Can a city mayor be a member of the national parliament in your country?

Marla_Singer

United in diversity
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
13,289
Location
Paris, west side (92).
Hey everyone,

Most democracies are based on a two-house parliamentary system :
- the upper house supposed to represent the territories (generally the country's subdivisions)
- the lower house supposed to directly represent the people.

Such a system would imply that, in order to avoid conflicts of interest between the two mandates, a lawmaker of the lower house shouldn't be able to also manage a city, a province or a state. Of course he can be elected as a representative of an electoral constituency or district, but with no direct local leadership over that territory. This is just a basic to make him vote the law according to national interests rather than the local interests of his other mandate.

In France, we can be both a mayor and a member of the National assembly at the same time. And as a matter of fact, 95% of our deputees in the lower house are also mayors or presidents of regional or departemental assemblies. I believe this is the very reason why our organisation of the territory sucks so much: we can't rationalize anything because everyone defends their local interests.


So here's my question. Is this specific to France? Can members of the Bundestag in Germany, the House of Commons in the UK, the House of Representatives in the US share their national responsibilities with local ones? Or is this prohibited in your constitutions?

I'm interested to know about as many countries as possible ! :)
 
Interesting question! There is nothing in the US Constitution which forbids it. They -are- forbidden from holding a civil office at the federal level in addition to their role as Representative or Senator, but it says nothing of State or municiple offices. Here are the pertinent parts of the US Constitution. The bit from Section 5 I include because I suppose that could empower either chamber to make its own rule about it, but I am not sure if they have done so.

Article I of US Constitution said:
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...

...

Section. 6.
...
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
...

Now moving on to State level, I don't know if a State could prevent it or not with their own law. Attempts by States to term limit there US Representatives and Senators have been shot down by the courts and I suspect the same would happen here.

BIG EDIT!!!
Whoops! 14th Amendment, Section 3! If you engaged in insurrection or rebellion, it does specifically prohibit it :)
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 
I'm interested to know about as many countries as possible ! :)

well the NSW state Govt. have just passed legislation prohibiting this due to the re-election of Sydneys Lord mayor

The NSW Government passed a law prohibiting a person holding dual roles in state and local government, which will stop Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore from holding the office of Lord Mayor of Sydney and NSW Member of Parliament.
http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2012/04/05/article/No-more-government-dual-roles/TTDHVNAHVU

I am not totally sure of their reasoning, as I live in Victoria the state next door
 
Interesting question! There is nothing in the US Constitution which forbids it. They -are- forbidden from holding a civil office at the federal level in addition to their role as Representative or Senator, but it says nothing of State or municiple offices. Here are the pertinent parts of the US Constitution. The bit from Section 5 I include because I suppose that could empower either chamber to make its own rule about it, but I am not sure if they have done so.



Now moving on to State level, I don't know if a State could prevent it or not with their own law. Attempts by States to term limit there US Representatives and Senators have been shot down by the courts and I suspect the same would happen here.

BIG EDIT!!!
Whoops! 14th Amendment, Section 3! If you engaged in insurrection or rebellion, it does specifically prohibit it :)
I'm not sure to understand. So according to the 14th amendment. US federal representatives and senators can't cumulate their office with any other local ones? Is this what should be understood?

Outside what the constitution says, do you find example in your mind of current mayors or governors holding a seat at one of both federal houses?
 
well the NSW state Govt. have just passed legislation prohibiting this due to the re-election of Sydneys Lord mayor


http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2012/04/05/article/No-more-government-dual-roles/TTDHVNAHVU

I am not totally sure of their reasoning, as I live in Victoria the state next door
My brother lives in Brisbane, QLD. He told me it was impossible for someone currently assuming a local office to be a Representative in Canberra. Are you sure this is determined at state level? That's kind of weird considering the parliament is... well... federal.
 
In Belgium a lot of members of parlement (federal or regional) are also mayor or at least city council members. I don't see this as a problem. It gives the local governments a "voice" in the parlements, and for the smaller cities/municipalities, it should be no problem to combine the jobs (distances are small enough to commute, for example).

There has been some criticism in the past, for instance of the mayor of Antwerp, who was also a member of the Flemish regional parliament. But he couldn't spend a lot of time on his parliamentory job. He basically just showed up once a week to cast his votes...
 
I'm not sure to understand. So according to the 14th amendment. US federal representatives and senators can't cumulate their office with any other local ones? Is this what should be understood?
No, I'm sorry, I was unclear there. I just found the 14th amendment's section 3 amusing because it is directed at people who held office while in a state of insurrection against the United States. It was added to the Constitution just a few years after our civil war ended.

Outside what the constitution says, do you find example in your mind of current mayors or governors holding a seat at one of both federal houses?
None at all come to mind, and a admittedly quick and non-thorough yahoo search turns up none either.
 
In Belgium a lot of members of parlement (federal or regional) are also mayor or at least city council members. I don't see this as a problem. It gives the local governments a "voice" in the parlements, and for the smaller cities/municipalities, it should be no problem to combine the jobs (distances are small enough to commute, for example).

There has been some criticism in the past, for instance of the mayor of Antwerp, who was also a member of the Flemish regional parliament. But he couldn't spend a lot of time on his parliamentory job. He basically just showed up once a week to cast his votes...
Hmm... another Belgian guy told me we couldn't be member of the federal parliament and assume a local office in the same time. :hmm:

This isn't a matter of distance, this is a matter of conflicting interests. The issue is about favoring the governed municipality or region through votes casted at the national level.
 
None at all come to mind, and a admittedly quick and non-thorough yahoo search turns up none either.
That's the reason why I expected it to be prohibited.

As I've told, in France it's allowed and it's common practice. As such, why wouldn't Michael Bloomberg pretends to become a representative in Washington and keep his job as mayor of NYC? Would it be badly felt? (if it's not illegal)


In Canada, I know for sure that it is fully prohibited. A mayor would have to quit his post simply to run for a federal election (as such even before being elected, if he would).
 
My brother lives in Brisbane, QLD. He told me it was impossible for someone currently assuming a local office to be a Representative in Canberra. Are you sure this is determined at state level? That's kind of weird considering the parliament is... well... federal.

well i was just commenting on the issue last week in state government, but this article seems to address it more widely
O'Farrell's law cannot apply to federal parliamentarians. However, there is a real prospect that Gash will breach the Australian constitution if she is elected this Saturday.

Section 44(iv) says that a person is disqualified from federal Parliament if they hold an ''office of profit under the Crown''. In 1992, the High Court applied this to disqualify Phil Cleary, who had been elected as an independent member for the seat of Wills, because he was a state secondary school teacher. He held an ''office of profit'' even though, apart from two days, he had been on leave without pay for two years.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-legal-risk-20120906-25h60.html#ixzz26ltH3zgT
that article also seems to raise the issue that it is not altogether clear at the federal level... but Queensland could soon put it to the test with a fedaral member running for mayor there.
Spoiler :
The High Court has taken a surprisingly strict approach to section 44, and the clause may also disqualify local councillors from sitting in federal Parliament. This question has yet to be tested.

The uncertainty has led political parties to exercise caution. Former Liberal senator Nick Minchin has explained how in the 1993 federal election eight South Australian candidates ''happened to be local councillors'', so he got them ''all to resign from their council positions and then all to renominate''.

Since then, the major parties have become more complacent and allowed federal candidates to retain positions in local government. This has not been challenged because it has not been in the interests of the parties to do so.

Gash is running a big risk that this will change. In particular, if elected as mayor, she will be the only local official in the current federal Parliament. Her political opponents could challenge her without threatening their own members. They may also be motivated to do so by the tight numbers in Parliament.

There is a further, financial incentive for voters to mount a challenge. The Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act says that a parliamentarian who has sat while disqualified ''shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it'' $200 plus another $200 for every day the person has sat after the case is filed in court.



it will boil down to are mayors and councilors paid, or do they get an honourarim and allowance to cover their expenses

on your point
This isn't a matter of distance, this is a matter of conflicting interests. The issue is about favoring the governed municipality or region through votes casted at the national level.

could i suggest that any independant member, would be expected to actually do that..
 
That's the reason why I expected it to be prohibited.

As I've told, in France it's allowed and it's common practice. As such, why wouldn't Michael Bloomberg pretends to become a representative in Washington and keep his job as mayor of NYC? Would it be badly felt? (if it's not illegal)


In Canada, I know for sure that it is fully prohibited. A mayor would have to quit his post simply to run for a federal election (as such even before being elected, if he would).




If nothing else, because both offices are really full time jobs. No person could hold both offices and do more than a notably poor job at both. And the voters wouldn't stand for it for long either. They don't elect a person to one office and then put up with him holding that office and doing a different one.
 
In Belgium a lot of members of parlement (federal or regional) are also mayor or at least city council members. I don't see this as a problem. It gives the local governments a "voice" in the parlements, and for the smaller cities/municipalities, it should be no problem to combine the jobs (distances are small enough to commute, for example).

I don't know what the legal status is here in Canada, but I'd still have a problem with it. Being a mayor for any large-ish city tends to be a big job. Maybe you guys just have much smaller cities, but if the mayor of my million-person-city was also an MP, I'd not be pleased, regardless of the commute.

When our mayors feel the need to be heard, they'll just go to the appropriate parliamentary body and give a speech or presentation. Not the same as voting membership of course, but there are other representatives for that, and their voices are still heard.
 
If nothing else, because both offices are really full time jobs. No person could hold both offices and do more than a notably poor job at both. And the voters wouldn't stand for it for long either. They don't elect a person to one office and then put up with him holding that office and doing a different one.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. Being both a mayor and a rep would involve an ungodly amount of work, I have no idea how someone would handle both running a city and representing an entire district. It's probably why no one does it over here.
 
No - it used to be allowed but double jobbing was ended a few years ago.

If a county counsellor is elected to national parliament he must resign from his local job.
 
That's the reason why I expected it to be prohibited.

As I've told, in France it's allowed and it's common practice. As such, why wouldn't Michael Bloomberg pretends to become a representative in Washington and keep his job as mayor of NYC? Would it be badly felt? (if it's not illegal)


In Canada, I know for sure that it is fully prohibited. A mayor would have to quit his post simply to run for a federal election (as such even before being elected, if he would).

The US constitution may not forbid it, but various state constitutions do. You are often allowed to run for both offices (Paul Ryan is running for both VP and his US House seat right now), but I believe most states have rules where you can't hold two elected offices at once, period....so you couldn't have somebody be a mayor and a state representative, or the state auditor, etc.

Plus, they're both full time jobs. There is no way that anybody could have the time to do both. Depending on the state and the size of the town, it miiiight be possible to be a mayor and a state representative, since many state rep jobs are technically part time, but nobody would be okay with that.
 
Well local elections are just starting, and i can explain the situation on my own personal example that happened today. Mayors need the support of Parliament (Both cantonal [regional], Federal and State), and members of pm also rely on candidates form their party to become mayors, so a certain minister of education [of my canton/region] from a certain party (i forgot both his name and party) has decide to give money prizes to last years English competition winners (I was 2nd place), its bit sketchy hes doing just a few weeks before the elections, and he/she (as I said I really dont know) is a really disliked minister, so this is probably an attempt to boast its parties popularity and get a mayor from her/his party. But in short Mayors cannot become members of Parliament.
 
No - it used to be allowed but double jobbing was ended a few years ago.

If a county counsellor is elected to national parliament he must resign from his local job.
Thanks. Could you tell me what country you live in? I'm really interested to know the common practice from a country to another.
 
Plus, they're both full time jobs. There is no way that anybody could have the time to do both. Depending on the state and the size of the town, it miiiight be possible to be a mayor and a state representative, since many state rep jobs are technically part time, but nobody would be okay with that.
I agree with this. However, here in France many people believe that collaborators are here to do daily tasks and the one assuming the function only needs to give the general guidelines.

I personally dislike this a lot, I'm just explaining so that you could understand how we ended with such a system in the poor country of France. For politicians, it's considered as a way to increase their power. Somehow, I believe this is based on some kind of feudal heritage, with influent aristocrats accumulating the titles in order to increase their power.
 
I don't see how this matters all that much in France. The Assembly is pretty toothless anyway, vis a vis the government. Individual deputees don't really have the power to favour local interests over national interest in any particularly significant way. They (generally) do what the government tells them.
 
I don't see how this matters all that much in France. The Assembly is pretty toothless anyway, vis a vis the government. Individual deputees don't really have the power to favour local interests over national interest in any particularly significant way. They (generally) do what the government tells them.
There's an interesting story I read recently on the subject:
Le scandale des collectivités locales (in French)

As a matter of fact, the National assembly does have a voice when it's a matter of defending personal interests. Members of parliament constantly threaten to oppose any rationalization of the territorial organization proposed.

As a result, France is the country with the most territorial collectivies in the world: 36,700 municipalities, 5,000 agglomeration bodies, 101 departments, 26 régions, with no restrictions on their fields of power. As a whole, the whole thing produces 600,000 elected representatives in the country, a world record.

Their cost constantly grows and the National government has absolutely no power on them. 95% of the deputees (members of the National assembly) share their responsibilities with a local mandate. And when they vote the budget, it's a priority for them to make it sure they won't receive less money from the government for their municipality, department or region.

This is a beast. A beast no one has the right to talk about because both left wing and right wing politicians live on it, and wouldn't survive without it. It's time for another revolution! ;)
 
Top Bottom