Organizational features of the reform of local self-government in 1870 in the county towns of the Central Chernozem region (on the example of the Tambov province)

Importance. Cities in Russian history have always been distinguished by their special social, political, economic and cultural status, which was also manifested in internal organizational aspects. For almost two and a half centuries, there has been a domestic city government, which has gone through many modernization stages and has become an important socio-political institution in the field. In this regard, the issues of continuity and traditions in its development remain important. The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze the organizational features of the urban reform of 1870 in the counties of the Central Chernozem region.Materials and Methods. The source basis of the study is the materials of the State Archive of Tambov region and published publications of the Tambov Provincial Statistical Committee. Various legal acts are used to describe the mechanisms of regulatory regulation of urban selfgovernment. The methodological basis of the research is based on the principles of objectivity, historicism and consistency.Results and Discussion. The process of implementing the reform of urban self-government in 1870 in the provinces of the Central Chernozem region lasted for several years and was mostly completed only in 1873. This situation was explained by a number of reasons: firstly, the law did not contain norms aimed at the transition from the old system of urban governance to the new one, secondly, the legislator did not set a strict time frame related to the implementation of the reform, thirdly, urban societies themselves slowed down the process of reorganizing local government, making numerous mistakes in procedural There are internal disagreements among the electors.Conclusion. The formation of a new system of self-government in the county towns of the Central Chernozem region had a number of common legalized and arbitrary features. The “delayed” procedure for the enactment of the law made it possible to organize elections in provincial centers and form the practice of work of supervisory authorities. In some cities, the implementation of the reform was slowed down due to the incompetence of representatives of urban societies involved in the modernization of local governments. Finally, the censorship policy of the state and the unsettled mechanism for nominating candidates served as the basis for serious competition and numerous complaints that delayed the process.