Conference on “The System of Local Self-Government Bodies and Municipal Elections”

Ershovo, Moscow Region, Russian Federation, 28-29 June 2012

Speech by Knud Andersen, Rapporteur on the Russian Federation, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

Mr Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today, one year almost to the date since I took part in the conference in Moshkovo, Kaluga Region, on 30 June and 1 July. I am especially pleased to see so many familiar faces again, and I would like to thank the European Club of experts and in particular its President, Emil Markwart, for keeping up this excellent tradition – and, of course, for inviting the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities to take part. The Congress has been maintaining very close relations with the European Club, which represents for us a valuable source of information on the situation in Russia, but also a channel of communication within this country.

The conferences organised by the Club of experts allow us to keep check on the situation of local and regional democracy in Russia in particular and on the development of territorial self-government in Europe at large. As Congress Rapporteur on local and regional democracy in the Russian Federation, I am especially interested personally in this subject matter.

The objective of this conference is to compare local self-government systems as well as systems of municipal elections in Russia and in Germany. It is clearly of direct interest to the Congress of the Council of Europe, whose mission is to advance and improve local governance in Europe, in particular by ensuring the proper implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. In this regard, comparing the experiences of the 45 countries that have ratified the Charter represents a tremendous value for us, because the Charter does not seek to establish a uniform self-government system but lays down basic principles for local democracy.  The practical implementation of these principles varies from one country to another, depending on specific national circumstances, and this joint experience provides a wealth of knowledge on how the Charter actually functions on the ground.

This is why the Congress has recently undertaken a study of what we call the “reception of the Charter in domestic legal systems”. We have looked at the extent to which the Charter provisions have been integrated into internal law of the countries – which is, of course, the best means of ensuring its implementation. A comparison between the Russian and German systems also in this respect would be, of course, of particular interest to us.

Another segment of this conference is devoted to municipal elections. Observing local and regional elections is one way in which the Congress monitors the implementation of the Local Self-Government Charter, having a legal mandate to do so, which is unique among European institutions. Local and regional elections in Russia, and in particular municipal elections, was one of the key issues raised in our latest monitoring report on this country, debated in October 2010, of which I was a co-author.

The report resulted in a recommendation to the Russian government, Recommendation 297. Much as I did last year in Moshkovo, I would like to recall briefly its main points.

The Congress recommended in particular that Russia reintroduce direct elections for regional governors. I remember welcoming last year the statement by President Medvedev, in his interview to The Financial Times, that this question remained open. Today, we have the law on direct elections of governors, signed by President Medvedev days before the end of his term of office. The legislative proposal for this law was welcomed by Congress President Keith Whitmore in his address to the Conference on “The rule of law as a practical concept”, in London in March.

This being said, I must say that we share the scepticism of many observers and experts who stress that the presidential filter still remains and has not been lifted with this law. Thus, the issue of the elections of regional governors is still a matter of concern in the light of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. We will now be looking into the possibility of requesting an opinion of the Venice Commission on this law.

In October 2010, we also recommended facilitating the registration of new political parties at local and regional level and allowing independent candidates to stand in all local and regional elections, as well as increasing citizen participation in local governance, in particular by ratifying the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

Today, we also have a new law on the registration of political parties in Russia, signed by the President in early April and making it much easier to form political parties.  Again, there has been scepticism that the new law could lead to numerous “spoiler” parties and further fragmentation of the opposition. Will it now be too easy to form parties? Is there a danger that we are moving from one extreme to another? It is too early to tell today, but as Rapporteur, I will now be looking into these questions.

We also recommended revoking the law concerning the dismissal of mayors, and improving legal safeguards to ensure that local authorities are not subject to excessive supervision by higher levels. We said the Russian authorities must also improve the division of competences between federal, regional and local authorities and reduce the number and scope of shared competences;

- provide local authorities with appropriate financial resources or authorise them to raise revenue;

- ensure a more equitable distribution of revenues for local authorities and rural settlements, through improved equalisation arrangements;

- and implement measures to eradicate corruption at local level.

Finally, we insisted that local authorities must be consulted on all issues concerning them, such as in particular the merger of settlements, and the Congress, together with the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, must be consulted on any draft laws that might contradict the European Charter of Local Self-Government, particularly those to be passed by regional parliaments in Russia.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It has now been one year and 8 months since we adopted our Recommendation 297 on Russia. We will be looking soon at officially inviting the Russian authorities to report on how they have reacted.  In this respect, I note and applaud the attempt of the European Club of experts to get the State Duma to tell us what they are doing to follow up our recommendations.  I suspect that the letter that you have received from the Duma Committee gives us a foretaste of how the Russian authorities might reply to the Congress. Much as you, I find that the official reaction received so far raises a number of questions.

More generally, we are convinced that in order to improve the functioning of local democracy, any country must fully implement the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and any country that has ratified the Charter, an international treaty, has an international obligation to comply with its provisions that are binding. Russia ratified the Charter in 1998, and we expect the Russian authorities to honour its commitments under the Charter. Our recommendations in this regard represent friendly advice to assist the Russian authorities in complying with these commitments. This is how I see my role as Rapporteur.

 

I must say in this regard that the Congress is paying more and more attention the follow-up of its monitoring recommendations, as part of the reform of our working methods.  For example, this autumn, the Estonian Interior Minister, Ken-Marti VAHER, is being invited to address the Congress plenary session.  The Congress recommendation on Estonia was adopted at the same time as the one on the Russian Federation, and in January of this year, the Estonian Minister already sent a detailed report to the Congress on the measures that his country had taken to implement it. We believe that the thoroughness and detail of this reply is an excellent example of bilateral cooperation between the Congress and a member State - which we will be encouraging other countries to follow.

We recently had a request from the Eurocities network to advise them on whether or not to admit Russian cities into their organisation.  Our response was to refer them to our Recommendation 297, at the same time explaining that it was not for us to advise on the criteria that Eurocities should use to admit new members.  For me, this is an illustration that we are not working in isolation, and that a lot more people pay attention to our work, and our recommendations, than we are aware sometimes.

As I have already said, many things have happened in Russia since the adoption of the Congress recommendation. The most important thing for us is that there has been a political and civic “awakening” of the Russian society, linked to the two sets of elections – legislative and presidential – and creating momentum which bears a chance and hope for improvement, and which must be seized. Certainly, you cannot accuse Russia of stagnating: as a keen Russia-watcher and in my role as rapporteur, I can attest that things are always moving here, as you would expect from such a vast country undergoing a tremendous transformation. This last year was particularly fruitful and from the viewpoint of civic activism and the quality of political debate, and from the viewpoint of certain results and promised changes.

However, I have to ask myself: are things moving in the right direction?  Are the changes what they seem, and how do they appear to the local elected representatives on the ground? To the citizens in local communities?

For example, we have been seized of the situation with regard to the right to protest, right to the freedom of assembly in the light of the new law boosting fines for unsanctioned rallies. Three weeks ago, Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland wrote to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov requesting more detailed information regarding the background and provisions of the new law on demonstration, pointing out that the Council’s experts are analysing this law and assessing its compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

I certainly hope to receive some answers to my questions during this conference, and this is one reason why I am so pleased to be here. It is invaluable for me to have this contact, this opportunity to speak with people in the field who have to live with these issues on a daily basis.

I wish all of us a successful conference, and I look forward to our discussions.

Thank you.