The elected bodies of local government in 1864 were called. Local government

Had titles

general-adjutant and general of the suite

chamberlain

Secretary of State

Military and naval

2. Why did Alexander 1 refuse to introduce a constitution in Russia after the war?

A) Peasant riots prevented, B) the war of 1812 prevented; C) the nobility resisted the reforms.

3. The decree on free farmers in 1803:

A) granted personal freedom to state peasants; B) consolidated the privileges of peasants who belonged to one courtyard; C) allowed the landowners to release their peasants for a ransom.

4. What part of the population of the Russian countryside were affected by the reforms of PD Kiselev? A) state peasants b) landlords; c) serf household peasants; d) serfs arable peasants ;; e) residents of military settlements.

5. What obligations did Russia undertake for the Peace of Tilsit? A) had to recognize for France all territorial changes in Europe; B) became an ally of France in the war against England; C) was obliged to enter the war against England.

6. Determine who in question? “Born into the family of a poor landowner. In 1808-1810. served as Minister of War. Since 1815, he actually headed the State Council and the activities of the ministries. He was distinguished by impeccable honesty. Executive officer. He was merciless and even inhuman in his diligence. And it was these traits that caused the negative attitude of those around him. A) N. Novosiltsev; B) M. Speransky; C) A. Arakcheev.

7. What is the purpose of military settlements? A) suppress the wave of peasant protests; b) reduce government spending on the upkeep of the army, c) organize the mass training of reserves.

8. Who led the Russian army before Kutuzov was appointed to this post? A) M. Barclay de Tolly; b) P. Bagration, c) I. Murat.

9. Determine who you are talking about?“His family coat of arms was decorated with the motto“ Loyalty and Patience ”. He enjoyed a reputation as an honest, cold-blooded and selfless officer. He commanded Russian armies in several wars. The day before Patriotic War In 1812 he was Minister of War, commanded the first army. The court careerists did not like him. Many accused him of the retreat of the Russian troops and even repeated about his treason. "

A) M. Kutuzov; B) M. Barclay de Tolly; C) P. Bagration

10.On May 23, 1816, Alexander 1 approved the regulation on Estonian peasants, according to which in the Baltic provinces:

A) serfdom has increased; B) serfdom was abolished;

C) the duties of the peasants were determined depending on the quantity and quality of the land.

11. The first secret organization of the future Decembrists was called:

a) "Union of Salvation", b) "Union of Welfare", c) "Union of Officers"

12. N. Muravyov's "Constitution" presupposed: a) preservation of serfdom; b) emancipation of peasants without land; c) preservation of landlord ownership.

13.What system was established in Russia according to the project of P. Pestel? A) constitutional monarchy, b) democratic republic, c) Autocratic monarchy.

14. Recruitment is: a) the obligation of the peasants to work at the state-owned manufactory; b) nominating a certain number of people from the taxable estate to serve the needs of the army; c) state tax on peasants for the maintenance of the army; d) the duty of the taxable estate to exhibit a certain number of soldiers.

15. The brake on the development of the Russian economy was: a) patrimonial land tenure; b) craft shops; c) serfdom; d) lack of support from the state.

16. Which of the following was part of the Zemstvo reform of 1864:

A) the elective nature of the zemstvos; b) zemstvos were elected on the basis of a property qualification; c) provincial officials could be appointed only with the consent of the zemstvos; d) in a number of provinces it was decided not to create zemstvos; e) zemstvos maintained hospitals, schools, roads, prisons.

E) at the head of all provincial zemstvos was the central zemstvo; g) zemstvos were created to later replace the central government.

O. Chinguzov

The abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 necessitated other bourgeois reforms in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, preserving its class, noble-landlord essence.

The reforms carried out in 1863-1874 pursued precisely this goal. The bourgeois reforms of this period were characterized by incompleteness, spontaneity and narrowness. By no means everything that was projected in an atmosphere of social and democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the corresponding laws.

One of these reforms was the creation of institutions that were supposed to deal with local affairs. The zemstvo reform was supposed to weaken the movement in the country, attract a part of the "liberal society" to its side, strengthen its social support - the nobility.

In March 1859, under the Ministry of Internal Affairs under the chairmanship of N.A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop a law "On the economic distribution management in the county." It was already envisaged in advance that the newly created bodies of local government would not go beyond the framework of purely economic issues of local importance. In April 1860, Milyutin presented to Alexander II a note on the "provisional rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of electiveness and lack of word. In April 1861, under pressure from reactionary court circles, N.A. Milyutin and Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky was dismissed as "liberals".

The new Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, who was also appointed chairman of the commission to prepare the reform of local self-government, was known for his conservative views, but in the conditions of the rise revolutionary movement in the country, he did not dare to agree to the elimination of the basic principles of the Zemstvo reform, worked out by the Milyutin commission - electivity and lack of estates. He changed only the system of elections to the projected zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave an advantage to landowners and the big bourgeoisie.

The rise of the social democratic movement in the country (the unprecedented growth of peasant unrest, the strengthening of the revolutionary movement in Poland and Finland, student unrest, the growth of the constitutional claims of the nobility), forced the autocracy to go even further than the tasks that it had previously set before the Milyutin commission. Valuev was given to prepare a draft of a "new institution State Council". According to this project, it was proposed to form a "congress of state vowels" under the State Council from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for preliminary discussion of some laws before submitting them to the State Council. When the revolutionary wave was repulsed, the autocracy abandoned its intention to allow "representatives of the population to participate in the legislation" and limited itself only to the reform of local government.

In March 1863, a draft "Provisions for provincial and district zemstvo institutions" was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by Alexander II and received the force of law. This law was adopted ambiguously in Russian society. This is what the famous wrote public figure A.I. Koshelev in his notes: "Many were dissatisfied with the Regulations", "They found that the range of action of the zemstvo institutions and the rights presented to the zemstvo were too limited. Others, including myself, argued that at first it was quite enough that we were given: that we should diligently engage in the development and use of this little, measured to us, and that if we fulfill this duty of ours conscientiously and with meaning, then society will come by itself. "

According to the law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - uyezd and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive bodies - uyezd and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for three-year terms. Members of the zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of uyezd vowels in different counties ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo vowels were elected at district zemstvo meetings at the rate of 1 provincial vowel from 6 uyezd ones. Elections to district zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into three curia: 1) county landowners, 2) urban voters, and 3) elected from rural societies. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 dessiatines of land, persons who owned real estate worth more than 15 thousand rubles, as well as landowners authorized by the clergy who had less than 200 dessiatines of land. This curia was represented mainly by the noble landowners and partly by the large commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of commercial and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate worth at least 500 rubles in small cities and 2 thousand rubles in large cities. This curia was represented mainly by the big urban bourgeoisie, as well as by the noble owners of urban real estate.

The third curia consisted of representatives of rural societies, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for this curia - also as representatives of "rural societies". If in the first two curiae the elections were direct, then in the third they were multi-stage: first, the village gathering elected representatives to the volost gathering, at which the electors were elected, and then the county electoral congress elected vowels to the district zemstvo assembly. The multi-stage elections for the third curia pursued the goal of attracting the most wealthy and "trustworthy" vowels from the peasants to the zemstvos and limiting the independence of rural assemblies when choosing representatives to zemstvos from their midst. It is important to note that according to the first, landowning curia, the same number of vowels in the zemstvos was elected, as in the other two, which ensured a predominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility. Here are the data on the social composition of the zemstvo institutions for the first three years of their existence (1865-1867). In county zemstvo assemblies, noblemen accounted for 42%, peasants-38%, merchants-10%, clergy-6.5%, others-3%. An even greater predominance of the nobles was in the provincial zemstvo councils: the nobles already accounted for 89.5%, the peasants - only 1.5%, the others - 9%.

The representatives of the district and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the district and provincial leaders of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at the zemstvo assemblies, while the chairman of the district council was approved by the governor, and the governor was confirmed by the minister of internal affairs. The vows of the zemstvo assemblies were convened annually at sessions to consider annual reports executive bodies-pravl, for the approval of the plan of the zemstvo economy, estimates of income and expenses. The officials of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemsky councils functioned constantly. Members of the boards received a certain salary. In addition, zemstvos received the right to maintain on their salaries (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who made up the so-called third element in zemstvo). For the maintenance of zemstvo institutions, zemstvo taxes were collected from the population. The zemstvo received the right to collect income from commercial and industrial establishments, movable and immovable property with a special collection. In practice, the main burden of the zemstvo fees was imposed on the peasantry (for a tithe of peasant lands, the zemstvo tax was 11.5 kopecks, and for the tithe of the rest, 5.3 kopecks). The main expenses of the zemstvos (80-85%) went to the maintenance of zemstvo institutions and the police; 8% were spent on medicine and on public education - 5% of the zemstvo funds.

Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions. The sphere of activity of zemstvos was limited exclusively to economic issues of local importance. The jurisdiction of the zemstvos was given to the organization and maintenance of local communications, zemstvo post office, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and orphanages, "care" for local trade and industry, veterinary services, mutual insurance, local food business, even the construction of churches, the maintenance of local prisons and homes for the insane. However, the performance of local economic and administrative functions by the zemstvos was considered by the government itself not even as a rule, but as a duty of zemstvos: earlier this was done by the administration, now concerns about local affairs were shifted to zemstvos. Members and employees of zemstvos were brought to justice if they went beyond their competence.

However, even within their competence, the zemstvos were under the control of the local and central authorities - the ubernator and the minister of internal affairs, who had the right to suspend any resolution of the zemstvo assembly, recognizing it "contrary to laws or general state benefits." Many of the decrees of the zemstvo assemblies could not enter into force without the approval of the governor or the minister of internal affairs. The zemstvos themselves did not have executive power. To fulfill their decisions (for example, the collection of underpayments on zemstvo fees, the requirement to fulfill in-kind duties, etc.) zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on zemstvos.

The regulation on January 1, 1864 on zemstvo institutions provided for the introduction of zemstvos in 34 provinces, i.e. in about half of the country's provinces. Zemskaya reform did not apply to Siberia, Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, where there was no or almost no landowners' land tenure, as well as to the national outskirts of Russia - Poland, Lithuania, the Caucasus, Kazakhstan and Central Asia. But even in those 34 provinces, which were subject to the law of 1864, zemstvo institutions were not immediately introduced. By the beginning of 1866, they were introduced in 19 provinces, by 1867 - in 9 more, and in 1868-1879. - in the remaining 6 provinces.

The competence and activities of the zemstvo were increasingly limited by legislative measures. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and "clarifications" of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse to approve any official elected by the zemstvo who was recognized as "unreliable" by the governor and made the zemstvo employees completely dependent on government institutions.

In 1867, the zemstvos of different provinces were forbidden to contact each other and communicate their decisions to each other, as well as to print reports on their meetings without the permission of the local provincial authorities. The chairmen of the zemstvo assemblies were obliged, under threat of punishment, to close meetings of the assemblies if they discussed issues "not agreed with the law." Circulars and decrees of 1868-1874 made the zemstvos even more dependent on the power of the governor, hampered the freedom of debate in zemstvo assemblies, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings - pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.

And yet zemstvos played an important role in solving local economic and cultural issues; in the organization of local small loans through the formation of peasant savings and loan associations, in the organization of post offices, road construction, in the organization of medical care in the countryside, public education. By 1880, 12 thousand zemstvo schools were created in the village. Zemsky schools were considered the best. Medical institutions in the countryside, although small in number and imperfect (there were an average of 3 doctors per district), were entirely formed by the zemstvo. This was still a step forward compared to the pre-reform period, when the number of rural schools was absolutely insignificant, and medical assistance in the countryside was completely absent. The role of zemstvos is also great in the statistical study of the state. National economy, especially the peasant.

The zemstvos, despite the fact that they solved primarily economic issues, nevertheless became a kind of political school through which many representatives of the liberal and democratic social trends passed. In this plan zemstvo reform can be assessed as bourgeois in nature.

The development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom led to the implementation of the city reform. The bourgeoisie fought for the creation of non-estate bodies of city government on the assumption that it would get a fairly strong position there.

The city government was reformed on the same principles as the zemstvo government. In 1862, all-estates commissions were organized in 509 cities to develop the grounds for the forthcoming reform. In 1864, the draft of the new city regulation was already ready, but then it was revised several times, and only on June 16, 1870 it was finally approved by Alexander P.

According to the city regulation of 1870, city dumas (introduced by Catherine II), composed of deputies from class groups, were replaced by non-class dumas, whose members, vowels, were elected for four years on the basis of property qualifications. The total number of vowels varied in different cities from 30 to 72; in Moscow the number of vowels was 180, in St. Petersburg - 250. The city council elected the city council, which consisted of the mayor and two or more members.

All city tax payers took part in the election of the vowels - they were homeowners, owners of commercial and industrial enterprises, banks, etc., and they were divided into three electoral meetings: the first meeting was attended by the largest taxpayers who pay a third of the total amount of taxes in a given city, in the second - the average payers, who also paid a total of one third of taxes, in the third - all the rest.

Each meeting, elected a third of the established for a given city the total vowels. Thus, the predominance of the largest payers of city taxes in the councils and the city councils elected by them was ensured, i.e. the largest (on the scale of a given city) bourgeoisie.

Workers, office workers, and the intelligentsia, who did not pay city taxes, did not participate in the elections of public officials. So, in 1871, in Moscow, with a population of 602 thousand people, only 20.6 thousand people (about 3.4%) had the right to elect and be elected to the city duma, of which 446 people made up the first electoral meeting, 2200 - the second and 18 thousand people - the third.

The competence of urban self-government, like that of a zemstvo, was limited to purely economic issues: external improvement of the city, the organization of markets and bazaars, care for local trade and industry, health care and public education, precautions against fires, the maintenance of the police, prisons, and charity.

City institutions also did not have coercive power to execute their decrees - they were subordinated to the supervision of the governor and the minister of internal affairs: the mayors of the provincial cities were approved by the minister, the heads of other cities by the governor. In a word, urban self-government, like the zemstvo, was not a local authority, but only an auxiliary government body on local economic issues.

During the 70s, a new urban position was introduced throughout Russia, with the exception of Poland, Finland (where the former urban structure was preserved) and the newly conquered regions of Central Asia.

Without introducing a zemstvo in the Caucasus, the tsarist government placed a huge local economy in the hands of an official. But, fearing that the development of trade and industry would not slow down if the city economy was left in the hands of the bureaucrats, the government introduced the "City Regulation of 1870", also in the Caucasus. In the North Caucasus "Situation 1870." was introduced in all large cities, in Transcaucasia - only in Tiflis, Baku, Kutaisi and Erivan; in Gori and Akhaltsikhe it was introduced in a simplified form. In all other cities and towns of Transcaucasia, the urban economy remained under the jurisdiction of the local police authorities. For the same purpose of assisting the bourgeoisie, city banks were established in the cities of the North Caucasus, and a Commercial Bank was opened in Tiflis.

The implementation of the law on city self-government was extremely constrained and bore a vivid imprint of the autocratic system and the interests of the nobility. The bodies of city self-government, as well as the zemstvos, were charged with a number of "obligatory" expenses, most of which, in essence, had to be paid from national funds.

The city's main sources of income were assessed tax on real estate and taxes on trade and crafts. In Moscow in the late 1970s, these sources accounted for 76% of the revenue budget. Since the leading role in urban self-government belonged to a more or less large bourgeoisie, the latter tried to shift the burden of city taxes onto the less well-to-do strata of the population. Assessment of property and income was under the jurisdiction of the city government, i.e. in fact in the hands of the big bourgeoisie.

The largest item of city expenditures, including the above-mentioned expenditures for general state needs, were expenditures for the improvement of the city: in Moscow at the end of the 70s, expenditures under this item accounted for about 31% of the expenditure budget.

In the center of a large city, where wealthy merchants and manufacturers lived, there were pavements and sidewalks, and street lighting, sometimes a horse tram, while the outskirts, inhabited by the poor, were buried in mud and darkness and were deprived of convenient means of communication with the center. In small towns, there was practically no beautification - in all cities of 50 provinces of European Russia, the cost of beautification in the early 1980s averaged about 15%.

Concerns of the city government about public education, public health and "public care" were very small: in all cities of 50 provinces at the beginning of the 80s, educational establishments about 3 million rubles were spent on hospitals, shelters, almshouses, etc. - about 2.5 million; in total, this accounted for about 13% of the city's budget.

Despite the limitations of the reform of urban self-government, it nevertheless was a major step forward, since it replaced the former, feudal, estate-bureaucratic management bodies of the city with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new bodies of city government played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city ... At the same time, city councils participated in the social movement weakly, since the merchants and manufacturers were not very interested in politics.

Thus, for all its half-heartedness, the reform of local self-government was a step forward. Sessions of city councils and zemstvo assemblies were public, and reports about them could be printed in newspapers. New organs of self-government, both in the city and in the countryside, based on bourgeois law, contributed to the capitalist development of the country. But the bodies of city self-government, like the bodies of zemstvo self-government, were under the constant captious control of the tsarist administration. All local power was still in the hands of governors and other administrators appointed by the authorities.

The governor, as in the 18th century, had full administrative rights, as well as certain judicial rights, including the removal from office of any officials of the province. Military garrisons were also under the jurisdiction of the governor. In the event of any emergencies, the governor was obliged to take all the necessary measures, without waiting for a command from above and help from the central government. All local bodies of sectoral departments, including customs, border and other services, were subordinate to the governor. Once every three years, he was obliged to go around the subject territory, making an audit of all government agencies, revealing all kinds of iniquity, especially covetousness. In short, the governor was like a miniature monarch. For the performance of his functions, the governor was entrusted with an office. Under him, the provincial government was established as an advisory body. The post of vice-governor was established, who was the assistant to the governor and at the same time headed the Treasury Chamber, the body of local financial management.

The governor also supervised the activities of the new local government bodies: peasant affairs, on affairs of city and zemstvo self-government, factory inspections and so on. The police chief became a key position in the district.

On August 14, 1881, an Order was adopted on measures to limit state order and public peace. In fact, the repressive bodies were given unlimited powers.

In 1882, a special law on police supervision was adopted, which significantly strengthened the system of these measures.

The liberal period in the development of Russian statehood was ending, and the era of counter-reforms began.

They began during the reign of Alexander III and were marked by a real reaction and a retreat from the reforms of the 60-70s. The counter-reforms touched upon both the zemstvo and city reforms. The point is as follows. The introduction of the zemstvos strengthened the influence of the bourgeoisie and objectively weakened the position of the nobility. In a number of provinces, there was a "shortage" of vowels from the nobility due to the reduction in the number of noble landowners. In the industrial provinces, the representation of the nobility in the zemstvos was reduced due to the strengthening of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and new landowners from merchants and wealthy peasants.

The government was worried about opposition sentiments and constitutional claims of zemstvo leaders. These sentiments were especially vividly manifested in the liberal opposition movement at the turn of the 70s and 80s.

The government reaction therefore set itself the task of strengthening the role of the nobility in the zemstvo by ensuring that this estate has a more complete and stable rule in zemstvo institutions, limiting the representation and rights of bourgeois elements in the ownership of the peasantry, and at the same time further strengthening control over the activities of zemstvos by the administrative authorities ... The reactionary nobility demanded that the lack of estates and the elective nature of the zemstvos be abolished altogether. In this regard, a project on the transformation of zemstvo institutions was developed, the author of which was the director of the office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. HELL. Pazukhin. When discussing the project in the State Council, the government did not dare to agree to satisfy these claims of the most reactionary part of the nobility.

On June 12, 1890, a new "Statute on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" was approved. Formally, it retained the principles of non-estate and electiveness of the Zemstvos, but these principles were greatly curtailed, which was the meaning of the Zemstvo counter-reform. Thus, the agricultural curia, for which landowners of all classes could previously run for office, has now become a curia of landowners' nobles. The census for the nobles decreased by half, and the number of vowels of the landowning curia increased significantly; accordingly, the number of vowels decreased in the rest of the curiae - urban and rural. The peasants were deprived of elective representation: now they chose only candidates for zemstvo vowels, the list of which was considered by the district congress of zemstvo chiefs, and on the proposal of this congress the governor approved the vowels. The clergy was deprived of voting rights. The electoral qualification for the city curia was sharply increased, as a result of which more than half of the voters in this curia were deprived of the right to participate in elections to the zemstvos. As a result, the proportion of nobles in county zemstvo assemblies increased from 42 to 55%, in provincial councils from 82 to 90%, in uyezd zemstvo councils the proportion of nobles increased from 55 to 72%, and in provincial councils from 90-94%. The vowels from the peasants now amounted to: 31% in the district zemstvo assemblies (instead of the previous 37%), in the provincial assemblies - 2% (instead of the previous 7%). The proportion of vowels from the bourgeoisie was reduced from 17 to 14% in district zemstvo assemblies and from 11 to 8% in provincial assemblies.

However, the counter-reform of 1890 did not introduce any cardinal changes in the social composition of the zemstvos, for even earlier, despite the outlined tendency to "bourgeoisization" of the zemstvos, the nobility prevailed in them.

Ensuring the decisive predominance of the nobility in the zemstvos, the zemstvo counter-reform went on to further limit the rights of this noble zemstvo. Now the governor actually completely controlled the activities of the zemstvo institutions. He could cancel any resolution of the zemstvos, put any issue on the agenda of the zemstvo assemblies. Introducing a new administrative link - the provincial presence on zemstvo affairs (an intermediary instance between the zemstvo and the governor), which checked the "legality" and "expediency" of the decisions of the zemstvo assemblies.

Although the Zemstvo counter-reform slowed down, it still failed to prevent the objective process of "bourgeoisization" of the Zemstvos. The government's hopes for the suppression of the Zemstvo liberal movement, which continued to grow, collapsed. On the whole, the counter-reform of 1890 did not turn the zemstvos into noble institutions. It should also be noted that bourgeois nobles played an important role in the zemstvos. The autocracy pursued the same goals during the implementation of the city counter-reform. On June 11, 1892, a new "City Regulation" was issued, according to which the voting rights of the urban population were significantly curtailed. Not only the working masses of the city, but also the petty bourgeoisie — petty traders, clerks and others — were now excluded from participation in city self-government. This was achieved by significantly increasing the property qualification. Preference was given to the noble householders and the large commercial, industrial and financial bourgeoisie. As a result, the number of voters in city dumas has sharply decreased; for example: in St. Petersburg - from 21 thousand to 8 thousand voters, in Moscow - from 20 thousand to 8 thousand voters. Thus, even in these two capital cities, no more than 0.7% of the population enjoyed the right to participate in municipal elections. In other cities, the number of voters decreased by 5-10 times, so that often the number of vowels was equal to the number of those who participated in the elections. At the same time, more than half of the cities did not have an elected city government at all.

According to the "City Regulations" of 1892, the system of guardianship and administrative interference in the affairs of city self-government was further strengthened. The governor not only controlled, but also directed all the activities of city councils and city councils. City councils could not now take a step without proper "permission, permission and approval." The mayors themselves and members of city councils were now regarded as consisting of public service officials, and not as "elected" representatives of the urban population. However, in the future, in practice, the city counter-reform, like the rest of the counter-reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, was not fully implemented: the objective socio-economic processes of the development of the Russian post-reform city turned out to be stronger than the attempts of the autocracy to strengthen the estate-noble element in the city.

The monarchy was never able to overcome the opposition of city dumas. With the increase in the role of the nobility in them, the number of educated aristocratic intelligentsia, which supported the bourgeoisie, increased.

Thus, the transition of the autocracy in the early 1880s to a direct and overt reaction was possible as a result of the weakness of the peasant and workers' movement and the impotence of the liberal opposition. The autocracy managed to carry out a series of counter-reforms in the estate question, in the field of education and the press, in the field of local government. The main task that the autocracy set itself was to strengthen its social base - the class of landowners, whose positions were undermined by the peasant reform of 1861, and other reforms of the 60-70s.

However, the reaction failed to implement the counter-reform program to the extent that it was conceived. An attempt by reactions to go further along the path of "fixing fatal mistakes 60-70s "(bourgeois reforms) was thwarted by the new upsurge of the revolutionary movement in the country that began in the mid-90s.

At that time, there was no unity in the "top" themselves: along with the reactionary trend, which demanded a decisive "revision" of the reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, there was also an opposition trend, which required "concessions" to the spirit of the times. " Even among conservatives, their most far-sighted representatives (MM Kovalevsky, VI Semevsky, IA Vyshnegradsky, etc.) understood the impossibility of restoring the old order in the country.

Moreover, amid the revolutionary upsurge of the 1990s, the government failed to fully implement in practice the reactionary measures that were set forth in the laws issued in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The reaction proved powerless to reverse historical progress.

The problem of modernization, i.e. a radical renewal of all spheres of life, from the economy to the state system, faced Russia again at the turn of the century. Modernization was to be carried out over a vast area, in a country with many feudal remnants and stable conservative traditions. Domestic policy was built on the principles of great power. Social tensions increased due to the rapid development of new economic forms.

The conflict between the landlord and peasant sectors of the economy deepened. The post-reform community could already restrain the social differentiation of the peasantry. The growing Russian bourgeoisie claimed to political role in society, meeting the opposition of the nobility and the state bureaucracy. The main support of the autocracy - the nobility lost their monopoly on power. The autocracy made political concessions with difficulty, moving from reforms to repression. The system of supreme bodies of power and administration was designed to strengthen the power of the emperor.

The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which led to defeat, further increased the tension. The country was on the verge of a revolution. It began after the shooting of the peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905, and in a short time covered the whole country.

Under the pressure of the revolution, the autocracy was forced to make concessions. On August 6, 1905, Nicholas II signed a manifesto, by which the system of state power was approved by the legislative advisory State Duma, named "Bulygin" after the then Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Bulygin, who developed his project. The Duma was created for "the preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals that go back in strength to the basic laws, through the State Council to the supreme autocratic power." The draft of the legislative council no longer satisfied anyone, especially since the revolution was spreading. In October, an All-Russian political strike began in the country, railways, the work of industrial enterprises was paralyzed. In this situation, Nicholas II had no choice but to announce the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which emphasized the constitutional path of the country's development and the provision of civil liberties and proclaimed the legislative nature of the representative body - the State Duma. The Duma, as the lower house of Parliament, considered and approved the budget, passed laws. However, for their entry into force, the approval of the Council of State (upper house) and the Emperor was required. On April 23, 1906, the tsar approved the new version of the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire. They consolidated the creation of the State Duma, the State Council and the Council of Ministers. The characterization of the emperor's power as "unlimited" was removed. Nevertheless, his main prerogatives remained.

As a result of changes in state structure Russia acquired some features of a constitutional monarchy, which was enshrined in the Basic State Laws as amended in 1906: a reform of the State Council was carried out and a new provision on the Council of Ministers was adopted, according to which the executive branch became autonomous from the head of state. A new image of Russian parliamentarism was being created.

The procedure for the formation of the State Duma is set forth in the law of July 3, 1907, in comparison with the law on December 11, 1905, the circle of voters sharply narrowed. Whole sections of the population - women, military personnel, the so-called “wandering foreigners” (ie nomadic herders), were deprived of the right to elect and be elected. The elections were supposed to be two-stage, separate for provinces and regions and for large cities. The number of electors participating in assemblies by provinces and regions was established by a special list for each administrative unit separately. For assemblies, electors in cities, a single quota was established: 160 people each in the capitals and 80 people each in other cities. As for the members of the State Duma, elected by electors at meetings, their number was determined by a separate list for each province, region, city. In total, the list included 412 mandates, including 28 from cities.

Although a number of restrictions on participation in the elections to the Duma cannot be considered reasonable, in particular, the removal of officials from the administration and the police from elections, nevertheless, their general social orientation is obvious: to prevent unrest and free-thinking in the Duma. These goals were primarily served by a high property and age qualification and not allowing students to participate in elections, limiting the number of Duma members elected from cities. It seems that a government body formed according to such principles can be called representative only with a certain degree of convention.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia remained an agrarian country, therefore, the resolution of the agrarian question was of great importance to it. The agrarian reform of the early XX century is associated with the name of the head of the government P.A. Stolypin. Its implementation is associated with the revolutionary events of 1905-1907.

On April 5, 1905, the decree "On the granting of relief to the population for the payment of debts" was adopted. On its basis, an exemption from the collected arrears on food collection that existed before 1866 was carried out and debts on food loans were canceled.

In September 1906, by the decree “On the transfer of office lands to the disposal of the Main Department of Agriculture and Land Management for the formation of resettlement plots, the resettlement policy of the government began.

In October 1906, a decree was adopted "On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other formerly cast estates." Proclaimed uniform rights for all filed in relation to public service (with the exception of "foreigners"). On January 9, 1906, a decree was adopted "On the addition of certain provisions of the current law concerning peasant land tenure and land use." They proclaimed a free order of exit from the community, and fixed allotments into property at any time. The statement about the allotment through the headman was brought to the attention of the rural society, which, by a simple majority of votes and within a month, was obliged to determine the peasant's land plot. Otherwise, it was carried out by the zemstvo chief. The peasant could demand that the plots allocated to him be brought together or monetary compensation. Agrarian decrees were enshrined in laws adopted by the Duma.

But even these half-hearted attempts at reform ended in failure. After the coup of June 3, 1907, in essence, any guarantees of rights and freedoms were canceled, limited legislative powers were taken away from the Duma, and it actually turned into a legislative body. Attempts at constitutional reforms ended in failure, and the problems that had to be solved in a parliamentary, civilized way were solved by violent revolutionary methods.

Thus, the changes that took place in the state system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century allowed the bourgeoisie to strengthen their positions, but in no way solved the problems put forward by the working people of the country, and the first Russian revolution, despite the defeat, only pushed and accelerated the development of the revolutionary process in Russia.

The new Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, who was also appointed chairman of the commission for preparing the reform of local self-government, was known for his conservative views, however, in the conditions of the rise of the revolutionary movement in the country, he did not dare to go to the elimination of the basic principles of the zemstvo reform developed by the Milyutin commission - electivity and lack of estates. He changed only the system of elections to the projected zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave an advantage to landowners and the big bourgeoisie.

The rise of the social democratic movement in the country (the unprecedented growth of peasant unrest, the strengthening of the revolutionary movement in Poland and Finland, student unrest, the growth of the constitutional claims of the nobility), forced the autocracy to go even further than the tasks that it had previously set before the Milyutin commission. Valuev was given to prepare a draft of "a new institution of the State Council." According to this project, it was proposed to form a "congress of state vowels" under the State Council from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for preliminary discussion of some laws before submitting them to the State Council. When the revolutionary wave was repulsed, the autocracy abandoned its intention to allow "representatives of the population to participate in the legislation" and limited itself only to the reform of local government.

In March 1863, a draft "Provisions for provincial and district zemstvo institutions" was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by Alexander II and received the force of law. This law was adopted ambiguously in Russian society. Here is what the well-known public figure A.I. Koshelev in his notes: "Many were dissatisfied with the Regulations", "They found that the range of action of the zemstvo institutions and the rights presented to the zemstvo were too limited. Others, including myself, argued that at first it was quite enough that we were given: that we should diligently engage in the development and use of this little, measured to us, and that if we fulfill this duty of ours conscientiously and with meaning, then society will come by itself. "

The representatives of the district and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the district and provincial leaders of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at the zemstvo assemblies, while the chairman of the district council was approved by the governor, and the governor was confirmed by the minister of internal affairs. The vows of the zemstvo assemblies were convened annually at sessions to consider the annual reports of the executive governing bodies, to approve the plan of the zemstvo economy, estimates of income and expenses. The officials of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemsky councils functioned constantly. Members of the boards received a certain salary. In addition, zemstvos received the right to maintain on their salaries (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who made up the so-called third element in zemstvo). For the maintenance of zemstvo institutions, zemstvo taxes were collected from the population. The zemstvo received the right to collect income from commercial and industrial establishments, movable and immovable property with a special collection. In practice, the main burden of the zemstvo fees was imposed on the peasantry (for a tithe of peasant lands, the zemstvo tax was 11.5 kopecks, and for the tithe of the rest, 5.3 kopecks). The main expenses of the zemstvos (80-85%) went to the maintenance of zemstvo institutions and the police; 8% were spent on medicine and on public education - 5% of the zemstvo funds.

The zemstvos, despite the fact that they solved primarily economic issues, nevertheless became a kind of political school through which many representatives of the liberal and democratic social trends passed. In this regard, the Zemstvo reform can be assessed as bourgeois in nature.

Each meeting elected a third of the total number of vowels established for a given city. Thus, the predominance of the largest payers of city taxes in the councils and the city councils elected by them was ensured, i.e. the largest (on the scale of a given city) bourgeoisie.

Concerns of the city government about public education, public health and "public care" were very small: in all cities of 50 provinces in the early 1980s, about 3 million rubles were spent on educational institutions, on hospitals, shelters, almshouses, etc., - about 2.5 million; in total, this accounted for about 13% of the city's budget.

The governor, as in the 18th century, had full administrative rights, as well as certain judicial rights, including the removal from office of any officials of the province. Military garrisons were also under the jurisdiction of the governor. In the event of any emergencies, the governor was obliged to take all the necessary measures, without waiting for a command from above and help from the central government. All local bodies of sectoral departments, including customs, border and other services, were subordinate to the governor. Once every three years, he was obliged to go around the subject territory, auditing all state bodies, revealing all sorts of lawlessness, especially extortion. In short, the governor was like a miniature monarch. For the performance of his functions, the governor was entrusted with an office. Under him, the provincial government was established as an advisory body. The post of vice-governor was established, who was the assistant to the governor and at the same time headed the Treasury Chamber, the body of local financial management.

The governor also supervised the activities of the new local government bodies: presences for peasant affairs, for city and zemstvo self-government, factory inspections, and so on. The police chief became a key position in the district.

On August 14, 1881, an Order was adopted on measures to limit state order and public peace. In fact, the repressive bodies were given unlimited powers.

In 1882, a special law on police supervision was adopted, which significantly strengthened the system of these measures.

The liberal period in the development of Russian statehood was ending, and the era of counter-reforms began.

According to the "City Regulations" of 1892, the system of guardianship and administrative interference in the affairs of city self-government was further strengthened. The governor not only controlled, but also directed all the activities of city councils and city councils. City councils could not now take a step without proper "permission, permission and approval." The mayors themselves and members of city councils were now viewed as civil servants, and not as "elected" representatives of the urban population. However, in the future, in practice, the city counter-reform, like the rest of the counter-reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, was not fully implemented: the objective socio-economic processes of the development of the Russian post-reform city turned out to be stronger than the attempts of the autocracy to strengthen the estate-noble element in the city.

However, the reaction failed to implement the counter-reform program to the extent that it was conceived. The reactionaries' attempt to go further along the path of “correcting the fatal mistakes of the 60s and 70s” (bourgeois reforms) was thwarted by the new upsurge of the revolutionary movement in the country that began in the mid-90s.

The problem of modernization, i.e. a radical renewal of all spheres of life, from the economy to the state system, faced Russia again at the turn of the century. Modernization was to be carried out over a vast area, in a country with many feudal remnants and stable conservative traditions. Domestic policy was based on great power principles. Social tensions increased due to the rapid development of new economic forms.

The conflict between the landlord and peasant sectors of the economy deepened. The post-reform community could already restrain the social differentiation of the peasantry. The growing Russian bourgeoisie claimed a political role in society, meeting the opposition of the nobility and the state bureaucracy. The main support of the autocracy - the nobility lost their monopoly on power. The autocracy made political concessions with difficulty, moving from reforms to repression. The system of supreme bodies of power and administration was designed to strengthen the power of the emperor.

Under the pressure of the revolution, the autocracy was forced to make concessions. On August 6, 1905, Nicholas II signed a manifesto, by which the system of state power was approved by the legislative advisory State Duma, named "Bulygin" after the then Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Bulygin, who developed his project. The Duma was created for "the preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals that go back in strength to the basic laws, through the State Council to the supreme autocratic power." The draft of the legislative council no longer satisfied anyone, especially since the revolution was spreading. In October, the All-Russian political strike began in the country, railways stopped, the work of industrial enterprises was paralyzed. In this situation, Nicholas II had no choice but to announce the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which emphasized the constitutional path of the country's development and the provision of civil liberties and proclaimed the legislative nature of the representative body - the State Duma. The Duma, as the lower house of Parliament, considered and approved the budget, passed laws. However, for their entry into force, the approval of the Council of State (upper house) and the Emperor was required. On April 23, 1906, the tsar approved the new version of the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire. They consolidated the creation of the State Duma, the State Council and the Council of Ministers. The characterization of the emperor's power as "unlimited" was removed. Nevertheless, his main prerogatives remained.

As a result of changes in the state system, Russia acquired some features of a constitutional monarchy, which was enshrined in the Basic State Laws as amended in 1906: a reform of the State Council was carried out and a new regulation on the Council of Ministers was adopted, according to which the executive branch became autonomous from the head of state. A new image of Russian parliamentarism was being created.

Development of local self-government in pre-revolutionary Russia gave impetus to the Zemstvo (1864) and urban (1870) reforms of Alexander II, their goal - the decentralization of management and the development of the beginnings of local self-government in Russia. In accordance with the Regulations on provincial and uyezd zemstvo institutions, zemstvo bodies were created in provinces and uyezds: elective zemstvo assemblies (provincial, uyezd) and the corresponding zemstvo councils elected by them. Zemstvo suffrage was limited by property qualifications; the elections were based on the class beginning.

The county zemstvo assembly consisted of zemstvo vowels, elected by: a) uyezd landowners; b) urban societies; c) rural societies. The elections were held respectively at three electoral congresses. At the same time, the peasants had indirect elections: the vowels were elected at a congress of electives from rural societies. The following did not participate in the electoral congresses: a) persons under 25 years of age; b) persons under criminal investigation or court; c) persons discredited by court or public judgment; d) foreigners who did not swear allegiance to Russia, could not be elected as public governors, vice-governors, members of provincial boards, provincial and district prosecutors and solicitors, local police officials.

The provincial zemstvo assembly consisted of vowels elected by the uyezd zemstvo assemblies from among their members. The vowels were elected for three years, on terms appointed by the Minister of the Interior. They were not entitled to any service advantages or content. The assignment of the content to the chairman and members of the zemstvo councils depended on the zemstvo assembly. Zemstvo self-government bodies were entrusted with the general management of local economic affairs, in particular: 1) management of property, capital and monetary collections of the zemstvo; 2) the arrangement and maintenance of buildings belonging to the zemstvo, other structures and means of communication, maintained at the expense of zemstvos; 3) measures to ensure national food; 4) management of zemstvo charitable institutions; ending begging; church building; 5) care for the development of local trade and industry; 6) participation in the care of public education, health care; 7) fulfillment of the needs of military and civil administration assigned to the zemstvo; participation in cases of postal service; 8) the distribution of those state monetary collections, the distribution of which was assigned to the zemstvo institutions across the provinces and counties; 9) the appointment, allocation, collection and expenditure, on the basis of the Charter on zemstvo duties, local fees to meet zemstvo needs, etc.

Zemstvo institutions had the right, on the basis of general civil laws, to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property, to conclude contracts, to assume obligations, to act as a plaintiff and defendant in courts in property affairs of the zemstvo.

The organization of city self-government was determined by the City Regulations of 1870 and was based on the same principles as the Zemstvo self-government. Bodies of city self-government were created: the city council and the city government.

Zemstvo and city self-government bodies were not subordinate to the local government administration, but they carried out their activities under the control of the government bureaucracy in the person of the Minister of Internal Affairs and governors. Zemstvo and city self-government bodies were independent within the limits of their powers. Thus, there were two systems of local governance: 1) public administration; 2) zemstvo, city self-government.

Under Alexander III, reforms were carried out, the purpose of which was to eliminate the shortcomings that the practice of zemstvo and city self-government revealed: the isolation of zemstvo institutions from government ones. As a result, the importance of the estate principle was increased in the zemstvo (the role of the nobility was strengthened, the peasants were deprived of the right to elect vowels, the latter were appointed by the governor from among the candidates elected by the peasants). Self-government bodies fell under the control of government officials.

The system of zemstvo and city self-government, formed on the basis of the new Regulations of 1890 and 1892, included the following structural elements.

The provincial zemstvo assembly consisted, under the chairmanship of the provincial leader of the nobility (if the tsar did not appoint another person as chairman), of vowels. Their number ranged from 29 to 62 people. In addition, the composition of the provincial zemstvo assembly included persons sitting in it by office (district leaders of the nobility, local manager of state property, etc.). The provincial zemstvo assembly was convened once a year, no later than December, for a session that was not supposed to last more than 20 days, but the governor could extend it for a period of actual necessity. He also gave permission to hold extraordinary zemstvo meetings, at which, however, could only discuss those issues that were indicated in the invitations.

The provincial zemstvo council consisted of a chairman and two, Members (the number of the latter could be increased with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs to six), elected by the provincial zemstvo assembly. At the same time, not only the vowels of the zemstvo assembly could be elected, but also all persons entitled to participate in zemstvo election meetings, i.e. those who had an active right to vote in county zemstvo assemblies. Only one who had the right to enter the civil service could be elected chairman of the council, i.e. as a general rule, only a nobleman or a person with higher education.

The zemstvo assembly of the district consisted of zemstvo vowels, as well as members by position (chairman of the state property administration, the mayor of the uyezd city, etc.). It met annually in session no later than October. The session lasted ten days. The governor could extend this term. The county leader of the nobility presided over the district zemstvo assembly. County zemstvo government. The method of electing the county zemstvo council was similar to the provincial one. To carry out their functions, the zemstvo bodies were given the right to levy monetary dues on the population, as well as to introduce, in some cases, duties in kind.

The city duma, in addition to the elected members, also included the chairman of the local county government and a deputy from the spiritual department. The executive body of city self-government was the city government, which consisted of from two to six members (depending on the size of the city). The mayor presided over the city council. The term of office of city self-government bodies, in contrast to zemstvo bodies, was elected for three years, was four years. The City Duma, in accordance with the City Regulations, was supposed to hold at least four and no more than 24 meetings during the year.

City self-government bodies: they were entrusted with meeting the needs of the population, issuing mandatory local residents regulations on fire, sanitary issues, etc. City councils could establish fees: from real estate (no more than 1% of the cost or one tenth of the profitability); from field certificates; from tavern trade establishments, etc.

The government administration, represented by the governor, supervised zemstvo and city self-government. The governor approved the members of the boards and submitted the chairman of the provincial zemstvo board and the mayors of the provincial and regional cities for approval to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Zemstvo and city councils were accountable to representative bodies of self-government: zemstvo assemblies and city councils. At the same time, the governor had the right to audit the boards and all institutions subordinate to them and demand explanations about certain violations revealed. The governor was given the right to receive complaints about the actions of the administration.

Elected persons holding positions in the collegial bodies of zemstvo and city self-government were considered to be in the public service. Chairmen and members of zemstvo councils, mayors and members of city councils could be subject to disciplinary action.

At the level of the parish, individual rural settlements, there were peasant self-government bodies. The organs of the rural society were the village gathering and the village headman. The rural gathering was primarily subject to economic affairs related to land ownership, questions about family divisions, etc. In addition, officials were elected at the gathering (village headman, tax collector, caretakers of grain stores, village clerk, etc.), their reports were heard. , and also carried out the layout of taxes and duties, the establishment of mundane fees (for public expenses), etc. Rural society was an economic unit. The parish was an administrative unit. The territory of the parish consisted of the lands of one or several rural communities. In the volosts, there were an average of 20 thousand people. The volost administration was responsible for the execution of the duties assigned to the peasants, supervision of rural officials and assistance to the local police. The bodies of the volost administration were: volost gathering, volost board, volost foreman, volost clerk, as well as sotsk, ten and some other officials. The bodies of supervision over peasant institutions were zemstvo chiefs. The regulation on zemstvo chiefs was introduced in 1889. The peculiarity of their legal status was that they acted both as judicial and administrative bodies.

From the first days of their existence, the Soviets of Deputies tried to either change

local authorities, or put them under your control.

Gradually the Soviets of Deputies replaced the bodies of the zemstvo and city

self-government. The RSFSR Constitution of 1918 established the principle of unity

Councils as government bodies with strict subordination

lower-level bodies higher-level.

V Soviet time one of the basic principles of organization and activity

all links of the Soviets was the principle of democratic centralism. This

the principle was taken as the basis for the unification of all Soviets into one system.

The principle of democratic centralism was reflected in the constitutions of the Soviet

period, and in the laws governing the organization of the activities of individual

links of the Soviets. This is the Law on settlement, village Councils of People's Deputies

RSFSR (1968); Law on the city, district in the city Council of People

deputies of the RSFSR (1971); The law on the regional, regional Council of People

deputies (1980).

In general, local government began to be viewed as an institution,

characteristic exclusively of bourgeois democracy. Only in the early 60s.

XX century gradually began to develop again research on local

territorial self-government... Again the problem of the legal status of local

authorities was raised during the preparation and discussion of the project

Of the Constitution of the USSR of 1977. The result was the consolidation of the provision in the Constitution

on the presence in the Soviet Union of a system of local government bodies,

not fundamentally different from the previous

constitutional provision.

New stage in the development of local government was associated with the adoption of 9

April 1990 of the USSR Law "On the General Principles of Local Self-Government and

self-government in the RSFSR. "These Laws played a role in

development of local self-government. However, the opposition of representative

bodies (Soviets) and executive bodies, a certain confrontation

government and local authorities - this ultimately led to

dissolution of local councils. In October 1993, in the framework of resolving the crisis of power

v Russian Federation the Regulation on the fundamentals of the organization was issued

local government in the Russian Federation for the period of a phased

constitutional reform, approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian

According to this Regulation:

1) local government bodies in cities, rural settlements, other

settlements x were elected and other bodies of local

self-government - a meeting of representatives, the head of local government.

In territories that include several urban or rural settlements,

by a joint decision of local self-government bodies could be created

a single body of local self-government of the respective territories;

2) in urban and rural settlements with a population of up to 5 thousand people local

self-government could be exercised directly by the population through

meetings, gatherings and the elected head of local government, who

periodically reports to the meeting, gathering. In other settlements

points (cities, urban, rural settlements, etc.)

creation of representative collegial bodies of local self-government and

heads of local government.

In cities and other settlements with a population of over 50 thousand ____ u1074 c. man head

administration was appointed head of the administration of the region, region, city

federal significance, autonomous region, autonomous region or

elected by the population;

3) the elected representative body of local self-government worked as

as a rule, on a non-permanent basis and was convened for its meetings

by the relevant head of local government. In this case, the decisions

elected representative body signed by the head of the local

self-government.

Within the competence of an elected representative body of local self-government

included: approval of the local budget and the report on its implementation, as well as

establishment of local taxes and fees (upon presentation and agreement with

head of local government), approval of the development program

territories, adoption of a regulation (charter) on local self-government,

control over the activities of the head of local government;

4) the competence of the head of local government included: management

municipal economy, management of property and objects

municipal property, development of the local budget, provision of it

execution, as well as the implementation of other executive and administrative

functions. Moreover, these functions were carried out by the head of local government

directly or through the organs formed by it;

6) local governments were endowed with the right to independently

determine the structure of local government.

The most important milestone in the development of local self-government was the adoption

Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, which referred to the fundamentals

constitutional order such provisions as the assignment of local

self-government to forms of democracy, the guarantee of local

self-government, local self-government has its own powers,

organizational isolation of local self-government bodies from bodies

state power, the existence of municipal property, including

number to the ground.

12 Local government-complex and diverse phenomenon,

regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. It acts not only as one

from the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the form

democracy, but also as a kind social management, the form

decentralization of power and self-organization of local residents,

activities of citizens to independently resolve issues of local

meanings, a form of public authority interacting with

state power.

The issue of local self-government raises a number of important

issues of constitutional and legal development modern Russia, therein

including: delineation of powers between the Russian Federation,

subjects of the Federation and municipalities;

territorial organization of local self-government; municipal

powers to resolve issues of local importance; the status of bodies and

local government officials; municipal

property; local finance.

The solution of these issues in federal legislation is actually

means the determination of the place of local government in the state

mechanism of the Russian Federation.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, and after it the Federal Law "On general principles

determine that local government is one of the foundations

the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, it is recognized

guaranteed and carried out throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.

Local self-government in the Russian Federation is a form of implementation by the people of their

power that provides, within the limits established by the Constitution

RF, with the help of federal laws, and in cases established

federal laws, - laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, independent and under

its responsibility decision by the population directly and (or)

through local government bodies of local issues

based on the interests of the population, taking into account historical and other local

traditions.

Local self-government in this capacity is logically related to the intention

Russia to be a democratic and legal state (part 1 of article 1

Constitution of the Russian Federation). The Constitution of the Russian Federation testifies to the understanding of the value

local government, ensuring the implementation of the people

their power (part 2 of article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), the realization of the rights of citizens to

participation in the management of state affairs (part 1 of article 32) and a number of other

fundamental rights (Articles 24, 33, 40, 41, 43), allowing territorial

community of citizens to have, use and manage the municipal

property (part 2 of article 8; part 2 of article 9), which creates the preconditions for

the unity of society, the individual and the state, the strengthening of the federation as

whole, serving as a form of solving national issues.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the organizational isolation of the local

self-government, its bodies in the system of government and society. V

accordance with Art. 12 local governments are not part of the system

public authorities. In addition, she states that the local

self-government within the limits of its powers independently, which implies

the allocation of a special area of local issues, in which local authorities

local governments act independently and are primarily responsible to

its population.

In accordance with Art. 16 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the provisions of its Art. 3 and 12, guaranteeing

local government, may not be changed otherwise than in order,

established by the Constitution itself. No other constitutional provisions

may contradict its provisions on local self-government, enshrined in

The entire territory is the exercise space for local self-government.

RF. Municipalities are created taking into account the federal structure

states, cover the entire territory of the respective subjects of the Federation,

except for areas with low population density.

According to Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the bearer of sovereignty and the only source

power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people, who exercise their

power directly (i.e. through a referendum, elections), as well as through the bodies

state authorities and local government bodies. Thus, the local

self-government is one of the forms of the people exercising their power.

- the requirements (conditions) stipulated by federal laws that determine the nature

local government, its place and role in the system of democracy, foundations and order

the formation and operation of local government bodies, legal mechanisms and

guarantees of the realization of the right of citizens to local self-government. These are:

guarantee of local self-government, its independence in resolving issues

local significance; variety of organizational forms; isolation from the organ system

state power; responsibility of local self-government bodies to the population;

their electivity, openness, publicity; state support for local government and

The following principles are distinguished:

1) the principle of independence of local self-government within the limits of its powers -

textually enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It covers all the basics of local

self-government and manifests itself as a legal, organizational, economic and financial

independence in resolving issues of local importance;

2) a combination of representative democracy with forms of direct expression of the will of citizens

(expressed in the organic connection and interdependence of the implementation of local

self-government by citizens through a referendum, elections, other forms of direct

expression of will);

3) insubordination of one municipal formation to another municipal

education within their competence;

4) the obligatory presence of a representative body of local self-government in

municipality or the exercise of its powers by a meeting (gathering)

5) the priority role of representative bodies of local self-government in the system of bodies

local government (their leading role is due to the fact that the representative bodies

express the will of the entire population of the municipality, give it a compulsory

character and exercise power on his behalf);

6) publicity of activities for the implementation of local self-government;

7) provision by public authorities of municipalities with minimum

local budgets;

8) the guarantee by the state of the minimum state social standards for

meeting the basic living needs of the population, the provision of which is attributed

to the jurisdiction of municipalities;

9) state guarantees and support for local self-government;

10) the principle of subsidiarity, interaction and cooperation of local authorities

self-government with public authorities in ensuring life

population is based on the unity of the source of their power, on the unity in many ways of goals, objectives

and functions, on mutual responsibility for the observance and protection of human rights and freedoms and

citizen, for creating conditions that ensure a dignified life and free development

person.

V foreign countries the principles of local self-government do not represent a frozen

dogma and rather mobile change in accordance with the development of society and the state.

Trends in the development of modern principles of local self-government in foreign

models of local self-government and the universalization of the principles of local self-government on

the base of international legal acts.

The functions of local self-government are understood as the main directions of municipal

activities. The functions of local government are determined by nature, place in the system

democracy, the tasks and goals to achieve which the municipal

activity.

Local self-government, constituting one of the foundations of any democratic system, being

the expression of the power of the people, ensures the approximation of government to the citizens. By asserting

democratic principles of organizing and exercising power at the local level,

municipal self-government strengthens the foundations of democracy.

Based on the principles of democracy and decentralization of power, having independence

in solving all issues of local importance, local government contributes

optimal combination of local and national interests, the most effective

realization of the socio-economic potential of self-governing territorial

The functions of local self-government are distinguished by a certain stability and stability,

because they show a constant, purposeful impact of the population, organs

local self-government on municipal relations in order to make the most effective

solving local issues. Together, they show the possibilities and

the effectiveness of the local government system, characterizing the social purpose

local government and the process of its implementation.

Taking into account the role of local government in the organization and implementation of the power of the people, tasks,

resolved in the process of municipal activities, and the powers of local self-government

the following main functions can be distinguished:

1) ensuring the participation of the population in solving local issues;

2) management of municipal property, financial resources of local

self-government;

3) ensuring the comprehensive development of the territory of the municipality;

4) ensuring the satisfaction of the needs of the population in socio-cultural,

utilities and other vital services;

5) protection of public order;

6) representation and protection of the interests and rights of local government, guaranteed

The Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws.

Local government is designed to ensure independent decision population

municipality issues of local importance.

Therefore, an important aspect of municipal activities should be the creation of conditions for

effective participation of citizens in the implementation of local self-government.

These conditions primarily include:

1) the presence of elected bodies of local self-government;

2) the use of direct democracy institutions in municipal activities;

3) material and financial base for solving local issues.

Municipal law establishes legal guarantees for the participation of the population in the implementation of

municipal activities.

In accordance with Art. 3 of the Law on General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government

citizens have equal rights to exercise local self-government as

directly or through their representatives regardless of gender, race,

nationality, language, origin, property and official status,

attitudes towards religion, beliefs, membership of public associations.

the principles of the territorial organization of the MS are statutory provisions

and the requirements in accordance with which the procedure for education and

transformation of municipalities (MO), the composition of the territory of the MO, as well as the procedure

establishing and changing their boundaries. (today the principles of the territorial organization of the MS in

fully determined at the federal level)

3 principles

1. The order of formation and transformation of the Ministry of Defense

2. The procedure for establishing and changing the boundaries of MO

3. Composition of the territory of the Moscow region

Local self-government is carried out throughout the territory of the Russian Federation in urban, rural

settlements, municipal districts, urban districts and in inner-city territories

federal cities

Combination of settlement and territorial principles in the formation of the MO

Two-tier territorial organization of the MS within the boundaries of the municipal district

Participation of the population in decision-making on the transformation of municipalities

Accounting for the population in education rural settlement

Endowing the laws of the constituent entities of the Federation of the corresponding municipalities with the status of urban,

rural settlement, urban district, municipal district, intracity municipal district

The territory of a constituent entity of the Federation is delimited between settlements.

Establishing the boundaries of a rural settlement (which includes two or more

settlements) as well as the municipal district, as a rule, taking into account the pedestrian

(transport) accessibility

Integrity of the territory of the Moscow region

Taking into account the opinion of the population when deciding the issue of establishing and changing the boundaries of municipalities

Taking into account historical, local traditions, the need to create conditions for solving

relevant issues of local importance for the development of municipalities

Establishing and changing the boundaries of the Ministry of Defense by the laws of the constituent entities of the Federation

Ensuring sustainable and integrated development of the territory of the Moscow region in order to effectively

solving local issues, creating favorable conditions

life of the population

Taking into account historical and other local traditions when determining the composition of the territory of the Moscow region,

setting its boundaries

Local government

Code of Provincial Institutions 1

Art. 1. The empire in relation to the order of its local civil government is divided into provinces, regions and city authorities. 2

Art. 2. Each of these parts of the Empire is governed either by a General institution or by a special institution. 3

Provincial general institution

7. Each province consists of counties and cities.

14. Provincial places and authorities are: the chief chief of the province; governor; provincial government; statistical committee; provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs or provincial presence for city affairs; provincial presence or provincial presence for peasant affairs; provincial military service presence; provincial presence on trade tax; provincial presence on apartment tax; provincial presence on real estate tax in cities, townships and townships; provincial presence on affairs of societies; treasury chamber; provincial administrative committee; management of agriculture and state property; Provincial Factory and Mining Presence and Workers' Insurance Presence. In some provinces there are provincial guardianship offices, forest protection committees, orders of public charity, provincial zemstvo assemblies, provincial zemstvo councils and provincial committees and councils for zemstvo affairs. 4

15. County places and authorities are: county police chief; county congress or county presence on peasant affairs; district military service presence; county doctors; county public health committees and smallpox; noble guardianship; county administrative committee; county zemstvo assembly; county zemstvo government; the county committee and the county government for the affairs of the zemstvo economy.

16. City authorities and places are: in the cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa, Sevastopol, Kerch, Nikolaev, Rostov-on-Don together with Nakhichevan 5 and in the city of Baku: the mayor; in cities with separate from the district police - the chief of police; city doctors; city council; city government; city headman; orphan's court; city presence on the apartment tax and other city regulations and ranks.

17. Where the Regulations on zemstvo district chiefs have been introduced, each zemstvo district has a zemstvo district chief. 6

201. The governors of the provinces are the rulers of these, determined with the title of governors according to the highest discretion.

202. In some provinces governed by the General Institution, but having a special position, in addition to the governors, there are chief chiefs of the provinces under the name of governors-general. 7

208. In the order of general provincial administration, governors-general are the main guardians of the inviolability of the supreme rights of the autocracy, the benefit of the state and the exact implementation of laws and orders of the higher government in all parts of government in the region entrusted to them.

270. Governors, as the immediate chiefs of the provinces entrusted to them by the High Sovereign Emperor, by the will of the provinces, are the first guardians of the inviolability of the supreme rights of the autocracy, the benefits of the state and the widespread accurate execution of laws, statutes, highest orders, decrees Of the Governing Senate and orders of the authorities. Having constant and careful care for the welfare of the inhabitants of all estates of the region they govern and delving into its true situation and needs, they are obliged by the action of the power given to them to protect public peace, the safety of everyone and everyone, compliance with the established rules of order and deanery. They are also entrusted with taking measures to preserve the people's health, provide food for the province, provide the suffering helpless with proper care and supreme supervision over the speedy execution of all legal decisions and requirements.

Notes (edit)

1 Code of laws of the Russian Empire. Edition of 1892. T. 2.SPb., B. G.

2 By 1913, the Russian Empire was divided into 79 provinces (among them - 8 provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland), 21 oblasts, 2 districts and 8 city governments. The main administrative-territorial unit was the province. Mainly on the outskirts of the empire, in addition to the provinces, there were regions and districts. Some big cities formed administrative-territorial units - city governments.

3 "General provincial institution" - the most important legislative act regulating the organization of local government of the Russian Empire. In terms of content, it basically went back to the "Institutions for the administration of the provinces. Russian empire"(1775). By 1913, in accordance with the General Institution, 50 provinces of European Russia were governed." Special institutions "(rules), that is, special legislative acts determined the organization of the administrative apparatus in the rest of the empire (Kingdom , Siberia, middle Asia etc.).

4 In connection with some changes in the administrative-territorial division of the empire, in the organization of the provincial and district authorities in Art. 14-16 of the "General institution of the provincial" edition of 1892, by 1913 certain corrections were made. See: Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Continuation of 1912. Part 2 SPb., B. d. In this publication, these articles are reproduced in the same edition as they were in force in 1913.

5 This refers to the city of Nakhichevan on the Don, located near Rostov-on-Don. Subsequently, this city merged with Rostov, turning into one of its districts.

6 The institute of zemstvo district chiefs, called upon to supervise the activities of the bodies of peasant estate self-government, was established in 1889 in 40 provinces of European Russia, the rural territory of the district was divided into zemstvo plots subordinate to the respective zemstvo chiefs.

7 General-governors were usually appointed to manage several provinces or regions, which in this case formed a special administrative-territorial unit - the general governorship or territory, as well as the metropolitan provinces - Petersburg and Moscow. Governor-Generals represented the central government in the Grand Duchy of Finland. By 1913, the institution of governor-generals remained mainly on the outskirts of the empire, where the corresponding "Special Institutions" operated (see note 3). Provinces, regions and districts of the Caucasus in 1913 were united in the governorship headed by governors.

Governors. 1913 year

Total 68 people

Estate origin

Peasants				Hereditary honorary citizens	Clergy	Children of officers and officials		No information

Availability of ranks

* One governor, having the court rank of master of ceremonies, was also a valid state councilor (civil rank IV class

Religion

								Over 65

Education

Availability of land

Availability of other property

The number of persons who served and were in active civil service in 1913 *

Office of the Orthodox Confession
Ministry of Trade and Industry
Imperial Philanthropic Society
Ministry of Public Education
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of the Imperial Court
Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture
His Viceroyalty Imperial Majesty in the Caucasus
Office of the Council of Ministers
Main Directorate of State Horse Breeding
Institutions of Empress Mary
Department of Institutions of Empress Maria
Children's shelters
State Chancellery and State Printing House
Ministry of Railways
State control
Lyceum
His Imperial Majesty's Office of Applications
Total

* RGIA. F. 1409.0p.14. 1913, D. 407.L. 5.

** Data for 1912.

Zemsky and city self-government of the Russian Empire

N.G. Queen

Local self-government was represented in Russia by zemstvo (since 1864) and city (since 1870) elected representative institutions - zemstvo provincial and district assemblies and their executive bodies - boards, in cities - by city councils and city councils. They were in charge of matters related exclusively to local economic "benefits and needs": issues of improvement, construction and maintenance of roads, public education and health care, food business, care for the development of local industry and trade, veterinary and fire services, charitable institutions, etc. .NS. The budget was based on the estimated taxation of real estate (land, buildings, industrial and commercial establishments), duties, revenues from municipal enterprises and property, donations, etc.

Elections to representative bodies of local self-government were held on the basis of the curial-property system. Zemsky "Regulations" of June 12, 1890 established two electoral congresses for the election of zemstvo vowels: for participation in the first congress, which consisted of county landowners, a qualification was established - from 125 to 300 dess. (depending on the region); for participation in the second congress (from cities and urban-type settlements) the qualification was 12 thousand rubles. from the turnover. The participation of the peasants was not direct: village and volost assemblies chose candidates, from whom the governor appointed vowels. After the revolution of 1905-1907. the county electoral congress was restored from rural societies. In cities, elections to city councils were held according to the so-called "three-class" electoral system - v in accordance with the amount paid in favor of the city. The law of June II, 1892 replaced the tax qualification with a property qualification: the owners of real estate, valued at at least 1-1.5 thousand rubles, received the right to vote. in the provinces, 300-500 rubles. county towns and up to 300 rubles. - urban-type settlements.

Zemstvo self-government until the beginning of the XX century. was introduced in 34 provinces of European Russia, in 1911-1912. it was extended to 6 more western provinces (Vitebsk, Volyn, Mogilev, Minsk, Podolsk, Kiev).

Information about the composition and activities of local self-government bodies came to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which from time to time published them in the "Statistical Yearbook of Russia". During the winter session of 1913/1914. only a part of the zemstvos and city councils published their estimates. To fill the gap, the Council of Congresses of Industry and Trade Representatives used the information it received from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, publishing it in its Yearbook. The statistics given in the handbook are practically the only published consolidated document on zemstvo and city revenues and expenditures on the eve of the First World War.

Table 1

Estate and property composition of provincial vowels

Estates	More than 5 qualifications	1-5 qualifications *	Less than 0.1 census	Allotment land	Without real estate
Estates	More than 5 qualifications	1-5 qualifications *	Less than 0.1 census	Allotment land	Without real estate
Vowels Elected by County Assemblies
Nobles
Peasants
Other
Total
%
Vowels included by position
Nobles
Peasants
Other
Total
%
General vowel composition
Nobles
Peasants
Other
Total
%
Distribution of vowels by type of real estate
Land
Unearthly:
in the county
in the town
Total
%

Source: RGIA. Form 1288. 0 p. 2. 1906. File 113. L. 34-40; Dyakin V.S. Zemstvo in the June third monarchy. Historical notes. Vol. 115. P.98. The discrepancy between the results in the distribution of vowels by class and type of property is explained by the lack of data on the type of property of II vowels.

* 1 qualification fluctuated in different provinces from 150 to 300 dess.

table 2

The general composition of voters of the first and second meetings of 1912-1913

Provinces *	Land qualification		Unearthly qualification		Total O
Provinces *		incomplete		incomplete	Total O
Petersburg
Northwest
Northeastern
Central industrial
Volga
Central Black Earth
Southern
Ukrainian
Total for 33 provinces
%
% to the total of 1906-1907

Source: Dyakin V.S. Zemstvo in the third June monarchy. (Historical notes. T. 115. P.98.).

* Northwest provinces: Novgorod and Pskov; North-Eastern: Vyatka, Vologda, Perm, Olonets; Central Industrial: Vladimirskaya, Kaluga, Kostromskaya, Nizhegorodskaya, Smolenskaya, Tverskaya, Yaroslavskaya; Volga: Kazan, Penza, Samara, Saratov, Simbirsk, Ufa; Central Black Earth: Voronezh, Kursk, Oryol, Ryazan, Tambov, Tula; Southern: Bessarabian, Tavricheskaya, Ekaterinoslavskaya, Kherson; Ukrainian: Poltava, Chernigov, Kharkov.

Table 3

Zemsky income in 1913 (in thousand rubles)

Provinces	Offsets from previous years	Income from property and rent items belonging to the zemstvo	Miscellaneous fees	Zemstvo allowances and refund of expenses	Miscellaneous receipts	From certificates for the right to trade and trade	Real estate	For provincial needs
Bessarabskaya
Vladimirskaya
Vologda
Voronezh
Vyatskaya
Ekaterinoslavskaya
Kazan
Kaluga
Kostroma
Kursk
Moscow
Nizhny Novgorod
Novgorod
Olonetskaya
Orlovskaya
Penza
Perm
Poltava
Pskov
Ryazan
Samara
St. Petersburg
Saratov
Simbirsk
Smolensk
Tavricheskaya
Tambov
Tverskaya
Tula
Ufa
Kharkiv
Kherson
Chernihiv
Yaroslavl
A total of 34 lips.
Vitebsk
Volynskaya
Kievskaya
Minsk
Mogilev
Podolskaya
A total of 40 lips.

Source: Statistical Yearbook for 1914, St. Petersburg, pp. 430-431.

Table 4

Zemsky expenses in 1913 (in thousand rubles)

Provinces	Cost sharing of government agencies	The structure and maintenance of places of detention	Road duty	Public education	Public charity	Medical part
Bessarabskaya
Vladimirskaya
Vologda
Voronezh
Vyatskaya
Ekaterinoslavskaya
Kazan
Kaluga
Kostroma
Kursk
Moscow
Nizhny Novgorod
Novgorod
Orlovskaya
Penza
Perm
Poltava
Pskov
Ryazan
Samara
St. Petersburg
Saratov
Simbirsk
Smolensk
Tavricheskaya
Tambov
Tverskaya
Tula
Ufa
Kharkiv
Kherson
Chernihiv
Yaroslavl
A total of 34 lips.
Vitebsk
Volynskaya
Kievskaya
Minsk
Mogilev
Podolskaya
A total of 40 lips.

Table 4 (continued)

Veterinary part	Promoting economic well-being	Payment of debts	Miscellaneous expenses	Capital education contributions	Spare amounts	For provincial needs and arrears of zemstvo taxes