single-party state, in the early 1990s several Russian politicians and scholars perceived local self-government as an instrument to remove the "etatization" of Soviet society. This interpretation was often still based upon a nonpluralistic understanding of local community and did not take into account possible social differentiation within the communities. However, it is too early to judge whether this pattern will survive in the face of ongoing pluralization of interests within the localities.
Finally, according to the outlined features of the post-Soviet local parties, it must be stated that their organizational power is still very weak. Whereas at the beginning of the social movements their capability to mobilize the population against the authoritarian state was relatively large, at present they hardly succeed in mobilizing the citizenship, which, in reaction to the decline of social security systems, increasingly refuses political participation. Research on the local party system invites the observers of Russian transition to modify their point of view. On the local level, the formation of parties and coalitions present themselves as highly differentiated. Case studies suggest that party platforms often do not play a key role in understanding the behavior and decisionmaking of the deputies. One could find cases in which Communist members cooperated with "democrats" in order to implement economic and political reforms against the resistance of the Communist nomenklatura. At the moment, however, it is almost impossible to take into account all the variables that determine the development of the ever-changing Russian local party system.