Reform of public power in the Slovak Republic: achievements and prospects

Main Material Presentation

The foundations of a new democratic model of public administration in Slovakia were laid in 1990. The main changes were aimed at overcoming the shortcomings of centralised state administration of the Soviet period [9]. The former three-level system of national committees, which exercised state power and local self-government in the Czechoslovak People's Republic, was abolished in 1990 by the Law No. 369/1990 “On Local Self-Government Bodies”Law of the Slovak National Council No. 369/1990 “On Local Self-Government Bodies”. (1990, September). and a system of local self-government was established with approximately 2,850 municipalities, where the first municipal elections were held in 1990. The public power reform was aimed at creating a more independent local and regional self-government. However, the main problem was and still is excessive fragmentation at the municipal level - there are still 2,850 municipalities in the country, most of which have less than 1,000 inhabitants. Many studies confirm that unification (or at least functional unification) is necessary, but there is no political will to start it.

The state of public service in Slovakia also remains problematic. The Slovak Republic has introduced standard European legislation governing public service prior to joining the European Union. However, there are no political forces in the country that are interested in independent and professional public service, and patronage relations remain more convenient for exercising control over the public administration system. Therefore, the law had been repeatedly amended to politicise and centralise the public service. Strong intervention by the European Union has forced Slovakia to reintroduce the core values of public service into national legislation through the adoption of the new Law on Civil Service of 2017. However, even this law does not provide convincing guarantees due to the specific national political and legal culture [1].

Local self-government remains an acute problem of governance in Slovakia. At present, there are 2,850 municipalities in Slovakia, with the average population of the municipality being only 1,870 inhabitants, and the average municipality covering approximately 17 km². Slovakia and the Czech Republic are the two most fragmented EU countries in terms of the average number of inhabitants per municipality. reform public authorities slovak republic

The Slovak municipal system is very close to the principles proclaimed by the European Charter of local self-government. This fact is confirmed by the Monitoring Report of the Council of Europe, which was approved in early 2016. Slovakia's municipalities have numerous functions and powers, but there are two issues. Firstly, too small self-government units are incapable of exercising their legal powers due to the lack of human and other resources; secondly, there is not a single actor who can start an objective discussion about how to deal with over-fragmentation of municipalities.

D. Mesikova and I. Nemek notes that after the initial period of major democratic changes in the country, little has been done to reform the public administration system prior to the election of the Cabinet of Ministers under M. Dzurinda in 1998. Reform of the V. Mechiar's 1996 government was aimed at improving the efficiency and quality of public administration, but mostly formal administrative changes were introduced, which entailed huge costs and yielded minimal results [10; 11].

After the 1998 elections, the government declared public administration reform one of its main goals. The main factor of influence was the prospect of Slovakia joining the European Union, the government of M. Dzurinda started working on integration to manage joining the EU in the first wave of post-Soviet countries. Apart from joining the EU, one can also highlight certain internal motives for the public administration reform implemented by this government, which supported the ideology of a “smaller state” and a change in the centralisation of state power. The motivation for joining the EU as soon as possible contributed to the adoption of the State Service Code and the Public Service Code in July 2001.

To implement the decentralisation reform in the Slovak Republic, the position of State Commissioner outside the official ministerial structures was introduced. Viktor Nizhnansky, a representative of right-wing political forces, was appointed to this position. The result of his activities was the Strategy of Public Administration Reform of the Slovak Republic, adopted by the government in 1999¹, and later the Concept of Decentralisation and Modernisation of Public Administration (2000)2. The first steps of the 1999 reform in Slovakia were the signing of the European Charter of local self-government. The main idea of the decentralisation reform of 2000-2004 was that decentralisation would solve all the problems associated with inefficient management. The start of the reform was postponed several times due to the lack of political consensus, but only the active intervention of Prime Minister M. Dzurinda in early 2001 pushed the decentralisation process forward. Subsequently, in a very short time, the main legislative acts that provided the legal framework for decentralisation were approved by the Parliament, namely: the Law on the Introduction of Regional Self-Government (July 2001)3, the Law on Elections to Regional Self-Government Bodies (July 2001)'Resolution of the Slovak Republic No. 695/1999 on the Public Administration Reform Strategy. (1999, August).^{2Resolution of the Slovak Republic No. 230/2000 on the Concept of Decentralisation and Modernisation of Public Administration. (2000, April).3Law of the Slovak Republic No. 302/2001 “On the Introduction of Regional Self-Government”. (2001, July).}Law of the Slovak Republic No. 303/2001 “On Elections to Regional Self-Government Bodies”. (2001, July).^{5Law of the Slovak Republic No. 416/2001 “On the Transfer of State Competence to Regional and Local Self-Government”. (2001, September).}, the Law on the Transfer of State Competence to Regional and Local Self-Government (September 2001)5, amendments to the Law on Municipalities (October 2001)Law of the Slovak Republic No. 453/2001 “On Amendments to the Law of the Slovak National Council No. 369/1990 on the General Institution with Changes and Amendments and Some Other Laws”. (2001, October)., amendments to the Law on Communal Property (October 2001)Ibidem, 2001., the Law on the Property of Regional Self-Government Bodies (October 2001)Law of the Slovak Republic No. 446/2001 “On the Property of Regional Self-Government Bodies”. (2001, October)., amendments to the Law on Budget Regulations (October 2001)Law of the Slovak Republic No. 453/2001 “On Amendments to the Law of the Slovak National Council No. 369/1990 on the General Institution with Changes and Amendments and Some Other Laws”. (2001, October)., the Law on Financial Control and Audit (October 2001)'Constitution of the Slovak Republic. (1992, October).

2Law of the Slovak Republic No. 138/1991 “On Communal Property”. (1991, March). [1, p. 118].

The reform transferred many powers to local and regional self-government bodies, but did not introduce other important decentralisation elements, namely real fiscal decentralisation (the new powers were funded by grants, and not from the municipalities' income). To address these shortcomings, the project for further decentralisation of public administration for 2003-2006, which was adopted by the government, identified two priority areas: fiscal decentralisation (since the mass transfer of powers did not immediately change the country's fiscal system) and changes in the administrative management system (changes in the territorial structure of the Republic, as well as the transition from general to specialised deconcentrated public administration bodies). During 2000-2004, Slovakia has also introduced a large set of legislation governing changes relating to joining the EU. An important change relating to this process was the Law of the Slovak Republic “On Free Access to Information” (May 2000)1.

Unfortunately, there were no significant changes in public service reform in 2006-2012 (the first left-oriented government of R. Fico and the short-term rightwing government of I. Radichova). The gradual reform of 2007 only changed the structure of the public administration system again towards deconcentration of powers. In the Programme Declaration (2012-2016 electoral period), the second government of R. Fico has committed to taking steps to improve the efficiency of the public service. The “Programme of Efficient, Reliable, and Open Public Administration” was approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic in April 2012. The main idea of this reform was to make the Government simple, orderly, and accessible, function stably, transparently, and spend financial resources efficiently. These reforms included three main areas: the integration of the specialised local public administration into a unified public administration; the creation of universal client centres to ensure citizens' contact with local authorities (planned for 2014-2015, but still not completed), and the optimisation of administrative processes and administrative structures (including the development of e-governance), planned for 2014-2020.

Even a brief overview of the reform of the public administration system points to one problem, called “reforming the reform”, that is, a reform implemented with the sole purpose of distinguishing oneself from previous governments. From the standpoint of public administration in Slovakia, the entire period of1990-2020 is marked by unsystematic changes from specialised to generally concentrated public administration, and vice versa, in Slovak science this process is even called “the zig-zag of reforms” [1, p. 120]. These reforms, accompanied by territorial changes, did lead neither to a greater efficiency in the exercise of functions and powers by public authorities, nor to a considerable improvement in the quality of public services provided to citizens (Table 1).

Table 1

Content of the newly created reforms of the Slovak Republic by the government for 1990-2014

Local self-government is the main component of public administration in a democratic state. The principle of subsidiarity implies that social and political issues should be solved at the nearest (or local) level that corresponds to their competence (for the local level, this principle constitutes the main element of the European Charter of Local Self-Government). Municipalities in Slovakia exercise both their and delegated powers. The main powers are assigned to them by the laws of 1990. During the period of “decentralisation” in 2000-2005, municipalities received new powers, and a considerable part of these powers was redistributed from their ministerial powers (hospitals, education, etc.).

Within the limits established by law, Slovak local governments have their budgets and assets and can issue orders that are binding on all individuals or corporate bodies within their jurisdiction. Only parliamentary acts can cancel or invalidate local regulations, and any changes in the powers of local authorities must be approved by the parliament. With the exception of cases established by law, local authorities are not subject to state supervision.

As noted above, excessive fragmentation of municipalities is an acute problem in the Slovak Republic. Due to the reforms of 1990 and 2000-2005, the Slovak municipal system came very close to the principles set out in the European Charter of Local Self-Government. According to the Council of Europe and experts, financing and fragmentation remained the main issues of local self-government. Municipalities have received almost complete freedom and large-scale powers, but many of them are minute in size and resources. However, in terms of competences, all municipalities are equal. Of the 2,850 municipalities, only two cities, the capital Bratislava and Kosice, have a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants (approximately 430,000 inhabitants in Bratislava and 250,000 in Kosice). According to the latest General Census (2011), only seven other cities have over 50,000 inhabitants. Almost 70% of Slovakia's municipalities have under 1,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, a few years ago, the smallest municipality of Prikra had only seven inhabitants (now 12), but according to legal provisions, it has the same competence as the largest Slovak municipalities.

Since 1989, Slovakia has planned the following steps for decentralisation:

1) transfer of power to the local authorities;

2) fiscal decentralisation; and

3) consolidation of territories.

However, after the implementation of the first two steps, no central government had the political will to resolve the issue of territorial enlargement, and all of them preferred the status quo [10]. Since forced unification from the central level is politically impossible, inter-municipal cooperation is an option for solving problems relating to small municipalities. The right of municipalities to cooperate has been implemented in Slovakia since 1990. The legal rule on inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) is clearly stated in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (No. 460/1992)1. More detailed legal provisions are written in the municipal law, according to which each municipality has the right (within the limits of its powers) to cooperate with other territorial and administrative units, as well as with the authorities of other countries that perform any local functions. They also have the right to become members of international associations of territorial units or territorial authorities. If it is necessary to establish a special body (institution) for the purposes of the IMC, such a body can have exclusively a private status. Despite the absence of a special law on IMC in Slovakia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Slovak Republic published a methodological instruction on the establishment of joint municipal offices in 2002. Furthermore, legal provisions relating to inter-municipal cooperation are found in other legislative acts, for example, in the law on communal property (No. 138/1991)2.

Today, there are more than two hundred joint municipal offices in Slovakia; they perform exclusively delegated powers, for example, in the area of building permits, primary education, environmental protection, social services, or urban planning. Thus, the problem of limited capacity of small municipalities is partially solved, but only in terms of delegated powers.

The association of municipalities to exercise their competences is much less common and is mainly associated with the use of EU funds. A separate limited number of joint service delivery bodies (especially in waste management) are represented by voluntary institutionalised regional/local associations in two main subgroups: euroregions and microregions. Microregions are not yet defined by law, but, as a rule, they constitute geographically small units that have a common historical past, economic interrelation, are created voluntarily, and sometimes disregard official administrative borders. Furthermore, some municipalities are involved in more than one microregion. Many microregions were created to strengthen the ability of local governments to attract funds from various funds, primarily the EU. As for the status of microregions, there are no legal provisions that directly regulate it, so some of them are public associations, and some were created as associations of legal entities. The institution of euroregions is also a platform for developing inter-municipal cooperation and includes various regional development stakeholders from at least two neighbouring countries. Their activities usually relate to development planning, joint projects, cross-border cooperation, and tourism.

Conclusions

In conclusion, local self-government has proper legal support for the exercise of its powers. However, the success of municipalities is limited by high fragmentation, as some municipalities are simply too small to exercise both their and delegated powers. This issue is not being resolved and probably will not be resolved in the near future. Two major and many small barriers block such changes. The main political obstacle - a strong political opposition, especially at the municipal level. The second barrier relates to the lack of comprehensive data on the preparation of such a change. There is no optimal territory size for a municipality, and according to the available academic research, the economic optimum actually varies for different services or does not exist at all. In this situation, it is more appropriate to promote the introduction of effective forms of inter-municipal cooperation and especially the creation of joint municipal services for the performance of delegated powers (or follow the Czech example of creating different categories of municipalities in accordance with delegated powers).

References

1. Nemec, J. (2018). Public administration reforms in Slovakia: Limited outcomes (Why?). The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, XI(1), 115-134.

2. Baldersheim, H., & Rose, L. (2008). A comparative analysis of territorial choice in Europe. Oslo: Political Institute.

3. Bours, A. (1993). Management, tiers, size and amalgamations of local government: Local government in the New Europe. London: Belhaven.

4. Goldsmith, M., & Page, E. (Eds.). (1987). Central and local government relations: A comparative analysis of West European Unitary States. London: Sage Publications.

5. Mouritzen, P.E. (1989). City size and citizens' satisfaction: Two competing theories revisited. European Journal of Political Research, 17(6), 661-688.

6. Swianiewicz, P. (2010). If territorial fragmentation is a problem, is amalgamation a solution? An East European perspective. Local Government Studies, 36(2), 183-203.

7. Klimovsky, D. (2015). Slovakia as decentralization champion: Reality or myth? Regions: The Voice of the Membership, 2(298), 14-16.

8. Bucek, M., & Nemec, J. (2012). Local Government in Slovakia. In A.M. Moreno (Ed.), Local government in the Member States of the European Union: A comparative legal perspective (pp. 555-576). Madrid: INAP.

9. Kosori'n, F. (2003). Verejna sprava (koncepcia, reformy, organizacia). Bratislava: Ekonom.

10. Mesikova, E. (2008). Vyvoj uzemneho a spravneho clenenia na Slovensku. Politicke Vedy, 11(3), 72-96.

11. Nemec, J., & Spacek, D. (2017). 25 Years of public administration developments and reforms in V4 region. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Размещено на allbest.ru