Are city councils too much like Parliament?
Michel C. Auger asks a question I’ve often considered: should city councils be structured like Parliament? We’ve become so used to this idea that journalists routinely refer to “city hall opposition” although – as Auger points out – municipal parties don’t have the object persistence of federal or provincial parties, meaning that “when the leader of the party is defeated, his team often find themselves orphans and too easily take refuge in a sort of systematic opposition.”
The oppositional situation tends to become acrimonious and toxic with no benefit to the city or its residents. So often we see Ensemble carping at Projet simply because they are the opposition and they feel it’s their job, even though they’re currently without a permanent leader and it would serve the city better if a more consensus‑oriented approach were considered normal.
Nicholas 17:00 on 2024-02-25 Permalink
I think it’s not structured enough like Parliament. (Well, maybe not ours….) Having personality-based parties/slates is very common in municipal government (“independent” municipal governments usually just form around mayoral candidates), and is also common is developing democracies, where a party is created around the saviour who will fix everything. These parties tend to be unstable for the reasons you identify, and partly due to the low salience of the elections. Projet Montreal is the first party I can remember formed around an ideology, which is what modern developed democratic parliaments produce. And I expect PM to continue after Plante leaves (whether due to defeat or retirement), because it has partisans who believe in the party’s ideology rather than just holding power. Many of the Vancouver parties are more longstanding, and parties are very stable in countries where the national party contests local seats.
There is not an easy way to switch to a more stable party system, but Montreal may have lucked into one. Parties are the central way people express their political values, and the anti-party movement has not done good for the world. Especially for low-salience local elections, parties help show differences, and let voters more easily find out what candidates stand for. Having just independents mean only the most committed understand the options, which leads to lower turnout and lower voter satisfaction. I hope we don’t move backwards to no parties, but instead forwards to more parties that really stand for something rather than someone, even if I don’t agree with them.
Kate 19:09 on 2024-02-25 Permalink
Projet started out as a venture led by Richard Bergeron, so Valérie Plante inherited an already existing party.
Earlier on, the Montreal Citizens’ Movement lasted from 1973 to 2001, held city hall for two terms under Jean Doré, but was voted out in 1994 and fell apart gradually after that. But it had some ideas similar to Projet’s and it did come up with the first urban master plan, rather than relying on the leader’s big ideas as Jean Drapeau’s Civic Party had always done.
Tim S. 19:47 on 2024-02-25 Permalink
This might make sense for Montreal, but not sure about smaller cities. On one hand, it’s useful to have cooperation, especially as portfolios need to be handed out to everyone (if there’s only 8 councillors, say). On the other hand, it’s nice for voters to have at least a vague idea of where the candidates stand ideologically.