The constitution of local corporations after the electoral process is always accompanied by controversy, surprises and behaviors that are not easily understood by many citizens. Very often the councilors with the most votes are not the ones elected as mayors. With the justification of achieving a majority, agreements are formalized that the voters did not see as possible; the electoral campaign is full of demonstrations and promises, which then do not fit with the agreements reached to form the municipal government. This creates confusion; sometimes even indignation. But nothing can call into question the legitimacy of the agreement: the councilors could and were legally called upon to choose from among themselves who they wanted as mayor and those who had to integrate the municipal government. Difficult, complicated, even contradictory. But it is so.
Should the system be reviewed? It is often argued that the French system of the second round avoids these situations complained of here. In fact, in France it is the electors who are responsible for assuming the inconsistencies and contradictions that we deposit here in the councillors. It is the voters who decide how to form majorities beyond a more partisan and ideological first option. In a second round, the lesser evil dominates, the proximity, the acceptable discrepancy. It is the voters, finally, who directly decide by whom they want to be governed.
But that is not the case here, and now what is needed is to govern. Therefore, make stable and consistent majorities; with an explicit and transparent program; that respond to people’s problems. At the outset, this means dialoguing both within the local corporation and with citizens. Know how to listen, respect, build. When the election has resulted in an image of weakness and loneliness, what is needed is to know how to weave new and strong complicities that accompany a government action that can exhibit and rest on a strong social base. Weakness does not justify inaction; in any case, it imposes the obsessive search for understanding in the City Hall and in the streets, between councilors and residents.
So far, everything is difficult and complicated. Resentments do not favor citizenship. The citizen does not want or like to be outraged; he wants to be well served by all those who have assumed the responsibility of governing the city; have voted for them or not. Now is not the time to settle accounts; now is the time to make a city. The more complicated and difficult it is to understand how the election of a municipal government was resolved, the more forced and necessary it is to communicate to the citizens the reason for the agreements that made it possible. Let the reason be noticed and perceived.
On the other hand, other elections are approaching. Now the generals. That they also arrive accompanied by all kinds of uncertainties and with a scenario of great complexity in terms of the agreements that will predictably have to accompany the formation of a new Government in the State. How will majorities be formed if they are necessary? As has been done in this municipality or in that other? Will everything be possible? What will the references be? Now everything has become confused and this is not good for stimulating people’s participation. Much more clarity will be needed about “with whom” and to “do what”. Because not everything is possible with anyone. In the Town Halls, very complicated. It can be seen In the State Government, impossible.
Well, we need to clarify that. In terms that leave no doubt. With more commitment. With who? To do what?
