Saturday’s round of local council elections provides an opportunity to review what has taken place since local councils were introduced 13 years ago.

It is not our intention to focus on what local councils have done, and which party has the better chances of winning on Saturday. Neither is it our intention to deal with possible outcomes and give marks to the councils according to their performance. We leave that up to the residents of the localities where the vote will take place. We are sure that they know fairly well whether their councillors have kept their promises.

What we aim to analyse here is the concept of local councils and whether the objectives encapsulated in the legislation passed by parliament have and are being reached.

When local councils were established in 1993 it was thought that they would have tackled three aspects of our way of life. The first objective was the decentralisation of power, with the government passing on part of its duties to be administered by local councils; the second was the further spread of democracy to include better and wider participation; and the third was to reduce polarisation, a characteristic of a nation dominated by two political powers.

The first objective has been achieved, although there are still other matters than can be seen to. The government has passed on some of its powers to local councils, which now take care of a wide array of issues that were previously part of the central government’s work.

The councils’ responsibilities have increased over the years and although the question whether all councils are doing a proper job is debatable, it must be said that the decentralisation of power has helped.

The government can concentrate on the more important things while councils can take care of the day-to-day running of their locality with funds that are passed on by the government in every budget.

The setting up of local councils has also helped the spreading of democracy. Today, people feel that their voice is being heard better through their local council. There have been several occasions in the past when local councils have taken the cue of residents’ complaints – or were themselves the first to air grievances – on matters that concern their locality.

There were times when local councils exaggerated in their intransigence but there were other occasions when the defence they put up was justified. In a way, by setting up local councils another barrier was created between the government and its plans – any initiatives for particular localities are scrutinised by local councils and it has happened very often that councils opposed projects and these were later modified.

What better democracy can you have?

If decentralisation and democracy succeeded, at least in part, then the reduction of polarisation failed miserably. If anything, the setting up of local councils has helped polarisation to flourish.

The participation of political parties in local councils has added fuel to the polarisation fire. It would have perhaps been better if political parties kept out of the system, as maybe we would have less polarisation and possibly councils that function better too.

As it is now, the country is in election mode once every year, instead of once every five. Although local council elections are held in only one-third of the country, the political parties consider them far more important than they really are.

There was a time when there were suggestions that local councils should be grouped in two batches, rather than three, with their term extended to four years instead of three. This would reduce the number of elections that are held and give councils a longer period in which to carry out their plans. But these talks seem to have stalled.