FUNDAMENTOS TEORICOS

The civil service reform programme (2003-2005) put high emphasis on the development of modern legislation and regulatory framework for the Russian civil service. In this respect particular importance was attached to the adoption of two federal laws: the Federal Law N55 of 27.05.2003 “On State Service System of the Russian Federation” and the Federal Law N79 of 27 July 2004 “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”.

The first Law “On State Service System of the Russian Federation” stipulated that there should exist three types of state service in Russia: the civil service, the law enforcement service and the military service. The civil service consists of two levels: the federal civil service and the civil service of Subjects of the Russian Federation. Status compatibility across the three types of state service was established. Thus every civil service position corresponds to a certain position in the law enforcement service and similarly within the military service. The law also envisaged establishment of the body in charge of management of the service at federal and regional levels.

The second Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” was originally developed to replace the civil service law adopted in 1995. Therefore, this legal document set out basic legal, organisational and economic principles of the Russian civil service. It also defined the rights and duties of civil servants, determined conditions and terms of service and career advance and fixed appropriate requirements and restrictions.

Principal innovations and changes contained in the new laws as compared to the law from 1995 were as follows:

- four new categories of civil servant positions were introduced; - qualification classes were replaced with civil service ranks;

- reference to Labour Code as governing legislation for civil servants was entirely dropped;

- fixed term contracts with a wider range of compensation linked to performance in distinction to the standard rules of compensation became possible;

the European Commission, DFID, and the World Bank). As a rule, the launch of pilot projects was preceded by the elaboration of appropriate methodology for their implementation. Active implementation of pilot experiments was concentrated mainly in five-six Subjects of the Federation (regions).

Pilots and experiments covered a wide range of issues including in particular – development and application of performance indicators for individual civil servants; elaboration and application of standard employment contracts; elaboration and application of job descriptions for various categories of civil servants; elaboration of normative acts to provide for establishment of regional civil service management structures; and improving the effectiveness of the use of reserve cadre.

In January 2005 President Putin signed a decree extending for two years (until 2008) the programme of civil service reform. The decree provided for continuous flow of funding for the programme implementation whereas its goals and tasks remained in principle unchanged.

4.11 New Civil Service Legislation

The civil service reform programme (2003-2005) put high emphasis on the development of modern legislation and regulatory framework for the Russian civil service. In this respect particular importance was attached to the adoption of two federal laws: the Federal Law N55 of 27.05.2003 “On State Service System of the Russian Federation” and the Federal Law N79 of 27 July 2004 “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”.

The first Law “On State Service System of the Russian Federation” stipulated that there should exist three types of state service in Russia: the civil service, the law enforcement service and the military service. The civil service consists of two levels: the federal civil service and the civil service of Subjects of the Russian Federation. Status compatibility across the three types of state service was established. Thus every civil service position corresponds to a certain position in the law enforcement service and similarly within the military service. The law also envisaged establishment of the body in charge of management of the service at federal and regional levels.

The second Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” was originally developed to replace the civil service law adopted in 1995. Therefore, this legal document set out basic legal, organisational and economic principles of the Russian civil service. It also defined the rights and duties of civil servants, determined conditions and terms of service and career advance and fixed appropriate requirements and restrictions.

Principal innovations and changes contained in the new laws as compared to the law from 1995 were as follows:

- four new categories of civil servant positions were introduced; - qualification classes were replaced with civil service ranks;

- reference to Labour Code as governing legislation for civil servants was entirely dropped;

- fixed term contracts with a wider range of compensation linked to performance in distinction to the standard rules of compensation became possible;

- conflict of interest regulation was introduced;.

- frequency of compulsory re-training of civil servants was increased from every five years in the previous law to every three years;

- establishment of a single management body for the federal civil service and similar bodies in each Subject of the Federation (region) was envisaged; - up to 25% of the members of the competition commissions were to be

independent experts.

The above mentioned innovations were overall positively assessed by the majority of experts and observers. However, the new legislation also included clauses and provisions that raised controversy and evoked criticism. In particular, it was alleged that the legislation lacked certain principles and requirements that were expected to be part of the new normative environment.

These include failure of the new legislation to introduce essentially new reward mechanism. The latter remains largely based on the principle of seniority and length of service. Performance based pay is limited almost exclusively to fixed term positions in the civil service which make up a tiny portion of the overall number of contracts.

This means that career advance of a civil servant will continue to depend predominantly on the individual’s relations with the relevant chief and less on professionalism, competency, skills and efficiency of work.

The laws did not provide for the creation of effective mechanism opening civil service to public oversight and scrutiny.

Although the Law of 2004 stipulates that recruitment and promotion should be competition based (Ch. 4, art. 22) there are numerous exceptions to this rule. For example, exempt from this requirement are civil servants with fixed term contract, those with access to classified information, those appointed by the President etc. Competition is also not mandatory in cases when position can be filled by persons from the so called cadre reserve (Ch 4, art 22). Taking into account that such candidates are available in the majority of promotion cases, this clause considerably undermines the practical value of the principle of competition. According to the Law a list of cadre reserve nominees also should be compiled on a competitive basis. However, in practice this rule is seldom observed and many experts express doubt as to the objectivity of competition in such cases.

It is noteworthy that the number of clauses in the new law granting exceptions from the requirement to hold mandatory competition as far as enrolment and promotion are concerned has actually increased compared to the law from 1995.

The new laws extended the age limit for holding civil service post to 65 years whereas before the ceiling was fixed at 60 years of age.

It appears that the requirement of non-partisanship of civil servants and separation of religious communities from the state organs (Article 5 point 11 in the Law of 1995) was dropped in the new legislation. No mechanism to effectively prevent excessive politicisation of the civil service has been foreseen.

The new laws failed to create a uniform and integrated civil service. Regional authorities retained considerable independence in determining the specific organisation of the regional civil service.

In general the new laws appear to have largely preserved the existing situation rather than responded to a new one. It is noteworthy that both laws on civil service “were prepared in total secrecy without involvement of public organizations and citizens” (Yuzhakov, 2005). An interesting definition was given to the new laws

- conflict of interest regulation was introduced;.

- frequency of compulsory re-training of civil servants was increased from every five years in the previous law to every three years;

- establishment of a single management body for the federal civil service and similar bodies in each Subject of the Federation (region) was envisaged; - up to 25% of the members of the competition commissions were to be

independent experts.

The above mentioned innovations were overall positively assessed by the majority of experts and observers. However, the new legislation also included clauses and provisions that raised controversy and evoked criticism. In particular, it was alleged that the legislation lacked certain principles and requirements that were expected to be part of the new normative environment.

These include failure of the new legislation to introduce essentially new reward mechanism. The latter remains largely based on the principle of seniority and length of service. Performance based pay is limited almost exclusively to fixed term positions in the civil service which make up a tiny portion of the overall number of contracts.

This means that career advance of a civil servant will continue to depend predominantly on the individual’s relations with the relevant chief and less on professionalism, competency, skills and efficiency of work.

The laws did not provide for the creation of effective mechanism opening civil service to public oversight and scrutiny.

Although the Law of 2004 stipulates that recruitment and promotion should be competition based (Ch. 4, art. 22) there are numerous exceptions to this rule. For example, exempt from this requirement are civil servants with fixed term contract, those with access to classified information, those appointed by the President etc. Competition is also not mandatory in cases when position can be filled by persons from the so called cadre reserve (Ch 4, art 22). Taking into account that such candidates are available in the majority of promotion cases, this clause considerably undermines the practical value of the principle of competition. According to the Law a list of cadre reserve nominees also should be compiled on a competitive basis. However, in practice this rule is seldom observed and many experts express doubt as to the objectivity of competition in such cases.

It is noteworthy that the number of clauses in the new law granting exceptions from the requirement to hold mandatory competition as far as enrolment and promotion are concerned has actually increased compared to the law from 1995.

The new laws extended the age limit for holding civil service post to 65 years whereas before the ceiling was fixed at 60 years of age.

It appears that the requirement of non-partisanship of civil servants and separation of religious communities from the state organs (Article 5 point 11 in the Law of 1995) was dropped in the new legislation. No mechanism to effectively prevent excessive politicisation of the civil service has been foreseen.

The new laws failed to create a uniform and integrated civil service. Regional authorities retained considerable independence in determining the specific organisation of the regional civil service.

In general the new laws appear to have largely preserved the existing situation rather than responded to a new one. It is noteworthy that both laws on civil service “were prepared in total secrecy without involvement of public organizations and citizens” (Yuzhakov, 2005). An interesting definition was given to the new laws

on civil service (adopted respectively in 2003 and 2004) by State Duma Deputy V.Yuzhakov – “both laws are laws about bureaucrats, drafted by bureaucrats and in the interests of bureaucrats” (ibid).