In light of increasing federal overreach, municipalities across the United States are grappling with how to maintain democratic principles at the local level.
With major cities like Los Angeles at the forefront of these challenges, local leaders like Mayor Karen Bass are sounding alarms about the erosion of state sovereignty and the consolidation of federal power.
As federal immigration raids and military deployments occur without state consent, the implications for democracy in urban areas have become increasingly urgent.
These actions raise significant questions about the resilience of democratic governance in places where government is closest to citizens.
In Los Angeles, the response to federal tactics has spurred massive collective action, and local governments are urged to channel this energy into building more robust democratic frameworks.
Historically, we have witnessed that when local protests are framed as threats, military force often overrides local authority, and federal funding is utilized as a tool for intimidation.
Against this backdrop of potential authoritarianism, experts advocate for strategies that empower local governments and communities to reclaim democratic processes.
The recent surge of civic engagement in Los Angeles provides an opportunity to redefine relationships among neighbors and rethink local governance practices.
Cities can foster resilience in democracy by embedding the concepts of civic obligation—both the right to participate and the responsibility to connect.
To navigate this pivotal moment, experts suggest immediate steps cities should take to strengthen democratic practices.
First, city governments are encouraged to establish civic engagement as a core component of their operations by funding and integrating citizen assemblies and participatory budgeting into long-term governance frameworks.
Such mechanisms should not be treated as mere pilot projects; they must be recognized as charter-enshrined practices that invite deeper public deliberation while diminishing the influence of dominant minority voices that often overshadow traditional public forums.
Second, planning departments are urged to move away from transactional engagement towards relational engagement.
Allocating staff resources toward community liaisons and facilitators who can develop long-term trust across diverse groups is essential for effective civic engagement.
Furthermore, cities should prioritize the adoption and public reporting of democracy-centered metrics.
Equity dashboards need to extend beyond merely housing and transit data to include measures of public trust.
Key questions such as whether residents are adequately attending city meetings, comprehending decision-making processes, and feeling represented in final outcomes are vital for understanding community engagement.
Lastly, city leaders are called to collaborate with civic organizations, academic institutions, and media outlets to spotlight stories of innovation in local democracy.
Celebrating successful democratic initiatives not only boosts community morale but also encourages replication of these practices in other cities.
To effectively implement these strategies, cities can leverage insights gained from recent protests and civil society movements.
Oregon’s Citizen Assembly model serves as an example of a sustainable structure that enhances participatory governance.
In this example, randomly selected residents engaged in thoughtful deliberation over state COVID-19 responses, creating a sense of legitimacy around local governance.
While not always captivating, such processes are crucial in combating the rise of authoritarian narratives that can flourish in the absence of public engagement.
However, successful deliberation alone is insufficient.
It is equally critical to measure the community’s perception of democracy and trust.
Research indicates that Americans tend to exaggerate the extent to which members of opposing political groups dislike or dehumanize each other, fostering polarization and weakening trust.
This phenomenon, known as meta-perception, makes communities more vulnerable to authoritarian tactics.
Fortunately, studies demonstrate these misperceptions can be corrected.
When participants are informed about the inaccuracies of their assumptions, support for political violence and anti-democratic practices declines, while openness to constructive engagement increases.
This finding underscores the necessity for cities to establish tools for measuring civic sentiment, in addition to tracking traditional socio-economic indicators.
Just as municipalities monitor housing affordability and transit efficiency, they must also gauge how residents perceive each other.
Questions about whether community members feel heard, understand local processes, and recognize the availability of common ground should be incorporated into governance metrics.
Urban development commonly focuses on measurable outputs such as the number of housing units completed and jobs created; however, these figures alone do not reflect a community’s experience of inclusion or agency.
Therefore, cities should integrate trust-based indicators into their evaluations of planning efforts.
According to the GovLab’s recently published Framework for Measuring Trust, residents’ perceptions of a city’s competence, fairness, and empathy directly inform their trust in public institutions.
By creating metrics that assess residents’ feelings of being listened to and the extent to which they believe institutions serve their interests, cities can reshape how they allocate resources and engage communities.
Importantly, trust in local institutions is a distinguishing factor that can be better understood through the lens of community experience, rather than merely economic success.
The imperative for democratic resilience extends beyond bureaucratic frameworks; it necessitates a fundamental shift in how cities approach urban planning.
Urban planning must encompass not only zoning and infrastructure but also the dynamics of civic inclusion and community cohesion.
As cities face unprecedented challenges to democratic norms, it is crucial to harness the public’s desire to address these fractures in civic life.
Fortunately, urban designers and planners are already incorporating lessons from political organizing to enhance their efforts.
In New York’s Jefferson Houses, for instance, the integration of design and trust-building has shown potential, creating accessible avenues for community storytelling and engagement even amidst bureaucratic obstacles.
Insights from civic responsibility research indicate that the public is receptive to greater civic engagement, regardless of political affiliation.
A recent survey by Daniel Yudkin and his team found that although the discourse often emphasizes individual rights, a strong majority of Americans still place a high value on civic duties such as obeying laws and advocating for the rights of others.
This resonance with the idea of ‘connective responsibility’ underscores an existing moral obligation to engage with those who may have differing views, presenting a valuable foundation for participatory local institutions.
As our democracy is tested by top-down authoritarianism, cities possess the potential for transformative bottom-up change.
By embedding processes for deliberation, promoting inclusive planning, and implementing metrics of trust, local governments can mobilize civic energy into lasting democratic practices.
The demand for such engagement exists.
Now, cities must respond decisively to meet this moment.
image source from：nextcity
