Page 126 - RIMD_4
P. 126
126 R e v u ed el ’ I n s t i t u td uM o n d ee td udéveloppement
rized as a period of public administration reform discontinuance. On the
one hand, it is not strictly right because some important (in terms of state
administration) acts were approved by the National Council of the Slovak
Republic (NRSR) in 1996, however, on the other hand, from the self-go-
vernment point of view, it is quite clear that public administration reform
(and especially a qualitative reform) was not in governments’ policy mainstream.
The government’s plan in regard to continuation of public administra-
tion reform prepared in the fall of 1995 and presented to parliament in
the spring of 1996, provoked a strong criticism from the opposition parties
and representatives of various communal and regional associations. The
NRSR passed the Act on Territorial and Administrative Division on 22
March 1996. President Michal Kováč returned it to parliament for additio-
nal deliberations, objecting to, among other things, the law’s inclusion of
Bratislava in a region consisting of surrounding towns and villages, which
would clearly dilute the political independence of the country’s capital. The
president’s objections did not change any views in parliament, and the act
was passed without a change on 3 July 1996. The Act on the Organization
of Local State Administration abolished or amended dozens of acts and
government decrees, and replaced 448 first-tier and 128 second-tier organs
of local state administration with 8 regional authorities and 79 district
authorities. The original text of its draft, prepared by the Ministry of the
Interior, was accompanied by a great number of objections – not only from
self-government representatives but from the central government itself
(Nižňanský, 1998a, p. 48). Final versions of both mentioned acts concen-
trated political power especially in the hands of the central government. In
retrospective Nižňanský (1998b) emphasized that the year 1996 could, in
terms of public administration reform, be evaluated as a year of definitive
deviation from original conceptions regarding decentralization of society
that had occurred in the very early 1990s. State administration was streng-
thened to the prejudice of territorial self-administration which became
evident particularly in regional policy.
Tendency of strengthening of state administration, especially in the period
of years 1994-1998, resulted from political situation or more precisely from
the government’s policy. This tendency can be proved for example by the
number of central state administration staff, that was increased from 4735
civil servants in 1993 to 8022 civil servants in 1998.
In comparison to that, territorial self-government, or more precisely Slovak
communities were in very difficult situation in the mid-1990s. According
to the Analysis of Status and Development… (1995):
– Although a holding of state budget on GDP increased within the period
of 1990-1994 to 10-14 percent, a holding of local government budgets on
GDP decreased within the same period from more than 21 percent to less
than 5 percent.
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
rized as a period of public administration reform discontinuance. On the
one hand, it is not strictly right because some important (in terms of state
administration) acts were approved by the National Council of the Slovak
Republic (NRSR) in 1996, however, on the other hand, from the self-go-
vernment point of view, it is quite clear that public administration reform
(and especially a qualitative reform) was not in governments’ policy mainstream.
The government’s plan in regard to continuation of public administra-
tion reform prepared in the fall of 1995 and presented to parliament in
the spring of 1996, provoked a strong criticism from the opposition parties
and representatives of various communal and regional associations. The
NRSR passed the Act on Territorial and Administrative Division on 22
March 1996. President Michal Kováč returned it to parliament for additio-
nal deliberations, objecting to, among other things, the law’s inclusion of
Bratislava in a region consisting of surrounding towns and villages, which
would clearly dilute the political independence of the country’s capital. The
president’s objections did not change any views in parliament, and the act
was passed without a change on 3 July 1996. The Act on the Organization
of Local State Administration abolished or amended dozens of acts and
government decrees, and replaced 448 first-tier and 128 second-tier organs
of local state administration with 8 regional authorities and 79 district
authorities. The original text of its draft, prepared by the Ministry of the
Interior, was accompanied by a great number of objections – not only from
self-government representatives but from the central government itself
(Nižňanský, 1998a, p. 48). Final versions of both mentioned acts concen-
trated political power especially in the hands of the central government. In
retrospective Nižňanský (1998b) emphasized that the year 1996 could, in
terms of public administration reform, be evaluated as a year of definitive
deviation from original conceptions regarding decentralization of society
that had occurred in the very early 1990s. State administration was streng-
thened to the prejudice of territorial self-administration which became
evident particularly in regional policy.
Tendency of strengthening of state administration, especially in the period
of years 1994-1998, resulted from political situation or more precisely from
the government’s policy. This tendency can be proved for example by the
number of central state administration staff, that was increased from 4735
civil servants in 1993 to 8022 civil servants in 1998.
In comparison to that, territorial self-government, or more precisely Slovak
communities were in very difficult situation in the mid-1990s. According
to the Analysis of Status and Development… (1995):
– Although a holding of state budget on GDP increased within the period
of 1990-1994 to 10-14 percent, a holding of local government budgets on
GDP decreased within the same period from more than 21 percent to less
than 5 percent.
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
