- There are a number of different styles of governing a city.courthouse image by Randy McKown from Fotolia.com
City governments are often like national governments written in miniature. In America the city government has the same general setup as both the state and the national government: an executive branch in the form of the mayor, a legislative branch in the form of a town council, and a judicial branch in the form of town and city courts. How people act within these systems could be considered their governing styles whereas the actual form of the government is still technically democracy. - Those who are considered authoritarian leaders tend to make sure they have as much decision-making power as possible. Authoritarians govern in a way that means the final decision on matters rests with them, and they're usually very involved leaders. An example of how this is possible in a democracy could be a city council member who effectively has either bullied, bought, or is owed favors by the rest of the council so that they'll bow to his view on a subject. Another example would be a mayor who insists that the council see things his way or will refuse to implement any of the laws the council makes that he doesn't agree with.
- More moderate than the authoritarian style, a democratic style of city government is what's most commonly seen in America (or at least what's most commonly tried for). Those who are democratic leaders will encourage all persons to give their opinions and views in order to hear as many different options as possible. Then she'll work out a way to incorporate the best solution based on all of the different views that were put forth. This give-and-take is a natural part of the democratic process, and with the American system of government it tends to happen on most political fronts.
- Laissez-faire government is the sort of government that's very hands-off, unlike an authoritarian style of governing. Those who are laissez-faire leaders tend not to get themselves involved in the actual decision-making process because they don't want to be seen as pushing their own views or opinions on anyone. A laissez-faire city mayor would basically be a rubber stamp for the city council, signing whatever legislation it came up with because it's the council's job to make laws, and who is he to nay-say them or force his opinions on the subject of the laws he'll be expected to enforce?
previous post