Decentralization in Armenia
The decentralization of Armenia after its independence is an ongoing process. For the declaration of independence from the USSR on September 21, 1991, the inherited Soviet administrative structures represented a significant obstacle to innovations. In addition, the ethnic-territorial conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh with neighboring Azerbaijan put a strain on the dynamism of the reformist forces and thus delayed important reforms.
Ambiguities regarding the division and delimitation of responsibilities between the central government in Yerevan and the local governments still exist today. A double or triple subordination of the executive, for example, not only represents a bureaucratic hurdle, but also puts a financial burden on the smaller communities of Armenia. Joining the Council of Europe and the associated alignment with European standards brought a new impetus to the process of decentralization, which even more than a decade after independence does not seem to have been completed.
Soviet legacy
As a union republic of the Soviet Union, Armenia was divided into 37 administrative districts ("Raions"). Together with the 10 districts of the capital Erevan and the 22 larger cities, these formed the middle administrative level. They were directly subordinate to the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic , which in turn was subordinate in its competencies to the headquarters in Moscow. In this hierarchical competence pyramid, the local authorities represented the lowest members of the administration, whose powers were tailored to the bare minimum.
The lowest level of administration in independent Armenia thus had no tradition of local self-government and had few opportunities to train suitable specialists. There was a lack of professional qualifications, which was made more difficult by the lack of dedicated regulations and financial incentives for skilled workers in the province. The financial capacity of the communities was very small; In 2002, its expenditures amounted to only 6.8 percent of the total state budget of Armenia. Administrative competence therefore had to remain in the hands of central institutions in the immediate subsequent phase of Armenia's independence.
Reorganization of the administration
The dissolution of the autonomy competences of the regional administrations can be seen as the first step towards decentralization. Thus the municipal level is now the only administrative level that is autonomous, at least in theory. With this step, Armenia moved furthest away from the Soviet model compared with the other South Caucasian states Azerbaijan and Georgia, because in these the Soviet model was largely adopted and only linguistically adapted.
The regions as well as the urban and rural communities remained the only administrative units in Armenia. In contrast to the Soviet model, there is no legal difference between urban and rural communities; the status-related differences are nominal. Armenia was divided into 10 regions ( Martians ), to which the 11th capital Yerevan comes, which also has the status of a region. Each region was made up of two to five former Soviet counties.
Lower management level
The basic units of the lower administrative level represent 931 municipalities, which almost reflects the total number of settlements in Armenia. A return to the historically evolved settlement structure of the country was chosen. Even in determining the status of the units as urban or rural communities, idiosyncratic approaches were taken: what a city should be was not determined based on the number of inhabitants, but based on the location and tradition of a community. Dastakert with a population of over 600 people (1989) was first established in the 12th / 13th It is mentioned in a document in the 19th century and is recognized as a city, while Achurjan (over 10,000 inhabitants) , for example, has the status of a rural community. However, as mentioned earlier, the differences are nominal. Urban and rural communities enjoy equal rights.
Because of their small size, smaller municipalities in particular have to rely on cooperation with other municipalities or with private companies. This cooperation at the lowest administrative level can be seen as a tool for decentralization. At the same time, the large number of communities alleviates any ethnic or religious conflicts and thus contributes to a certain stability.
According to the “Law on Local Self-Government”, the municipal council, which is directly elected by the population of the municipality and consists of at least five members, makes decisions. The head of the municipal council then carries out this. The extremely low turnout in local elections, which has so far been less than 50 percent, indicates a weak local awareness. A survey in 2005 found that only 60 percent of the population (outside Erevan) were aware of the activities of their municipal representatives.
Middle management level
The functions of the regional administration are limited to the implementation of the regional policy of the government in Yerevan and state control in the form of legal supervision. Their representatives are not elected but appointed by the President. The regional administration is therefore absolutely dependent on the central government, both systematically and personally. It does not form an autonomous administrative unit. The lack of an autonomous middle state level distinguishes Armenia as a unitary state. The competencies between local and central administration overlap and influence one another.
Division into eleven Marser ( provinces / regions )
- Aragazotn (Արագածոտնի մարզ) , capital Ashtarak (Աշտարակ)
- Ararat (Արարատի մարզ), capital Artaschat (Արտաշատ)
- Armavir (Արմավիրի մարզ), capital Armavir (Արմավիր)
- Gegharkunik (Գեղարքունիքի մարզ), capital Gawar (Գավառ)
- Kotajk (Կոտայքի մարզ), capital Hrasdan (Հրազդան)
- Lori (Լոռու մարզ), capital Vanadzor (Վանաձոր)
- Shirak (Շիրակի մարզ), capital Gyumri (Գյումրի)
- Sjunik (Սյունիքի մարզ), capital Kapan (Կապան)
- Tavush (Թավուշի մարզ), capital Ijevan (Իջեւան)
- Vayots Dzor Province (Վայոց Ձորի մարզ), capital Yeghegnadzor (Եղեգնաձոր)
- Yerevan (Երևան) (since referendum in 2005: status of a municipality)
Upper administrative level
The relationship of dependency between the local administration and the highest level in the sense of the unitary state is, at best, partial. The authority of the central government affects the interests of the community in more than 20 areas and thus affects the decision-making authority of the local administrative structures.
Politically-managed decentralization
The “Law on Local Self-Government” defines the scope of political, administrative and fiscal decentralization in Armenia. Since joining the Council of Europe in 2001, there has been a noticeable increase in the will to align with European standards. The main focus here is on the “ European Charter of Local Self-Government ”, which provides for a clear separation of the communal tasks between the upper and lower levels.
In this respect, for example, the powers of the Armenian municipalities with regard to the provision of public goods and services are limited to the municipal provision of the same. The broad field of the social sector remains in the hands of the central government. Compared to the CIS , the municipalities of Armenia have relatively few powers. One reason for this is certainly the strongly unitarian conception of the state. In fact, the many small communities would be overwhelmed with the tasks. In many cases, municipal capacities are hardly sufficient to take on the mandatory powers. In some areas, a recentralization can already be observed.
Web links
- Decentralization in the Transition Economies: Challenges and the Road Ahead. ( Memento of May 25, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Worldbank, 2001.
literature
- Gebhard Reul: Decentralization in Armenia. In: Geographical Rundschau. Volume 58, No. 3, Westermann Verlag 2006, pp. 57-63.
- E. Danielyan: Local elections expose weakness of Armenian civil society . In: Eurasia Daily Mirror. September 30, 2005.