Public confrontation between heads of regions and local capitals is a typical phenomenon in post-Soviet Russia. In Vladivostok in the mid-1990s, during the era of Governor Nazdratenko and Mayor Cherepkov, tensions escalated to hand-to-hand fights and the removal of unwanted people from the city hall building. However, yesterday's temporary removal by the court of the mayor of the Primorsky capital Vladimir Nikolayev, despite Nikolayev's difficult reputation, is not like the stories of ten years ago.

The official reason for the temporary resignation of the Vladivostok mayor is an accusation of abuse of power. The prosecution of the mayors of Volgograd, Tomsk and Arkhangelsk, Yevgeny Ishchenko, Aleksandr Makarov and Aleksandr Donskoy (the first two are in pretrial detention) is also being carried out along the “prosecutor’s line”. The charges brought against them are different, and it is quite possible that they will be confirmed in court. It is noteworthy that in each case there was a conflict between the mayor of the regional capital and the governor.

In the past, the struggle between the governor and the mayor was often caused by political reasons, when, for example, a “left” head of a region was opposed by a “strong manager”, a supporter of federal power. In those years, mayors had a chance to become governors - it is enough to recall the former head of the Irkutsk region Boris Govorin and the current governor of the Vologda region, the former mayor of Cherepovets Vyacheslav Pozgalev. Moscow was interested in having a strong counterweight to opposing governors and often helped mayors in the struggle. After the abolition of direct gubernatorial elections, the mayor of a regional center became the only figure around whom a real political struggle is taking place.

This order is also supported by the population. According to VTsIOM, 55% of respondents were against the appointment of mayors, while 34% were for it. Governors do not always manage to get their own person elected to the mayoral elections. Moscow, in principle, no longer needs an alternative to the current head of the region. However, not wanting to spoil relations with the West, the Kremlin is not yet allowing the law on local government to be “corrected” and the heads of municipalities to be openly subordinated to the executive branch. But the issue is not only and not so much a political confrontation, as it is the growing financial and material resources concentrated in the hands of city mayors: land, real estate, and licensing of a number of types of activity. In particular, one of the reasons for the conflict in Vladivostok could be the development of 100 billion rubles that will be allocated to prepare the city for the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in 2012.

In a situation where the law does not always clearly delineate property between the region and the city, proposes to divide some objects or build infrastructure “by agreement” between the two parties, governors are tempted to remove an undesirable mayor and put in his place an interim manager or hired city manager. So far, the Kremlin does not interfere or tacitly approves the removal of mayors, but it is obvious that the statistics of such conflicts will reach a critical level at some point. And this will not be the only complaint about municipal reform.

From the editor: A dangerous profession