In case you hadn’t heard, Luxembourg held municipal elections last weekend.
Municipal elections are interesting. In a way, it’s the part of politics that’s closest to us. Decisions made at the local level often have an immediate and tangible impact on our living environment.
Local politics are often regarded as pragmatic and less influenced by political games and personal ambitions. However, after last weekend’s elections and some discussions I’ve had with others, I’m not so sure this still holds up – if it ever did.
As you may be aware, Luxembourg has two distinct voting systems for municipal elections.
The proportional representation (PR) system is applied in all communes with more than 3,000 inhabitants. Candidates run as part of lists, often submitted by political parties.
This is very close to how it works on the national level and the presence of political parties certainly does its part to ramp up the strategizing and intrigue.
We’ve seen our fair share of this last weekend. From parties winning absolute majorities and swiftly abandoning their former coalition partners, to municipalities where the parties with the most votes and even the most popular candidates are stuck in eternal opposition due to multi-party coalitions.
It is important to note that all of this is of course perfectly legal within our political system. However, this kind of politique politicienne (“politician’s politics”) undoubtedly leaves many people jaded with their local government.
Meanwhile, communes with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants use the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. No lists to be found here; only individual candidates and those with the most votes get to sit on the municipal council.
From my own experience, I’ve noticed that many people really like FPTP voting in the context of municipal elections. They argue that without political parties involved, municipal councils tend to focus more on addressing local issues in a pragmatic manner, rather than pushing a specific policy agenda or desperately clinging to power through tactical coalitions.
Some also think that the threshold of 3,000 inhabitants is way too low, arguing that it forces small communities into a PR system that they don’t want.
This year, some municipalities switched to PR for the first time, and it stood out to me how many candidates decided to run as part of citizens’ lists instead of introducing political parties at the local level. Some even mentioned in interviews that they did so to preserve the spirit of FPTP within the PR system, as it aligns with what their voters are accustomed to.
But FPTP voting is, of course, also not perfect. Even though candidates may not run as part of political lists, many are still affiliated with political parties.
In fact, some of those citizens’ lists in former FPTP communes predominantly featured candidates from specific political parties, which almost seemed like a bizarre attempt at fraudulent labelling.
FPTP municipalities are also not magical lands free of political intrigue. Candidates still have a strong incentive to maximise the number of votes they can squeeze out of the local population. And while, certainly, they could do that by being a good sport and working for the benefit of the community, some individuals have no shame to resort to less respectable methods in their interactions with fellow council members.
Is there anything that can be done about the increasing disillusionment toward local politics?
Some suggest placing greater emphasis on citizen participation through referendums or workshops.
Personally, I have developed a real dislike for referendums over the years. Based on what I have witnessed, they tend to encourage attention-seeking populist campaigns and leave little room for genuine discussion.
Anyone who was around for the infamous 2015 referendum here in Luxembourg knows full well just how many people simply based their vote on which parties were campaigning for “yes” or “no.”
In theory, workshops are an excellent idea and can lead to enjoyable and fruitful experiences for local communities. However, the main drawback is that there is typically no obligation for the municipal executive to implement any of their suggestions.
If residents propose something that goes against the ruling politicians’ agenda, they can easily decide to just ignore it. I’ve seen this happen a few times before and it often leaves the people who were part of the workshops feel even more disillusioned than before.
There is another idea that I’ve always found interesting: Citizens’ Councils. These councils consist not of elected representatives but of randomly selected local citizens.
These councils are intriguing for several reasons. Firstly, the element of random chance can lead to a more diverse representation of demographics. I mean, a simple look at this year’s candidate pool is enough to confirm that we do have a problem with that here in Luxembourg.
Secondly, many proposals for these councils include limitations on how frequently an individual can be randomly selected to serve. This takes away the incentive to do things just because it will get you votes in the next elections, making it easier to focus solely on addressing the immediate issues at hand.
Lastly, knowing that one may be called upon one day to contribute to the local community in this manner could shift people’s perception of politics. Instead of being confined to choosing the career politician you despise the least, political responsibility would become a duty and privilege belonging to all residents.
I’m not claiming to have a miracle solution here, by the way. I just like exploring new ideas and I do think that there are concepts out there that could help address some of the issues we are facing.
Political disillusionment is a trend that can get very dangerous, very fast. If politicians are actually serious about doing something against it, they must have the courage to admit that our system, the system they are currently benefiting from, is broken.
And who knows, perhaps one day politics will be open to more than just those who think of themselves as politicians.
