The new forms of government in the context of decentralization processes

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

УДК 323.172:061.1ЄС(4)

The New Forms of Government in the Context of Decentralization Processes

Oleksandr Novak

Annotation

decentralization power balance

The components of the decentralization process are reviewed. On the example of the EU Member States is demonstrated that the leading form of government is a decentralized unitary state. Indicated that modern concepts of decentralization include such a form of government as “regionated state”. The necessity of the balance between centralization and decentralization of power, the use of different types and forms of decentralization, taking into account the unique economic, social, political, cultural and historical features and conditions of the respective stages of development are reasoned. The need for a fundamental study of international experience of establishing and developing new forms of government is updated by the current situation in Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

Key words: state system, unitarianism, federalism, decentralization, deconcentration.

Анотація

Новак Олександр. Нові форми державного устрою в контексті децентралізаційних процесів. Розглянуто складники процесу децентралізації. На прикладі країн - членів ЄС доведено, що провідною формою державного устрою є децентралізована унітарна держава. Указано, що сучасні концепції децентралізації передбачають існування такої форми правління, як «регіоналізована держава». Обґрунтовується необхідність дотримання балансу між централізацією та децентралізацією повноважень органів влади, використання різних типів і форм децентралізації з урахуванням унікальних економічних, соціальних, політичних, культурних, історичних особливостей та умов відповідних етапів розвитку держави. Потреба фундаментального вивчення світового досвіду становлення й розвитку нових форм державного устрою актуалізована нинішньою ситуацією в Донецькій та Луганській областях.

Ключові слова: державний устрій, унітаризм, федералізм, децентралізація, деконцентрація.

Аннотация

Новак Александр. Новые формы государственного устройства в контексте децентрализационных процессов. . На примере стран - , что ведущей формой государственного устройства является децентрализованное унитарное государство. Указано, что современные концепции децентрализации предусматривают существование такой формы правления, как «регионадизованное государство». Обосновывается необходимость соблюдения баланса между централизацией и децентрализацией полномочий органов власти, использование различных типов и форм децентрализации с учетом уникальных экономических, социальных, политических, культурных, исторических особенностей и условий соответствующих этапов развития государства. Необходимость фундаментального изучения мирового опыта становления и развития новых форм государственного устройства актуализирована нынешней ситуацией в Донецкой и Луганской областях.

Ключевые слова: государственное устройство, унитаризм, федерализм, децентрализация, деконцентрация.

The purpose of the article. The terminological phrase “regionated unitary state” (as a “decentralized unitary state”) has not yet become widely used in Ukrainian scientific and practical circulation. Moreover, even today there are no studies on this subject by domestic scientists. Of course, this situation is not normal, because the current practice of Ukrainian state-building needs professional answers to a significant number of questions arising from problems of forms of government.

The need for a fundamental study of international experience of establishing and developing new forms of government is updated by the current situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, where separatist processes have led to the elimination of the state system in parts of these areas.

Analysis of researches and publications on the topic. A number of foreign scientists studied theoretical and practical issues of decentralization of power. Among them are P. Bardhan, J. M. Cohen, M. S. Grin- dle, J. Litvack and others. However, despite a number of scientific studies, the issue is important and needs further researches.

The main material of research. Development of different countries in different historical periods established such classical forms of government as unitarianism, federalism and confederalism. It has begun in the nineteenth century and continues today. Decentralization was put in the basis of these processes. The general explanation of it was published in The United Nations Human Development Report in 1999: “A large number of developing countries began to implement programs that provide some forms of decentralization. Participation in the governance of technology must also be widened. Race car drivers would not be the best advisers on public transport, and scientists at the cutting edge of the technological revolution cannot alone decide its path. This calls for collaboration - in national and global forums - between industry, independent scientists and technicians, governments, regulators, civil society organizations and the mass media. Having agreed to rules that rewarded both kinds of contribution to the collective effort, people were free to choose their own speed, to find a balance between individual effort and collective responsibility. This freedom and equality contributed to their solidarity” [5].

There are three types of decentralization - governmental, technological and ideological. They, in turn, are also divided into subspecies: governmental - into the political, administrative, fiscal, economic and environmental; technological - into the decentralization of information technology and the decentralization of mastered technology; ideological - into the libertarian socialistic and free market.

Considering the governmental decentralization, it is important to note that it may be territorial, during which power is transmitted, for example, from the central part of the city to its peripheral parts, and functional, when decision-making at the highest levels of governing is transferred to lower levels.

Governmental decentralization was called “the new public management”, which was also described as decentralization, management by objectives, contracts, competition within the government, focus on customers and so on.

Political aspects of governmental decentralization in practice mean the transfer to citizens or their elected representatives a greater amount of power. This may be due to both pluralistic politics and representative government, and giving citizens or their representatives more influence on the development and implementation of laws and policies. Depending on the state governmental decentralization may require constitutional or statutory reforms, development of new political parties, strengthening of legislation, creation of local political structures and encouraging of propaganda groups.

Administrative aspects of governmental decentralization (administrative decentralization) were reflected in such four main forms as deconcentration, delegation, transfer and alienation.

Deconcentration as a weak form of decentralization shifts the responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain social functions with officials of central governments to those who work in areas or, if necessary, the newly appointed under direct government control. The concept of “deconcentration of power” has not changed in essence since the time of occurrence and provides legislative devolution of central bodies of executive power primarily to representatives of central executive powers. Deconcentration of power does not apply directly to the representative bodies of local government - local authorities. Otherwise, the natural character of rights and responsibilities of local government, which belong to geographically united community, will be endangered [2].

Delegation means transfering responsibility for decision-making, finances and implementation of specific public functions to semi-autonomous institutions that are not fully controlled by the central government, but ultimately accountable to it. Delegation provides the establishment of public-private companies or “governments”, special projects or areas of service that will provide discretion in decision-making and may be exempted from the requirements of the Civil Service and may be allowed to charge users fees.

The transfer of authority involves shifting of all responsibility for decision-making, finances and implementation of specific public functions to subnational levels of government, such as regional and local.

Alienation, which is also called privatization, can mean contracts for services of private companies and entire renunciation of all responsibility for decision-making and finances of certain public functions. Sales services, transfer or dismissal of workers and the provision of services permitted to private companies or nonprofit organizations are allowed in terms of alienation. Majority of these activities were originally committed to individuals, companies, associations, but later these cases were passed to the government directly or through regulation of business entities that compete with the newly created state programs [3].

Foreign experience shows that decentralization and practical application of one of its four forms - deconcentration - led to the emergence of phenomena and processes of regionalization in Europe, which, in turn, has affected the transformation of established forms of government. Therefore, new forms of government that are not only the basis for municipal (or local) and regional autonomy, were established during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and ensured their effective functioning. Western scholars emphasized the guiding principles of European policy in favor of deconcentration, decentralization and regionalization, that's why local and regional autonomy became the principles of European constitutional law - such a constitutional right, which is common to all European countries.

It can be explained by at least two factors.

Firstly, thanks to its common and transparent spheres, municipal (local) and regional autonomy allow solving of social problems closely to citizens' interests.

Secondly, municipal (local) and regional differences, and knowledge of citizens and their associations of local and regional issues can be considered and addressed directly only at the municipal (local) and regional levels, which allows the implementation of targeted human needs of municipal and regional policy.

Despite the fact that the classical forms of government around the world are unitarianism, federalism and confederalism, studies in recent decades show that each of these forms has its own characteristics that gave rise not only to make the appropriate classification of individual states, but also define such forms of government as a unitary decentralized and unitary regionated [1].

Considering the example of the European Union member states, a unitary system among them is kept in Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, which joined the EU in the second half of the twentieth century. Common among these countries is that they are relatively small in area (Ireland, Luxembourg) or only a few decades ago freed from authoritarian regimes (Greece, Portugal). Therefore, if the basis of preserving unitary Ireland and Luxembourg can be seen above all in small areas (Luxembourg) and homogeneity of the population (Ireland), the Greek and Portuguese unitarianism, excepting homogeneous factor keeps historically, and perhaps after a short deconcentration and decentralization of non-democratic authorities.

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which joined the EU at the beginning of the XXI century (2004, 2007 and 2013), also maintain classical unitary form of government.

Regionated and decentralized forms of government are inherent to individual EU member states, which take place between unitary and federal forms. Some states have only begun their way toward federalism. Among them are unitary Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, France and Sweden, while some others, like regionated unitary Spain and Italy, have closely approached to it.

In the political sense of regionalization there is a concept, which is close to federalism, and therefore, it defines a new type of state - regionated state. This concept emerged recently and has caused a lot of discussions, breaking binary classification that distinguished federal and unitary state structure. Regionated state is one of two possible forms of complex state structures, the second form of which is, of course, federal state.

Foreign experience shows that regionated state is at the same time more centralized than a federation, and more decentralized than a unitary state. On the other hand, regionated states include federations, in which power was more centralized and unitary states, where a certain amount of power was handed over to regional governance. Intermediate level between local and national government in both forms of government exists in subnational regions.

A cursory review of modern forms of government, or, as they are called “unitary model of decentralization and federal centralism”, outlines the problem of bureaucratic centralism as a phenomenon inherent to a state of any form of government. So in today's highly industrialized countries the form of government in practice, is rather arbitrary, although in formal (constitutional) sense, these forms have some clarity [4].

Current situation on the East of Ukraine, where terrorist groups continue to violate the territorial integrity of our country, and their leadership is trying to impose federalism to Ukraine in so-called diplomatic way, demands active seek of answers to the next questions:

- to what extent the power and control should be deconcentrated and decentralized in order to save territorial integrity of state and to create an effective municipal (local) and regional levels of government?

- whether to improve and develop existing regionated unitary form of government, with adding adequate to modern realities content to it, to leave it “mothballed” or to introduce a federal form of government?

Problems concerning form of government have accumulated over decades, reflected in the numerous concepts and various reforms, political documents that were produced during the past two decades and which are now sufficiently powerful foundation for reform, which will allow to resolve the problem of division of power in Ukraine.

However, the answers to the above questions is advisable to look not only within Ukraine but also in the respective concepts of European countries, because they started to solve such problems much earlier as a result of historical circumstances. It is clear that this should not idealize the European or international experience, take “at face value” counsel and advice of foreign experts even due to the fact that the European Union as a whole and its particular member states (and other countries) are in a permanent state of development in all spheres of public life. One of the priorities in the evolutionary process is the control at the municipal and regional levels, which means that the countries in the process of reforming experiment not only in themselves, but also outside their own territories.

In many states today there is a situation in which new methods of territorial (regional and local) governance are introduced in order to increase efficiency and improve democracy, despite the fact that old ways and approaches because regional are still supported. These factors make local level of management increasingly complex.

Conclusions

The emergence of new forms of government (unitary and decentralized unitary regio- nated) in recent years is explained primarily by using the principles of deconcentration, decentralization and regionalization, which are crucial in the modern territorial governance.

In our opinion, the form of government in Ukraine should remain unitarianism, which in the context of decentralization and regionalization processes (both more democratic), continuing in the world, has gradually filled with new content related to historical, ethnopsychological, social, political, legal and other features and traditions that are accompanying the Ukrainian statehood for centuries.

Sources and literature

1. Bardhan P. Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries / P. Bardhan, D. Mookherjee. - 2006. - 374 p.

2. Cohen J. M. Administrative Decentralization: Strategies for Developing Countries / J. M. Cohen, S. B. Peterson. - 1999. - 224 p.

3. Grindle M. S. Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization, and the Promise of Good Governance / M. S. Grindle. - 2009. - 256 p.

4. Litvack J. Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries / J. Litvack, J. Ahmad, R. Bird. - 1998. - 40 p.

5. The United Nations Human Development Report [Electronic resource]. - 1999. - Access mode : hdr.undp.org/ sites/default/files/reports/260/hdr_1999_en_nostats.pdf

The article acted to the editorial college in 05.12.2016

Размещено на Allbest.ru