual candidate “Against All” won.

Sunday's elections almost completely repeated the picture of September 1998, when it was possible to elect legitimate municipal councils in only 32 out of 111 districts. However, then the elections failed in most districts due to low voter turnout.

Now, on the contrary, the turnout for the presidential and, therefore, municipal elections has exceeded all expectations.

Why did people vote most often against all candidates?

Many probably did not fully understand the system of multi-member constituencies and, without bothering themselves with a detailed study of the candidate names on the ballot, which more closely resembled, if not a sheet, then at least a medium-sized towel (there were up to 40 candidates per electoral district), they preferred to make a mark in the very last square. Moreover, if they did not personally know any of the candidates for deputy mandates.

Those who wanted to at least get acquainted with the biographies of candidates for municipal deputies at the polling stations, most often had the opportunity to see on colossal posters only a set of small photographs of complete strangers with just a few lines like “born/married/working.”

But it is quite obvious that a significant part of voters simply expressed their negative attitude towards local government bodies (LSGs) in those districts where over the past two years the municipal authorities have not shown themselves to be anything remarkable.

In general, the preliminary results of local elections show that they took place where voters historically feel like residents of a particular territory. And also where LSGs were built as representative bodies of local government under already created administrations, and did not start from a “clean slate” - municipalities, often without any experience in creative activities, had to create professional executive bodies out of nothing.

These are, for example, Sestroretsk, Pargolovo, Levashovo, Ust-Izhora, Komarovo, Repino, Strelna, Smolyachkovo, Serovo, Ushkovo, etc., i.e. - satellite cities of St. Petersburg or villages.

It was very indicative that directly within the city limits of St. Petersburg, legitimate councils were elected in only three (!) municipal districts - in the 31st district of the Kirovsky district, in the 42nd district of the Krasnoselsky district and in the 49th Nevsky district.

The situation that arose as a result of the failure of the elections plunged the entire city, especially its city government structures responsible for the establishment of full-fledged self-government and the general stability of the structure of power, into a state of shock. The authorities are confused, and the only thing they have done so far is try to block information channels. Due to the fact that the diseases of “municipalization in St. Petersburg” turned out to be too advanced, and the legislation was extremely imperfect, and the situation was too odious, there is currently no clear solution to the problem of overcoming the deepest crisis of municipal government.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that the card of failure of municipal politics in St. Petersburg is now becoming, without a doubt, not only a trump card, but also decisive in the upcoming gubernatorial elections, which already promise to be extremely tough.

So, even without a deep analysis of the possible consequences of the emerging deep crisis of power and the eternal Russian “who is to blame” and “what to do with those who are to blame,” the need to resolve very important issues immediately arises.

So, firstly, it is not yet entirely clear who will carry out the functions of local self-government in those districts where it was not possible to elect authorized councils during the transition period before additional or repeat elections. In these municipalities, it is necessary to hold by-elections for unfilled mandates in individual districts. In another 42 municipalities, a number of candidates were elected that is clearly insufficient for the functioning of municipal councils in a normal manner (it is simply impossible to make decisions due to the lack of a quorum stipulated by law).

In 23 municipalities, elections did not take place at all. (Information is given without taking into account information for the Primorsky administrative region.)

Thus, a situation has arisen where repeat and additional elections are necessary on the territory of St. Petersburg. In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 59 of the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens in the Russian Federation” dated September 19, 1997 #124-FZ (as amended on March 30, 1999) in municipalities, elections in which are declared invalid, repeat elections are held. In this case, the election campaign is carried out no later than six months from the date of the initial elections (ie, in our situation - no later than September 26, 2000).

The Law of St. Petersburg “On elections of deputies of municipal councils in St. Petersburg” dated 07/08/97 #120-38 provides that if the elections are declared invalid or not held, the municipal election commission calls repeat elections. Repeat elections include re-nomination, registration of candidates, voting and other procedures determined by this Law of St. Petersburg.

In a number of municipalities, it is necessary to hold by-elections, since in them only some of the candidates received fewer votes than were cast against all of them.

Based on this, it is necessary to fundamentally resolve the issue of the timing of possible elections.

Another significant problem that requires an immediate solution is the problem associated with the activities of election commissions of municipalities, since the terms of office of the current election commissions of municipalities were determined by the Federal Law “On ensuring the constitutional rights of citizens to elect and be elected to local government bodies in the Russian Federation.” Federation" (more precisely, the Temporary Regulations approved by it) and the Law of St. Petersburg "On the elections of deputies of municipal councils in St. Petersburg in 1998" and ended simultaneously with the terms of office of deputies of municipal councils.

Currently, a range of issues related to the so-called transition period, i.e., is becoming particularly relevant. a period when formally municipal councils of the previous convocation ended their powers, and representative bodies of local self-government of a new composition were not elected.

The current legislation does not allow us to unambiguously resolve the current situation.

On the one hand, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Federal Law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation” dated August 28, 1995 #154-FZ, the powers of a deputy begin from the day of his election and terminate from the moment the elected body of local self-government begins work new composition. A similar norm is contained in clause 2 of Article 16 of the Law of St. Petersburg “On Local Self-Government in St. Petersburg” dated June 23, 1997 #111-35. Namely: from the day the municipal council of the new convocation begins its work (first meeting), the powers of the municipal council of the previous convocation are terminated.

However, the application of this provision obviously provides for the normal development of events, and not the extraordinary state of affairs that has developed today.

Since the term of office of local self-government bodies has expired, their extension is allowed only for the purpose of combining with elections of federal state executive bodies or government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and at a time and for no more than nine months. Thus, after the elections of deputies of municipal councils in 93 municipalities were held on March 26, 2000, the term of office of the municipal councils of the previous composition actually expired.

Not all municipalities have formed and operate executive bodies of local self-government - local administrations with all the necessary attributes (status of a legal entity, separate account, etc.). Moreover, in some municipalities, the charters of which clearly defined the complete separation of the representative and executive branches of government, executive authorities were never created.

In connection with the current situation, the existence of local administrations becomes especially important in 48 municipalities due to the non-election or election of representative bodies with illegitimate composition.

In the remaining 23 municipalities, an analysis of the practical existence and level of competence of the created executive bodies is required.

The most difficult situation from the point of view of possible consequences, including legal ones, is where, along with the failure of new elections, executive administrative structures were not created in contradiction to the charters.

If in those municipalities in which deputies were not elected at all, an attempt can be made to prolong the activities of municipal councils of the previous convocation, then an even greater range of problems arises in those municipalities (there are more than 40 of them) where deputies were elected, but in numbers that are not is sufficient to carry out legitimate activities.

Due to the imperfection of the legislative framework and the neglect of the situation with local self-government in St. Petersburg (in fact, what happened is nothing more than the complete collapse of the policy of “municipalization in St. Petersburg”), the following priority questions become extremely pressing, and remain unanswered:

a) How are the functions of representative bodies of local self-government carried out if they are not elected or are elected inappropriately?

b) Who implements the local budget in these situations?

c) How are the functions of the guardianship and trusteeship authorities implemented? (Moreover, the impossibility, within the framework of the current legislation, of signing administrative documents is an argument against the temporary return of this function to the territorial departments of administrative districts.)

d) What are the terms of office of the heads of municipalities (in each specific case), given that in a number of municipalities they are entrusted with the function of managers of financial resources?

e) The issue of combining the terms of by-elections and repeat elections. Financing of these election campaigns.

g) How to ensure their safety in the appropriate accounts in order to prevent misuse of local budget funds? Similarly, how to ensure measures to preserve the property of the Moscow Region?

h) Determination for the transition period of the procedure for managing property and other powers in those municipalities where, in contradiction to the charters, the deputy corps has not created executive bodies of local government.

f) How and at whose expense to ensure funding for new elections or by-elections.

The fate of the gubernatorial elections in St. Petersburg will largely depend on who, how and whether these issues are resolved.

According to available information, the sudden appearance of St. Petersburg Governor Yakovlev in Moscow on March 28 and his urgent negotiations with Putin were caused precisely by the failure of municipal policy in St. Petersburg.