Resolution Of The Mayor And Common Council Of The Town Of: Fill & Download for Free

UK constitution works — Flint still doesn’t have clean water :)US Supreme Court itself said:“England has no written constitution, it is true; but it has an unwritten one, resting in the acknowledged, and frequently declared, privileges of Parliament and the people, to violate which in any material respect would produce a revolution in an hour."—Justice Bradley, Slaughter House Cases, 1873 [1].Indeed ‘no taxation without representation’ in The Colonies. It manifests that English constitution (rather than the American).UK Riots (1990) denotes that: people should rebel (and election is holiday); Americans rarely riot about taxes, millions cannot vote.[2]That English constitution keeps government on toes; US Constitution hinders revolts, promotes power-grabs, and prevents resolutions.Flint takeovers ignore the Sovereign (People); meanwhile British PM is complaining to his local council, on behalf of his constituencies! [3][4]Without immediate electoral threats Government ignores the public.[5](2016, Source)INTRODUCTION: GOVERNANCE — ACTUAL TO ABSTRACT(1) The concept of the ‘unwritten constitution’ is the core of the issue, it is fundamental and will be repeated here tiresomely.(2) ‘UK versus Flint’ framing is intentionally provocative. It is symbolic, yet it holds: these are real life results endemic to the nature of each constitution.A constitution is nothing but a list of our basic principles: what constitutes our society. If some principles allow toxic water then some principles do not work well. A good constitution allows amendment of failures.Far from being a single incident or a local issue Flint is emblematic, it is an epitome of decades of receivership, neglect and corruption (Alabama Water same). The UK had known hardship and corruption, but not to such systematic extensive violations of basic human needs. We forget these are not ‘rights’ nor ‘freedoms’ — these are basic necessities to sustain life.Constitutional law defines first and foremost the roles, powers, and structure of state entities[6]. It also defines values, however those are divergent (the concept of freedom changed). Over millennia humanity have developed and maintained many consistent core beliefs — British and Americans share most. But, by nature values across different centuries and cultures are malleable. Therefore it is extremely hard to judge by. But how do we structure values? By our basic political structure. This is our ‘social decision-making system’, and it enabled different phenomena over centuries.Constitutions are means to an end. And this review is an abstraction of that process. Rather than referring directly and dissecting its explicit content (say freedom) — it refers to the conventions that construct values. Simply put: how the system works.These two cornerstones, governance structure and basic life, are irrefutable and will form the scope of this article.(1) GOOD REVOLUTIONS (and bad legislatures)This constitutional investigation will start with the process of impeachment. And canceled instantly: no such a thing in the UK.Each and every PM in the parliamentary system is forced to resign, by their own party members. For example, both Margret Thatcher and John Major enjoyed a nasty leadership contest[7][8] [July 2018 update][9].UK Prime Ministers face an election threat on a daily basis. The PM’s own cabinet revolts against them, while they are all still the acting Government (and maintain legislative functions). It is common for cabinets to constantly plot against the PM. This is the norm for Westminster systems, and Australia follows closely with its ‘spills’[10]. [updated Aug 2018]These mechanics are intertwined to legislation itself — it works the same. British ‘welfare boom’ of 1906–1911[11] was revolutionary by itself. The Lords vetoed that which was revolutionary as well. And the Government called two General Elections in one year, later to change the constitution (again quite a revolution).Produce a revolution within an hour, indeed! The UK system encourages political revolt and change - which the US Constitution discourages.To be fair the US has a different political structure (Federation) with another layer of government (States) and super-majority requirements (Senate). Legislative changes are not meant to be quick. The Electoral College and The Senate were meant to empower smaller states, to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and are effective in doing so. However, Congresses and Presidents failed while many other federal states succeeded (Australia, Canada, Germany). Even the European Constitution, residing over a much looser co-federation, protect against basic rights, why did the US Constitution fail?US constitutional amendments require obtaining a special ¾ super-majority, which is common; but to do so with more than 100 legislative assemblies (50 States’ bicameral legislatures plus Congress). This amounts to a staggering 7,383 State legislators[12]. Now that’s a proper bureaucracy.This clearly denotes a co-federation: a loosely grouped nations with very strong veto powers each (see regional integration spectrum). The US had decided to move to an integrated federation but failed to practically to do so.States determine their own basic laws (basic like marriage; until recently). For most Americans crossing a State border is nothing special, but in many judicial aspects it’s like crossing to a different country. Rather than small changes the laws of the land may be completely contradictory. Shooting guns, or shooting pornography, may be illegal (or perfectly lawful).States also tend to refuse federal laws. For decades Southern States did not enforce civil law[13], Sanctuary Cities do the same today[14]. Apart from suffrage not many amendments since the 14th dealt with federal integrity or personal rights[15]. In a sense the US’ legislative framework had frozen in time.Child Labour[16] and Women Rights[17] failed as amendments to the US Constitution. The Civil Rights movement required 100 years of litigation[18] and another 15 years of protest in the streets just to start desegregation. That’s not a constitution that works better.Congress may (and should) legislate Federal laws instead of Constitutional Amendments. Indeed Congress protected women’s rights. But at best the Federal legislation is slow, incomprehensive, lack enforcement, easily impeded, and its incorporation constantly contested (Federal laws to States). At worst it is not written in stone and could be changed any day. State level legislation is lacking as well and many issues require nation-wide cooperation.While Representatives are constantly under election threat (House elections every two years) that’s a misleading impression: the system as a whole lacks instantaneous political threats.The President cannot demote Members of Congress, while himself being immune; Members of Congress, although sworn to serve the United States, are positioned by the Constitution to mostly service their districts. Lacking imminent threats they are less inclined for comprehensive legislation, nor to enforce it afterwards. No wonder Federal Shutdowns have become the norm. The Constitution offers no solutions, and it was meant that way.These problems are neither theoretical nor contemporary. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 against discrimination was not enforced, and later deemed unconstitutional by our very own Judge Bradley[19]. The 14th Amendment forbids State discrimination but not discrimination by individuals. Indeed the 1964 Act prohibit such ‘private’ discrimination[20]. Not only did it came almost 100 years late it is based on Congress’ right to “regulate commerce”[21] .What a pure legal chaos. To this date full equality is yet to be incorporated constitutionally.This is clearly endemic and an epidemic. It is endemic in that regular issues that are inherent characteristics; it is an epidemic as it spreads and seriously affects the mass population. It also indicates Congressional disillusionment of the constitutional route: using the British norm of ‘simple’ parliament legislation, with the many disadvantages discussed.——— POWER GRABS — Update, December 6th 2018 ———As Republicans in Michigan and Wisconsin stripped Governors powers[22], Rick Taylor, a Republican strategist spoke with Stephanie Ruhle (MSNBC) on this issue, on Tuesday, December 4th, 2018:Ruhle: “THIS IS WHY PEOPLE HATE GOVERNMENT”Taylor: “POWER-GRABS ARE ENDEMIC, they're part of the system. I don't want to sound cynical, this is what they do --”Ruhle: "So we should accept them?"Taylor: "I don't know.. I'm not sure.. Because.. No, we shouldn't accept them. The voters shouldn't accept them"Ruhle: "VOTERS DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. The voters went and voted last month and now this is happening, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING”Democrats did the same, e.g. Houston 1988[23] , so this is an epidemic. Instead of policy the representatives are busy with power-grabs; instead of justice for the people — the judicial is busy with lengthy legal battles.It also COSTS TAXPAYER MONEY — “The power struggle between Democratic Gov. Cooper and the Republican legislature over political appointments has cost taxpayers more than $1.5 million in legal fees from private lawyers.”[24]——— End of update ———In sharp contrast the European Constitution directly calls EU states to actively combat any discrimination (Amsterdam 13, Rome 19[25], ECHR 14, EUCFR/CFREU 21, FRA[26]). The UK adheres to these laws and British lawmakers were involved in its drafting. It is of such importance and consensus the British Parliament is obliged to legislate in accordance with it. Section 3(2) of The Human Rights Act 1998[27] is probably the only UK law allowing the judiciary to override Parliament.(Notes: (1) UK lacks ‘equal branches’ — Sovereignty of Parliament is absolute. (2) UK outside the EU will incorporate these into its legislation.)The machinery of the legislative in both countries was laid bare here and clear patterns emerge. While the UK entertain itself with political revolutions leading to change, the US legislature fails to deliver crucial persistent ones. The US framework lack real political threats for its representatives, uniform consistent rule of law, federal integrity, and basic contemporary rights.These two constitutions offer legislative frameworks with profoundly different processes — leading to quite distinct outcomes.(2) NATURAL CHAOSThe Founding Fathers were wary about primitive ‘checks and balances’ of their time (rightly so) and wanted more: a proper democracy. Not only did they saw far above Monarchy they wished for an authentic political discourse. Government itself, a stronghold of the few at the time, was viewed as a threat to be curtailed. They created many strong individuals, institutions, and states — with the price of an overall impotent governance.Many compare constitutional formats (technical), or popular content (values), but miss the political system a constitution encourages (framework). It’s not about codification but rather about dynamic parliamentary system versus a rigid presidential one; the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy versus judicial review; the weakened individual actors versus brutal empowerment; and the norms and aims of each system.Members of Parliament are under direct pressure from the Prime Minister (and vice versa), as well as direct pressure from his or her constituency. In contrast, the Constitution has no consequences. When a UK Parliament or Government fails they all go down. If Congress or President fails nothing happens.The UK laws encourage constant ‘revolt and change’ which turns the political arena to a real free market of ideas. Every MP and PM has multiple imminent political threats, forcing them to take action beforehand; ‘if we are all to perish (politically) we’d better do something now’. There is an urgency to make things work rather than just win a partisan gain (though it is politics after all). In contrast the Constitution actually encourages procrastination. The market of ideas is perpetually forced upon the elected. It’s rigid rules are infused with more legislatures, encouraging conflicts and vetos, infighting and lawsuits, twists and turns. It was meant to achieve a stalemate. It’s genuine admirable plans of sophisticated discourse and negotiated solutions were quickly forgotten in favour of partisan wins.While The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives can refuse a vote[28] solely on their own — such veto powers would be outrageous in the UK. The Speaker of the House of Commons is actually required to sever ties with their party and act impartially. Unlike Representatives and Senators, UK Members of Parliament can be instantly demoted from their position at all times. Despite the whip MPs vote against their party and leadership, and backbenchers have power[29]. MPs are obliged by their constituency surgery on a weekly basis — which put US Representatives’ once-in-a-year town hall meetings to the shame.Many British resent their electoral system, and it may appear undemocratic.[30] It lacks proportional representation and distorts the electorate. For example the Conservatives got only 36% of the popular vote — yet 51% of seats in parliament. UKIP received 12.6% of the votes but only 0.2% of the seats. More than half of MPs were elected without winning the majority of their constituency votes (just a plurality). Not to mention the closed party-list selection, in contrast to American open primaries.(Source)But, looks can be deceiving. Members of parliament, including government ministers, have a direct link to their constituency. For the UK a ‘constituency’ is not a technical term but a concept rooted in the sense of community.[31] The ‘hashing of votes’ (aforementioned distortions of British FPTP and party-selection) promote tactical voting and local alliances, while positioning politicians on a shaky ground. This is by no means exculpatory of British politics, but it does establish their urgency to make things work.Only in the UK would a PM write to his own party-run local council, complain about local cuts that his own government initiated, and receive a detailed answer. [32]Somewhat absurd but this phenomena is quite extraordinary: elected officials are forced to be involved in the nitty-gritty daily business. The examples are many: overburdened with constituency work, facing a bewildering array of events and cases, dangerous job while satisfying demands of every person, constituency surgeries vital part of democracy; MPs are attuned.While not a law, this tradition dates centuries back and forms a crucial part of constitutional conventions (unwritten customs).[33] Conventions are not foreign to the US Senate as well: seniority, blue slip, quorum call, etc.Conventions are an inseparable part of any constitution. The concept of ‘unwritten constitution’ is rooted in constitutional norms. Indeed, ‘the link between MPs and their constituents is one of the most highly prized aspects of British democracy’.[34]——— Update, July 9th 2018 ———British Prime Ministers answer to Parliament every week, televised live. Question Time is theatrical yet works. Gordon Brown was easily embarrassed. A proper fight: challenging and confronting the PM directly. This amounts to a weekly presidential debate, can one imagine the President answerable to Congress in a live debate on a weekly basis?Nothing happens if a US secretary resigns, but when the British PM presented her EU policy it took just one day for ministers to resign and threaten the Government. Indeed a ‘revolution in an hour’.This may not change history, the event itself is not the issue but the constitutional principle: public outcry swoop Government instantly, no equivalent in the US.(Presidents are rarely confronted by cabinet nor ousted by Congress. The Constitution creates a limbo: no real balances but endless checks; procrastination.)(Boris Johnson resigns as Foreign Secretary, BBC News, 9/7/2018)——— End of update ———That pattern is well-felt: the insignificance of an individual turns Parliament from a bunch of powerful people (like Congress) to a powerful institution that stands on its own. In the long run Parliament is composed of its body of work not by the people who work there. This impermanence is manifested daily.A funny example happened when the Defense Secretary was asked “Why should the public believe you, a transient here-today gone-tomorrow politician?”[35] :That orderly chaos of Westminster system is its beauty.European countries mastered this well, and Belgium excelled this chaos: 9 parliaments[36], 6 constitutional reforms[37], 589 days without a governmentThis mode of action is possible even for a federal multi-cultural state with a codified constitution, like Belgium. Indeed a single regional parliament in Belgium halted a trade deal for the entire EU. [39] Unlike a US State vetoing an Amendment resulting in stalemate, the ‘natural chaos’ in EU and Belgium forced them to fix the issue.(3) “RESOLVE AND CHANGE” (Threats and Reforms)Radical changes are a coin with two sides, or more accurately two world wars (and many bloody civil wars). But the constant abrasive forces, tragic, also taught Europe it must make it work.North Korea, though a threat for Americans, is faraway. For the British the threats are close both in time and space: Franco, The Wall, The Troubles, Kosovo, to name few. Crimea, Calais, Brussels still are, and so is Derry (Irish border). The UK is constantly reminded it must shift its focus. Its governance cannot deal with political warfare and must focus on public welfare.The country and its leadership are forced to constantly stop and review issues, devise themselves wisely, and act. This is not about a commercial innovation of the country as a whole, but rather a societal-political dynamics and shifts. UK policies are not infallible (on the contrary as follows), but over time it works. It must work. This sort of maneuverability is a national political flexibility.(Note: UK ‘devise wisely’ when compared to how Congress works)The U-turn is a well known British institution. Unlike President Trump’s volatility the British U-turns are a consistent behaviour: ‘public rejects, Government reverses’ (embarrassing government u-turns). Unlike American legislatures the UK counterparts cannot afford to do otherwise. They can never rest assured. This political reality is part of the constitution and vice versa.For example UK welfare reforms at the turn of the century were prompted by Liberals’ need to remain in power. The Labour Party emerged with popular socialism and gained seats in the Parliament. There were fears of trade unions gaining political power. Germany enjoyed success and implemented a social legislation that threatened the UK. And soldiers fighting the Boer War were in such poor conditions the army couldn’t enlist recruits.It’s interesting to compare US’ changes in welfare policy during the 1930s with UK’s welfare reforms of 1900s, not by the policy itself, or its effectiveness; it is the modus operandi that is of interest here.The US was forced to change its course due to a humanitarian crisis, while the UK saw a political party urged to reform. Imminent political threats and sour war experience pushed the reforms. The Liberals went all the way: King George V even planned to install 500 new Lords to neutralize their power. At the time The Lords acted as a supreme court of appeals and as a senate (at a limited scope; nothing like the American ones) — so this really echoes Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt for a Supreme Court power grab[40].While President Roosevelt was halted, UK’s constitutional crisis caused the country to reform its constitution: after 2 elections a tentative coalition passed the Parliament Act 1911[41] . The US Constitution not only lacks flexibility but also lacks the ability to resolve issues and change; it brushes them aside.The aforementioned Belgian constitutional reforms and federalization really manifest that ‘natural chaos’ and ‘resolve and change’. Learning about that process is highly recommended. [42](Passing of the Parliament Bill, 1911, source)"The partisan warfare that raged around these topics was so fierce that by 1913, this country was brought to the verge of civil war."— Lloyd George, UK Chancellor and Prime MinisterJustice Bradley said it first, ‘produce a revolution within an hour’.——— RESOLVE, CHANGE? — Update, December 6th 2018 ———1973 — Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox1994 — Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr2017 — Special Counsel Robert MuellerEvery counselor more controversial than the other; every time a new constitutional crisis arises..This is not about power abuse but incompetence: US has yet to find accepted constitutional tools to resolve basic issues. It hadn’t figured out simple tasks (like the proper way to investigate the executive branch).——— End of update ———(4) USA: NO REVOLUTIONS, PLEASEThe American Revolution left little room for contemporary revolutions. It resolves the few revolts it allows with gridlocks (note revolts today are social, less of a violent power-grab). This was its ingenious (at the time) plan . The Constitution was aimed first and foremost to sustain the independence (1776) and the integrity (1861) of a federation, especially against its own dark innerworkings.We The People? The United Colonies of America were above all. Not the government but the existence of The States. Freedom is a fundamental hallow value, but the Constitution was meant first and foremost to “keep it all together”. It was written to heavily mitigate public uproars via sophisticated and elaborate political discourse, and many built-in brakes and stops. Its clockwork of ‘smart bureaucracy’ (complicated political procedures) is its real magic and beauty.That’s a noble design and a noble cause. It is also written beautifully (especially compared to English Law). The Constitution is ingenious and visionary, and it mostly works wonders. But intentionally adding spokes in the wheel worsened unresolved problems and created half-baked solutions.This subject must be approach carefully, as contemporary public resentment is high. In determining effectiveness civil unrest, past and present, must be set aside. Neither a single protest nor a single decade can be indicative.For decades huge portions of American society found itself left behind, lacking basic infrastructure (health, education, transportation). Far from being a minorities or a cultural issue it affects all. The UK had known hardships but living without drinking water for years is unheard of. The average Brit would revolt in a minute (write a strongly-worded letter). What can Flint do?[43]Not much, their constitution does not allow them to revolt.This encapsulates the ironic problems of the Constitution. The encouragement to fight government was violent and futile, thus countered by proper process and rule of law. And vice versa: fighting the public was countered by due process. This friction is extremely common around the world, but in the US these principles were hurtled upon the public. The Constitution (and Federal laws) did not accommodate comprehensive solutions. Unlike most constitutional resolutions around the world the Constitution did not create dialectic solutions, a synthesis. It empowered a strong government — and then empowered a strong public. It intentionally pitted one against the other, later using crude remedies, finally making all participants too slow to act.So this situation is not unique to Flint. We must remember this is not a rant about delayed trains — proper drinking water is crucial and toxic water kills. Rather than a mishap or a localized issue, and as detailed above, it is clear that this governance system actively pushes cities and states to spiral into financial and public health emergencies.(American water pipes, Flint, Michigan)The Flint Crisis is much more than toxic water, it presents a nation-wide dysfunctioning governance (enabled by the Constitution).Unelected Emergency Managers, who may not work for the best interests of the people, cannot be removed. Appointed by a Governor that cannot be removed. Overseen by Congress and President that cannot act.Flint City Council voted to reconnect with Detroit water but Emergency manager overruled the vote. Michigan Governor Snyder knew about the imminent crisis a year beforehand but failed to act, against the backlash of ACLU and EPA alarming warnings. Although rejected a referendum the Governor signed a controversial emergency manager law. President Obama refused a mere 55$ million emergency aid, and Congress also failed to act. For more details review ‘Flint Water Crisis Fast Facts’[44]and A Step-By-Step At The Makings Of A Crisis[45] .Is that shambles unique to the State of Michigan?No, power-grabs and lack or responsibility are common. The Constitution not only lack protection against those but encourages it. Though US’ governments and people relentlessly employ advanced tools like referenda, recalls, lawsuits and impeachments, this rich toolbox fails to provide accountability. Governors simply go rogue (one Chris Chrsitie comes to mind).Now, compare government response to Flint’s crisis with British PM complaining to his local council.The unwritten English constitution, avoiding an artificial tinkering of political powers and elevating individuals, put its elected officials at constant peril. Its toolbox: the rogue rebellious Public itself. Raw. Unhinged at times. Well before nasty water hits the taps, even low-pressure flow would send the British storming the streets. No wonder a complaint letter would suffice. (Note: written humorously nonetheless true.)The American Constitution, which allows many to speak, to dream, to succeed — inherently created a political structure that perpetuate and exacerbate problems, where fundamental things don’t work for many people.(5) POWER, CORRUPTION, REVOLTTyranny is not limited to freedom, privacy, democracy, speech, individualism, etc — it is also freedom from aggressive unjust prosecution.IRS and FBI hold enormous powers. They can literally own you. I’m not protesting their powers just stating the obvious: these bodies are very powerful (compared to UK’s HMRC or the Met).Accordingly many Americans think the Federal Government is ‘too strong’. However neglect, corruption and abuse exists on the state and city level. Many focus on the States-Federal tension but forget they both fail.Police brutality is not just a Federal thing. And a British constable would not act aggressively. There were many riots in the UK and police used force. But when it wrongly does so — the British fight persistently. American still find it hard to hold police accountable.Just 20-something years ago the British rioted against poll tax[46]. People swept the streets over taxes and few months later Thatcher was forced out; ‘produce a revolution within an hour’.Tyranny and prosecution: UK did not have McCarthy Hearings[47]. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s trial was marred by clear judicial and legal improprieties and they should not have been executed (this view is in consensus). The US wrongly executed its citizens.A century ago, as boom and bust come and go, freedom meant you could succeed or die (especially when resources were sparse). Applying this concept today is cruel and oppressive. Again: basic human rights.(Poll tax riots 1990, scenes from the event, source: wikimedia)UK tax riots are modern day Boston Tea Party. What can Americans do against wrongdoings? Wait for years. Lawsuits and Senate elections take time. Political capitulations are unconstitutional in the US as you cannot depose anyone. And there won’t be any ‘IRS Revolt’.The Constitution encourages people and institutions to 'go rogue' then gives them immunity. This is used mostly by the powerful. The UK had its scandals: Cash for Honours, expenses scandal[48], Lords were put to jail[49], Thatcher and Blair subjugation, etc. But things like Chicago’s jailed mayors[50], Watergate, Lewinsky, just wouldn't happen in the UK.It’s not a cultural issue, Americans are not corrupt by nature. At the end UK's constitution does not allow mega-corruption to these levels. At times British people viewed their leadership as abhorrent, but a Prime Minister’s actions amount to horrible decisions — not an extended abuse of power or ill-intentions.The Constitution intentionally gave ‘too much’ power to everyone. Freedom of Speech is almost ultimate, including Nazis[51] . And so are the powers of Senators, rarely impeached. This is an active artificial push to ultimate freedom, a forcible empowerment, that may prevent actual tyranny but does not protect against grave injustices. While most constitutions protect (deal with modern rights), the US Constitution allows malice.Over the last century the UK’s constitution, if compared to the 'brute force' of American lawmaking and policy-making, nudged its participants to be thoughtful. Even British Prime Ministers viewed by some as ‘evil’ had to accommodate demands and show attention and careful consideration. Failing to do so brought public’s revolt that could not be ignored.At the end all prime ministers fail, it is inherent to the system: confidence is routinely checked until failure — and removal. Indeed all British Prime Ministers were ousted. This is revolutionary by nature. Be it Blair or Thatcher, many thought they weren’t deposed fast enough. Swings and roundabouts, resigning or early elections were there all along: Tony Blair to Resign in a Year , Gordon Brown and the 2007 election, David Cameron resignation, to list a few.A prime minister is destined to fail and resign — and that’s a good thing.(Tearful Thatcher announcing retirement from Commons in 1991, source)(6) AMERICAN GREATNESSMany principles of the Constitution are not discussed here. They critically pushed freedom and entrepreneurship and spun many cultural and economical forces. This American success boosted its citizens’ welfare. US economical, scientific, and social revolutions are incomprehensible and its success stories are innumerous. But this is not about success, it’s about failure: which constitution hurts people.Some of the great US political standoffs, when its institutions and its citizens fought for their rights, were not discussed. The Senate and The Supreme Court are the most honorable and distinguished clubs in the world. Their body of work is superior. So is the US Government, composed of millions of hard-working men and women, doing an impeccable job.While this review may appear to bash the US Constitution, it is is actually in the spirit of it. It may be a cliché but the simple notion of ‘fighting for democracy and freedom’ is important. It is a very American thing, and so is dissecting justice and values. These are not ‘British things’ — or as Brenda from Bristol famously said about elections: “Not another one?!” [52]. It is no coincidence that Justice Bradley’s eloquent words guide this text. Modern perception of justice and the conventions in which to apply it rely heavily on American work, not to mention the phenomenal “Theory of Justice”[53]. It has become such an immense dogma any law student around the world learn it unknowingly.And of course this does not devalue the American people, their hard work and professionalism, their kind heart, and their clever minds. Simply put — the American political system as a whole is creaking and cracking (from the start).(7) CONCLUSIONTo sum things up, this review focused on(1) how US basic laws and political structure (“which constitution”),(2) contribute to basic welfare of citizens (“works better”),(3) in recent century,(4) in comparison to the UK.If compared so, not only does The US Constitution appears to be inflexible and curbs reforms of fundamental principles — it also does not allow real conflict and resolution of daily political discourse; it heavily mitigates and excessively endures.Ironically, it does not create immediate threats for the powerful. While the UK’s constitution encourages revolts the American one doesn’t. It does not allow neither Congress nor President to fail and fall. The British chaotic system of natural pressures is effective. The US constitutional system may be a masterpiece by design — but it glitches a lot. It works by over-empowering political players and by power grabs.As a system it is neither natural nor fluid — it dictates ejections and jerks violently. Instead of squeezing grapes and allowing wine to ferment the Constitution guides people to throw grapes at each other. The English system is shaken and stirred, it bubbles, explodes, mixes, convolutes, coagulates, and rests; the American system is like a game of conckers, but with heavy rocks, and people’s lives. This “raw-power politics” bring about animosity and procrastination.Justice Bradley’s quote opened the discussion and it will close it. Its phrasing should be given a careful attention, as it is particular and peculiar. Paraphrasing in simpler terms:acknowledge the declaration of privilege; to disobey something that warrants a revolution..Is that ‘a constitution’? Are those ‘principles’ or ‘values’? It sounds more like a psychologically twisted plot, from a Hitchcock tale of terror and suspense.Indeed Justice Bradley does not speak of a simple law nor real acts of rebellion. Bradley ingeniously eludes to a naturally occurring entangled web, theoretical counter-reactions, and multi-threaded perceived threats.(Judge Joseph Bradley. Library of Congress)DISCLAIMERI do not disparage the US (which I like) nor its system. Prime-ministers exercise powers to an alarming extent, but if a serious review is warranted, that cannot be about preferences.Our scope is of basic political structure and how it affects people’s basic needs. That avoids economical indicators. It is not about success, contemporary issues, society and economics; nothing here takes a stance on big social-economical ideas.In accordance, terms mentioned lack ideological connotation: welfare is not ‘government support’ (but general well-being), freedom is not ‘libertarian’ (but basic rights), fairness is not ‘socialism’ (but a judicial concept), etc.Somewhat hollow to ’rule’ for one constitution, as I have done:Constitutional strengths are weaknesses (‘no government’ can be good and bad).Different constitutions suit different situations (and cultures).US is huge and its federal structure is crucial, compared here with a minuscule Westminster system.Comparable federations are problematic: Canada, Australia, Belgium, Germany — smaller than US by order of magnitude.Interesting comparisons: parliamentarian India[54], presidential Brazil[55] (both huge federal nations with codified constitution).This is a long write which has not been proofread, editorial rewrites are welcomed.EPILOGUEDespite a bold opening I hardly ‘picked a winner’ — this is a reflection not a verdict. I tried to dive in, find patterns of behaviour, and describe them from afar. I learned as I wrote.A big portion of written constitutions is not about “freedoms” but just how to set up the system. A constitution is first and foremost like an IKEA manual. The formation of governing bodies and their behaviour as institutes throughout centuries (rather than on a slice of time or on a single issue) is fundamental.Many today resent “the system”, but at the end we choose our self-governance, based on our social contract; constitutions describe its format. This answer deals with that aspect.● DO NOT TROLL | This is a review of governance structure — not a cultural / political / economical debate ●Footnotes[1] Slaughterhouse Cases[2] Tax Revolts: Some Succeed, Most Don't[3] Emergency manager calls City Council's Flint River vote 'incomprehensible'[4] David Cameron complains to his local council about cuts to services[5] Sack cartoon: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder[6] Constitutional law - Wikipedia[7] Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990 - Wikipedia[8] Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995 - Wikipedia[9] Boris Johnson has resigned as Foreign Secretary - BBC News[10] Why Australia is not done with leadership spills[11] Liberal welfare reforms - Wikipedia[12] State legislature (United States) - Wikipedia[13] Why President Trump Can't Directly Order National Guard Troops To U.S.-Mexico Border[14] Maps: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States[15] Amendment Summary: 27 Updates to the U.S. Constitution[16] Child Labor Amendment - Wikipedia[17] Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia[18] Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia[19] Civil Rights Cases (1883)[20] Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia[21] Commerce Clause - Wikipedia[22] First Wisconsin did it. Now Republicans in Michigan move to strip Democrats' power.[23] Houston Democrats Strip Chairman of Power[24] Your $$$ pays for political battles[25] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN[26] Article 21 - Non-discrimination[27] How the Human Rights Act works[28] Why is the Speaker of the House able to stop a vote on a clean spending bill?[29] Backbencher - Wikipedia[30] Voting system leading to break-up of UK, says report[31] Why not use proportional representation?[32] Cameron accused of hypocrisy over letter complaining of cuts[33] Constitutional convention (political custom) - Wikipedia[34] Are MP surgeries under threat?[35] John Nott. Walks out of interview[36] Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium - Wikipedia[37] State reform in Belgium - Wikipedia[38] 2010–11 Belgian government formation - Wikipedia[39] EU-Canada free trade deal at risk after Belgian regional parliament vote[40] Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia[41] Parliament Act 1911 - Wikipedia[42] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03096564.1994.11784017?journalCode=ydtc20[43] Flint water crisis - Wikipedia[44] Flint Water Crisis Fast Facts[45] Lead-Laced Water In Flint: A Step-By-Step Look At The Makings Of A Crisis[46] Poll tax riots - Wikipedia[47] McCarthyism - Wikipedia[48] United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal - Wikipedia[49] Expenses peers facing suspension[50] Blagojevich Joins 4 Former Illinois Govs Behind Bars[51] Post–World War II legality of Nazi flags - Wikipedia[52] Election 2017: "NOT ANOTHER ONE!" Brenda from Bristol's reaction[53] A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia[54] Constitution of India - Wikipedia[55] Federal government of Brazil - Wikipedia

Since it is not clear from the question which region of the world is being addressed I thought it might be useful to give an answer that pertains to the whole world , with some history of the mayor in the UK, just in case the UK was the subject of the question. Hope this helps. everything below is quoted from Wikipedia that amazing resource residing at our fingertipsMayor - WikipediaIn many countries, a mayor is the highest-ranking official in a municipal government such as that of a city or a town.Worldwide, there is a wide variance in local laws and customs regarding the powers and responsibilities of a mayor as well as the means by which a mayor is elected or otherwise mandated. Depending on the system chosen, a mayor may be the chief executive officer of the municipal government, may simply chair a multi-member governing body with little or no independent power, or may play a solely ceremonial role. Options for selection of a mayor include direct election by the public, or selection by an elected governing council or board.In England and Wales, the position of mayor descends from the feudal lord's bailiff or reeve (see borough). The chief magistrate of London bore the title of portreeve for considerably more than a century after the Norman Conquest. This official was elected by popular choice, a privilege secured from King John. By the beginning of the 12th century, the title of portreeve gave way to that of mayor as the designation of the chief officer of London, followed around 1190 by that of Winchester. Other boroughs adopted the title later.In the 19th century, in the United Kingdom, the Municipal Corporations Act 1882, Section 15, regulated the election of mayors. The mayor was to be a fit person elected annually on 9 November by the council of the borough from among the aldermen or councillors or persons qualified to be such. His term of office was one year, but he was eligible for re-election. He might appoint a deputy to act during illness or absence, and such deputy must be either an alderman or councillor. A mayor who was absent from the borough for more than two months became disqualified and had to vacate his office. A mayor was ex officio a justice of the peacefor the borough during his year of office and the following year. He received such remuneration as the council thought reasonable. These provisions have now been repealed.In medieval Wales, the Laws of Hywel Dda codified the mayor (Latin: maior; Welsh: maer) as a position at the royal courts charged with administering the serfs of the king's lands. To maintain its dependence on and loyalty to the Crown, the position was forbidden to the leaders of the clan groups.[1]A separate mayor, known as the "cow dung mayor" (maer biswail), was charged with overseeing the royal cattle.[1]There were similar offices at the Scottish and Irish courts.[citation needed]The office of mayor in most modern English and Welsh boroughs and towns did not in the 20th century entail any important administrative duties, and was generally regarded as an honour conferred for local distinction, long service on the council, or for past services. The mayor was expected to devote much of his (or her) time to civic, ceremonial, and representational functions, and to preside over meetings for the advancement of the public welfare. His or her administrative duties were to act as returning officer at parliamentary elections, and as chairman of the meetings of the council.However, since reforms introduced in 2000, fourteen English local authorities have directly elected mayors who combine the "civic" mayor role with that of leader of the council and have significantly greater powers than either. The mayor of a town council is officially known as "town mayor" (although in popular parlance, the word "town" is often dropped). Women mayors are also known as "mayor"; the wife of a mayor is sometimes known as the "mayoress". Mayors are not appointed to district councils which do not have borough status. Their place is taken by the chairman of council, who undertakes exactly the same functions and is, like a mayor, the civic head of the district concerned.In Scotland the post holders are known as convenors, provosts, or lord provosts depending on the local authority.Continental EuropeEditMain articles: Mayor of the Palace and podestàThe original Frankish mayors or majordomos were – like the Welsh meiri – lords commanding the king's lands around the Merovingian courts in Austrasia, Burgundy, and Neustria. The mayorship of Paris eventually became hereditary in the Pippinids, who later established the Carolingian dynasty.In modern France, since the Revolution, a mayor (maire) and a number of mayoral adjuncts (adjoints au maire) are selected by the municipal council from among their number. Most of the administrative work is left in their hands, with the full council meeting comparatively infrequently. The model was copied throughout Europe in Britain's mayors, Italy's sindacos, most of the German states' burgomasters, and Portugal's presidents of the municipal chambers.In Medieval Italy, the city-states who did not consider themselves independent principalities or dukedoms – particularly those of the Imperial Ghibelline faction – were led by podestàs.The Greek equivalent of a mayor is the demarch(Greek: δήμαρχος,lit.'archon of the deme').ScandinaviaEditIn Denmark all municipalities are led by a political official called borgmester, "mayor". The mayor of Copenhagen is however called overborgmester"superior mayor". In that city other mayors, borgmestre (plural), are subordinate to him with different undertakings, like ministers to a prime minister. In other municipalities in Denmark there is only a single mayor.In Norway and Sweden the mayoral title borgermester/borgmästare has now been abolished. Norway abolished it in 1937 as a title of the non-political top manager of (city) municipalities and replaced it with the title rådmann ("alderman" or "magistrate"), which is still in use when referring to the top managers of the municipalities of Norway. The top elected official of the municipalities of Norway, on the other hand, has the title ordfører, which actually means "word-bearer", i.e. "chairman" or "president", an equivalent to the Swedish word ordförande.In Sweden borgmästare was a title of the senior judge of the courts of the cities, courts which were called rådhusrätt, literally "town hall court", somewhat of an equivalent to an English magistrates' court. These courts were abolished in 1971. Until 1965 these mayor judges on historical grounds also performed administrative functions in the "board of magistrates", in Swedish known collegially[clarification needed]as magistrat. Until 1965 there were also municipal mayors (kommunalborgmästare), who had these non-political administrative roles in smaller cities without a magistrates' court or magistrat. This office was an invention of the 20th century as the smaller cities in Sweden during the first half of the 20th century subsequently lost their own courts and magistrates.In the 16th century in Sweden, king Gustav Vasaconsiderably centralised government and appointed the mayors directly. In 1693 king Charles XIaccepted a compromise after repeated petitions from the Estate of the Burgesses over decades against the royal mayor appointments. The compromise was that the burgesses in a city could normally nominate a mayor under the supervision of the local governor. The nominee was then to be presented to and appointed by the king, but the king could appoint mayors directly in exceptional cases. This was codified in the Instrument of Governmentof 1720 and on 8 July the same year Riksrådet ("the Council of the Realm") decided, after a petition from the said Estate, that only the city could present nominees, not the king or anyone else. Thus the supervision of the local governor and directly appointed mayors by the king ceased after 1720 (the so-called Age of Liberty). On 16 October 1723, it was decided after a petition that the city should present three nominees, of whom the king (or the Council of the Realm) appointed one.[2]This was kept as a rule from then on in all later regulations[2]and was also kept as a tradition in the 1809 Instrument of Government (§ 31) until 1965.In Finland, there are two mayors, in Tampere and Pirkkala. Usually in Finland the highest executive official is not democratically elected, but is appointed to a public office by the city council, and is called simply kaupunginjohtaja "city manager" or kunnanjohtaja "municipal manager", depending on whether the municipality defines itself as a city. The term pormestari "mayor", from Swedish borgmästareconfusingly on historical grounds has referred to the highest official in the registry office and in the city courts (abolished in 1993) as in Sweden, not the city manager. In addition, pormestari is also an honorary title, which may be given for distinguished service in the post of the city manager. The city manager of Helsinki is called ylipormestari, which translates to "Chief Mayor", for historical reasons. Furthermore, the term "city manager" may be seen translated as "mayor".Here is some information about Mayors worldwide per country also from WikipediaEditAustraliaOn Australian councils, the mayor is generally the member of the council who acts as ceremonial figurehead at official functions, as well as carrying the authority of council between meetings. Mayoral decisions made between meetings are subject to council and may be confirmed or repealed if necessary. Mayors in Australia may be elected either directly through a ballot for the position of mayor at a local-government election, or alternatively may be elected from within the council at a meeting.The civic regalia and insignia of local government have basically remained unaltered for centuries. For ceremonial occasions a mayor may wear robes, a mayoral chain and a mace. Mayors have the title of 'His/Her Worship' whilst holding the position.In councils where councillors are elected representing political parties, the mayor is normally the leader of the party receiving the most seats on council. In Queensland, the lord mayor and mayors are elected by popular vote at the general council election.BrazilEditEvery municipality in Brazil elects a mayor (Portuguese: prefeito/prefeita), for a four-year term, acting as an executive officer with the city council (Portuguese: Câmara Municipal) functioning with legislative powers. The mayor can be re-elected and manage the city for two consecutive terms.The Brazilian system works similarly to the mayor-council government in the United States.CanadaEditThe chief executives of boroughs (arrondissements) in Quebec are termed mayors (maires/mairesses in French). A borough mayor simultaneously serves as head of the borough council and as a regular councillor on the main city council.As is the practice in most Commonwealth countries, in Canada a mayor is addressed as His/Her Worship while holding office.In some small townships in Ontario, the title reevewas historically used instead of mayor. In some other municipalities, "mayor" and "reeve" were two separate offices, with the mayor retaining leadership powers while the reeve was equivalent to what other municipalities called an "at-large councillor". While most municipalities in the province now designate their elected municipal government heads as mayors, in certain areas of the province, the elected head of the municipality continues to be referred to as reeve, and the second-in-command is referred to as the deputy reeve. For example, this continues to be the case in the municipalities of Algonquin Highlands, Dysart et al, Highlands East, and Minden Hills, all located within Haliburton County, as well as Beckwith Township, Lanark Highlands, Drummond/North Elmsley Township, Tay Valley Township, and Montague Township, all located within Lanark County.Many municipalities in Alberta continue to use the title reeve to denote the office of mayor or chief elected official in accordance with the Municipal Government Act.In rural municipalities (RM) in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the elected head of the RM is still referred to as a "reeve", as are the heads of most counties and district municipalities (DMs) in Alberta.The scheduling of municipal elections in Canada varies by jurisdiction, as each province and territory has its own laws regarding municipal governance. See also municipal elections in Canada.Dominican RepublicEditThe mayor of a municipality in the Dominican Republic is called indistinctly alcalde or síndico. The latter name is preferred as to avoid confusing the title with the similarly sounding alcaide (lit. prison warden). Such person is the governor of the municipality whose township elected him (or her) by direct vote for a term of four years. The mayor's office daily duties are restricted to the local governance, and as such, it is responsible for the coordination of waste collection, upkeep of public spaces (parks, undeveloped urban parcels, streets, city ornate, traffic light control, sewage and most public utilities). In practice most of it duties are centered in light street repairing (new or big road projects, like overpasses, bridges, pedestrian crossings, etc. are handled by the Public Works Ministry (Ministerio de Obras Públicas in Spanish) office), under the direct control of the Central Government. Subcontracting garbage collection and management, overseeing the use of public spaces and arbitring neighborhood land use disputes which is managed by the National Property office (Oficina de Bienes Nacionales in Spanish) is also controlled by the mayor's office. Water, electrical supply and public transportation coordination are handled by several Central Government's offices, and as such, are not under control of the mayor.FranceEditFurther information: Mayor (France)Mayors (maires) in France are elected every six years in local elections.GermanyEditIn Germany local government is regulated by statestatutes. Nowadays only the mayors of the three city-states (Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen) are still elected by the respective city-state parliaments. In all the other states the mayors are now elected directly by the EU citizens living in that area. The post of mayor may be said to be a professional one, the mayor being the head of the local government, and requiring, in order to be eligible, a training in administration. In big cities (details are regulated by state statutes) the official title is Oberbürgermeister(lord mayor). In these cities a "simple" mayor is just a deputy responsible for a distinct task (e.g., welfare or construction works). Big cities are usually kreisfrei("free of district"). That means that the city council also has the powers and duties of a rural district council. The leader of a rural district council is called Landrat ("land counsellor"). In that case the chief mayor has also the duties and powers of a Landrat. The term Oberbürgermeister is not used in the three city-states, where the mayors are simultaneously head of state governments, but Regierender Bürgermeister (Governing Mayor of Berlin), Erster Bürgermeister (First Mayor of the city-state of Hamburg) and Präsident des Senats und Bürgermeister (President of the Senate and Mayor of Bremen) are used.GreeceEditMayors (δήμαρχοι, dēmarchoi, sing. δήμαρχος, dēmarchos) in Greece were previously elected every four years in local elections and are the head of various municipal governments in which the state is divided. Starting from 2014, mayors are elected for a five-year term. Local administration elections for the new, consolidated municipalities and peripheries will henceforth be held together with the elections for the European Parliament.Local administration in Greece recently underwent extensive reform in two phases: the first phase, implemented in 1997 and commonly called the "Kapodistrias Plan", consolidated the country's numerous municipalities and communities down to approximately 1000. The second phase, initially called "Kapodistrias II" but eventually called the "Kallikratis Plan", was implemented in 2010, further consolidated municipalities down to 370, and merged the country's 54 prefectures were disbanded in favour of the larger 13 regions. The Kallikratian municipalities were designed according to several guidelines; for example each island (except Crete) was incorporated into a single municipality, while the majority of small towns were consolidated so as to have an average municipal population of 25,000.IndiaEditIn India, the mayor is leader of the council and has a number of roles, both legislative and functional. The legislative requirements are outlined in Section 73 and 73AA of Local Government Act 1989. In most Indian states mayors are elected indirectly among the council members themselves except in eight states Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand; where mayors are elected directly by the public.IndonesiaEditIn Indonesia, mayor (Indonesian: wali kota, formerly called walikotamadya and walikota) is a regional head of a city or town. A mayor has the same level as a regent (Indonesian: bupati), head of a regency (Indonesian: kabupaten). Basically, a mayor has duties and authority to lead the implementation of the policies established by the region along with the city council (Indonesian: Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Kota, DPRD Kota; formerly called Tier 2-DPRD (DPRD tingkat II)). A mayor is elected in a pair with a vice mayor through direct elections and is a political office, except in Jakarta. There, mayoralty is a civil-service career position with limited authority and is designated by the Governor of Jakarta. Their region are called administration cities (Indonesian: kota administrasi).Before 1999, there were administrative cities (Indonesian: kota administratif, id) which were headed by administrative mayors.IranEditIn Iran, the mayor is the executive manager of city and elected by the Islamic City Council. The mayor is elected for a four-year term.IrelandEditIn the Republic of Ireland, the head of a borough corporation was called "mayor" from the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840 until boroughs were abolished by the Local Government Reform Act 2014. The Local Government Act 2001 allowed county councils to style their chairperson as "mayor" and most do so. City council chairs are "mayor" (or "lord mayor" in the cases of Dublin and of Cork). Since 2000 there have been proposals for a directly elected mayor of the Dublin Metropolitan Area.ItalyEditIn Italy the mayor is called sindaco, or informally primo cittadino ("first citizen"). Every municipality (Italian: Comune) has its mayor who represents the local government. The mayor is elected every five years by the inhabitants of the municipality, but he cannot be re-elected after two terms.[3]JapanEditJapan's Local-Autonomy Law of 1947 defines the structure of Japanese local governments, which were strengthened after World War II. It gives strong executive power to the mayor in the local politics like strong mayors in large cities in the United States of America. The titles that are translated as "mayor" by the governments are those of the heads of citiesshichō (市長), towns chōchō (町長), villages sonchō(村長), and Tokyo's special wards kuchō (区長). (The head of the Tokyo prefecture is the Governor (知事, Chiji).) A mayor is elected every four years by direct popular votes held separately from the assembly. A mayor can be recalled by a popular initiative but the prefectural and the national governments cannot remove a mayor from office. Towards the assembly the mayor prepares budgets, proposes local actsand has vetoes on local acts just approved by the assembly which can be overridden by two-thirds assembly support. A mayor can resolve the assembly if the assembly passes a motion of no confidence or if the mayor thinks the assembly has no confidence in fact.KazakhstanEditIn Kazakhstan, the mayor is called Akim who is the head of an akimat, a municipal, district, or provincial government (mayorat), and serves as the Presidential representative. Akims of provinces and cities are appointed to the post by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, the akims of other administrative and territorial units are appointed or selected to the post in an order defined by the President. He may also dismiss akims from their posts. Powers of akims ends with the introduction into the post of new-elected president of the republic. Thus, the akim continues to fulfill the duties before appointment of corresponding akim by the President of Kazakhstan.MalaysiaEditSee also: Mayor of Kuala Lumpur and Mayor of Penang IslandThe mayor functions as the head of the local government of the cities in Malaysia. To date, there are 14 officially-recognised cities in the country.In cities which lie within the jurisdiction of any one of the 13 Malaysian states, the mayor is appointed by the state government.[4]Kuala Lumpur, the country's capital, is a notable exception, as it forms part of the Federal Territories which come under the purview of the Malaysian federal government, via the Ministry of Federal Territories. Thus, the mayor of Kuala Lumpur is selected by, and subordinate to, the Minister of Federal Territories.[5]Following the 2018 general election, which saw the country undergoing its first ever regime change, there have been calls to revive local government elections, which had been the practice in certain cities such as Kuala Lumpur, George Town, Ipoh and Melaka until their abolishment in 1965.[4][6][7]The reinstatement of local government elections would lead to the mayoral position being elected, instead of being appointed as per the current system.MaltaEditIn Malta, the mayor (In Maltese: Sindku) is the leader of the majority party in the Local Council. The members of the Local Councils are directly elected and collectively serve as a basic form of local government.MoldovaEditThe Mayor of the municipality in Moldova is elected for four years. In Chişinău, the last mayor elections had to be repeated three times, because of the low rate of participation.NetherlandsEditMain article: BurgemeesterIn the Netherlands, the mayor (in Dutch: burgemeester) is the leader of the municipal executives ('College van Burgemeester en Wethouders'). In the Netherlands, burgermeesters are de facto appointed by the national cabinet, de jure by the monarch. They preside both the municipal executive and the legislative ('gemeenteraad'). The title is sometimes translated as burgomaster, to emphasize the appointed, rather than elected, nature of the office. The appointment procedure was brought for discussion in the early 2000s (decade), as some of the political parties represented in parliament regarded the procedure as undemocratic. Generally, mayors in the Netherlands are selected from the established political parties. Alternatives proposed were direct election of the mayor by the people or appointment by the city council (gemeenteraad). A constitutional change to allow for this failed to pass the Senate in March 2005, but succeeded in 2018.NepalEditMain article: List of Mayor of NepalMayors in Nepal are elected every Five years in the Local elections. They are very powerful in Municipal Government .New ZealandEditMain article: Mayors in New ZealandMayors in New Zealand are elected every three years in the local body elections.PakistanEditIn Pakistan, a city is headed by the District Nazim(the word means "supervisor" in Urdu, but is sometimes translated as Mayor) and assisted by Naib Nazim who is also speaker of District Council. District Nazim is elected by the nazims of union councils, union councillors and by tehsil nazims, who themselves are elected directly by the votes of the local public. Council elections are held every four years.PhilippinesEditIn the Philippines, mayors (Tagalog: Punong Bayan / Punong Lungsod) are the head of a municipality or a city, with the vice mayor as the second highest position in the city. They are elected every three years during the midterm and national elections, and they can serve until three terms of office. As of – September 2012, there are 1,635 mayors in the Philippines.PolandEditMayors in Poland are directly elected by inhabitants of their respective municipality. Mayor is the sole chief of the executive branch of the municipality and he/she cannot serve in the municipal council (city council) or in the parliament. Mayor may appoint a deputy mayor if needed. In Poland mayor is called a burmistrz or, in towns with more than 100,000 inhabitants or other municipalities that traditionally use the title, prezydent ("president", for example "President of Warsaw" instead of "Mayor of Warsaw"). The equivalent title in a rural community ("gmina") is "wójt".Mayor is elected for a five-year term concurrently with the five-year term of the municipal council, and his/her service is terminated at the end of the municipal council's term. Mayors cannot be dismissed by the municipal council, but they can be removed from the office by the citizens of their municipality in a referendum. Mayor can also be dismissed by the Prime Minister in case of persistent transgression of the law. Citizens having a criminal record cannot run for mayor, but only if sentenced for intentional criminal offence prosecuted ex officio.Mayor manages the municipal estate, issues minor regulations, and incurs liabilities within limits set by the municipal council. Mayor presents a budget to the municipal council, that may be then amended by the council. After the municipal council passes the budget in a form of resolution, the mayor is responsible for its realization. Mayor is the head of the town hall and the register office (he/she may appoint deputies for these specific tasks). Mayors legally act as employers for all of the officials of the town hall. Mayors in Poland have wide administrative authority: the only official that he/she cannot appoint or dismiss is a city treasurer, who is appointed by a city council. Although mayors in Poland do not have veto power over city council resolutions, their position is relatively strong and should be classified as a mayor-council government.PortugalEditIn Portugal and many other Portuguese-speaking countries the mayor of a municipality is called the Presidente da Câmara Municipal (President of the Municipal Chamber).RomaniaEditIn Romania the mayor of a commune, town or city is called primar. He is elected for a period of four years. In carrying out his responsibilities he is assisted by an elected local council (consiliu local). Bucharest has a general mayor (primar general) and six sector mayors (primar de sector), one for each sector. The responsibilities of the mayor and of the local council are defined by Law 215/2001 of the Romanian Parliament.[8]RussiaEditIn Russia, the Мэр, from fr Maire (en transcription = Mer – not to be confused with the NATO OF-3 rank Майор – en: Major), is one of possible titles of the head of the administration of a city or municipality. This title is equivalent to that of the head of a Russian rural district. Exceptionally, the mer of Moscow, Saint-Petersburg and Sevastopol are equivalent to governors in Russia, since these three federal cities are equivalent to Russian federations.Except for those just-named three large cities, the governance system of a Russian municipality (city, county, district or town) is subordinate to the representative council of the federation in which it is located. The mer, is either directly elected in municipal elections (citywide referendum) or is elected by the members of the municipality's representative council. Election by council members is now more widespread because it better integrates with the Russian federal three-level vertical governance structure:National government:President (executive)Federal AssemblyFederation governments:Heads of federation (commonly governors)Regional representative councilsLocal governments:Heads of administration (who have the official title of mer, whether or not local law defines it as such)Local representative councilsThe typical term of office of a mer in Russia is four years. The mer's office administers all municipal services, public property, police and fire protection, and most public agencies, and enforces all local and state laws within a city or town.According to Medialogy,[9]the mer of Novosibirsk, Edward Lokot', is mentioned in the media more than any other Russian mayor. The mer of Kazan, Il'sur Metshin, is the most popular in Russia, scoring 76 out of 100, according to the Russian People's Rating of Mers.[10]SerbiaEditIn Serbia, the mayor is the head of the city or a town. He acts on behalf of the city, and performs an executive function. The position of the mayor of Belgrade is important as the capital city is the most important hub of economics, culture and science in Serbia. Furthermore, the post of the mayor of Belgrade is the third most important position in the government after the Prime Minister and President.Spain and Hispanic AmericaEditAlcalde is the most common Spanish term for the mayor of a town or city. It is derived from the Arabic: al-qaḍi (قاضي‎), i.e., "the (Sharia) judge," who often had administrative, as well as judicial, functions. Although the Castilian alcalde and the Andalusianqaḍi had slightly different attributes (the qaḍioversaw an entire province, the alcalde only a municipality; the former was appointed by the ruler of the state but the latter was elected by the municipal council), the adoption of this term reflects how much Muslim society in the Iberian Peninsulainfluenced the Christian one in the early phases of the Reconquista. As Spanish Christians took over an increasing part of the Peninsula, they adapted the Muslim systems and terminology for their own use.Today, it refers to the executive head of a municipal or local government, who usually does not have judicial functions. The word intendente is used in Argentina and Paraguay for the office that is analogous to a mayor.In municipios and larger cities in Mexico, the chief executive is known as both alcalde or as presidente municipal ("municipal president"), with the latter being more widely used.SwedenEditThe Swedish title borgmästare (burgomaster) was abolished in the court reform of 1971 when also the towns of Sweden were officially abolished. Since the middle of the 20th century, the municipal commissioner – the highest-ranking politician in each municipality – is informally titled "mayor"[citation needed]in English.SwitzerlandEditThe function and title for mayor vary from one canton to another. Generally, the mayor presides an executive council of several members governing a municipality.The title is:in Italian: Sindaco (Ticino), Podestà (Grigioni)in French: Maire (Geneva, Jura, Bern), Syndic(Vaud, Fribourg), Président du Conseil municipal(Valais), Président du Conseil communal(Neuchâtel)in German: e.g. Stadtpräsident, Stadtammann, Gemeindepräsident, GemeindeammannTaiwanEditIn the Republic of China in Taiwan the mayor is the head of city's government and its city's council, which is in charge of legislative affairs. The mayor and city council are elected separately by the city's residents.TurkeyEditMayors (Turkish:Belediye Başkanı) in Turkey are elected by the municipal council. As a rule, there are municipalities in all province centers and district centers as well as towns (Turkish: belde) which are actually villages with a population in excess of 2000. However beginning by 1983, a new level of municipality is introduced in Turkish administrative system. In big cities Metropolitan municipalities (Turkish: Büyükşehir belediyesi) are established. (See Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey) In a Metropolitan municipality there may be several district municipalities (hence mayors).UkraineEditIn Ukraine the title Mer was introduced for the position of the head of the municipal state administration in the federal cities of Kiev and Sevastopol. In the rest of the urban and rural settlements the position is unofficial and simply refers to the head of a local council who at the moment of such assignment cannot be affiliated with any party of the council.United StatesEditMain article: Mayoralty in the United StatesThe mayor is the municipal head of government, the maximum civil authority at the municipal level, in most United States municipalities (such as cities, townships, etc.). In the United States, there are several distinct types of mayors, depending on whether the system of local government is council-manager government or mayor-council government.Under the council-manager government system, the mayor is a first among equals on the city council, which acts as a legislative body while executive functions are performed by the appointed manager. The mayor may chair the city council, but lacks any special legislative powers. The mayor and city council serve part-time, with day-to-day administration in the hands of a professional city manager. The system is most common among medium-sized cities from around 25,000 to several hundred thousand, usually rural and suburban municipalities.Under the mayor-council system, the mayoralty and city council are separate offices. This system may be of two types, either a strong mayor system or a weak mayor system. Under the strong mayorsystem, the mayor acts as an elected executive with the city council exercising legislative powers. They may select a chief administrative officer to oversee the different departments. This is the system used in most of the United States' large cities, primarily because mayors serve full-time and have a wide range of services that they oversee. In a weak mayoror ceremonial mayor system, the mayor has appointing power for department heads but is subject to checks by the city council, sharing both executive and legislative duties with the council. This is common for smaller cities, especially in New England. Charlotte, North Carolina and Minneapolis, Minnesota are two notable large cities with a ceremonial mayor.Many American mayors are styled "His Honor" or "Her Honor" while in office.Also see List of United States cities by population

Nelson Mandela, despite his many faults* (see below) and prejudices tried to put his country first, unlike the grinning goon (Archbishop) Desmond Tutu and others in the top echelons of the ANC, who to a large degree are misguide fed [what is a “misguide fed”] if not corrupted opportunists.While the peacemaking overtures of Mandela notably stand apart hence qualifying him as a peacemaker, the ANC per se has conveniently ‘lost touch’ of the historical facts relating to this matter.These ‘facts’ contradict the parallel so often drawn between Israel and the old apartheid South Africa, as well as the allegation that Israel was a major supporter of the apartheid regime.The ‘comfortable liberal left narrative’ is that Israel is widely accused of having violated international sanctions by continuing to trade with South Africa in the 80’s.Yet in 1986, while apartheid was suffering worldwide opprobrium, South Africa's main trading partners were:U.S.A. - $3.4 billion,Japan - $2.9 billion,Germany- $2.8 billion,U.K. - $2.6 billion.By comparison, Israel's miniscule $0.2 billion total trade with South Africa amounted to less than 0.79% of South Africa's total trade.The puzzle however, is why the resentment continues to smolder only against Israel, while the main suppliers of weaponry, France, Britain, Canada, West Germany, Italy, India, Belgium, Taiwan and the United States have been forgiven?In addition, the apartheid regime could have been brought to its knees much earlier, had its oil supply been cut off.All of its $2 billion annual oil import came from Arab states, mainly Saudi Arabia, yet there is zero animosity towards the Arab world for supplying the apartheid regime with oil for decades.Moreover, there was a $1 billion barter deal concluded with Iran by the (white) apartheid government, exchanging South African weapons with Iranian oil.A similar deal for $750 million was concluded with Iraq.Is it not strange that none of these countries are judged by the same yardstick as applied to Israel?Hypocrisy, duplicity?You bet!Contrary to conventional wisdom and compared with many other countries, Israel has much to be proud of in its contribution towards the new South Africa.Israel receives no credit for its unique contribution during the apartheid years in providing intensive programs for training Blacks in leadership skills to use in a future new democratic South Africa. Of necessity these Community Development and Leadership programs, under the auspices of the the Israel Trade Union (Histadrut), were held covertly so as to avoid the attention of the apartheid government.Some 3 dozen Black South African graduates went on to become mayors of cities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, Randburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, George, Grahamstown, East London and Port Alfred, after the fall of apartheid!And hundreds of members of local government councils and at least 40 members of South Africa’s parliament and ministers of provincial councils passed through the Israeli training center located at Beit Berl, at some time.And all this was secretly fully funded by the Israeli government.In addition, The Center for International Cooperation ("MASHAV") of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has over many decades carried out capacity-building and technology-transfer activities in 39 different African countries.Some of the courses were carried out at teaching and training facilities in Israel. Others were conducted in the relevant 3rd party countries, including long-term agricultural projects. Today, the "He-atid" ]התוכל לתת URL? לא מצאתי תוכנית בשם “העתיד”[ program continues to organize training sessions in Israel for hundreds of middle managers from all over Africa.While the ANC's empathy with the Palestinians may be +/- understandable as a result of having been comrades in arms, the commonality ends there, or should end there.Indeed the Palestinian people deserve a better life, but they have been unfortunate in lacking leadership of anything remotely resembling Mandela (and I say this despite Mandela’s many questionable and problematic comments over the years).Who can doubt that (and given his many imperfections), had a Mandela equivalent been at the top of the PLO instead of the highly corrupted Yasser Arafat or Abu Mazen that there would have been a satisfactory peace agreement by now?Unfortunately, the Islamic based, hate-filled PLO and Hamas covenants are vastly different from the ANC's Freedom Charter, which promotes "world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation - not war".In contrast:Article 9 of the PLO Charter declares bluntly that the armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy.Article 19 rejects outright, the 1947 UN partition of Palestine, implying that liberating Palestine means the destruction of the entire Jewish State.And all international resolutions concerning Palestine are unashamedly rejected in Article 20.Article 13 of the Hamas Charter unambiguously states "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement, and that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."The late Hamas leader Dr. Rantisi told NY Times journalist Joel Binkley in April 2003, "We in Hamas believe peace talks will do no good. We do not believe we can live with the enemy (the Jews) under any circumstances."Another Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told Binkley in a later interview, and with a smile, "40 Zionists were killed and 200 injured in just two operations, and we have a lot more in store."Sadly, the ‘imaginative’ irrationality of the Hamas concept, so different from the sober tone of the ANC Charter, is illustrated by obsessive phobia about Freemasons, Rotary clubs, Lions and similar organizations, promising that the day Islam is in control, these organizations will be obliterated.These groups are accused of everything from control of the world media, stirring the French and Communist Revolutions, instigating both World Wars, and forming the League of Nations and the UN.The ANC, for all its (very, very many) errors, would never tolerate the type of incitement to violence, which has been emanating for years from the mosques and PA-controlled media and taught in schools from the earliest age.Hence, despite continual ANC corruption, the diatribes against white farmers and many other at best silly initiatives, the time has surely come to introduce into the Palestinian leadership mindset, some of the ANC's concept of reconciliation and love of humanity.From Herald Sun newspaper, Australia*It is true Mandela rose to greatness. Freed after 27 years in a South African jail, the anti-apartheid fighter emerged not bent on vengeance but healing.He negotiated a peaceful end to apartheid, and as the first president of democratic South Africa, preached - and practised - reconciliation. In this he was great. A healer. An inspiration.For many whites abroad, he seems even Christ-like - someone who'd suffered for the sins of white guilt, and absolved those who believed in him of the sin of racism.But Mandela was no Christ nor even Gandhi nor even Martin Luther King.He was for decades a man of violence.In 1961, he broke with African National Congress colleagues who preached non-violence, creating a terrorist wing.He later pleaded guilty in court to acts of public violence, and behind bars sanctioned more, including the 1983 Church St car bomb that killed 19 people.Mandela even suggested cutting off the noses of blacks deemed collaborators. His then wife Winnie advocated "necklacing" instead - a burning tyre around the neck.Mandela argued the apartheid regime left him no option but to fight violence with violence, but it is too easy to claim events proved him right. His legacy is not yet played out.Current president Jacob Zuma until recently still publicly sang the anti-apartheid song, “Shoot the Boer”, in a still-divided country where many white farmers have been shot.Mandela's support for other leaders of violence is even less forgivable.He maintained close ties to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and backed Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. As president in 1997, he gave his country's highest award for a foreigner to Libya's dictator, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who'd donated $10 million to the ANC. He gave the same award to the very corrupt Indonesian president Suharto, who he said had donated $60 million to the ANC.Mandela supported Nigerian coup leader Sani Abacha, refusing to say a word publicly to stop the 1995 hanging of social freedom activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.I repeat, Mandela did great things. But many of his more radical supporters in the West now use that greatness to wash clean his record of political violence - and his support for dictators who'd used it.That is dangerous.