Forms of organization of people as a primary stage in relations with the state

Kitaeva Viktoriia Lecturer, Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law, Voronezh State University 10A Lenin Square, Voronezh, Voronezh region, 394018, Russia kitaevave@mail.ru

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, after the adoption of the 2020 amendment, establishes the need for interaction between local governments and public authorities in order to most effectively solve problems in the interests of the population living in a particular territory. The authors of the article "The historical roots of local self-government in Russia" rightly point out that "the fundamental innovation that carried out the transfer of the level of local self-government to the sphere of closest interaction with state power was the establishment of a system of "public power", which did not exist in the previous version of the current Constitution of Russia. The emergence of a unified system of public authorities in the state was caused by the need to create a mechanism for effective interaction between state and municipal authorities with the condition of expanding and strengthening the sphere of competence and authority of local governments" ^[1].  Since local self–government is a form of organization of the population created to solve issues of local importance, it is impossible to imagine the interaction of public authorities without the active participation of the population. This point of view is held by T. M. Byalkina, who, in her article "On the principles of local self-government in a unified system of public power" ^[2], characterizes the concept of "system of public power" and says that this concept does not exhaust the entire diversity of the content of the category "public power", including also a single multinational the people of the Russian Federation, the powers of the people as a whole and other collective subjects, associations of citizens, as well as the subjective right of a citizen to participate in the management of state affairs (Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Justifying this position, T.M. Byalkina refers to the speech of N. S. Bondar, in which the Constitutional model of local self-government is considered as a trinity of its following entities:

1) local self–government is an institution of the legal status of an individual. The right of citizens to local self-government is a subjective right of the individual;

2) Local self–government is an institution of civil society. The local community is a collective subject of local self-government and represents one of the main cells of civil society;

3) Local self–government is an institution of public authority. Local self-government is an institution of statehood, but local self-government bodies are not public authorities ^[3].

            Such scientists as S. A. Avakian, T. M. Byalkina, E. S. Shugrina, S. V. Narutto, A.S. Lolaeva and others studied this problem.
            The authors pay attention, first of all, to the problems associated with maintaining citizens' trust in the state as a whole, institutions of public authority ^[4], when this study focuses on the forms of interaction through which it is possible to develop such tools in which society and government can function harmoniously as a single mechanism.
       In this regard, it is impossible not to agree with S. A. Avakian's statement about the constitutional basis of the Russian political system, which is based on the fact that all public power in the country belongs to the people and in some areas is really exercised by the people themselves. At the same time, the public authorities implement their tasks in an environment that is traditionally called civil society ^[5]. The only thing we disagree with is the leveling of the role of local governments, which can be traced in the thesis that "local governments by their nature are only the lower, local link of public power in the Russian Federation" ^[6]. From our point of view, local self-government should not be considered the lowest link of public power, but the level of public power closest to the population, which determines the importance and validity of the exercise of power by the people.

Since the main purpose of this study is to substantiate the importance of interaction between public authorities (to a greater extent local governments) with the population, it is impossible not to agree with the opinions of T.M. Byalkina and N.S. Bondar and it can be concluded that the legislator himself gradually came to the conclusion about the high importance of public participation in this area. It is important to understand that the existing forms of public participation in the exercise of public power are insufficient or not always effective and need to be improved. This is important not only for local governments, but also for all bodies that are part of the unified system of public authority and is a consequence of the fact that the unified system of public authority carries out its activities in order to respect and protect human and civil rights and freedoms, create conditions for the socio-economic development of the state.

D.A. Otuzyan identified the most common models of interaction between public authorities and the population:

1. An advisory model that includes formats of constant (current, operational) interaction (public councils, councils of elders, public control bodies) between the government and the population, public discussion of problems, joint search for the most acceptable ways to resolve them, public reports of representatives of public authorities on the work done. This also includes citizen surveys, consultative referendums, public hearings, and public discussions.

2. A program model that includes the development and implementation of development programs that stimulate civic initiatives or based on structures created by the population or on its initiative (for example, territorial public self-government)" ^[7].

The author has identified the most effective forms of interaction, so it remains for us to supplement the idea with the fact that this list is open and the authorities need to collect positive experience of such interaction in the regions and implement best practices everywhere. For example, in Voronezh, one of the positive practices of interaction between public authorities and the population is the involvement of senior houses and street committees, as well as proactive residents of municipalities in solving local issues in the form of meetings, round tables with deputies of various levels. It is necessary to provide the population with more tools of influence in case of inaction by local governments. For example, such an institution as the recall of a deputy of a representative body of a municipality does not work in our country and has never been used due to the complexity of the procedure. In this case, the procedure must either be simplified or modified. We also consider it necessary to legislate the obligation of heads of municipalities and deputies of representative bodies of municipalities to hold meetings with residents of municipalities at least once a quarter. Federal Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003 "On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation", listing cases of early termination of powers of a deputy, a member of an elected local government body, an elected official of local self-government, establishes the possibility of termination of powers by a decision of a representative body of a municipal formation in the absence of a deputy without valid reasons at all meetings of the representative body of the municipality for six consecutive months (Part 10.3 of Article 40). At the same time, deputies actually do not have any responsibility to the population for not fulfilling their functions as people's deputies, who should be the first link in interaction with the population to solve the problems of a particular territory. In this regard, it seems logical to amend Federal Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003 "On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation", supplementing Article 40 with Part 10.4, which will fix the early termination of the powers of a deputy of a representative body of a municipal formation by a decision of a representative body of a municipal formation if the deputy does not meetings with the voters of your constituency for six months in a row.

Federal Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003 "On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" in Chapter 5 tells us that there are forms of direct implementation of local self-government by the population, as well as forms of public participation in the implementation of local self-government.

Among the first, the law includes a local referendum, municipal elections, a gathering of citizens, a recall vote and a vote on changing borders or transforming a municipality. Decisions that are made within the framework of these forms have the highest legal force and are binding on local governments.

The forms of public participation in the implementation of local self-government include public hearings and public discussions, meetings and conferences of citizens, surveys of citizens, the institute of the head of a rural settlement, a law-making initiative of citizens, an initiative project, territorial public self-government, citizens' appeals to local governments, etc. That is, the fundamental difference between some forms from others lies in the fact that decisions taken by the population within the framework of forms of public participation in the implementation of local self-government are not binding on local governments, but are advisory.

Along with the already known forms of direct implementation of local self-government by the population and participation of the population in the implementation of local self-government, citizens have the right to participate in other forms that do not contradict the legislation.

Traditionally, the main form of interaction between citizens and public authorities is considered to be the direct expression of the will of citizens (municipal elections and local referendums). The reason lies, of course, in the legal force of decisions made in this way. But, in our opinion, this form is not the most effective. Such forms of expression of citizens' will are used extremely rarely, since the procedures are expensive and quite difficult to implement, and after analyzing the topics of the referendums held at the local level, it can be concluded that they are conducted mainly on issues of self-taxation of citizens.

"The headman of a rural settlement, as E.S. Shugrina points out, has now become more widespread in those regions of the Federation where rural settlements are more often large, but at the same time located far enough from the locations of local governments. In this sense, the example of the Stavropol Territory is indicative, where, after several stages of transformation of local government, fairly large administrative-territorial units - villages and villages - are now located in enlarged urban districts. Such transformations served as an impetus for the development of the institute of rural headman, where attention is paid to their improvement within the framework of the program model at both the regional and municipal levels (for example, the municipal program "Small Village of Ipatovsky Urban District of Stavropol Territory", etc.) ^[8].

Territorial public self-government "is of great importance in creating the primary foundations of public and political activity of citizens, and also creates one of the channels of feedback with local authorities" ^[9]. Within the framework of territorial self-government, we should talk about public participation in the management of affairs, the main functions of which include the exchange of information, identification of existing problems and other issues important to the public. E.I. Kolyushin, who, analyzing local self-government, designated CBT as its kind of "ground floor" - as close as possible to the population ^[10]. In addition, social, including social and educational projects, can be implemented through CBT at the level of the subjects of the Federation.

We will not dwell in detail on other well-known forms within the framework of this scientific work, however, it is proposed to consider other forms of public participation in the implementation of local self-government, which are gaining the most popularity among the population and support from public authorities, often having greater efficiency and speed in solving issues of local importance.

It is difficult to deny the interest of the state and the progressive population of the country in the digitalization of management processes. The world is very dynamic and our state is not lagging behind in its development, which means that all spheres of society need transformation, especially in the provision of state and municipal services. This process involves, among other things, amendments to regulatory legal acts that regulate the relationship of public authorities at all levels with the population. A modern information system should provide opportunities for various forms of interaction, as well as a real ability to influence social processes.

The concept of public administration is undergoing significant changes, increasingly improving the mechanisms of communication between public authorities and the population. First of all, this means that a citizen is a consumer of services (Federal Law No. 210-FZ of July 27, 2010 "On the Organization of the Provision of State and Municipal Services"; Federal Law No. 59-FZ of May 2, 2006 "On the procedure for Considering Appeals from Citizens of the Russian Federation"; Federal Law of July 27, 2006 Federal Law No. 149-FZ "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection"; Federal Law No. 8-FZ dated February 9, 2009 "On Ensuring Access to Information on the Activities of State Bodies and Local Self-Government Bodies"; Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 203 dated May 9, 2017 "On the Strategy for the Development of the Information Society in the Russian Federation for 2017-2030", etc.). Already today there are digital platforms through which almost all state and municipal procedures and services provided are available electronically. At the same time, there is no need to visit various departments and provide documents on paper. An example is the portal of public services of the Russian Federation. In addition to public services, the portal provides a wide range of municipal services for the population. Several state information systems are functioning in the Voronezh Region at once, which help solve the problems of households. To use them, you need to register on the public services portal and add an event on the public services website or download a mobile application and add an event in the mobile application, which allows you to promptly notify the authorities if you see any problem. Thus, the state information system "Dom" helps owners to find information about their management company, plans for capital and current repairs, enter meter readings and pay bills. The state information system "Solving together" allows you to report any problem in the city and region in real time, such as pits, garbage, poor lighting, etc. The message gets to the department, which solves this problem and gives an official response to the appeal. There is also a public voting tab in the app where everyone can take part in various polls and discussions. We consider it necessary to develop and popularize such platforms on the territory of each municipality.

An example of effective interaction of the population with public authorities and local self-government in the Republic of Tatarstan is illustrative, by analogy with the Voronezh region, where the state information system "People's Control" is implemented, the essence of which is to submit notifications by citizens on various problems of the city. "It should also be emphasized that e-government should not be considered as an auxiliary tool or an analogue of traditional government, but, on the contrary, as a new way of interaction based on the use of information and communication technologies to improve public and municipal management through transparency, accessibility and speed of procedures. The introduction of new technologies into the public administration system, on the one hand, reduces costs, and on the other hand, facilitates the receipt of services, minimizing direct contact of the population with the authorities" ^[11].

In our opinion, citizens' self-taxation and proactive budgeting can be considered as forms of interaction between public authorities and the population, especially in the context of the introduction of a new principle of the budget system of the Russian Federation at the end of 2021 - citizens' participation in the budget process. The essence of these institutions is to ensure that the opinions of citizens are taken into account when making decisions about spending budget funds. The practice of proactive budgeting in a number of subjects of the Russian Federation was widespread long before the adoption of amendments to federal legislation. These included programs to support local initiatives and the practice of the "people's" budget ^[12]. It is worth noting that only one of the practices of initiative budgeting is fixed at the legislative level - initiative projects. A report on the best practices in the development of initiative budgeting in the subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities is published annually, containing the results of monitoring the development of initiative budgeting in the regions, and a strategy for the development of initiative budgeting at the federal level is being developed. The popularization and wide coverage of the implemented initiative projects will contribute to the intensification of the involvement of the population in such work, which will have a beneficial effect on the relationship of the population with public authorities.

If we talk about self-taxation of citizens, then the special feature is the need to hold a local referendum, which makes the procedure quite complicated and expensive in comparison with the initiative project. Based on this, it can be concluded that proactive budgeting in this regard is a more promising form of involving the population in solving local issues. O.V. Boltinova also believes that "initiative budgeting is the best area in which further development of interaction between the population and public authorities is possible" ^[13].

Traditionally, public authorities cooperate with civil society institutions. This is the part of the local community that is interested in the development of territories and is ready to participate in solving issues of local importance. One of the forms of such interaction can be considered public control.  Public Chambers of regions and municipalities can participate in involving the population in the development of territories and solving various tasks in cooperation with public authorities. There are a huge number of positive examples of such interaction, when the population, through public chambers, pointed out to the authorities problematic aspects of society by participating in various monitoring and round tables.

In summary, I would like to say that currently in our country there is an urgent demand for effective interaction of public authorities with the population, since residents want to actively participate in the development of their territories and the whole country as a whole. That is why the effectiveness of forms of interaction between the population and public authorities at the local level is much higher. This is primarily due to the fact that interaction takes place on issues of local importance that concern residents. Public authorities should pay more attention to the opinion of the population and provide more opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation for the benefit of specific territories and the entire state.

          As a result of the conducted research on the organization of the population as a primary stage in relations with the state, the following conclusions can be drawn.

          1. Local self–government is a form of organization of the population created to solve issues of local importance. In this regard, it is impossible to imagine the interaction of public authorities without the active participation of the population.

          2. Assessing the legislation for the interaction of public authorities and the population, including various forms of public participation in the implementation of local self-government, it is worth concluding that the legislator does not provide an exhaustive list of such interaction. This has a positive effect on the possibility of interaction between the government and the population in those forms that will be most effective in a specific period of time and in accordance with the needs of residents.

          3. It is known that the most common form of interaction between citizens and public authorities is the direct expression of the will of citizens (referendum and elections). In our opinion, this form is not the most effective due to the complexity and high cost of the procedure.

         4. The forms of interaction of public authorities with the population, which are most effective and popular among residents of specific territories, as well as speed in solving local issues based on the analysis conducted in this study, include the following: interaction of authorities with the population through modern information systems, territorial public self-government, proactive budgeting, cooperation with civil society institutions, meetings, conferences, round tables, etc.

        5. Since a deputy of a representative body of a municipal formation, by virtue of an amendment to the Constitution of 2020, acquires the status not just of an official of local self-government bodies, but of an official of public authorities, then, in our opinion, this circumstance should give rise to a certain responsibility to the population. In this regard, we consider it necessary to amend Article 40 of Federal Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003 "On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation", supplementing it with Part 10.4, stating as follows: "The powers of a deputy of a representative body of a municipal formation are terminated prematurely by a decision of a representative body of a municipal formation in the event if the deputy does not hold meetings with the voters of his constituency for six months in a row."