The news that the Mtarfa local council was dissolved came as no surprise. The council had not been functioning according to the law and last Monday, on the advice of the Prime Minister to the President, the council was dissolved “because of its continuous failure to observe the dispositions of the Local Council Act”.

If anything, the government took longer than necessary to take the decision, considering that the council had been dysfunctional for so many months, but it is possible that the government did not want to rock the boat on the eve of a general election campaign. At the first opportunity, the council’s official functions were brought to an end.

What is probably more significant is the comment that was made in the Department of Information statement that announced the dissolution of the Mtarfa council. The DOI said that the Prime Minister was giving notice that “similar situations in other local councils” will not be tolerated because local government is a public function in which the proper procedures should be observed according to law and with serious accountability “in the interest of the local citizen”.

This is a bold statement that should spur all other local councils – especially those who are encountering difficulty in their administration – to pull their socks up and rectify the situation before it is too late.

Through the Mtarfa case, the government has shown that it has all the patience it needs to give councils every possible opportunity and all the available time to mend their ways, but if the situation does not improve then it is duty bound the take the measures it is allowed by law.

The government is not pointing fingers at anyone and did not mention councils by name, but the statement indicates that the Local Government Department is following matters closely.

Local councils were set up to be of service to the community, and unless they carry out their duties properly it is pointless having them around.

People who present themselves to be elected as councillors should be ready to accept the responsibility that such a position brings with it. Some people might think it is just a prestigious post, but on the other hand it is also one that needs hard-working people who are committed to work in the best interest of the community that elected them.

There are councils that, unfortunately, do not work as much as others do. They do meet once a month as stipulated by law, but then they take too long to make decisions and longer to implement them. While some councils have, in the past 15 years since councils were set up, worked incessantly irrespective of whoever was elected, and have literally transformed the face of their locality with countless projects they have undertaken, there are others who have done very little and only seem to start the ball rolling with some cosmetic changes like the painting of zebra crossings each time an election is approaching.

As a general rule, it is apparent that councils in which there is a slim political majority seem to work harder than others in which either the Nationalist or Labour parties enjoy a comfortable lead of three or more councillors.

The pity is that some mayors and councillors continue to be elected even though they have failed to deliver, and in this sense the residents should be more intelligent in the way they vote. Mayors and councillors who do not perform up to the expectations should not be elected again.

Just as much as the people vote to remove Members of Parliament who do not serve them well, in the same way residents should elect only those mayors and councillors who fulfil what they promise. Just as much as people vote to elect young, fresh Members of Parliament, so they should do when every three years they vote for the local council.