Over the past year, Uzbekistan has taken critical steps to redefine its local governance system. Last year’s constitutional revision marked a fundamental shift toward decentralization. The transformation of local governance is central to the “Uzbekistan 2030” strategy, which envisions a responsive and empowered local governance. A recent presidential decree prioritizes enhancing the local kengashes (councils) as the “real voice of the people.”
Although such efforts attest to the overhaul of Uzbekistan’s existing system, broader questions regarding how to best approach the reform persist. Should local kengashes operate as genuine local government bodies or stay as an extension of state power in localities? What role should hokims, the local executive, take in the new local governance framework? The current reform agenda does not seem to address these fundamental questions.
Historically, the local governance model of Uzbekistan reflected a Soviet-style centralized system that combined executive and representation into single local authority, the hokim. This model prevailed into Uzbekistan’s independence as it served the agenda of the central government. In its essence, the system aimed to ensure effective implementation of state policy at the local level rather than promote local autonomy. The recent constitutional reforms aimed to move on from this model and create a well-defined separation of powers at the local level.
Defining the core purpose of local governance in Uzbekistan’s unitary state framework is important. The literature on post-Soviet countries distinguishes between two primary types of local authority: state administration at the local level, which executes centralized policies; and local self-governance, which enables communities to manage their own affairs with some degree of state interference. Many post-Soviet states have exhibited a misbalance of these two types of authorities in local governance in favor of centralized control.
Uzbekistan has a unique opportunity to address the issue of local governance head-on by designing a model that respects the demands of both the central authority and local communities.
Determining the Role of Local Kengashes
As Uzbekistan attempts to find its way through the local governance reform process, a key dilemma remains: should local kengashes transform into self-governing bodies like municipal councils or retain their de facto status as representative bodies of state authority with powers on local decision-making? These two pathways have particularly far-reaching implications for the governance of both local structures and societal functions in Uzbekistan.
Three main types of local governance in the international arena provide lessons for Uzbekistan: the Anglo-Saxon, continental, and Soviet models. The Anglo-Saxon model, followed in the U.S. and U.K., gives local authorities greater independence, limiting centralized control to legal and economic regulation. The continental model, as in France, mixes independence with accountability, usually through a central government-designated official (the prefect in France). The Soviet model, in use by states such as China, Vietnam, and North Korea and partially preserved in some former Soviet Republics, emphasizes centralized control, where local authorities implement national mandates under strict supervision.
If Uzbekistan pursues a local governance model akin to the Anglo-Saxon model, where kengashes become independent local government bodies, their function will shift from implementing state directives to pushing for locally adopted agendas based on community needs. Such a change would create a decentralized structure similar to EU member states, where local government bodies operate autonomously as long as they comply with national law. Yet, pursuing this level of independence requires more than just legislative change.
Alternatively, maintaining the state-centric nature of local kengashes while incorporating elements of self-governance could ensure that central policies align with local needs without relinquishing control. In this model, kengashes would continue to represent the state at the local level but with enhanced powers to address unique community issues. This middle-ground approach to local governance under the hokim’s oversight, akin to the French “prefect” model, may be more immediately feasible for Uzbekistan, given the long legacy of centralized governance. Nevertheless, it would require a precise legal framework to delineate the boundaries of authority and prevent the kengash from remaining a mere extension of the central government.
Uzbekistan’s historical alignment with the Soviet model left a legacy of centralized governance. Although the Anglo-Saxon model’s emphasis on local autonomy might inspire policymakers, the French model’s balance of local freedom with central oversight could provide a more pragmatic approach. Adopting the continental model would allow the central government to retain a degree of oversight while empowering local kengashes to better address specific local needs.
Addressing Structural Challenges
To establish a sustainable model of local governance, the entire legal and administrative framework should be consistent. The recent reforms have set a promising foundation, but substantial gaps remain in defining the specific powers and limitations of local kengashes. Without clear parameters, there is a risk that kengashes could become overburdened with administrative responsibilities or, conversely, lack sufficient authority to enact meaningful change.
Additionally, the hokim’s role must be clearly defined. Should hokims primarily operate as state executive bodies with limited local accountability, or be viewed and act primarily as local representatives who answer to the kengash, and in turn to their communities? In the continental model, the prefects oversee local governmental actions to ensure conformity with national interests but without necessarily direct intervention. Uzbekistan has an opportunity to combine these two approaches, allowing regional hokims to be the representatives of the central government while respecting districts as units in which local interests take precedence.
A robust framework for administrative justice could also enhance the local autonomy of kengashes. Providing legal recourse for local kengashes to challenge unlawful state interference would empower them and foster a culture of legal autonomy. The 1985 European Charter of Local Self-Government offers a valuable precedent in this respect, underscoring the importance of judicial recourse as a pillar of local self-governance.
The Path Forward
Reform of local governance in Uzbekistan is not only a reorganization of the structure; it means that the government may change its philosophy on local governance. The government’s commitment to creating “strong kengash, accountable and proactive hokim” reflects a desire for a balanced system where the kengash operates as a true representative body of a local community while the hokim ensures that state policies are effectively implemented.
Authentic reform will require an enduring investment in local institutional capacity. The reform of decentralization necessitates the training of officials, establishing unambiguous guidelines about who is allowed to make decisions on what and at which level, as well as nurturing an accountability culture. Just as crucial is developing the public awareness to understand what local government functions exist and why, and fostering community participation in them so kengashes become not just a voice of the people but also the keepers of their interests.
In short, as Uzbekistan embarks on this journey of local governance reform, the central government should understand that decentralization does not compromise state unity or weaken governance structures. By embracing a balanced approach that empowers kengashes without undermining central oversight, Uzbekistan can foster a resilient and responsive local governance system.