In less than 100 years, Japan has gone through a unique path of development from a military-feudal despotism to a modern state. Currently, Japan has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, and the local government system is one of the most efficient. At the same time, local authorities play a crucial role in the public administration system, exercising control over the expenditure of 70% of public authorities ' funds. The starting point for the formation of both public administration and local self-government of the modern type in Japan is considered to be the bourgeois Meiji Revolution of 1868. However, the local self-government system created in the country is also interesting because it is based not so much on the formal copying of Western experience, but on the effective adaptation of Western models to local realities.

Keywords: Japan, Meiji, Edo, Tokugawa, local government, daimyo, prefecture, municipality, administrative division, decentralization, Shoichi Omori, Aritomo Yamagata.

By the time of the Meiji Revolution in Japan, certain mechanisms of communal, primarily rural, self-government existed almost everywhere. However, in the conditions of the military-feudal system, they could not be developed and were created exclusively for solving specific utilitarian tasks of regulating the life of rural or craft communities. Each community had its own unique mechanism of self-government, and each village had its own scheme for distributing the available minor powers among the elders. Moreover, there were differences not only within individual regions - even in neighboring villages of the same region, the scope of official powers differed almost everywhere. Therefore, the course of studying the experience of public administration of the largest world powers, proclaimed by the Japanese authorities after the Meiji Revolution, required the creation of a fundamentally new, unified system of local self-government that would meet the modern needs of the state, traditionally providing mobilization for the needs of the army, public order and tax collection.

To create a new system of centralized governance, it was necessary first of all to abolish the old administrative-territorial division of the country into semi-independent clan lands headed by feudal princes (daimyo). Back in 1868, during the Boshin Civil War, the imperial government renamed strategically important areas under the control of the Shogun's supporters to fu (urban prefectures), and all other territories to ken (rural prefectures). The territories of the clans that fought for the Emperor were not renamed for some time in recognition of their contribution to the victory. However, already in 1869, the government moved the capital to Edo, renaming it Tokyo, and found a compromise option that was supposed to suit even

page 25
the most orthodox adherents of traditions. The four major clans that supported the restoration of the monarchy - Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa, and Hizen - petitioned the Emperor (Yamaguchi, 1964) to accept their lands and people "rightfully belonging to the emperor" for further proper redistribution (Hanseki hookan).

Thus, the system of distribution of land plots in the Togugawa era / Edo was declared obsolete, and the government began to demand the same petitions from all other clans. On July 25, 1869, the imperial court officially accepted the lands of its subjects, after which the daimyo received the state position of " governor of their lands "(chihanji) and a regular salary (karoku), which compensated for their previous income. However, the princes lost the privilege of passing on their position by inheritance and the right to keep all the taxes collected. Now the prince could leave no more than 10% of the collected taxes for his own needs [Jansen, 2000, p. 344-345].

This separated the personal resources of the princes and those of the clan, and effectively equalized the status of the prince and his samurai. The daimyos were still in place, and the military duties of the clans to protect the country and the emperor, as well as the system of collecting taxes from the clans ' lands, did not change - the level of taxes remained the same as in the Edo era. However, such half-hearted measures only led to unrest both among the peasants, who now did not understand who they should obey, and among ordinary samurai, who did not understand who was now paying their salaries. Against the reorganization of the military system of the clans, numerous armed formations of the samurai of the Choshu clan also opposed.

As a result, the government decided to completely abandon the idea of preserving the clan division of the country's territory, which was done in July 1871. The" Governors of their lands "were summoned to the emperor, and he issued a decree according to which prefectures (haihan-tiken) were created on the lands of feudal clans, creating the "skeleton" of a new system of local self-government. local governments. All former daimyo were stripped of their title of "governor of their lands" and were dismissed-they were instructed to move to Tokyo permanently and given a generous pension from the state. In general, the departure of the princes from power was very peaceful - the central government took over all debt and other unresolved obligations of the former clans, if any, and many officials of the former clans were employed in the central government apparatus.

New heads of city territories (futiji) and prefectures (kenrei) were now appointed from the center. As for the organizational and territorial division of the state, at first it was planned to allocate Hokkaido (do) as a separate territory, create three urban territories (fu) (Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto) and 302 prefectures (ken) (according to the number of clan lands), but by the end of 1871 the scheme was simplified to one do, three fu and 72 keng. By 1888, the number of prefectures had been reduced to 43, and this scheme 1 - 3 - 43 it was preserved until the end of World War II. In 1943, Tokyo's status will be upgraded from fu to Metropolitan Prefecture (to). Thus, it is legitimate to say that the administrative-territorial division of the country (to-do-fu-ken) created in 1888 still exists without any visible changes.

In 1871, the central government supported the creation of local councils at the lower levels of government - towns and villages - from which deputies of prefectural assemblies were often nominated. Local councils were given the right to hold debates, but were not given legislative powers. Nevertheless, they played an important role as a "safety valve that lets off steam of discontent" but does not have the ability to challenge the authority of the central government.

On April 9, 1872, the government introduced a system of "large and small districts" (daiku-seoku-sei). Below the level of prefectures, large areas were introduced, which, in turn, were divided into small ones. This decree abolished the existing Edo-era posts of prefects (seya, nanushi, toshiyori) and introduced instead the posts of heads of districts-

page 26
They were appointed by the head of the prefecture and their deputies. Prefectural heads were appointed by the central government, and not by a decree of parliament, but by decree of the emperor, which indicates that local governments at that time were considered structures of the imperial government. Issues of "introducing elements of democracy" (elections and other issues of local self-government) were assigned to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, established in 1873. In addition, the functions of the Ministry included: monitoring people and controlling the movement of persons (police, internal security), caring for people (labor relations, pensions and benefits education), as well as maintenance of roads, ports, and other infrastructure (Akizuki, 2001, p. 2).

However, it soon became clear that the simplified division of the country into "large and small districts" did not work - it did not take into account the individual characteristics of the "districts" and relied only on instructions from above. Therefore, in 1878, the "Three New Laws on Regions" (tihoo-sansimpoo) were adopted, which included the Law on the Introduction of a system of counties, administrations, Cities and Villages, Rules for Convening prefectural meetings and Rules for Collecting Regional Taxes. In the same year, but later, the government ordered the establishment of a system of officials in prefectures and large cities, and two years later a law was passed on the convocation of local meetings in councils, small towns and villages.

The first of the "Three New Laws on Regions" - the Law on the introduction of the system of counties, administrations, cities and villages of 1878-included six points. He abolished the scheme of dividing the country into "large and small districts" and instead restored the system of counties, councils, cities and villages (paragraph 1). Counties, councils, cities and villages retained their names and borders that existed in the Edo era (paragraph 2). Counties were introduced where there was a need to divide into smaller administrative divisions of too large territories (item 3). The post of county head was introduced (item 5, Part 1). In some cases, if the counties were too small, he could head several counties at once (item 5, Part 2). Where the population was excessive, the counties were divided into councils. Councils were also introduced in places with high population density, where there were no counties (item 4). Tokyo was immediately divided into 15 councils, and in Hokkaido two councils were established in 1879. The post of head of the council was introduced (item 5). At the level of small towns and villages, the post of head of the local administration appeared, which was allowed manage multiple localities. If there were small towns and villages on the territory of the city council, the head of the city council was allowed to combine his position with that of the head of the local administration (item 6).

Before it was introduced in 1878. Some governors had already called meetings of local representatives as an informal consultative body, but such meetings did not have a legal basis for their existence. Therefore, the adoption of the Rules is simultaneously considered the starting point of Japanese parliamentarism and the creation of an electoral system in the main territory of Japan. The rules did not apply to Okinawa and the territory of o. Hokkaido.

According to the Rules, the purpose of calling meetings of large cities and prefectures is to determine the expenditure part of the budget and how to get funds for this (paragraph 1). The meeting was called once a year for a planned session, but emergency meetings were also allowed (paragraph 2). Detailed rules of procedure were determined by the meeting itself and approved by the governor (paragraph 9). Deputies of prefectural The members of the assembly were elected by open elections based on a quota of a maximum of five people from each county or city council (item 10). The deputies had to be men over the age of 25 who had lived in the prefecture for at least the last three years and paid a land tax of at least 10 yen (paragraph 13). The right to elect deputies was granted to men over the age of 20 who lived in this county or municipality and paid a land tax of at least five yen (paragraph 14).

page 27
The rules for collecting regional taxes of 1878 defined the types of taxes that could be collected by the authorities of large cities and prefectures, as well as expenditure items that were to be covered by local taxes. Local taxes include land tax and business activity tax (item 1).

In 1885, when the government took the form of a cabinet of ministers, the emperor issued a decree introducing a system of regional officials (chihokan-kansei) in the country, so that local government bodies would operate in parallel with local self-government bodies. At the same time, the government began to draft as many as four laws on local self-government, which were called shisheiho (Law on the Creation of a System of Large Cities), tesonseiho (Law on the Creation of a System of Cities and Villages), fukenseiho (Law on the Creation of a System of Urban Territories and Prefectures) and gongseiho (Law on the Creation of a system of counties) and established, respectively: the system of cities and villages (tesonsei), the system of urban areas and prefectures (fukensei), and the system of counties (gongsei).

The first two systems were established in 1888 by a single law, and the other two by separate laws in 1890. In 1911, it was decided to separate the legal framework of the system of large cities and the system of cities and villages into two separate laws, and in 1921 the system of counties was abolished, but in general the three above-mentioned laws from they remained in force until the end of World War II.

The Law on the System of Urban Territories and Prefectures of 1890 abolished the Rules for convening Prefectural Assemblies of 1878. The rules for collecting regional taxes of 1878 remained in force until 1926, and the provisions of the Law of 1878 on the introduction of the system of counties, administrations, cities and villages gradually began to be brought into line with the requirements of these four laws on local self-government, which was done everywhere by 1900.

It should be emphasized that the system of regional officials was introduced by the decree of the Emperor of 1885 "for the exercise of administrative and police functions" and received real powers of local executive power. In contrast, the four laws rather marked the starting point for the emergence of a modern type of local self-government, providing local authorities with serious legislative consolidation for the first time. Since then, relations between the central government and local authorities have been built on the basis of the above-mentioned two documents: the four laws on local self-government and the Emperor's decree on the creation of a system of regional officials. This meant that local authorities were formally formed within the state administration system, but the course of their development was determined by the central government. Thus, according to the provisions of the four laws on local self-government, all types of administrative entities were defined as local self-governments that had the power of legal entities and the corresponding powers. But at the same time, the territories of large cities and prefectures (fu andken) were clearly represented as units of state administration, while cities, towns and villages (si, te and son) had more developed local self-government [Matsuzato, 1998, p. 54]. At least below the prefectural level, local government heads were elected. An important role was also played by historically established traditions within the framework of primarily village self-government - the interaction of the population with the elders, many of whom retained their posts after the Meiji Revolution.

The heads of villages and villages were elected by the assemblies of people's representatives, this position was honorary and unpaid. The people's representatives themselves were elected by direct voting by the population with the right to vote. Only men who paid at least 2 yen of state taxes (land and income taxes) were eligible to vote. Mayors of cities were appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs from among the candidates proposed by the City Duma. At the same time, the city management department is responsible for-

page 28
There was a collective body - the city council ("meeting of councilors" sisandzikai), and in large cities (fu), regional officials appointed by the central government combined the positions of governors in the local government system with the positions of mayors of these cities. So Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto received a real right to local self-government only in October 1898, when such a combination of positions was prohibited, and the law on the system of urban territories and prefectures was amended accordingly.

The governors of Fu and Keng, who, according to the 1890 Law on the System of Urban Territories and Prefectures, "govern and act in the name of Fu and Keng", were, according to the emperor's decree of 1885, representatives of the central government in the field, who were appointed by the emperor together with a team of officials. In fact, the Fu and Keng administrations dealt only with those issues that were entrusted by the central government to the governor as its representative. But the prefectures ' own funds were not even enough for them, so financially the prefectures were completely dependent on the center. The Ministry of Internal Affairs supervised the activities of governors on issues related to personnel policy and the organizational structure of local authorities. It also monitored the level of competence of all ministers involved in the exercise of various powers in the field of governance. The Fu and Keng People's Representative assemblies were composed of local well-to-do citizens, often representing powerful clans. Formally, the assemblies were given the right to approve the revenue and expenditure side of the budget, but in reality, the only thing they could do was agree to bear the costs of the state management system. In case of disagreement, the Minister of Internal Affairs could dissolve local assemblies. Mayors of cities and prefectural councils formed the collective administrative bodies of the prefecture, while its advisory body was the Assembly of People's Representatives, who were selected by voting of deputies of city dumas, meetings of rural representatives and the main landowners of the province [Japan in Modern History, 1996, p. 259].

The relationship between Fu and keng, on the one hand, and Xi, te and song, who were administratively subordinate to them, on the other, exactly copied the relationship between the central government and the governors. Therefore, both the system of local self-government itself and the scheme of relations between administrations of different levels, created in the 1890s, represented a centralized system of public administration, where the so-called local self-government gave local landowners only a certain opportunity to participate in public administration, i.e., approximately in the same way as it was in Russia under Catherine P. Putin.

Seichi Omori (1856-1927), one of the Meiji-era politicians and an associate of Prime Minister Aritomo Yamagata, divided the entire history of efforts to create a system of local self - government in the Meiji era into three large periods [Omori, 1916, p. 8-9]. The first (1868-1878) - from the Meiji Revolution to the adoption of the "Three New Regional Laws" - was a period of creating a strong unitary state. At this time, the central government was concentrating all the levers for managing regions, including taking away powers from local authorities: daimyo gave the emperor their allotments, they were transformed into prefectures, the traditional three-tier system of village government with elders Seya and nanusi at the head was abolished, and "large and small districts" were created instead. headed by officials of the central government (kute, kote), the functions of local administrations were also changed, which became part of the central administrative apparatus.

All organizational changes were made solely for the convenience of the central government. However, this policy proved to be untenable, as it ignored the experience of village self-government accumulated during the Tokugawa era. This caused

page 29
resistance in the countryside became one of the key factors of mass riots in the early 1870s. In fact, after the Meiji Revolution, the main desire of the new government was to end the legacy of the Tokugawa era, and not to implement socio-economic reorganization in the country. Therefore, during the first 10 years of reforms, the feudal way of life and feudal thinking of the majority of the population did not change significantly. All government and state offices were filled with nominees from powerful samurai clans. Although the structure of feudal relations had already been destroyed, the same people were in power, only now they were called state officials. At the same time, all spheres of life, especially trade and entrepreneurship, were under their strict "state" control. In general, the governance of the entire State and in the field was still based on the stereotypes of previously established relationships. At the same time, society has developed a strong contempt for ordinary, "non-state" people. The defeat of the Samurai uprisings in the mid-1870s removed the threat of separatism, but did not eliminate the causes of popular discontent. In this regard, the requirements to expand the rights and functions of representative institutions and local authorities have significantly increased.

Therefore, the second period (1878-1888) was characterized by a reverse process - this decade became an era of decentralization, when a significant part of the powers was returned to the local central authorities. It began with the introduction of the "Three New Laws on Regions", which for the first time provided local governments with an organizational structure and legislative framework. Another characteristic feature of this stage was the lack of a clear division of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. The work of all government bodies, including local ones, was based only on government orders, presented as decrees of the emperor. The period was also marked by an increase in political activism, when political parties vigorously played on local interests to gain popularity with voters. However, the "Three New Laws on Regions" were only a temporary solution, since the problem of compatibility of local self-government with the imperial system of public administration was not solved.

The third stage (1888-1911) of the evolution of local self - government in the Meiji era, according to Omori, began with the adoption of the Law on the Introduction of the system of Large Cities (shishei) and the system of cities and villages (tesonsei). In 1890, laws were passed to introduce a system of urban territories and prefectures (fukensei) and a system of counties (gongsei). Omori considered the adoption of these laws to be the beginning of the emergence of "true self-government" in Japan - a system in which the proper balance between central and local authorities is observed.

It is worth noting that the Meiji government was in a hurry to pass all the fundamental laws, including those related to local self-government, before the so-called pre-war imperial Constitution of 1889 came into force. It began to operate in 1890 and determined the emergence of parliament, and the idea of the new elite was that parliament should operate within the framework of a new reality, where local self-government was already part of the overall system of public administration. In addition, since the Prussian constitution was taken as the model of the imperial constitution, a large number of German specialists were invited to Japan to advise the government on all legal issues. In particular, draft laws related to local self-government were created with the direct participation of Albert Mosse.

The text of the imperial constitution did not include any provisions concerning local self-government; subjects of rights and freedoms were defined not as citizens, but as subjects, the list and content of whose rights and freedoms were significantly limited [Tadagawa, 2002, p.193]. However, from the eastern country, which until recently existed within the framework of military-feudal relations, one could hardly expect more. The Japanese ruling elite believed that the pace of socio-political transformation was changing rapidly.-

page 30
they were already too high. The creation of the first Western-style local self-government bodies at that time was not dictated by the country's internal readiness. It was caused only by information about the modern political structure of Western countries, which were far ahead of Japan in scientific and technological progress and therefore inevitably became a role model, even if only formally. Therefore, despite the separate rights granted to local governments, control over their activities by the central government remained very strong in all the years of the Meiji era. Nevertheless, this period became an important starting point - for the first time in the country's history, local self-government bodies were created with a unified organizational structure and a serious legislative framework, which became part of the overall system of public administration in Japan.

list of literature

Matsuzato Kimitaka. Stability and development: uneasy dialectics / / Municipal power. 1998, N2.

Tadagawa Seizo. The Constitution of Japan of 1889 and "modernization of the country". 2009, N4 (243).

Akizuki Kengo. Controlled Decentralization: Local Governments and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Japan. N.Y. IBRD/World Bank, Stock N 37170, 2001.

Jansen Marius B. The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Japan in Modern History // International Society for Educational Information. Vol. 1. Tokyo, 1996.

Omori Shoichi. Jichisei seitei no temmatsu (Analysis of the local government approval process). Ed. Ueno Tashichiro. Tokyo, 1916.

Yamaguchi Kosaku. The Formation of Meiji Authoritarian State of the Seitaisho (the Organic Act of 1868) // St. Andrew's University Economic Review. Vol. 6. N 1, 1964.

page 31

Permanent link to this publication: