American cities are obviously a mess. They are plagued by crime, corruption, homelessness, drug addiction, failing schools and vast inequalities of wealth. The underlying problem isn’t rocket science. It’s partly due to our professional politicians, whose motivational interests often do not coincide with the common good of city residents.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Many of the world’s top-rated cities for quality of life are governed by everyday citizens, not by professional politicians. One example is Stockholm, Sweden, which is run cleanly, efficiently and democratically compared to American cities, which unlike Stockholm, are rarely found anywhere near the top of quality of life indices. Despite high Swedish taxes, cosmopolitan Stockholm even has a lower cost of living than San Francisco, Chicago or New York.
First and most significantly, Stockholm’s 980,000 residents are governed by a City Council of 101 members. That means there’s one elected official for every 9,700 people – orders of magnitude of fewer city residents per elected official than in a typical American city. San Jose, for example, has about the same population as Stockholm, but instead of 101 city councilmembers, it has only 10.
Moreover, the vast majority of elected officials who govern Stockholm are not professional politicians. Most are ordinary citizens, who serve part-time, make part-time pay, and keep their day jobs.
Popular control of Stockholm city government does not end there. City functions and facilities – public housing, water supply, waste management, school buildings and parking garages – are governed by 16 public corporations, overseen by boards of city residents appointed by the large popular City Council. All these citizen eyeballs on specific city government functions encourage efficiency and accountability.
For overall financial oversight of city affairs, the City Council chooses 20 city residents typically with financial, business or accounting backgrounds to serve as city auditors who annually scrutinize municipal finances. Funds allocated by the Stockholm City Council for childcare, elderly care, parks and youth clubs are distributed by local boards, comprised of city councillors, in Stockholm’s 11 city districts.
In Swedish cities like Stockholm, executive authority is also distributed. The 101-member City Council appoints a mayor and 12 vice mayors, each one to oversee a different city department. The mayor chairs an executive board and the city’s finance committee but otherwise has no special powers.
Stockholm city residents who don’t participate by serving in government vote in large numbers of around 80% of the city’s total eligible population. Compare this to the average turnout in American city elections at 15%.
In Sweden, political parties are a central component of the political system at all levels, including municipal government. Stockholm is governed by eight political parties (Center Liberal, Christian Democratic, Greens, Moderate, Social Democratic, Swedish Democrats and Left). Candidates for City Council run at-large on party lists, using a system of proportional representation.
Parties in minority coalitions are awarded seats proportionally on all city boards and district councils. Most of the parties have proposed their own city budget, which are available for public view. In sum, Stockholm’s is a rational and democratic approach to municipal government that stands in sharp contrast to the top-heavy, professional politician and money-driven, political systems of U.S. cities. Could such a model of popular municipal government be imported and adopted by American cities?
The most challenging element to imitate in the United States would be Stockholm’s multiparty system. In the United States, of course, there’s only two significant political parties. Most American cities utilize non-partisan elections and those that don’t are almost completely dominated by the Democratic Party.
Would American cities have meaningful electoral competition if the Stockholm system were magically imposed on American cities? Perhaps alternative parties would eventually spring up, but how long would that take, and what would the results be in the meantime?
To ask a more basic question, do political parties do more harm than good? The progressive political reformers of over a century ago were so appalled by the party-based corruption evident in their day that they banned partisan elections in most American cities. Even in Europe today, a shrinking minority of citizens choose to be party members. In Sweden, fewer than 5% of citizens belong to a political party.
But imagine if the Stockholm system were adopted in an American city minus the political parties. Instead of voters choosing from candidates running at-large and arranged on party lists, as they are in Stockholm, an American variety of Stockholm city government could be divided into many small districts of fewer than 10,000 residents each, and maybe much smaller still (other global cities and even some U.S. states have representation ratios with fewer than half as many residents per elected official).
Small electoral districts solve one of the biggest problems in American politics: campaign finance. Political campaigns in small districts are relatively cheap, which means that almost anyone could afford to run for office and have a reasonable chance of serving in government without devoting one’s life to politics. The need for fundraising in neighbourhood-size districts is minimal. Elections in small districts of several thousand residents are won with yard signs, shoe leather and flyers. The power of special interests, from developers to public unions, nearly disappears and so does incumbent advantage, meaning much fairer elections.
True, some American cities have “solved” the campaign finance problem through systems that multiply small-dollar contributions with public money, but this has resulted in taxpayer money funding the political careers of professional politicians. Big-district elections are always about marketing no matter the sources of the financing. Isn’t it better when residents can elect neighbours they know and trust based on relationships and reputations?
While it’s true that existing self-interested city councils of professional politicians are unlikely to ever de-privilege themselves, most American cities permit ordinary people to radically expand and de-professionalize city councils through charter amendments enacted by citizens’ initiatives and referendum, which would fundamentally re-democratize our cities. Comprehensive city charter reform could follow.
Then, because the people are the best guardians of their own interests, urban Americans would be on their way to making their cities far more wholesome and livable.
Stephen Erickson is executive director at Citizens Rising and the founder of Cities Rising, non-profit organizations dedicated to best democratic practices. He can be reached at [email protected]
