Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc.

United Nations Development Programme

Decentralization and Local Governance

Director: Jessica Falk

© 2009 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)

This document is solely for use in preparation for Philadelphia Model United Nations 2009. Use for other purposes is not

permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net

Policy Dilemma ______________________________________________________________ 1 Chronology__________________________________________________________________ 2

The European Charter of Local Self-government 15 October 1985 ________________________ 2 Law on the Foundation of Local Self-government, 12 February 1990 ______________________ 3 Law on Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia and Local Government, 24 July 19914 Law on Public Administration No. 69, 21 November 1991________________________________ 5 Rally in Montenegro, 26 May 1998 ___________________________________________________ 5 Decentralization of Kosovo, April 2004 _______________________________________________ 6 Conference on Democracy, Decentralization and Fiscal Reform in Latin America and Eastern Europe, 1-3 March 2006____________________________________________________________ 7

Actors and Interests ___________________________________________________________ 7 Commonwealth of Independent States ________________________________________________ 7 Central Government_______________________________________________________________ 9 Active Citizens___________________________________________________________________ 11

Possible Causes _____________________________________________________________ 12 Fall of Communism ______________________________________________________________ 12 Ethnic Minorities ________________________________________________________________ 13 Inefficient Central Government ____________________________________________________ 14 Comparison of Causes ____________________________________________________________ 15

Projections and Implications___________________________________________________ 15 Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 16

Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 17 For Further Reading _________________________________________________________ 18

Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 19 Works Consulted ____________________________________________________________ 21

PhilMUN 2009 1

Policy Dilemma Eastern Europe states share a common history. For this reason, the states in the

region have gone through or are going through the process of decentralization, where

power is shifted from the centralized government to the local governments.

Decentralization is a government strategy executed for a number of different reasons

depending on the history and dynamics of the population. Some Eastern European states

have decentralized “by necessity” after the collapse of authoritarian rule while other

states have used decentralization as a way to better represent a population with varying

ethnic identities.1 Decentralization can be a positive step in improving the economy of a

state, lowering the level of corruption and allowing for the development of social services.

However, there are many challenges to achieving the goal of placing more power in the

hands of local governments officials. A majority of the states in Eastern Europe are post-

conflict nations and contain numerous multi-ethnic communities.2 These two factors

result in an unstable society with weak social organizations and an underlying distrust in

government. Without trust in leadership embedded in society, it is difficult for citizens to

have confidence in the individuals in power.

Another difficulty that faces states trying to decentralize is that current local

governments are not well organized. Many have a fragmented structure with unclear

divisions of labor, resulting in little accountability.3 Also, limited budgets can make it

difficult for local governments to function properly and provide effective services for its

citizens. In states like Moldova in 2003, confusion has existed between national and

local government officials on which level of government must carry out certain.4 The

Parliament of the Republic of Moldova adopted a new law on shifting power to local

public administrators, but just like laws in other states, it did not specify who was in

1 “Local Governance and Decentralization in the ECIS Region,” UNDP, <http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/uploads/LG/LGD%20in%20ECIS.pdf> 2 Ibid. 2 3 Ibid. 4 4 Ibid. 4

PhilMUN 2009 2

charge of the services and there was no definition of what competencies a local authority

has over the services, who coordinates them, or who is responsible to execute them. The

law also assigned numerous competencies to local public authorities at different levels,

resulting in a slow transition of power and citizens not knowing who is held responsible

for certain acts. 5

Without decentralization in Eastern Europe, communities may have difficulty

flourishing. Increasing the power of local governments provides the opportunity for

officials to respond to the needs of the local population more efficiently than the central

government could and mitigates the difficulty that a central government has to make

decisions that are best for the state as a whole. This is why increasing the power of local

governments can help protect the rights on the many ethnic minorities that reside in

Eastern Europe. By protecting the rights of the minorities, it is possible to prevent

conflict in the future based on the presence of unequal rights. Successful decentralization

has also proven to mostly impact the poorest members of society that have trouble with

receiving proper representation from the central government.

Decentralization is a complex process that differs in every state where it takes

place. The most important factor in decentralizing is the cooperation and coordination

from the central government. Without the central government as the driving force, no

change is possible to occur in society. It is also important to strengthen policy-making

capacities on both central and local levels. 6 Increasing the credibility for local

governance is also a crucial step, incorporating professional and highly-qualified

individuals in local government offices.

Chronology The European Charter of Local Self-government 15 October 1985 Signed by the forty-three members of the Council of Europe, the European Charter

of Local Self-government defines and explains the responsibilities of a local government.

5 Ibid. 9 6 Ibid. 12

PhilMUN 2009 3

The Charter states that local self-governments have the, “right and the ability over local

authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of

public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.”7

By defining the rights of local government, it ensures that the central government does

not attempt to infringe upon the responsibilities belonging to its local counterparts. A

guarantee of political, administrative, and financial independence of local authorities is

also set out as a necessity in the charter.. The European Charter of Local Self-

government also states that the principle of self-government must be recognized in

domestic legislation and constitution, which signifies the importance of self-government.8

Having the principle of local self-government included in national legislation illustrates

the importance of having a well-defined and effective local government for the success of

the state on a national level. By creating and signing this piece of legislation the

members of the Council of Europe pledged their willingness to form independent and

efficient local governments within their borders. The Charter also created for the first

time universal standards, definitions and requirements for local governments.

Law on the Foundation of Local Self-government, 12 February 1990 On February 12, 1990, the Supreme Council of Lithuania adopted the Law on the

Foundation of Local Self Government, providing a new structure for local government in

Lithuania. The law listed principles of local government including, “direct participation

of citizens in preparing, discussing, adopting, and implementing decisions on public

issues,” and keeping local government accountable to residents and other governmental

organs.9 The new law also created a two-tier government with the lower tier consisting

of regional towns, urban settlements, and localities and the upper tier consisting of

regions and cities. As soon as the law was adopted, controversy arose amongst the

citizens of Lithuania, as criticism that it was based on the territorial division that existed

7 European Charter of Local Self-government, European Council, <http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/122.htm> 8 Tamas M Horvath, “Decentralization: Experiments and Reforms,” Budapest: Createch Ltd, 2000. 4 9 Tamas M. Horvath. 169.

PhilMUN 2009 4

during the soviet period developed.10 Also, since the centralized government drafted this

law, citizens were concerned about possible bias. According to Stasys Kropas, the

Director of International Relations Department for the Bank of Lithuania, the law has

many shortcomings that make it difficult for the newly formed local governments to

function efficiently. Some of the deficiencies that he highlights include, “the absence of

a coherent system of regional and local government, undefined functions of the central

and local government, the absence of a realistic economic financial basis for local

governments, and undefined rights and duties of local government officials.”11 The

deficiencies present in this law made it difficult for local governments to perform

successfully after their formation. Also, it is hard for a local government to do well if the

citizens of the region are skeptical on its legitimacy. Lithuania’s vague and ineffective

law resulted in the state having hard years, both politically and economically, following

the fall of the Soviet Union.12 Law on Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia and Local Government, 24 July 1991 After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the states of Serbia and Montenegro were created.

The Law on Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia and Local Government

lists all the municipalities in Serbia that make up autonomous provinces. The

Autonomous Province of Vojvodina consists of forty-five municipalities and the

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Kosmet consist of twenty-nine.13 A municipality is

defined as a “territorial unit in which citizens exercise self-government in affairs defined

by the Constitution, laws and statutes of the municipality.” When creating each province,

the history, demographic, and culture of the citizens of the region were taken into

consideration. Even though each province has its own organs and organizations, it was

difficult to distinguish their real role since districts exist in each of the provinces. Despite

the fact that The Law on Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia and Local 10 Ibid. 169. 11 Ibid. 170. 12 Ibid. 171. 13 Emilia Kandeva, “Stabilization of Local Governments.” Budapest: : Createch Ltd, 2001, 423.

PhilMUN 2009 5

Government was designed to clearly explain local government in Serbia, it created a

complex and complicated set-up for local government. Each municipality has limited

direct contact with the federal government, which can cause problems when local

government officials are not able to handle problems with the resources and powers that

are provided to them. The federal government has the power to create new municipalities

and to “change the names, territories and headquarters of existing municipalities.” The

great power that the federal government has can be seen as restricting the powers of the

local governments. Law on Public Administration No. 69, 21 November 1991 With the adoption of the Law on Public Administration in 1991, Romania

established the necessary framework to begin administrative reform, specifically

transferring a majority of the power to manage local interests from the central to the local

level of government.14 Article 1 of the law discusses the practice of local autonomy and

decentralization of public services, the most important factors when creating a stable

local government. The importance of citizen participation and the requirements of the

representation of the collective local interest are also further explained and detailed.15

Rally in Montenegro, 26 May 1998 After the announcement that the May 31st elections were not going to be free and

democratic, over one hundred thousand Montenegrins congregated at Ivan Milutinovic

Square in Podgorica with universal protest of the reorganization and decentralization of

Yugoslavia.16 The rally was held by Momir Bulatovic, the leader of the Montenegro

Socialist People’s Party and the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. He claimed the elections

were not going to be free because state authorities have been ignoring the constitution

and existing laws and serving one political party instead of the whole population. Momir

Bulatovic told the eager crowd that the “federal government will respect the integrity of

the member republics, will observe their full equality but at the same tie will work hard 14 Ibid. 356. 15 Ibid. 357. 16 “Some 100,00 Attend Montenegrin Opposition Party’s Final Pre Election Rally,” BBC Monitoring Europe, May 27, 1998, Lexis Nexis.

PhilMUN 2009 6

and resolutely on strengthening Yugoslavia’s togetherness.”17 Unlike other state in

Eastern Europe that strived for decentralization and strong local governments, the people

of Montenegro came out in masses to tell their government that they do not support the

decentralization of Yugoslavia. Decentralization of Kosovo, April 2004 Kosovo has been a conflict-plagued state, and the decentralization process that has

taken place was also surrounded by controversy. Decentralization has been viewed as a

way to end and prevent ethnic clashes by taking some control away from the central

government and giving it to local government, made up of individuals more aware of the

makeup of the population in their community. However, in Kosovo, decentralization has

caused greater concern for the ethnic minorities who live there. From 2002 to 2004, the

Council of Europe presented Kosovo with three different versions of plans for

decentralization and each was rejected. The reason that each plan was rejected was

because each left room for the “creation of Serb enclaves and Kosovo’s division along

ethnic lines.”18 Lutfi Haziri, the Chairman of the Association of Kosovo Municipalities

furthers this sentiment by stating that Kosovo’s reasons for being opposed to,

“decentralization on an ethnic basis becomes even stronger if we bear in mind that the

Serbian government is seeking to divide Kosovo into cantons and along ethnic lines

through the decentralization process.”19 Using decentralization as a tool for ethnic

divisions demonstrates that even though there may no longer be violent fighting,

countries in the region are still not at peace. Decentralization is meant to be a tool for a

country to advance, but in Kosovo it is being used to perpetuate ongoing inequality and

hostility among its citizens. The situation in Kosovo clearly demonstrates possible

problems that can occur while going through decentralization and illustrates why not

everyone involved is supportive of the process.

17 Ibid. 18 Arben Rugova, “Kosovo Officials, UNMIK Reject Decentralization Plans on Ethnic Basis,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, April 15 2004, Lexis Nexis. 19 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 7

Conference on Democracy, Decentralization and Fiscal Reform in Latin America and Eastern Europe, 1-3 March 2006 Held in Lima, Peru, the Conference on Democracy, Decentralization and Fiscal

Reform in Latin America and Eastern Europe was used as an avenue for leaders from

different parts of the world to share the successes and failures they have faced while

going through decentralization.20 The conference consisted of Latin American and

Eastern European states, because Latin American states found that Eastern Europe was

the best area to model decentralization after. Even though Eastern Europe was being

used as the model, the poorer and severely poverty stricken states of Eastern Europe

looked at Latin American countries for possible ideas and solutions to growing crises.

When comparing the two regions during the conference, participating parties found some

interesting facts about the ideal situation to go through the process of decentralization,

most notably being the necessity for a strong central government .21 While this sounds

paradoxical, it was found that strong regimes and organized public administration are

imperative to accommodate any opposition that is faced on the local level. Tajikistan and

Peru were cited as examples of unsuccessful decentralization for this reason. Even

though these states are located thousands of miles apart, they share a similar political

structure that interferes with decentralization no matter where it is located. By bringing

to light the similarities states around the world face while going through decentralization

and discussing failures and successes it is an essential step to ensure that the process of

decentralization will go smoother when states in the future go through it.

Actors and Interests Commonwealth of Independent States The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) consists of Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan,

Ukraine and Uzbekistan. This group includes the states that have made the least progress

20 “Conference on Democracy, Decentralization and Fiscal Reform for Latin America and Eastern Europe,” Local Governance and Public Reform Initiative, January 12, 2007, < http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?m_id=181&bid=2> 21 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 8

with decentralization and increasing the power of local government in Eastern Europe.

The governments in these states are “still characterized by the failure to identify the

country’s priorities and development strategies in all spheres” according to the United

Nations Development Programme.22 The “command and control mentality” is still

present in these states which have lead to governments taking many steps to prevent their

state from changing as the rest of Eastern Europe has been progressing.23

Tajikistan is a state in which little progress has been made after the

decentralization process. Local municipalities are the main link of local self-government

system, but they do not have a significant amount of power, existing as a result of the

Law on Local Public Administration’s calls for a functioning local government, but

without the decision-making power or budget to run successfully. There is also a “lack of

progress in local and democratic decision-making and near nonexistent elections in the

sub national levels.”24 Furthermore, the right for citizens to participate in the government

and make decisions is limited to their financial status, political and religious beliefs and

their ethnic background. As a result of these criteria, most of the decisions are made in a

non-transparent manner. Most CIS members continue to allow the central government to

dominate and control local administration, limiting their power and financial resources.25

Also, a large majority of taxes generated by the local government go to support the

central government. Kazakhstan has also seen problems in establishing local government

because since 1995 none of the many laws passed on the subject have been enforced. In

Georgia, the division of competencies between local self-government and the regional

branches of central authority is ambiguous, resulting in 1033 municipalities not enjoying

22 “Local Governance and Decentralization in the ECIS Region,” UNDP, <http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/uploads/LG/LGD%20in%20ECIS.pdf> 23 Ibid. 5 24 “Local Government: Tajikistan,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, <http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=170> 25 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 9

real political and financial independence.26 They are also highly dependent on

administrative directives and financial transfers from the central government. Similarly,

in Armenia, the greatest weakness of the local government is scarce financial resources.27

In Moldova, local authorities lack sufficient resources to fulfill their responsibilities, so

they must rely on the central government it provide them with support.28 Until the year

2006, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan had made the most progress of the CIS since the

dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Constitution of Kyrgyzstan guarantees local

communities the ability to administer local issues through “their representative and

executive authorities and also by means of direct citizens participation.”29 However, the

year 2007 brought changes to the state. Ongoing constitutional changes and reform

concerning local government financing are intended to increase the central authority by

reducing the powers of local government.30 If the changes continue, Kyrgyzstan will

again be behind the progress that much of Eastern Europe is making to decentralize

government.

The central government in all of these states has the main interest in keeping

decision making power in their own hands. By controlling the finances, elections, and

social services of the entire state it makes it impossible for local government to have any

impact of their region. Central governments claim to be giving power to local

governments, but when they limit the budget of the local government it ensures the fact

that they will continue to be forces to rely of the central government for action.

Central Government The existing central government of a state plays an integral part in the success

level of the decentralization process. In order to accomplish any kind of decentralization, 26 “Local Government: Georgia,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=64> 27 “Local Government: Armenia,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php. 28 “Local Government: Moldova,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php. 29 “Local Government: Kyrgyzstan,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, <http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=93> 30 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 10

the support of the central government is imperative. Members of the central government

have to be committed to not only passing legislation on local government, but also need

to possess the political will to implement the reforms and programs. Attempts have been

made to strengthen the policymaking capacities in the central government of the states in

Eastern Europe because there has been limited follow through regarding passed

legislation.31 This is seen in Lithuania’s Law on the Foundation of Local Self-

government, where the principle of local self-government is given, but it was not

followed with full implementation.32 Also, the central government does not provide

training or guidance for the leaders of local governments which results in untrained and

inexperienced officials leading the new local governments. This presents many

difficulties to creating a stable and long lasting local government. All of these factors

result in confusion regarding authority and administrative hierarchy which then generates

conflicts and inefficiencies.

The financial decision making powers that remain with the central government

also provides them an extreme influence on the status of the states decentralization.

Local governments have limited financial discretion and fiscal power when it comes to

reforms and programs in their region.33 Significant financial and technical support is

required from the central government in order for local governments to create programs

and social service reforms. By under funding new programs and limiting the revenue

raising capacity for local governments, the central governments in some states ensure that

local governments can not succeed without their help. Since many of these governments

do not want the existence of a stable local government, they do not provide the necessary

support. The main interest of the central governments taking these actions is to maintain

their long standing power and inhibit decentralization.

31 “Local Governance and Decentralization in the ECIS Region,” UNDP, <http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/uploads/LG/LGD%20in%20ECIS.pdf> 32 Tamas M. Horvath. 169. 33 Ibid. 9

PhilMUN 2009 11

Albania is a state that has made many strides in recent years and can be used as an

example for other states in the region. Prime Minister of Albania, Sali Berisha, stated

that a “fruitful partnership was being established” with local governments within the

state.34 This relationship developed because the central government has been granting

local governments more power. Berisha proposed doubling the budget of local

government “in order to enable it to better serve the citizens’ interests.”35 In Albania it is

the responsibility of the local government to collect property taxes unlike other states

where the central government is still responsible for the collection of taxes. Berisha even

called for the decentralization of Tirana, the capital of Albania, by forming mini-

municipalities and giving them powers “necessary for them to meet the requests of the

citizens in their areas.”36

Active Citizens Decentralization occurs to improve the life for all the citizens of the state. Better

representation and more attainable leaders are meant to increase the standards of living

for those within the borders. The role that citizens play throughout decentralization and

establishment of local government is a large factor in the speed of decentralization and its

future success. Local community participation in decision making, the establishment of

citizens’ advisory committees and involvement in planning processes are all ways that

citizens have gotten involved the creation of a local government.37 Using these methods

allows citizens the opportunity to influence the changing political environment in their

region. Decentralization is meant to bring governance closer to the citizen, so it is

important that citizens play an active role. With a high level of involvement of citizens it

is possible for the population of a state to have a major impact in the decentralization of

their home government. Mass rallies were formed during the conflict in Kosovo for the

34 Elona Zyla, “Premier Outlines Albania’s Reforms to Head of EU Parliament Delegation,” BBC Monitoring Europe, October 11, 2007, Lexis Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 12

PhilMUN 2009 12

region to have independence and the ability to govern itself.38 The citizens of the states

in Eastern Europe are all experiencing similar situations in decentralization and the

forming of local governments. The interest of these people is for the creation of a stable

local government in which they can live and prosper.

Possible Causes Fall of Communism The living conditions of the people of Eastern Europe while living under

communist rule lead to the desire for decentralized government. The Stalinization of

Eastern Europe resulted in the communist party having complete control of political

power. With no independent political parties or meaningful elections, the needs of the

people were not being heard under communist rule in Eastern Europe.39 The concept of

individual rights was lost to the idea of the “collective interest,” leaving citizens’

concerns being unanswered by the government.40 By the late 1980s people had lost faith

in the communist system and the quality of life it provides, resulting in numerous

political revolutions. After years of centralized government and socialist states, the

people of Eastern Europe wanted the democracy of the western world and a government

that would have their best interests and biggest concerns in mind. By putting a face on

their government officials, the shift of power to local governments became a way to

prove that those interests and concerns were recognized. A large complaint from the

people under communist control was that the government did not consider their needs

when making political, economic of social decisions.41 This is why when the former

communist states created their own government multiparty systems were created, regular

and free elections on the central and local levels were held and took steps towards a

38 Carlotta Gall, “4.000 Serbs Vow to Defend Town Sector in Kosovo,” The New York Times, February 26, 2000, Lexis Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com. 39 “Life Under Communism in Eastern Europe,” Constitutional Rights Foundation, http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_1a.htm. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 13

market economy.42 In order decentralization to occur in Eastern Europe, the people had

to see the problems with communism and overcome the control. Since that time, the

states have all been making progress to decentralize and create stable local governments. Ethnic Minorities

Eastern Europe’s violent past can be linked to the large number of minority groups

that live in the region. Wars in the former Yugoslavia and Balkan region have

influenced the area and made it necessary to create local governments to end ethnic fights.

Not only did violence exist between ethnic groups, but ethnic minorities were also

receiving little attention from the government. The poor treatment of ethnic minorities in

the past led to government reform during decentralization to create local self-government

that will be fighting for the best interest of the large majority populations throughout

Eastern Europe. In 1990, Slovaks, who made up thirty-one per cent of Czechoslovakia’s

population pressed for greater autonomy from the central Government in Prague because

they felt the Czechs have always held a disproportionate amount of power.43 To rectify

the long history of unequal treatment, the Czech Republic, created the Association of

Ethnic Minorities to extend the level of participation that minority groups play in public

life.44 Actions the group takes include addressing political parties, state authorities and

supplying input of bills pertaining to minorities’ rights. Ethnic minorities in Croatia have

the opportunity to elect councils and representatives on the county, city and municipal

levels.45 The minority groups included in this election were the Bosniak, Bulgarian,

Montenegrin, Czech, Hungarian, Macedonian, Albanian, German, Roma, Slovak,

Slovene, Serb and Italian.46 In Hungary, ethnic minority groups of Roma, German,

42 Emilia Kandeva, “Stabilization of Local Governments.” Budapest: : Createch Ltd, 2001, 24. 43 Celestine Bohlen, “Evolution in Europe; Ethnic Rivalries Revive in East Europe,” The New York Times, November 12, 1990, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D7123DF931A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1> 44 “Ethnic Minorities Set Up Association to Become Recognized,” BBC Monitoring, October 12, 1999, Lexis Nexis. <www.lexisnexis.com> 45 “Croatia's ethnic minorities to vote in local elections on 15 February,” BBC Monitoring, February 12, 2004, Lexis Nexis. <www.lexisnexis.com> 46 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 14

Slovak, Croatian, Greek, and Ukrainian all have chairmen representative in minority self-

government.47 Creating government branches that support minorities was an act that

occurred in most of the states in Eastern Europe.

Inefficient Central Government In order for the people to fight for a stronger local government, the current central

government must be inefficient and unproductive. The ineffectiveness and unfairness

was seen in many facets of life in Eastern Europe. The public health system that existed

throughout the Soviet Union was available to everyone; however, the quality of care was

very limited.48 The central government did not provide the people with a health care

system that was sufficient enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Supplies including food

and home appliances were at an extreme shortage resulting in regular long lines that the

central government did nothing to diminish. Shoppers also had to pay in cash because

credit cards and bank accounts were not allowed by the government. The court system

that was created during communism was extremely ineffective and unjust. The trial

courts consisted of one professional judge and two citizens to choose a verdict. The

public prosecutors of the state acted as defenders of the state, public defenders, and

prosecutors of crimes.49 By serving in all of these roles, most public prosecutors were

not fighting in the best interest of the defendant because they were all accountable to

government officials. Defendants were charged for crimes such as failing to achieve a

factory production quota to showing open dissent to the communist party. Fair trials

were rarely seen in the courts in Eastern Europe. The inefficiencies that the people were

faced with while being controlled by a central government resulted in them wanting local

governments to have the decision making power regarding their life.

47 “Hungarian Government Suggests Minority Electoral Register to be Set Up,” BBC Monitoring, March 4, 2004, Lexis Nexis. 48 “Life Under Communism in Eastern Europe,” Constitutional Rights Foundation, < http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_1a.htm> 49 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 15

Comparison of Causes The causes of decentralization and an increase in local governance are all related.

The fall of communism resulted from the people revolting against the ineffective central

government that was controlling their lives. Without the poor conditions that existed

during communism, the citizens of the states would not have been as adamant as they

were to create local governments. The strong presence of ethnic minorities in the region

also greatly effected the fall of communism and the growth of local governments. The

wars in Yugoslavia and the Balkans regarding the status of ethnic minorities played a

great role in ending communism in that area.50 The minorities groups that fought for

greater representation played an integral part in the creation of organization on a local

level.

Projections and Implications The current status of local governments does not present a bright future for their

existence and power. If the current hostilities towards ethnic groups persist, the chance

of conflict will always be present. This atmosphere means that the strides states have

made towards decentralization can be easily rolled back. In order to avoid this outcome,

both central and local governments must make an effort to ease tensions and create a

stable environment.51 Local governments are currently too dependent on the central

government, meaning that the local governments can not function without the support of

the central government. If this relationship continues, the threat that the central

governments will mitigate the role of local governments will continue to cloud the

process of decentralization.

50 Celestine Bohlen, “Evolution in Europe; Ethnic Rivalries Revive in East Europe,” The New York Times, November 12, 1990, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D7123DF931A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1> 51 Emilia Kandeva, “Introduction to Comparative Local Government in Central and Eastern Europe: A Balkan Perspective,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, <http://lgi.osi.hu/publications/2001/81/Stab-Chapter1.pdf>

PhilMUN 2009 16

Conclusion After the fall of the Soviet Union, individual states were created and entered political

territory that they had never been in before. These states were trying to move forward and

decentralization of government was seen as the first step. States began to pass various laws that

created local governments and set out their responsibilities. However, states faced problems

when creating the local governments through legislative efforts. Central governments are often

reluctant to give local governments any power and have been restricting their advancement by

means of economic support. The Commonwealth of Independent States has been facing

particularly hard times in the effort of decentralization. Local governments have limited

decision-making power and citizens are still denied the right to participate in government. The

large ethnic minority community that is present throughout Eastern Europe also makes the need

of decentralization more pressing, but also leads to more problems. Discrimination against these

groups is present in decision-making processes. Overall, the United Nations is tasked with the

difficult responsibility of determining whether or not to support the process of decentralization if

local governments do not prove effective, knowing that decentralization only works with a

working central government but only looks to be necessary with a failing central government.

PhilMUN 2009 17

Discussion Questions - Has your state every gone through decentralization? - How do we get central governments to support decentralization? - How does the economy effect decentralization? - How do we make the existing local governments stronger? - What are ways to create local governments in states where the central

government is resisting? - What actions can citizens take to create strong local governments? - What roles do ethnic minorities play in the creation of local governments? - What political circumstances call for decentralization? - What are the best means to go about decentralization? - What has the United Nations done in the past in regard to decentralization?

PhilMUN 2009 18

For Further Reading Emilia Kandeva. “Stabilization of Local Governments.” Budapest: Createch Ltd, 2001.

“Stabilization of Local Governments”

This work examines the road that many states in Eastern Europe have taken to establish local governments. It provides a depth look in to eight states and looks at the history of each state that brought it to decentralization and how the state has handled setting up local governments. Reading this book will provide knowledge on how local governments are officially set up and what problems states face along the way.

Tamas Horbath. “Decentralization: Experiments and Reforms,” Budapest: Createch Ltd, 2000.

“Decentralization: Experiments and Reforms” looks into the varying ways different go about the process of decentralization. The different legislation that each state created is examined, and how each central government responded to the legislation and constitutional amendments. It also analyzes the different reasons that states in Eastern Europe came to the decision of decentralization.

Sinisa Malesevic, “Ideology Legitimacy and the New State: Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia,” Portland: Frank Cass, 2002. Sinisa Malesevic inspects the history of Balkan region of Eastern Europe. It goes through the history of Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Croatia and what role decentralization has played. It provides a great look in the role that conflicts play in causing decentralization and how that influences the creation of local governments.

PhilMUN 2009 19

Works Cited Bohlen,Celestine. “Evolution in Europe; Ethnic Rivalries Revive in East Europe,” The

New York Times, November 12, 1990, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9C0CE5D7123DF931A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=>

“Conference on Democracy, Decentralization and Fiscal Reform for Latin America and

Eastern Europe,” Local Governance and Public Reform Initiative, January 12, 2007, <http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?m_id=181&bid=2>

“Croatia's ethnic minorities to vote in local elections on 15 February,” BBC Monitoring,

February 12, 2004, Lexis Nexis. <www.lexisnexis.com> “Ethnic Minorities Set Up Association to Become Recognized,” BBC Monitoring,

October 12, 1999, Lexis Nexis. <www.lexisnexis.com> European Charter of Local Self-government, European Council,

<http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/122.htm> Gall, Carlotta. “4.000 Serbs Vow to Defend Town Sector in Kosovo.” The New York

Times, February 26, 2000, Lexis Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com. Horbath,Tamas. “Decentralization: Experiments and Reforms,” Budapest: Createch Ltd,

2000. “Hungarian Government Suggests Minority Electoral Register to be Set Up,” BBC

Monitoring, March 4, 2004, Lexis Nexis. Kandeva,Emilia. “Stabilization of Local Governments.” Budapest: : Createch Ltd, 2001. “Life Under Communism in Eastern Europe,” Constitutional Rights Foundation,

<http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_1a.htm> “Local Governance and Decentralization in the ECIS Region,” UNDP,

<http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/uploads/LG/LGD%20in%20ECIS.pdf> “Local Government: Armenia,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative,

http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php. “Local Government: Georgia,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative <

http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=64>

PhilMUN 2009 20

“Local Government: Kyrgyzstan,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, <http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=93>

“Local Government: Moldova,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative,

http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php “Local Government: Tajikistan,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative,

<http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=170> Rugova, Arben. “Kosovo Officials, UNMIK Reject Decentralization Plans on Ethnic

Basis,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, April 15 2004, Lexis Nexis. “Some 100,00 Attend Montenegrin Opposition Party’s Final Pre Election Rally,” BBC

Monitoring Europe, May 27, 1998, Lexis Nexis. Zyla, Elona. “Premier Outlines Albania’s Reforms to Head of EU Parliament

Delegation,” BBC Monitoring Europe, October 11, 2007, Lexis Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com.

PhilMUN 2009 21

Works Consulted Biberaj, Elez. “Albania in Transition: The Rocky Road to Democracy,” Boulder:

Westview Press, 1998. Bohlen,Celestine. “Evolution in Europe; Ethnic Rivalries Revive in East Europe,” The

New York Times, November 12, 1990, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9C0CE5D7123DF931A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=>

“Conference on Democracy, Decentralization and Fiscal Reform for Latin America and

Eastern Europe,” Local Governance and Public Reform Initiative, January 12, 2007, <http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?m_id=181&bid=2>

“Croatia's ethnic minorities to vote in local elections on 15 February,” BBC Monitoring,

February 12, 2004, Lexis Nexis. <www.lexisnexis.com> “Decentralization and Decentralized Governance for Enhancing Delivery of Services in

Transition Conditions,” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, September 28, 2006, < http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/ public/documents/un/unpan025134.pdf>

“Ethnic Minorities Set Up Association to Become Recognized,” BBC Monitoring,

October 12, 1999, Lexis Nexis. <www.lexisnexis.com> European Charter of Local Self-government, European Council,

<http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/122.htm> Gall, Carlotta. “4.000 Serbs Vow to Defend Town Sector in Kosovo.” The New York

Times, February 26, 2000, Lexis Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com. Horvath,Tamas. “Decentralization: Experiments and Reforms,” Budapest: Createch Ltd,

2000. Horvath, Tamas and Gabor Peteri, “Decentralization: Experiments and Reform in Central

and Eastern Europe,” The World Bank, < http://www.worldbank.org/html/prddr/tra /nd00jan01/pg32.htm>

“Hungarian Government Suggests Minority Electoral Register to be Set Up,” BBC

Monitoring, March 4, 2004, Lexis Nexis. Kandeva,Emilia. “Stabilization of Local Governments.” Budapest: : Createch Ltd, 2001.

PhilMUN 2009 22

“Life Under Communism in Eastern Europe,” Constitutional Rights Foundation, <

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_1a.htm> “Local Governance and Decentralization in the ECIS Region,” UNDP,

<http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/uploads/LG/LGD%20in%20ECIS.pdf> “Local Government: Armenia,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative,

http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php.

“Local Government: Georgia,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative < http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=64>

“Local Government: Kyrgyzstan,” Local Government and Public Service Reform

Initiative, <http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=93> “Local Government: Moldova,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative,

http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php “Local Government: Tajikistan,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative,

<http://lgi.osi.hu/country_datasheet.php?id=170> Malesevic, Sinisa, “Ideology Legitimacy and the New State: Yugoslavia, Serbia and

Croatia,” Portland: Frank Cass, 2002. Nelson, Daniel, “Democratic Centralism in Romania: A Study of Local Communist

Politics,” New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Rugova, Arben. “Kosovo Officials, UNMIK Reject Decentralization Plans on Ethnic

Basis,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, April 15 2004, Lexis Nexis. “Some 100,00 Attend Montenegrin Opposition Party’s Final Pre Election Rally,” BBC

Monitoring Europe, May 27, 1998, Lexis Nexis. Stan, Lavinia. “Romania in Transition.” Brookfield: Athenaeum Press Ltd, 1997. Verheijen, A.J.G., “Removing Obstacles to Effective Decentralization: Reflecting on the

Role of the Central State Authorities,” Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, < http://lgi.osi.hu/publications/2002/98/Dec-Reform-I-Ch2.pdf>

PhilMUN 2009 23

Zyla, Elona. “Premier Outlines Albania’s Reforms to Head of EU Parliament Delegation,” BBC Monitoring Europe, October 11, 2007, Lexis Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com.