Page 133 - RIMD_4
P. 133
133
R e v u ed el ’ I n s t i t u td uM o n d ee td udéveloppement
self-government issues but the most of experts – e.g. Pilát and Valentovič
(2006) – considered it a meaningful and necessary element which reflected
an increase of territorial self-government importance.
§ 5 – Other proposals and issues
Besides mentioned changes, several interesting and in some cases also
rational proposals concerning territorial self-government were drafted in
2004 and 2005. First of all, we need to mention a document called Commu-
nal Reform which had been elaborated by Viktor Nižňanský, Government
Commissioner (Plenipotentiary) for Decentralization of Public Adminis-
tration. This document involved, besides other elements, justification and
proposals for an amalgamation of units on a communal level of territo-
rial self-government. Viktor Nižňanský was inspired by amalgamation
processes in some European countries (for example in Nordic countries,
Poland, or some German states) and proposed two possibilities for an eli-
mination of too high fragmentation associated with communal territorial
self-government in the SR. As he emphasized, the communities in the SR
should be amalgamate either in area-way which would be connected with
abolition of amalgamated communities (amalgamated communities would
create defined and fixed number of municipalities with own legal perso-
nalities) or by an establishment of communal unions (associations) which
would be connected with preservation of amalgamated communities (com-
munal union would be a territorial self-government intermediary and a
fixed number of such unions would not be defined). The representatives
of the ZMOS, especially its chairman Michal Sýkora, stressed that com-
munal reform has been necessary but amalgamation is possible only if the
principle of spontaneity be adhered. Besides this proposal, some experts
as well as politicians called for a re-arrangement of regional division of the
Slovak territory. While creation of more regional territorial self-govern-
ment units in the Eastern part of the SR (for instance Region Spiš or Region
Zemplín) was supported mainly by the regional political actors, an issue
of independence of Bratislava (with a position of self-government region)
was supported not only by Bratislava’s representatives but also by many ex-
perts. Very interesting debate appeared within the context of self-govern-
ment of Košice. As it was mentioned, although this city did have only a
bit more than 240.000 inhabitants, it is divided into 22 city parts, which is
both unusual and inefficient because the biggest one (Košice – Západ) has
more than 40,000 inhabitants and the smallest one (Košice – Lorinčík) less
than 400 inhabitants. Last but not least, there was a proposal related to a
possibility of time unification of territorial self-government elections (i.e.
communal self-government election as well as regional self-government
election). Its followers argued for an ad hoc prolongation of term of office
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
R e v u ed el ’ I n s t i t u td uM o n d ee td udéveloppement
self-government issues but the most of experts – e.g. Pilát and Valentovič
(2006) – considered it a meaningful and necessary element which reflected
an increase of territorial self-government importance.
§ 5 – Other proposals and issues
Besides mentioned changes, several interesting and in some cases also
rational proposals concerning territorial self-government were drafted in
2004 and 2005. First of all, we need to mention a document called Commu-
nal Reform which had been elaborated by Viktor Nižňanský, Government
Commissioner (Plenipotentiary) for Decentralization of Public Adminis-
tration. This document involved, besides other elements, justification and
proposals for an amalgamation of units on a communal level of territo-
rial self-government. Viktor Nižňanský was inspired by amalgamation
processes in some European countries (for example in Nordic countries,
Poland, or some German states) and proposed two possibilities for an eli-
mination of too high fragmentation associated with communal territorial
self-government in the SR. As he emphasized, the communities in the SR
should be amalgamate either in area-way which would be connected with
abolition of amalgamated communities (amalgamated communities would
create defined and fixed number of municipalities with own legal perso-
nalities) or by an establishment of communal unions (associations) which
would be connected with preservation of amalgamated communities (com-
munal union would be a territorial self-government intermediary and a
fixed number of such unions would not be defined). The representatives
of the ZMOS, especially its chairman Michal Sýkora, stressed that com-
munal reform has been necessary but amalgamation is possible only if the
principle of spontaneity be adhered. Besides this proposal, some experts
as well as politicians called for a re-arrangement of regional division of the
Slovak territory. While creation of more regional territorial self-govern-
ment units in the Eastern part of the SR (for instance Region Spiš or Region
Zemplín) was supported mainly by the regional political actors, an issue
of independence of Bratislava (with a position of self-government region)
was supported not only by Bratislava’s representatives but also by many ex-
perts. Very interesting debate appeared within the context of self-govern-
ment of Košice. As it was mentioned, although this city did have only a
bit more than 240.000 inhabitants, it is divided into 22 city parts, which is
both unusual and inefficient because the biggest one (Košice – Západ) has
more than 40,000 inhabitants and the smallest one (Košice – Lorinčík) less
than 400 inhabitants. Last but not least, there was a proposal related to a
possibility of time unification of territorial self-government elections (i.e.
communal self-government election as well as regional self-government
election). Its followers argued for an ad hoc prolongation of term of office
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
