| 
The Local Self Government System
in Slovenia with the
emphasis on the Local Authorities and relations between them
by Miro Hacek
The Slovenian Local Self Government
System Before the Reform
Slovenia has developed three forms of self-government in medieval
cities, firstly in the littoral cities and afterwards in the
hinterlands, where new cities developed at the communication
crossroads. The littoral part was mostly influenced by Venetian
republic, which already in the 13th century carried authority
over the majority of Istrian and Dalmatian cities. It is characteristic
for the old littoral cities that they have developed relatively
strong self-government, completely got rid of feudal authority
of landholders and established their own administration. This
was the administration of wealthy citizens, who came to power
by gaining agrarian property. This was a municipal self-government.
The littoral cities have been governed by their own written
statutory law. The statutes were extensive written notes on
municipal rights, resumed on the basis of actual practice of
municipal agencies or their resolutions.Continental cities and
market towns developed like elsewhere in Europe at the mercantile
crossroads. Markets gained the right to periodical fairs. The
principal characteristic of the city was the right to permanent
performance of mercantile business. The establishment of the
city meant also granting the right to the status of the city
and the right to begin with building mercantile settlement.
The holders of self-government in the cities were of course
only wealthy citizens and merchants. The self-government of
the continental cities was modest in comparison with littoral
cities; continental cities mostly have not possessed the statutory
law but only privileged law. The privileges were issued by city
lord. Modest origins of local self-government were also developed
in countryside; this was a village self-government, developed
on the basis of common economic necessities of the then serf
village. Medieval self-government was suppressed by the state
absolutism, which in the 18th century spread its administrative
organisation all over the state territory and by this clashed
with feudal lords on the one hand and autonomy of the cities
on the other. In the region of old Austria there were established
'kresije' as state administrative units, and within them there
were districts and later also municipalities as the lowest units
of absolutist state. These units had no right to self-government.
In Austria, political self-governmental municipalities were
introduced as late as 1948. New municipalities gained self-government
regarding municipal property, concern regarding the security
of inhabitants and property, concern regarding municipal roads
etc. At the same time, some state affairs were transferred from
the state to municipality. Municipal principals received new
title: a mayor. As early as 1866 the municipalities were reformed
on the basis of the new law on municipalities. The stated Austrian
arrangement permitted relatively strong self-government. The
municipal agencies were voted, the municipalities were granted
special resources of incoming. In the First Yugoslavia, the
local self-government was organised according to the stated
Austrian pattern until the adoption of 'Vidov-day' constitution
(adopted on the St. Vitus's name day) in 1921. The following
three-level local self-government was anticipated: at municipality
level, district level and governmental level. The district self-government
was never introduced since the districts functioned only as
a state's administrative districts. The authorities functioned
as state and as self-governmental agencies until the introduction
of dictatorship in 1931, when banat provinces replaced them.
The latter were also of double nature: state and self-governmental.
The ban's province self-government was expressed in a special
budget and public servants. However, they did not have elected
representatives; all issues were handled by ban with his council.
For this reason, the actual self-government was performed only
at the municipal level. The rise of socialist Yugoslavia was
a fundamental turning point in the political system of the state
as well as the local self-government. The state Yugoslavia came
under Soviet zone and consequently in the sphere of Soviet political
arrangement.This was the moment of Slovenia's separation, not
only from the local self-governmental model of that time but
also from the classic European idea of local self-government
in general. There was no room for local self-government in the
European sense in the Soviet model, although there were some
agencies of authority in the local units as well. This model
of state's authority, which was in fact only a surface of omnipotent
Communist party, was based on the principle of unified authority.
This principle functioned in a horizontal sense (in relation
to legislation, the executive and judicature) as well as vertical
sense, in relation between the central state administration
and local self-government. The authority was monolithic and
strictly subordinated to central state's agencies and local
authorities were only branches of central authority at the local
level.
After the 1948 Yugoslavia tried to gain independence from the
Soviet model and introduced as leading the idea of socialism
in the self-government. The self-government system enabled Yugoslavia,as
the only socialist country, to introduce market system of economy
and certain autonomy of local community. The municipality was
defined as basic unit of society,where citizens could perform
all their common matters, in so far as they were not performed
by central authority. With time the local self-government was
supposed to develop into self-governmental community of citizens.
This idea in practice deteriorated into its contrast, since
the municipality has not prevailed over the state but vice versa
- the state prevailed over the municipalities. The state has
burdened municipalities with tasks to such an extent that they
were forced to change their territorial and functional image.There
were 62 communities (municipalities) established in Slovenia
with an average area of 330km2 and with something more than
32.000 residents; the average community was therefore 3 times
larger than the current average Slovenian municipality. It was
estimated that municipal organs of state character carried out
85% of affairs. Municipality therefore represented mainly a
first degree of state administration. Local tasks were transmitted
to local collectives, although they were poor substitute of
municipal self-government, since their organisation was closer
to the voluntary societies of citizens than the organised local
communities. Local collectives were mainly financed by themselves
and with various self-imposed contributions, which were usually
not enough even for basis needs. Performing local tasks, which
should be basic concern of municipal self-government, was thus
shoved aside, since local communities were not able to carry
out them and municipalities were far too distant, dealing mainly
with issues of state importance. However, municipalities did
have a certain level of self-government. They had their own
representative organs, elected through general elections and
secret ballots and also their own executive organs, which were
relatively independent, being only slightly connected with state
organs. Municipal system was therefore something between state
administration and local self-government; the issues of state
administration and of local self-government were performed according
to the same regime and were inseparable mixed among themselves.
Gaining independence of Slovenia and introduction of parliamentary
democracy thus represented a new beginning also in the field
of local self-government.
The local government is mentioned already in the introductory
provisions of Constitutionof RS, since the 9th Article of the
Constitution states that, "local government is assured
in Slovenia". According to the Constitution of RS, residents
in municipalities and other local communities perform the local
self-government. The Constitution of RS introduced a municipality
with modest working field, limited to local issues. Let me present
in short the development of the reform
The Reform of the Slovenian Local
Self Government System
The introduction of a new system of local government in Slovenia
meant an essential and deep modification of a system of local
government, which was from the first reform after the admission
of a new Slovenian constitution in 1991, essentially different
than other comparable modern European regulations. The introduction
of a new local government system deeply intervened in a past
regulation. Accordingly, not only the context and situation
of local government in that time had changed, but also the nature
of relationship between the state and the local level. The introduction
of the new local government system meant a transformation and
actual replacement of the system with a new, essentially different
one. This has caused many difficulties in understanding and
adapting to a new system. In the previous system of local government,
a municipality had covered far too many national (particularly
administrative) public duties, but at the other hand it has
also been relatively independent from the state, having also
an important position in the local economy. The new system of
local government demanded a new regulation with an emphasis
on public administration regulation and the delegation of all
national administrative tasks, which had until then been attended
to the municipalities, back to the national level of administration
(the introduction of the administrative units come into force).
The whole process of installing new local self-government system
clearly faced many problems. One of them was a lack of interest
among political parties regarding the project of the new system
and consequently absolute absence of the political consensus
on the issue. Since the project of the new local self-government
system of local government was also the project of societal
changes, the political consensus on the issue would have been
essential if not even necessary. The legislation, adopted after
many implications, was a result of political compromise, where
the prevalence of the idea, that the state ought to protect
one of the elementary questions about the municipalities, especially
their position, relationship to the state and the financing,
had dominated. From today's point of view it could be argued,
that these questions are less particular and qualitative regulated
than in a majority of European states.
Preparation for the local elections in 1994 had coincided
with the deduction of the local self-government reform, which
repeatedly meant introduction of the classical local government,
based on a strong differentiation of local competence's on the
one hand and national competence on the other. The local government
reform had two main goals: firstly, to enable the population
of each local community the active co-operation in solving questions
of local importance. Secondly, to achieve as big efficiency
as possible and to rationalise the making of the local level
power. According to this, the reduction of the past number of
municipalities had been stopped. That kind of municipalities
were much bigger than the average European municipality and
were formed according to the principle of self-regulated state,
which had burdened an average Slovene municipality to a such
an extend, that the latter almost got suffocated under the burden
of the issues from the national state competence, which the
municipality was forced to perform.1 The reduction of the territorial
circumference would consequently mean forming municipalities
according to the wishes and needs of the local population and
also according to the experiences of the states with longer
tradition of local government. From the beginning, the reform
was seen as one of the most important project in a process of
democratisation of the whole political system and was, accordingly,
put next to the process of privatisation. For the fulfilment
of so important project, a consensus on a political level would
be very helpful, but it turned out, that the interests of the
political parties in the project were relatively low. Only the
professional discussions were held quite for a long term; political
parties have more seriously been engaged in the reform of local
government later, when the legislation on a local election had
started to prepare, this is due to their recognition that they
would gain even more power and influence on the distribution
of political forces with the remaking of former municipalities.
The political parties have seen the formation of new municipalities
in the light of their own interests and images about the necessary
changes. Some parties were unsatisfied with the reinstated relations
of social power at the national level. Consequently they have
estimated that they have too little power at this level, also
due to the objective smaller cadre potentials occupying the
highest positions. They tried to change the unfavourable situation
in the context of new municipalities.This statement is quite
valid especially for the new parties (such as Slovenian Christian
Democrats, Slovenian Peoples Party, Slovenian Social Democratic
Party). Instead of political consensus, many conflicts between
the parties emerged, preventing the selection of professionally
founded and rational solutions.
Final solution was a political compromise. Some parties were
in favour of segmentation of municipalities; others on the contrary
spoke in favour of keeping the existing structures according
to their better organisational situation in rural and urban
environment. Accordingly differentially big municipalities were
founded (from that with about 400 inhabitants to the two big
municipalities with more than 100.000 inhabitants). From 147
new municipalities, 11 of them were special city communities,
which have broader competence's than ordinary municipalities.
Since the first democratic local elections in new municipalities,
a list of defectiveness was shown and the Parliament adopted
new legislation on a process for the foundation of municipalities
and the definition of their territory in 1996. It also mended
and completed the legislation on a local government.2 According
to the existing legislationn 3, the whole process of the foundation
of the municipalities is divided into three stages. The first
is a transitional stage (establishing the will for the foundation
of new municipalities), the second is a process of adopting
legislation; and the final is a process of founding municipalities.
The Parliament is the only body, which could found or changed
a municipality or its territory. Few months before the elections
in 1998, the Parliament of Republic Slovenia also started the
procedure for the foundation of 46 new municipalities and the
modification of the territory of the old municipalities. However,
the characteristics of the procedure have not essentially changed
despite the rearranged and accomplished legislation. Complete
prevalence of political parties in local interest is shown again
and even more rough violation of the legislation standards for
the foundation of the new municipalities. Finally, there were
45 municipalities added to the existing 147 and consequently
second local elections after the implementation of the local
self-government reform were held in 192 municipalities.
The Local Self Government System
in Sloveneia Today
There are 192 municipalities in Slovenia today, with average
area of 105km2 and with approximately 10.300 residents. The
organisation of municipality as a basic unit of local self-government
is prejudiced in the Constitution of RS and in greater detail
in The Local Self-government Act as an umbrella act in the field.
The image of municipality is of course not defined only by its
territory but by its functional content. Both elements; territory
and function; are connected and interdependent: a significant
number of tasks requires an extensive territory, and smaller
local communities are not able to perform various extensive
tasks. Working field of Slovenian community is limited to local
issues; tasks which fall within the competence of the state
can be transmitted to community, if in accordance with municipality
and on condition that the state assures the financial resources.
4
This constitutional and legal formulation means modest municipality
and sharp distinction between municipality (and consequently
local self-government) and the state. As in the majority of
countries of continental Europe, the formulation of the 140th
Article ofthe Constitution of RS includes legal presumption
about universal competence of municipalities regarding the local
issues. However, the legislator has determined in detail all
tasks of municipalities in the law. Resuming the provisions
regarding the municipal tasks, defined in the Constitution of
RS and The Local self-government Act, it can be ascertained
that Slovenian municipalities have only one sort of tasks: those,
which belong in the frame of local issues and are in the original
competence of municipality.
Municipal Organs and Services
In Slovenia municipal organs are municipal council, mayor and
supervisory committee. Municipal council is elected representative
organ of the municipality with general competence for decision-making
regarding the issues from the frame of rights and obligations
of municipality. It is a holder of entire decision-making in
the competence of municipality. The authorisation of the mayor,
who leads meetings of the council and executes its decisions,
does not limit the competence of municipal council, because
mayor performs tasks, not being in the competence of municipal
council as a representative organ. However, municipal council
is not a sort of local parliament, since legislative competence
within the local community does not exist.The council is competent
for passing statute of municipality, decrees and other municipal
documents, regional and other plans of municipal development,
municipal budget and final account; for giving consensus to
the transformation of tasks from state competence to municipality;
for deciding upon gaining and alienation of theproperty; for
controlling the work of mayor, deputy mayor and municipal administration;
for appointing and relieving from duty deputy mayor etc. Municipal
council is composed of 7 to 45 members elected for four years.
The size of municipal council is determined by the number of
residents in municipality; in this manner the smallest municipalities
have 7 members and the largest 45 members. In the smallest municipalities,
the members are elected according to majority system and the
rest according to proportional system. Professional and administrative
work for the members of the council and their working bodies
is assured by municipal administration, to be presented later
in a text. The members of municipal council perform their function
as amateurs, and membership is also not consistent with other
functions in municipal administration. However, this does not
go for state functions.
Municipal councillor (and also mayor) may be in this respect
also a member of Slovenian parliament. Supervisory committee
is a somewhat obsolete institution for exercising control over
the use of municipal resources. Its task is to control the use
of municipal property, purpose and expediency of expenditures
covered by budgetary resources and control financial operations
of the budgetary users. The members of the committee are appointed
by municipal council and cannot be employed in this function.
However, this function is not consistent with the functions
of mayor, deputy mayor or member of municipal council. Court
of Financial Inquiry and other similar expert institutions exercises
the role of supervisory committee. The very important municipal
organ is also a mayor. According to the extent of rights, duties
and competence, it cannot be compared with its famous predecessor
the mayor of French type, known in numerous European regulations.
Slovenian mayor is not a representative of the state in municipality
and therefore he does not enjoy a protection of the state in
relation to the municipal council, as in the case of other European
mayors. The mayor is also an executive organ of municipality.
He is elected at direct elections according to two-round majority
elective system for mandate period of four years and presents
and represents a municipality. Mayor has also a proposing right
on the basis of which he submits to the municipal council proposals
to adopt the budget, final account decrees and other documents
in the competence of municipal council. Mayor convenes and leads
sessions of municipal council. As an executive organ he takes
care of announcement and execution of decisions adopted by municipal
council. Decrees and other municipal documents can also be submitted
by any other member of municipal council, except the budgetand
final account. Mayor is also a guardian of legitimacy and can
hold back an announcement of council's decree if being convinced
that it is illegal or unconstitutional. Since he is elected
at direct elections, he is primary responsible to voters and
not municipal council. The mayor's most important task is to
lead municipal administration. He defines systematisation of
labour posts in administration; makes decisions about appointments
and labour contracts of the employed in municipal administration.
Mayor is also an organ of instance in administrative issues
from (original) municipal competence. At the first degree, municipal
administration board makes the decisions about these issues.
Regarding the issues from a transmitted municipal competence,
a complaint goes to the competent ministry. The importance of
mayor does not originate so much from his competence than from
the position, which rests on: circumstance that he is elected
at direct elections and regarding his mandate, he does not depend
on municipal council, and that according to the law he is not
responsible for executing his tasks neither to municipal council
nor to any other organ inside or outside municipality and voters
are not able to recall him. In this respect mayor is intangible
through the whole mandate, meaning that with administration
under his conduct, he can execute his own policy through the
whole mandate irrespective of council's policy and decisions.
While he has to execute council's decisions, he cannot be forced
to do it so. Municipal council has in its hands decrees and
other general documents, and especially budget, by which it
can frame mayor's activities; municipal council can put pressure
to mayor by delaying his proposals and by delaying adoption
of budget. However, the municipal council is the one who is
mainly dependent on mayor, since it cannot independently adopt
some of the key documents, to be proposed by mayor solely. This
is a case of a sort of dualism in municipal administration.
Such an arrangement does not suit general definition of municipal
council as a representative body, supposed to be a holder of
administration in municipality. In reality, as expected many
blockades take place in municipal administration, due to a party
character of parliamentary democracy and also local self-government.
In this context some interesting cases of cohabitation occur;
on the one side there is a mayor from one political block and
on the other side the majority of municipal council belongs
to other political block. Such arrangement in its basis obstructs
effective municipal administration and execution of its tasks.
Consequently, there are present some solutions in Slovenian
expert public, according to which a mayor would be elected in
the municipal council, which would also have some more competence
than today. Let us look at the municipal council once more.
On the one side it depends on competence of municipality and
even more on its extent and abilities to organise and finance
administration. In smaller municipalities administration cannot
be organised according to competence principle, while bigger
municipalities do have administration organised according to
this principle and have thus formed several administrative organs.
Thus in smaller municipalities there are only three or four
administrative organs: mayor's office, organ for economic public
services, organ for social public services, financial office
and necessary subsidiary services. In this respect, the law
presupposes common municipal administration for several municipalities.
Despite some organisational difficulties, common administrative
organs are suitable solution. Such solution is included also
in German and Austrian arrangement and also in the French one.5
Organs that compose municipal administration are established
by municipal council upon the proposal of mayor and makes a
decision regarding its internal structure and working field.
Organs of municipal administration are directed and controlled
by mayor and directly led by director of municipal administration.
The director is appointed and released by mayor. Neighbour municipalities
can decide to establish one or more organs of common municipal
administration. Such organ is led by principal, who is appointed
and released by mayors of municipalities, which established
the organ of common municipal administration. Before the reform
of local self-government (1.1.1994), there were 6.520 employed
persons in municipalities (not taking functionaries into account).
By the 1.1.1995, 4.680 of them went over to state administrative
units and the rest (1.840 or 28,2% of all employed persons within
the old municipalities) stayed in the newly organised municipalities.
In the next few years, the number of employed rapidly increased,
and by the 1.1.1997 it reached 2.892 workers and additional
336 professional and 210 unprofessional functionaries. Introduction
of local self-government also meant simultaneous reorganisation
of state administration. The state took over all administrative
tasks and competence in the fields for which it had competent
ministries. However, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia intervened,
taking up the position that regarding the issues, which in their
nature do not exceed the local meaning, a competence of municipality
also includes authoritative decision making.6 Reorganisation
of the state administration started in Slovenia with executing
The State Administration Act. Administrative units with headquarter
in previous municipalities were established. Administrative
units exercise administrative tasks defined by the law, which
due to the nature or the way of work demand deconcentrative
administration. The case of administrative units does not belong
to the field of local self-government, but to the lowest level
of state administration. Region of administrative units comprises
several municipalities, however municipal borders and borders
of administrative units are not always adjusted, and consequently
it may happen that one community is parcelled out into two or
more administrative units.
With the transition to the new system, the citizens could perform
their administrative issues without difficulties, although many
of them still do not understand the division between the state
and local self-government. The basic competence of administrative
units is making decisions regarding the administrative issues
from the state competence at the first degree. Although the
implementation of the reform happened five years ago, the relation
between the state and local self-government is still re-establishing
and the competence is still not ultimately divided. Slovenia
is thus in the middle of the process of consolidating local
self-government system and in front of a new challenge: establishment
of districts, which would also be administrative districts.The
latter is one of the main tasks in the field of local self-government
in the first two years of the new millennium. However, the trend,
already noticed at re-establishing new municipalities, is noticeable
again; a loud debate within the expert circles, no public debates
and no political interest. That is why I am afraid that the
process of establishing and consolidating districts and administrative
districts will be present throughout the first half of decade
in the new millennium.
End Notes
1 It is estimated that the average Slovenian municipality did
80% of the tasks that werein the original domain of the state
before the reform of the local government, and soonly 20% of
the resources remained for the tasks of local importance.
2 The major changes were held on the relation legislative bodies
of municipalities, municipal council and executive organ, a
mayor domain, where the latter got bigger competencies.
3. It is about the legislative act on the procedure for the
formation of the new municipalities and the definition of their
territory (Uradni list RS 56/98).
4 The Constitution of RS (140. Article) and The Local self-government
Act.
5 Austrian and German arrangement (administrative communities
of municipalities, purpose association of municipalities) and
French arrangement (unions of municipalities).
6 Consequently municipalities regained some competence from
the field of traffic, arranging settlements and other interventions
in the region, housing and some others.
References
Grad Franci. 1998. Lokalna demokracija - organizacija in volitve.
Ljubljana. Casopisni zavod Uradni list RS.
Smidovnik Janez. 1995. Lokalna samouprava. Ljubljana. Cankarjeva
zalozba. Vlaj Stane. 1998.
Lokalna samouprava (obcine in pokrajine). Ljubljana. FDV.
Zajc Drago. 1995. Cilji preoblikovanja lokalne samouprave in
rezultati volitevv: Projekt "Vpliv volilnih sistemov na
sestavo in delovanje predstavniskih teles", Lokalne volitve
1994 in njihov pomen za stabilizacijo politicnega strankarskega
prostora v Sloveniji - Fazno porocilo za leto 1994. Ljubljana.FDV,
Institut za druzbene vede, Center za politoloske raziskave (razmnozeno).
Other Sources
Results of Slovenian electoral commissions for
local elections in 1994 and 1998.
Local election law (Uradni list RS, st.72/93, 7/94, 33/94,
61/95, 70/95).
Law about foundation of municipalities (Uradni list RS, st.60/94,
69/94 in 56/98).
Law of local self-government (Uradni list RS, st.72/93, 14/95,
24/98).
Data from Slovenian statistical office; database for years
1998 and 1999.
|
