City conflicts in modern Russia: a new issue in the old context

The author notes that the political potential of sub-state formations is growing. It means that regions and cities became more powerful in public governance in the modern world. Locals become political agents on the international level. I.e. the practice of the involvement of citizens in the management process became wider (grassroots technology, where their knowledge and competencies are enough to solve many pressing problems). At the same time, in emerging conflicts, the city authorities in the West are strictly guided by the norms of the current legislation and ideas about the public good.In Russian public policy, on the contrary, there is a lack of normal communication between the government and public groups, a respectful dialogue, and a joint search for solutions to troubling problems. The federal and city authorities, as a rule, are not interested in increasing the social activity of Russians, which does not contribute in solving conflicts. This strategy led, on the contrary, to new activism. Conflict cases in the urban community are dominated by endogenous factors, mainly based on communication defects of the urban management system. The author concludes that the key factors of urban conflict are related to the activities of local authorities, which, due to objective reasons (limited resources) and subjective reasons (inattention to the interests of citizens), do not fulfill their functions of stabilizing the socio-political area of the urban community .Positive consequences of urban conflicts, including good communication between contractors; detente of social tension in the urban environment; development of rules and norms of interaction in a conflict situation (“rules of the game”) are manifested to a much lesser extent. This creates the base for the future social and political divisions in the city. External, exogenous influences and restrictions are primarilydetermined bythe nature resources and “the main line” of the regional policy according to the Federation. The main conflict factors are the sharp gap in the standard of living of residents of the capital and the regions, as well as the de facto colonial policy of the Center promoting “Varangians” from Moscow to the posts of regional governors and mayors, while completely ignoring the interests of local establishment and public opinion.