LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND LOCAL POLITICAL MANAGEMENT: CONCEPTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE

Abstract

The study focuses on local democracy and the associated management of local politics. The article aims to demonstrate the interdependence of these two concepts. The study employed a neo-institutional approach. The authors argue that local democracy provides a systemic, multidimensional environment in which local political management can acquire resources, legitimacy and institutional opportunities. Local democracy improves the quality of local governance, facilitates the formation of professional political elites and shapes effective management mechanisms within territorial communities. Local democracy is described as a value-institutional dimension that focuses on community participation, the legitimacy of power and the transparency and accountability of decision-making processes. In contrast, local political management is characterised as an organisational and managerial dimension that focuses on adopting and implementing decisions at a local level. It has been proven that local democracy establishes the rules within which local political management operates and implements decisions. The authors argue that local democracy is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of political management, and that political management is a mechanism for implementing local democracy. They conclude that local democracy cannot be implemented without the necessary management technologies, procedures, and competencies—in other words, political management. The dialectical relationship between local democracy and political management has been established. Local democracy shapes the environment in which political management operates, and political management either strengthens or weakens democracy. The authors observed that local democracy and political management institutions can either reinforce or undermine each other. They derived a conceptual formula that conveys the essence of this relationship: firstly, local democracy provides the institutional, value-based and procedural foundation of local governance; secondly, local political management, based on local democracy, ensures the development, adoption and implementation of political decisions; thirdly, together, they form a coherent system of democratic community governance, in which democracy defines the framework and management ensures its effective implementation. The authors argue that the interdependence of local democracy and local political management is evidenced by the fact that democratic procedures, instruments and institutions create opportunities for effective political management, and that high-quality political management, in turn, ensures the viability and effectiveness of democratic practices. This approach allows both phenomena to be studied not in isolation, but as mutually reinforcing elements of the contemporary model of local governance. Although the Russian-Ukrainian war has clearly altered the landscape, the conceptual logic of the 'local democracy–local political management' coordinate system remains intact.