Representative Democracy in Australian Local Government

Abstract

In an assessment of representative democracy in

Recasting Leadership Reform in Australian Local Government: A Typology from Political Theory

“…Moreover, as we have seen, there is an identifiable trend toward instituting directly elected mayors with broader powers internationally. However, by viewing these suggested reforms at a level of abstraction afforded by our stylised quadrilateral taxonomy of 'values for organising government' derived from political theory, it is clear that, if comprehensively introduced by legislation, the suite of reforms would amount to a fundamental shift away from local government based upon a 'trustee' and 'corporate' ideas of mirrored interests (Burke; Madison; J. S. Mill) to one entailing strong elements of both Hamiltonian leadership in Mouritzen and Svara's (2002) sense, and the populism denoted by Hearfield and Dollery (2009) and, more intricately, Wells (1997). In this model, the relationships between (a) mayors and the electorate; (b) mayors and councillors and (c) mayors and other elements of council, most importantly council managers/CEOs are rendered far more hierarchical, wherein mayors have a broader sweep of both powers and, importantly, responsibilities.…”

“…Within this literature, four stylised types of overall local government arrangements can be identified. Three of these types are derived from Hearfield and Dollery's (2009) discussion of representative arrangements in Australian local government, which we argue can be extended to incorporate Mouritzen and Svara's (2002, 51) broader characterisation of 'values for organising local government'. First, the 'trustee' or 'corporate' form.…”

“…[F]reely-elected representatives should have the knowledge and character to make ... judgements, and, by virtue of election, are authorised to formulate policy and establish strategic directions on behalf of the social collective (Hearfield and Dollery, 2009; see in particular, Burke, 1790;Madison, 1787).…”

“…The tripartite typology derived principally from Hearfield and Dollery (2009) can be augmented by what Mouritzen and Svara (2002, 51) label as the 'Hamiltonian' type, which they defined as contrasting with the Madisonian perspective in that it 'focus[ses] on centralised leadership, that is, the contributions of the political leader'. This type entails far greater autonomy for the leader from constituents than is the case under the 'trustee', 'populist' or 'mirror' types (see, for example, Kettl, 2000).…”

Are there Tensions between Democracy and Efficiency in Local Government? A Conceptual Note on the Structural Reform Debate

“…As we have seen, the 'orthodox' views of Aulich (2005) and those scholars of aligned inclination, such as Kiss (2003), Burdess and O'Toole (2004), Hughes and Costar (2006), and Hearfield and Dollery (2009), hold that a trade-off exists between local democracy and Figure 1. Diametrically opposed approaches to local government reform.…”