Hubbry Logo
SelsovietSelsovietMain
Open search
Selsoviet
Community hub
Selsoviet
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Selsoviet
Selsoviet
Selsoviet
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A selsoviet (Belarusian: сельсавет, romanized: sieł'saviet; Russian: сельсовет, romanized: sel'sovet, IPA: [sʲɪlʲsɐˈvʲet]; Ukrainian: сільрада, romanized: sil'rada) is the shortened name for Selsky soviet, i.e., rural council (Belarusian: се́льскi саве́т; Russian: се́льский сове́т; Ukrainian: сільська́ ра́да). It has three closely related meanings:

  • The administration (soviet) of a certain rural area.
  • The territorial subdivision administered by such a council.
  • The building of the selsoviet administration.

Selsoviets were the lowest level of administrative division in rural areas in the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they were preserved as a third tier of administrative-territorial division throughout Ukraine, Belarus, and many of the federal subjects of Russia.

A selsoviet is a rural administrative division of a raion (district) that includes one or several smaller rural localities and is in a subordination to its respective raion administration.

The name refers to the local rural self-administration, the rural soviet (council), a part of the Soviet system of administration. The head of a selsoviet is called chairman, who had to be appointed by higher administration.

Soviet Union

[edit]

A December 24, 1917 decree of Sovnarkom initiated the reform of the administrative division inherited from the Russian Empire by which all local power must belong to soviets of the corresponding level of hierarchy.[1] The reform was finalized in 1924.[2]

For a considerable period of Soviet history, passports of rural residents were stored in selsoviet offices, and people could not move outside their area of residence without the permission of selsoviet.[3][4]

Belarus

[edit]
All administrative divisions of Belarus, April 2025

Rural councils of Belarus are subordinated to districts of Belarus. If a rural council includes agrotowns, then one of them is the administrative center of the rural council, with some exceptions.[5]

The system was introduced in 1924, when the whole Soviet Union replaced its administrative division inherited from the Russian Empire.[2]

Russia

[edit]

Division into selsoviets as administrative-territorial units remained after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in many of the federal subjects of Russia.

In modern Russia, a selsoviet is a type of an administrative division of a district in a federal subject of Russia, which is equal in status to a town of district significance or an urban-type settlement of district significance, but is organized around a rural locality (as opposed to a town or an urban-type settlement). In some federal subjects, selsoviets were replaced with municipal rural settlements, which, in turn, were granted status of administrative-territorial units.

Prior to the adoption of the 1993 Constitution of Russia, this type of administrative division had a uniform definition on the whole territory of the Russian SFSR. After the adoption of the 1993 Constitution, the administrative-territorial structure of the federal subjects is no longer identified as the responsibility of the federal government or as the joint responsibility of the federal government and the federal subjects.[6] This state of the matters is traditionally interpreted by the governments of the federal subjects as a sign that the matters of the administrative-territorial divisions are the sole responsibility of the federal subjects themselves.[6] As a result, the modern administrative-territorial structures of the federal subjects vary significantly from one federal subject to another; that includes the manner in which the selsoviets are organized and the choice of a term to refer to such entities.

As of 2013, the following types of such entities are recognized:

Ukraine

[edit]

Selsoviets (Ukrainian: сiльрада, silrada) were replaced with hromadas by the administrative reform of 2020.[7]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Selsoviet

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A selsoviet (Russian: сельсовет, selʹsovet, lit. 'rural council') was the fundamental unit of rural local administration and governance in the Soviet Union, serving as the lowest tier of the soviet system in countryside areas from the late 1910s until the USSR's dissolution in 1991. These bodies, typically encompassing one or more villages, managed essential local functions such as agricultural collectivization enforcement, distribution of resources, maintenance of order, and implementation of central directives from higher raion and oblast levels, under the overarching control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Nominally elected by rural residents, selsoviets in practice functioned as extensions of state authority, prioritizing ideological conformity and production quotas over independent decision-making. After 1991, equivalent rural councils—often retaining the selsoviet designation—continued in successor states like Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, adapting to post-communist frameworks while preserving core administrative roles in rural localities.

Definition and Terminology

Core Definition

A selsoviet, transliterated from the Russian selsovet (сельсовет), served as the fundamental unit of rural local governance and administration in the , equivalent to a village or rural council. Derived from selskiy sovet (сельский совет), literally meaning "rural council," it represented the lowest tier of the soviet hierarchical structure, typically encompassing one or more villages, hamlets, or rural settlements within a (). These bodies were tasked with executing central directives on , , and at the level, functioning under the oversight of higher and regional authorities. Selsoviets emerged in the immediate aftermath of the 1917 , as Bolshevik authorities restructured rural administration to align with proletarian principles, supplanting imperial-era institutions such as the volost (a sub-district) and communal mir assemblies. By the early 1920s, their framework was codified amid the and territorial reorganizations, with thousands established across the USSR to facilitate collectivization, enforce quotas, and mobilize peasant labor—often through nominally elected deputies dominated by appointees. Despite theoretical democratic elements, selsoviets primarily acted as instruments of state control, managing collective farms (kolkhozy), local , and ideological campaigns in rural populations comprising the bulk of Soviet citizens.

Etymological and Linguistic Variations

The term selsoviet (Russian: selsovet, сельсовет) is a portmanteau derived from sel'skiy sovet (сельский совет), combining sel'skiy ("rural" or "villagerelated," from selo, denoting a village or rooted in Proto-Slavic selo, referring to a settled habitation) with sovet ("" or "assembly"). The element sovet traces to sъvětъ ("advice" or "deliberation"), compounded from sъ- ("with," from Proto-Indo-European *sem- or ks-, implying association) and větъ (related to speaking or advising, from Proto-Indo-European wekʷ-, "to speak"). This emerged in the early Soviet period to designate the lowest tier of rural self-governing bodies, formalized by decrees such as the establishment of village soviets under Bolshevik administration. Linguistic adaptations of the term reflected the multilingual composition of the USSR, where Russian terminology often overlayed or coexisted with indigenous equivalents, promoting Russification while nominally accommodating local idioms. In Ukrainian-speaking regions, the parallel construct was silrada (сільрада), abbreviating sil's'ka rada ("village council"), with rada deriving from Old East Slavic rědъ ("order" or "council," akin to Polish rada), emphasizing advisory assemblies in Cossack traditions predating Soviet rule. Belarusian variants included selsavet (сельсавет) or siol'ski saviet, mirroring Russian structure but using Belarusian phonology (siol for "village," from the same Slavic root as selo). In Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan, Turkic-influenced terms such as auyldyq kenes (ауылдық кеңес, "village assembly") supplemented selsovet, with kenes from Turkic kenesh ("gathering" or "diet"), though Russian forms predominated in official documents until perestroika-era indigenization efforts in the 1980s. These variations underscored the Soviet policy of korenizatsiya (nativization), which introduced local scripts and terms in the 1920s before reverting to centralized Russophone standardization by the 1930s.

Soviet-Era Origins and Operations

The establishment of selsoviets, or rural soviets, followed the Bolshevik-led of 1917, as part of the broader creation of a soviet-based administrative system to replace imperial structures. Local soviets, including those in rural areas, emerged organically from workers', soldiers', and peasants' assemblies that proliferated amid the revolutionary upheaval, with peasants' soviets forming to address land redistribution and local control. A key legal step came with the ' (Sovnarkom) decree of December 24, 1917, which reformed inherited administrative divisions—such as volosts and rural societies—by designating local soviets as primary organs of governance tasked with executing central directives, managing resources, and mobilizing the populace. This decree emphasized soviets' role in unifying fragmented rural authority under proletarian control, though implementation varied due to disruptions and peasant resistance to centralized mandates. Further consolidation occurred through early 1918 enactments, including the Sovnarkom's January 7, 1918, outline of rights and duties for local soviets, which granted them autonomy in handling regional matters while subordinating them to higher soviet bodies for policy alignment. Rural soviets specifically oversaw land use per the October 26, 1917, , which abolished private ownership and placed under state oversight for committees, later integrated into selsoviets to enforce . These bodies also managed Committees of the Village Poor (kombedy) established in June 1918, which targeted wealthier peasants (kulaks) for expropriation, embedding class warfare into rural administration. The 1918 Constitution of the , adopted July 10, 1918, by the Fifth , provided the foundational legal framework, proclaiming the state a of workers', soldiers', and peasants' soviets with power vested exclusively in these bodies organized pyramidally—from village and settlement levels (selsoviets) to regional and central congresses. Article 56 specified local soviets' election by from workers and peasants, while Article 38 underscored their executive committees' authority over daily rural affairs, including and defense. This structure formalized selsoviets as the base of the soviet hierarchy, though in practice, Bolshevik oversight often prioritized loyalty over electoral legitimacy, with many rural deputies co-opted or replaced during the (1918–1922). Subsequent regulations, such as those refining soviet operations amid , reinforced their role but highlighted tensions between central decrees and local peasant traditions.

Administrative Structure and Functions

Selsoviets operated as elected councils of rural deputies, with membership ranging from 15 to more than 100 individuals depending on the population served, selected through by residents aged 18 and older for terms of 2.5 years. Plenary sessions occurred irregularly, typically several times annually, to deliberate on local matters and elect the (ispolkom). The ispolkom, drawn from soviet members, comprised a chairman, , and usually 3 to 5 additional members responsible for day-to-day operations between plenums. Larger selsoviets might include specialized departments for areas like or education, but authority remained centralized under the ispolkom chairman, who coordinated with higher () soviets. Key functions encompassed executive and administrative tasks devolved from higher authorities, including civil registration of births, deaths, and marriages; maintenance of public order through militias or patrols; and management of minor disputes via conciliatory commissions. Selsoviets handled local budgeting, tax collection, and allocation of communal resources, such as forests or water, while enforcing agricultural quotas and collectivization policies post-1929. They also oversaw social infrastructure like schools, clinics, and cultural facilities, alongside sanitation, firefighting, and anti-pest campaigns, ensuring alignment with central planning directives from the Communist Party and superior soviets. Subordination to raion-level bodies limited independent decision-making, rendering selsoviets primarily as implementers rather than originators of policy.

Mechanisms of Control and Rural Governance

Selsoviets functioned as the foundational units of rural administration in the Soviet Union, handling essential local matters such as vital statistics registration, tax collection, maintenance of public order, and distribution of agricultural resources under the oversight of higher raion (district) soviets. Their executive committees, known as ispolkoms, were led by chairmen nominally elected from among deputies but in practice selected through party vetting processes to ensure alignment with Communist Party directives. These bodies were tasked with executing national policies at the village level, including the organization of communal services like schools, clinics, and roads, though resource allocation remained tightly controlled by central authorities, often resulting in chronic underfunding and inefficiency in remote areas. The exerted dominance over selsoviets through the system, whereby key positions required approval from party organs, effectively subordinating elected councils to unelected party secretaries who held authority. Local party cells within selsoviets monitored compliance, conducting regular sessions and ideological indoctrination to enforce loyalty, while dissenters faced exclusion from candidacy or punitive measures such as expulsion from collectives. During the collectivization drive of 1929–1933, selsoviets played a pivotal role in confiscating private landholdings and organizing kolkhozes (collective farms), registering peasant property and mobilizing labor quotas, which facilitated the state's extraction of grain surpluses amid widespread resistance that led to the of over 1.8 million households by 1931. This process underscored the selsoviets' dual role as administrative facilitators and instruments of coercion, with party agitators embedded in these councils to "persuade" or suppress opposition, contributing to the conditions that claimed millions of lives in 1932–1933. Surveillance and accountability mechanisms further entrenched control, including mandatory reporting to superior soviets and periodic inspections by central party commissions, which could purge underperforming officials but often perpetuated patronage networks rather than genuine oversight. In rural governance, selsoviets nominally represented peasant interests through universal suffrage elections, yet candidate slates were pre-approved by party committees, limiting pluralism and ensuring policy conformity over local initiative. This structure prioritized ideological uniformity and resource mobilization for industrialization—evident in the fulfillment of grain procurement targets that rose from 11.1 million tons in 1928 to 30.6 million tons by 1932—over adaptive rural development, fostering dependency on state directives and stifling autonomous economic decision-making. Despite these controls, informal peasant networks occasionally influenced selsoviet operations, as seen in resistance to overzealous procurements, highlighting the tension between centralized mandates and local realities.

Post-Soviet Evolution

Retention and Reforms in Russia

In the years immediately following the on December 25, 1991, selsoviets persisted as the foundational units of rural administration in the , maintaining their role in local governance amid transitional instability. The 1993 Constitution formalized local self-government, stipulating its exercise in urban and rural settlements while guaranteeing independence within defined powers. This retention aligned with early post-Soviet efforts to decentralize authority, though practical implementation varied due to economic turmoil and unclear delineations between federal, regional, and local levels. The structure underwent significant reform via No. 131-FZ, enacted on October 6, 2003, which established a standardized two-tier municipal : municipal districts (encompassing broader rural areas) and subordinate urban or rural settlements. Former selsoviets were largely converted into rural settlements, each comprising one or more villages with elected councils responsible for including , , local roads, and ; these entities gained independent budgets funded primarily by local taxes and transfers. The reform mandated completion by January 1, 2006, with near-universal compliance by 2009, reducing overall municipalities from 25,000–30,000 to around 12,000 through amalgamations that merged smaller units for efficiency. An amendment in December 2008 (Article 13.1) further enabled dissolution of rural settlements with fewer than 100 residents, targeting depopulated areas. Ongoing adjustments culminated in No. 33-FZ of March 20, 2025, effective June 19, 2025, which embeds local self-government within a unified public power framework, permitting regions to transition to single-tier systems by consolidating rural settlements into municipal or urban districts. This provision allows regional legislatures to abolish small selsoviets, redirecting their functions upward to reduce administrative layers amid rural depopulation—Russia's rural population stood at about 24% in 2023—and fiscal strains, with a phase-out period extending to February 1, 2035, for elected terms. While some regions like advocate retaining dual tiers for tailored governance, the reform prioritizes central coordination, potentially eliminating thousands of rural entities to streamline and .

Continuation in Belarus

In Belarus, selsoviets—officially termed rural councils (сельсоветы in Belarusian and Russian)—persisted as the primary rural administrative units after the Soviet Union's dissolution on December 26, 1991, with Belarus declaring on August 25 of that year. This retention reflects the country's adherence to a Soviet-era hierarchical structure under the 1994 Constitution and subsequent local governance laws, dividing administration into regional (oblasts and ), district (raions), and primary levels, where selsoviets handle rural localities comprising one or more villages. Each selsovet is led by a of deputies elected for four-year terms via local elections, responsible for executing state policies, managing communal services, and addressing rural economic and social issues, though executive committees appointed from higher authorities oversee operations. As of the early 2020s, Belarus encompasses approximately 1,200 rural councils nationwide, forming the base of its territorial organization alongside urban settlements. For instance, Minsk Oblast features 216 rural councils governing 5,175 rural settlements, including 307 agrotowns focused on agricultural production. Reforms under President , who consolidated power since 1994, have emphasized central control, integrating selsoviets into a unified executive vertical while preserving their nominal elective status and functions like land allocation, infrastructure maintenance, and demographic registration. No wholesale abolition occurred, unlike in neighboring states, maintaining their role in rural governance amid Belarus's statist economic model.

Abolition and Replacement in Ukraine

In , the Soviet-era selsoviets, functioning as village councils (silrady), persisted after independence in 1991 but faced inefficiencies due to their small scale and limited fiscal capacity. The post-Euromaidan reform, initiated in 2014, targeted these units through voluntary amalgamation into larger united territorial communities (s). The foundational Law No. 157-VIII "On Voluntary Amalgamation of Territorial Communities," adopted on February 5, 2015, enabled neighboring village, settlement, and councils to merge, dissolving individual selsoviets and transferring their functions—such as local budgeting, service provision, and land management—to the new hromada councils. This process accelerated from to , with over 4,800 small municipalities, including thousands of village councils, amalgamating into approximately 1,000 hromadas by , covering about 80% of the population and enhancing administrative efficiency. In 2020, the approved a comprehensive administrative on July 17 via No. 565-IX, mandating amalgamation for remaining unmerged councils and raions, which finalized the replacement of selsoviets with 1,469 hromadas as the primary rural governance layer. This shift abolished the fragmented Soviet-derived structure, granting hromadas direct state funding transfers—rising from 0% in 2014 to 60% of local budgets by 2020—and greater autonomy, though implementation faced challenges like uneven voluntary participation and capacity gaps in rural areas.

Status in Other Former Soviet Republics

In the Baltic republics of , , and , selsoviets were abolished immediately following independence declarations between 1990 and 1991 as part of comprehensive de-Sovietization efforts, which dismantled Soviet-era administrative structures and replaced them with municipal systems emphasizing local self-government and alignment with European standards. Local governance transitioned to elected or municipal councils, with powers devolved for services like , utilities, and , reflecting restoration of pre-occupation models rather than continuity of Soviet institutions. In Central Asian republics such as , selsoviets underwent transformation into village akimats shortly after independence, preserving rural administrative functions under appointed akims (heads) while introducing elected maslikhats (councils) for oversight, though central control remained dominant. Similar evolutions occurred in and , where rural equivalents like aiyl okmotasy or mahalla committees retained Soviet-derived organizational roles for local resource management and dispute resolution, albeit with nominal amid authoritarian . In and , rural councils continued with limited , functioning primarily as extensions of central executive authority without significant structural reform. The states of , , and Georgia ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government between 2002 and 2006, prompting reforms that replaced selsoviets with community municipalities or sakrebulos (councils), granting elected bodies responsibilities for budgets, infrastructure, and while reducing central interference. In , territorial consolidation in 2017 merged over 800 communities into 57 larger units to enhance fiscal viability. Azerbaijan enacted a 1999 establishing 66,000-plus rural councils, though implementation has been uneven due to executive dominance. Georgia's 2014 devolved powers to 64 self-governing cities and municipalities, marking a shift from Soviet hierarchies. In , post-1991 reforms reorganized selsoviets into elected village and town councils under the 1998 local law, numbering around 900 units responsible for utilities, roads, and , coordinated at levels until 2006 abolition of districts in favor of direct central-municipal ties. These bodies operate with modest fiscal autonomy, funded largely by central transfers, reflecting partial transition from Soviet centralism.

Assessments and Legacy

Purported Achievements

Soviet authorities claimed that selsoviets facilitated the collectivization of during the late and early , integrating individual landholdings into collective farms under state oversight, which purportedly enabled , higher crop yields, and resource extraction to fuel urban industrialization. By 1940, approximately 97 percent of households had been incorporated into collectives, a process directed locally by selsoviets despite widespread resistance and . In the realm of social development, selsoviets were credited with advancing rural and through the implementation of campaigns, contributing to a rise in overall Soviet literacy rates from around 30 percent in 1917 to over 80 percent by the late , with local councils overseeing schools and points in villages. These efforts were part of broader policies that elevated rural social conditions relative to pre-revolutionary backwardness, including access to basic healthcare and infrastructure. During , selsoviets played a role in wartime mobilization by registering conscripts from rural populations and coordinating food requisitions, aiding the Soviet Union's effort that fielded over 27 million personnel and contributed to the defeat of . These functions were portrayed in official narratives as demonstrations of grassroots organizational capacity under socialist governance.

Criticisms and Systemic Failures

Selsoviets, intended as organs of rural , often functioned as mere extensions of central control, prioritizing quota fulfillment over local needs and contributing to profound agricultural disruptions. During the forced collectivization drive initiated in 1929, selsoviets played a direct role in assembling collective farms (kolkhozes), expropriating and from private holdings, and identifying "kulaks" for as a class, actions that provoked widespread peasant slaughter of animals—estimated at 50% of Soviet between 1929 and 1933—and severe production shortfalls. This enforcement mechanism exacerbated the 1932–1933 famines across , , and , where unrelenting procurements by selsoviet officials, despite evident local scarcities, resulted in 5–7 million excess deaths from and related causes. The system's rigidity, where selsoviets falsified reports to meet impossible targets or resorted to coercive measures, underscored a causal disconnect between central and rural realities, perpetuating cycles of underproduction that plagued Soviet for decades. Corruption permeated selsoviet operations, with rural officials exploiting their gatekeeping roles—such as issuing internal passports, allocating plots, or distributing scarce goods—for personal gain through bribes and favoritism. In the post-Stalin era, this petty corruption intensified amid chronic shortages, as low-paid selsoviet chairmen and clerks bartered access to resources or exemptions from labor duties, mirroring broader administrative decay under Brezhnev where inefficiency and graft eroded institutional trust. Empirical data from declassified archives reveal that by the 1970s, agricultural output per hectare in kolkhozes overseen by selsoviets lagged far behind pre-revolutionary levels, with systemic misallocation—such as prioritizing ideological campaigns over mechanization—yielding grain yields averaging 1.7 tons per hectare in 1980, compared to 4–5 tons in Western Europe. Party audits frequently uncovered embezzlement in rural councils, yet purges targeted symptoms rather than the underlying lack of accountability, allowing corruption to undermine service delivery in education, health, and infrastructure. Fundamentally, selsoviets embodied the Soviet model's failure to decentralize authority, rendering them ineffective at fostering genuine or . Nominal elections masked top-down appointments, stifling and local initiative; for instance, selsoviet deputies, bound by directives, could not adapt policies to types or weather variances, contributing to repeated harvest shortfalls like the 1963 that affected 40% of sown areas. This centralization bred apathy and evasion, as evidenced by and in collective farm work, with labor productivity in Soviet stagnating at 20–30% of U.S. levels by the due to misaligned incentives. Critics, including analysts like Konstantin Simis, argued that selsoviets perpetuated a "corrupt society" where formal equality masked privileges and bureaucratic , ultimately accelerating the USSR's economic sclerosis. In post-Soviet contexts like , retained selsoviets have faced analogous rebukes for enabling authoritarian oversight, though Soviet-era precedents established patterns of unresponsiveness to constituent needs.

References

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/210882
  2. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00047R000100280005-4.pdf
  3. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/5m60qs372
  4. https://factsanddetails.com/russia/Government_Military_Crime/sub9_5a/entry-5195.html
  5. https://glosbe.com/en/en/selsoviet
  6. https://www.wordsense.eu/selsoviets/
  7. https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/culture/education/newschoolsofnewrussia-lucy-wilson.pdf
  8. https://www.etymonline.com/word/soviet
  9. https://www.rbth.com/history/334064-what-does-word-soviet-mean
  10. https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2019/10/shsconf_cildiah2019_00042.pdf
  11. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/building-the-soviets/
  12. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/building-the-soviets/building-the-soviets-texts-2/soviet-of-peoples-commissars-rights-and-duties-of-local-soviets-january-7-1918/
  13. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/peasant-revolution/peasant-revolution-texts/committees-of-the-village-poor/
  14. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Russia_1918
  15. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=20&article=1030&context=michigan_legal_studies&type=additional
  16. https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/sovietrepresentativesystemkotok.pdf
  17. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00047R000300610006-4.pdf
  18. https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch02.htm
  19. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html
  20. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1929-2/collectivization/
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40869317
  22. https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union/Toward-the-second-Revolution-1927-30
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/149422
  24. http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-09.htm
  25. https://cis-legislation.com/document.fwx?rgn=5062
  26. https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/acta/34/115MatsuzatoE.pdf
  27. https://admarlan.ru/2025/08/8974/
  28. https://www.pnp.ru/politics/sudba-selsovetov-reshitsya-v-2025-godu.html
  29. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=RU
  30. https://www.belarus.by/en/government/government
  31. https://www.arl-international.com/knowledge/country-profiles/belarus
  32. https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Belarus.aspx
  33. https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2022_BLR.pdf
  34. https://president.gov.by/en/belarus/regions/minsk-region
  35. https://despro.org.ua/en/support-of-the-reform/about-the-reform/
  36. https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/arbeitspapiere/Ukraine_Decentralization_Dudley.pdf
  37. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/09/ukraines-decentralization-reforms-2014/2-why-and-how-local-communities-amalgamate
  38. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/ukraines-resilience-how-administrative-reform-boosted-social-capital-and-trust
  39. https://ppr.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/lseppr.87
  40. https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-occupation
  41. https://neweasterneurope.eu/2023/02/15/process-of-de-sovietisation-eastern-europe/
  42. https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2024-02-06/a-lot-effort-not-many-results-latvias-belated-de-sovietisation
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390647951_Transformation_of_the_selsoviet_into_the_village_akimat_a_retrospective_analysis
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283327736_Local_Government_Capacity_in_Post-Soviet_Central_Asia
  45. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uzbekistan/uzbek0701.pdf
  46. https://www.giz.de/en/projects/local-governance-programme-south-caucasus-1
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366725810_The_Europeanisation_of_the_Local_Self-Government_in_the_South_Caucasus
  48. https://50shadesoffederalism.com/case-studies/decentralization-in-armenia-local-governance-reform-and-the-need-for-functional-decentralization/
  49. https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/en/one-region-two-models-three-countries-a-comparative-analysis-of-local-self-government-in-the-south-caucasus/
  50. https://www.decentralization.am/en/news/local-self-government-reforms-in-armenia
  51. https://www.britannica.com/place/Moldova/Government-and-society
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363108889_THE_METAMORPHOSES_OF_THE_TERRITORIAL_ORGANISATION_OF_LOCAL_AUTHORITY_IN_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_MOLDOVA_IN_THE_POST-COMMUNIST_DECADES_FROM_THE_SOVIET_RIGOR_TO_THE_DEMOCRATIC_INCERTITUDE
  53. https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Moldova.aspx
  54. https://tmora.org/online-exhibitions/postage-stamps-messengers-of-the-soviet-future/the-taming-of-nature/collectivization/
  55. http://www.orlandofiges.info/section10_RevolutionfromAbove/Collectivization.php
  56. https://isreview.org/issue/82/education-literacy-and-russian-revolution/index.html
  57. https://ecosocsrcc.com/woes-that-dont-rise-soviet-villages-in-the-age-of-capitalism/
  58. https://www.rbth.com/history/326375-how-ussr-mobilized-nation
  59. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00457R007600040015-2.pdf
  60. https://communistcrimes.org/en/brutal-crime-against-rural-life-collectivisation-soviet-union
  61. https://www.eurasiareview.com/20032023-holodomor-how-stalins-collectivization-policy-killed-millions-of-ukrainians-part-i-analysis/
  62. https://www.aei.org/economics/remembering-the-economic-failure-of-soviet-russia/
  63. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1973-2/shakeup-in-the-republics/shakeup-in-the-republics-texts/the-corrupt-society/
  64. https://tnsr.org/2018/02/assessing-soviet-economic-performance-cold-war/
  65. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP08S01350R000200600002-8.pdf
  66. https://www.expresstorussia.com/experience-russia/soviet-russia.html
  67. https://fee.org/articles/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-technology/
  68. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/past-political-repression-creates-long-lasting-mistrust/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.