Analysis shows limitations of local self-government structures in transitional democracies, indicating centralization issues.
The article examines the problem of limiting local self-government in Russia and Belarus as one of the key factors of power usurpation. The authors analyze the constitutional and legal regulation of local self-government in both countries, paying attention to the existing mechanisms of influence of presidents and central authorities at the local level. In particular, they study the peculiarities of the formation of local self-government bodies, the scope of their powers and the real possibilities of implementing independent policy at the local level. It is emphasized that despite the formal guarantees enshrined in the Constitutions of the Russian Federation and Belarus, local self-government in these countries is largely controlled by the state authorities. This creates preconditions for the centralization of governance and a decrease in democratic control by citizens. The authors emphasize the importance of developing strong local self-government as a safeguard against the usurpation of power, supporting their position with comparative legal analysis and examples from Ukrainian legislation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boldyriev et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: