Stages of reformation and problems of development of the Institute of Public Service in the Russian Federation

Rebrishchev Nikolai Mitrofanovich Lecturer, Department of Administrative Law and Administrative Activities of the Police, Moscow Regional Branch of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V.Ya. Kikot 143100, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', pos. Staroteryaevo, ul. Net, UK 21, of. 301 Eduard-Sidorova1965@yandex.ru

         In the post-Soviet period, the civil service system was repeatedly reformed. In the scientific literature, one can find different points of view on the number of stages of civil service reform, from one to a dozen, but most authors adhere to the point of view that there are three stages of civil service reform in the Russian Federation. These stages were most fully characterized by E. A. Vasilyeva in her dissertation "Transformation of the civil service in the context of administrative reform: a sociological aspect" ^[8]. In general, we can agree with E. A. Vasilyeva that the first stage of civil service reform dates back to 2003, and not since 1995, when the Federal Law "On the Fundamentals of the Civil Service of the Russian Federation" was adopted ^[1]. This law did not set the task of reforming the civil service as a social and legal institution, but only gave normative regulation to the existing relations of the civil service, which contained most of the signs of the relations of the civil service of the Soviet period. It was with the adoption of the current federal laws that a genuine reform of the civil service began, since new principles of public service were laid down in them. These include the centralization of public administration, the increase of the social potential of the civil service, the optimization of personnel, its rejuvenation. It should be agreed with E. A. Vasilyeva that the main goals of the first stage of the civil service reform were achieved, since the average age of civil servants was significantly lowered, measures were successfully taken to improve the educational level of civil servants, there was a redistribution of the number of civil servants in favor of executive authorities. The second stage of the civil service reform dates from 2006 – 2010. He adopted the concept of "new state management" as the main vector of development of the civil service. This concept is quite extensive, but its main characteristics are the following factors: the introduction of the concept of "public service" into the institute of public service, the introduction of private business management methods into public administration, the broad introduction of evaluation criteria into the activities of civil servants. The legal basis of this stage of the civil service reform was Federal Law No. 210-FZ dated 27.07.2010 "On the organization of the provision of State and municipal services" ^[3] and by-laws, the most important of which are administrative regulations that determine the functioning of executive authorities, and, above all, the provision of public services to the population by these authorities. It is possible to treat the results of this stage of the civil service reform differently, but in general it achieved its goals: a "one-stop shop" system was created, multifunctional centers for the provision of state and municipal services were effectively launched, the practice of outsourcing to public administration was introduced. At the same time, many of the principles of the concept of "new public management" have not been implemented: the goal of openness of public administration has not been achieved, civil society institutions have not been involved in solving the tasks of public service, the process of interaction between the population and civil servants has been unnecessarily formalized. The third stage of the civil service reform is associated with the implementation of the federal program "Reform and development of the civil service system of the Russian Federation (2009-2013)" ^[4]. Despite the fact that more than 6 years have passed since the end of this federal program, the results of its implementation at the federal level have not been summed up. This only underlines that the program has not achieved its goal, and its main tasks have not been implemented. In general, the third stage of the reform of public service relations can be characterized by an attempt to introduce the principle of transparency into the public administration system. Transparency of public administration in the most general form refers to the openness of the process of public administration, the availability of various opportunities for citizens to control the activities of state bodies and public bodies and organizations in general, including online. After the expiration of the implementation period of the civil service reform and development program, attempts were made to adopt a new program, but they were never implemented^[5]. Thus, it can be stated that the country has existed for several years without a strategy for the development of public service, despite the fact that the majority of the scientific community and politicians recognize that the system of public service in the Russian Federation is not formed.

Of course, the very goal of reforming the institution of public service and its achievement is evaluated taking into account subjective criteria, that is, each citizen independently determines the quality of public administration. At the same time, it is possible to identify certain features that make it possible to determine the quality of public service as a social institution in the state. For example, A. A. Grishkovets identifies seven features of the "real" model of public service:

- the existence of the legislation on public service in the country itself;

- competition for the replacement of civil service positions;

- stable position of a civil servant;

- the reality of an official career for an employee;

- the well-known corporatism of civil servants;

- prestige of service in society;

- the presence of a state body for civil service affairs ^[9].

Let's consider the compliance of the current model of public service in the Russian Federation with these criteria.

The legislation on public service in the Russian Federation, as it was established above, is at the stage of its formation. The most structured is the state civil service as a separate type of public service. The legislator pays the main attention to it, therefore it can be concluded that the legislation on the state civil service is formed. Military service as the second type of public service has lagged behind in its regulatory regulation, which is noted in the scientific literature ^[10]. Legislation on the procedure for military service is outdated, largely contradictory and incomplete, despite the huge number of regulations governing military service. The same can be said about the legal regulation of other types of public service. Of course, certain types of public service, for example, services in the internal affairs bodies, have legislative regulation corresponding to modern public relations, but the passage of other types of public service is often regulated by by-laws. It seems that this practice is unacceptable, and the legislator needs to adopt a number of federal laws in the near future regulating the specifics of certain types of public service related to law enforcement.

The second criterion for the qualitative development of the institute of public service is the availability of competitive bases for filling positions. As it was established above, if the state civil service gradually introduces this element of personnel policy, then military service and law enforcement types of service are practically deprived of it.

The stability of the position of a civil servant can be assessed from various points of view. The financial situation of civil servants is the subject of constant concern of the executive authorities and it is possible to note the positive dynamics of wage growth of civil servants of all types. It should also be noted the decent level of social security of civil servants. At the same time, structural changes are constantly taking place in the State apparatus, resulting in a reduction in the number of civil servants.

Career growth as an evaluating factor of the institute of public service was also considered above, and it was found that there are practically no state guarantees of career growth in the Russian Federation.

Regarding the corporatism of civil servants, it can be noted that in the Russian Federation, the protection of the rights and interests of civil servants is carried out mainly independently, or by contacting the state bodies for the protection of rights. It should be said that the social direction of protecting the rights and interests of civil servants is poorly developed in the country. Although the legislation on trade unions and the legislation on public service allows for the creation and operation of trade unions of civil servants, including employees in the internal affairs bodies, the activities of such unions are not very effective due to the established customs of fictitious activities of such trade unions and the limitations of their rights. It seems that such a trend in the Russian Federation will not be revised for a long time due to the dominance of imperative methods of regulating official relations.

The main problematic aspect of public service in the Russian Federation is its prestige. The question of the prestige of public service in the Russian Federation can be decomposed into two components – public opinion about civil servants as a social element and public opinion about the value of public office. It is also necessary to share the prestige of various types of public service, since in the minds of an ordinary citizen, a serviceman and a law enforcement officer are not associated with public service. According to opinion polls, the prestige of military service in the Russian Federation is steadily increasing. The prestige of service in law enforcement agencies depends on the type of body and the position held. Regarding the service in the internal affairs bodies, one can answer that its prestige has also increased since the beginning of the reform of the internal affairs bodies. The most controversial attitude in society is caused by the state civil service, which is associated with the concept of "officialdom" and bureaucracy. Thus, according to opinion polls, about 90% of respondents have a negative attitude to officialdom ^[12]. At the same time, assessing the quality of public services provided, about 80% of respondents expressed satisfaction with the quality of services provided. Thus, it can be concluded that, having generally increased the prestige of the state as a social institution, the reform of the state civil service did not increase the prestige of the state civil service itself, leaving the authority of the civil servant in low positions.

Also, many authors note the existence in the Russian Federation of a systemic problem associated with the absence of a single public authority regulating public service issues ^[11]. The Federal Law "On the Public Service System of the Russian Federation" provides for the formation of a public service management system ^[2]. One of the subjects of management of this system is named the federal state body for the management of public service and the state body of the subject of the Russian Federation for the management of public service. Currently, the functions of this body are performed by the Department of State Policy in the field of State and Municipal Service, Anti-Corruption of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation. However, the activities of this body practically do not bring any results. It can be said that it is an advisory body, since most federal executive authorities create their own structural units that regulate the civil service and personnel in their structure (for example, the Department of Civil Service and Personnel of the Ministry of Justice of Russia). The actual absence of a single public service management body is evidenced by the data of a survey conducted at the Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation. When answering the question whether there is a public service management system in Russia, 54% of respondents, and these are representatives of authorities at various levels, replied that there are only individual controls of such a system, and 25% of respondents acknowledged the complete absence of such a system ^[7]. Thus, it can be stated that at the moment there is no single state authority for the management of the civil service.

Thus, the analysis of the current system of the civil service of the Russian Federation for compliance with the basic criteria of the "quality" of the development of this institution showed that at the moment it does not fully comply with the generally accepted principles of construction and functioning. It seems that the main reasons for the problem of the formation of the institute of public service in the Russian Federation are:

1. Discrediting the Institute of public service as a social institution.

2. The absence of a scientifically based concept of the development of the civil service with a focus on the value structure of civil servants.

3. The absence of a public service reform program by legitimizing new forms of interaction between the population and authorities.

4. Exclusion of the existing level of officialdom from the principles of public service, and, accordingly, the lack of reform of the foundations of their activities.

5. The discrepancy between the declared goals of public service (implementation of public administration) and real goals (provision of public services).

The next stage of reforming the civil service in the Russian Federation should be based on the elimination of these reasons.

The main directions of the development of the civil service should be: the definition of clear goals and objectives of the civil service; the completion of the reform of the military and law enforcement service through proper regulatory regulation of these types of public service; the creation of a public service management system; information support for the reform of the civil service; increasing the prestige of the civil service through the introduction of new methods of stimulating civil servants and strengthening public control of activities state authorities.