Considering the essence of self-government, L. Stein believed that the easiest way to understand it is to trace the historical course of the development of the idea of self-government, the creation and strengthening of its organs. Self-government could not arise with absolutism, both monarchical and republican. It is possible only in the context of a constitutional order that ensures the freedom of development of self-governing local institutions. L. Stein's views closely adhered to the public theory of self-government. He was closer to her than R. Gneist. In particular, for him the state and the self-governing unions are social organisms. The state has the task of carrying out tasks of national importance, and on the bodies of self-government the implementation of local, special tasks, which, by virtue of their local importance, must be entrusted to the bodies of local self-government, as institutions close to the locality and directly interested in the implementation of local affairs. Recognizing the community as a social organism and the presence of special local public affairs, which are the competence of local governments, L. Stein pointed out that at the same time these special public affairs are also public affairs. He did not oppose the self-government bodies of governmental bodies, but acknowledged that both of them and others make one common state business, only the first local and the second general. L. Stein considered that local self-government is a participation in government, since it expresses the representation of only those local interests that are conditioned by land ownership, through which only at least mainly the interests associated with this can be combined. possession. But in self-government there are many interests that have nothing to do with land ownership and a large number of citizens who do not have such ownership, so they, on the basis of L. Stein's definition, should be excluded from local self-government. Thus, in defining local self-government as his main feature, L. Stein took not land or territorial district but land property. As for the structure of local self-government bodies, L. Stein believed that any public association that performs the tasks of government should be a permanent, organized and recognized government. His organization should be similar to the state, which achieves the unity of free government. Thus, L. Stein, distinguishing between the competences of state bodies and self-government bodies, did not oppose them to each other, but believed that local self-government bodies could even cope better with “assigned cases” than the state authorities themselves. He considered the main feature of local selfgovernment not land or territorial district, but land ownership. At the same time, the basis of the election, from his point of view, is not ownership, but belonging to well-known corporations and paying taxes.
Islam, indigeneity, and religious difference in a secular context: Canadian case studies
