As in anything else in life, there are local councils that work hard, and others that don’t. Some don’t even work at all, except perhaps to carry out the normal administrative matters they have been assigned and during the three months preceding an election as the mayor and councillors do their best to get re-elected. The thing is, sometimes residents fall into the trap and put them in office again.

It is with this in mind that this newspaper has for long been advocating that the post of a mayor should not be held by the same person for more than two consecutive terms. Currently, this amounts to a total of six years; if the reform currently being planned by the government will increase the term of local councils to four or five years, then the two-term cap would be needed even more. Six years are already long, let alone eight or 10.

When local councils were first introduced in 1993, the mayor was selected during the first meeting that was held among the elected councillors. It was only later that the rules were changed and it was decided that the candidate obtaining the highest number of votes from among those contesting on behalf of the party that wins the majority of seats is automatically elected mayor.

The next step should be that even if mayors obtain the highest number of votes after two consecutive terms in office, they should make way for the second best placed candidate, again of the winning party. Of course, the “deposed” mayor should continue to serve as a councillor.

Some might argue that this proviso would result in mayors not contesting for local council elections if they have been in office for two consecutive terms, which would mean that their experience is lost. But, on the other hand, the election of a new mayor will bring in fresh ideas and a new zeal incumbent mayors would have lost.

Some might also argue that a mayor will work hard during his first term to get a second term in office as mayor, and then let go because he or she could not be re-elected a third time. This may be true, but there have been mayors who never delivered the goods, not in the first term, neither in the second, and not even beyond that.

From the experience gathered in the last 15 years, it is clear that local councils work just as much

as their mayor does. If a mayor is determined,

enthusiastic and hard-working, then the local council functions well and gets things done because councillors have someone from the top to push them into doing their duties. If a mayor is lethargic, lazy and lacks ideas, then the council will inevitably

follow suit.

Generally speaking, this is more so in localities where either of the two parties enjoys a comfortable majority of three seats or more. In such towns and villages, mayors (and councils) are less likely to work hard because they know that whatever they do their party will still win a majority in the following election. In localities where, on the other hand, the parties win by a one-seat majority and where the election victory has changed hands, mayors (and councils) push harder.

The government is currently holding meetings and discussions on a planned reform in the way local councils operate. It is highly unlikely that any mayor or councillor put forward the idea of capping a mayor’s length of stay at the helm, as ultimately it is understandable that they would want to protect their own turf (read power).

And therefore it is the government which must actively consider this proposal, as this would certainly help bring about a better functioning of the local council system.