Anna Turley
Guardian.co.uk

Timing the London mayoral elections to coincide with the local council elections taking place throughout the country on May 1 has thrown these contests into sharp relief.

On the one hand, there’s a high-profile media frenzy in London. Few cannot be aware they should be at their local polling station on that day to vote for a candidate they know on first name terms.

On the other hand, you have a contest where turnout may be just one in three people, where few know what the results of the elections are, the names of those they elect, or what they are there to do.

Obviously the election for London’s mayor will always get the big headlines - it’s our capital city, the heart of the nation’s economy and home to 11 million people. The candidates are big personalities, and the media all too often struggles to look outside the M25 in any case.

But there is no doubt these elections have captured the public imagination and those of us who are passionate about reinvigorating local democracy should look to what we can learn from this.

Firstly, we have seen from our existing elected mayors around the country that there is a clarity of accountability with the mayoral structure that resonates with the public. There can be no doubt the complexities of local government structures turn some people off. With a mayor, they have a clear figurehead and know who to blame if things go wrong. The public can see how their vote matters in an era when reality TV sets a high bar for instant, gratifying voting procedure.

Mayors also have greater recognition among the public. Polling carried out in 2003 revealed that on average, elected mayors were known to 57% of local people (73% in north-east England where there were three Mayors), more than double the proportion of a council leader.

Mayoral contests also seem to escape some of the disillusionment with traditional party politics. There is no doubt that many fear for the relevance of party politics today, at a time when people are members of individual pressure groups, vote on specific issues and remain highly committed to particular causes, yet are less bound to a political party by traditional ideological dividing lines or family loyalties. Four out of 13 elected mayors are independent and the question must be asked whether Ken’s recent video, where he confessed his proudest moment was “smashing the Labour Party”, was not a deliberate attempt to disassociate himself from the national party once again, a tactic which had worked so well for him back in 2000.

There also appears to be a genuine interest in the policies of the candidates. While it has been claimed that mayoral elections mean too much focus on personalities, this is not necessarily the case in London. Let’s face it - if it were simply a beauty contest, neither would be running high. High profile debates and hustings have forced candidates to develop policies and proposals that stand up to scrutiny.

It’s not just democracy that benefits from the mayoral model. Better performance and citizen satisfaction have a proven link to stronger leadership powers in local government, particularly in the case of mayors, according to research from Professor Gerry Stoker.

An identifiable leader can draw citizens and other local stakeholders like business or public service providers into a shared vision for an area. Mayors can become a local figurehead or advocate for an area - moving away from the perception that council leaders are just responsible for running services.

And more executive power means a greater efficiency of decision-making which all too often can be slow and weighed down by political instability in divided cabinets.

Yet it would not be right to see mayors as the silver bullet for reviving local democracy - they do have some shortcomings. Naturally, there are some concerns about the direct election of an executive rather than Britain’s tradition of parliamentary democracy.

Many councillors feel their ability to hold the executive to account is diminished under this system, and accusations of cronyism could yet prove to be a decisive factor in London. Moreover, it requires a two-thirds majority to overturn a mayoral policy or proposal, giving them substantial autonomy.

And there are issues of geography - London is a very clear centre, whereas people living in Trafford or Stockport might not see themselves as part of Greater Manchester in the same way that people in outer London still regard themselves as being part of the capital.

Yet this is an important opportunity for debate. Local democracy works best when it has clear vision, clear leadership, accountability and transparency. We know the current government is keen on mayors and if we want Whitehall to divest itself of more power, we need to think about the best models for local government.

Current communities secretary Hazel Blears has been a stronger advocate for elected mayors that her predecessor, whilst David Cameron is also fan. Can we therefore expect a wave of Kens and Borises all over the country?

Now is the time to be bold in local leadership. More elected mayors may just prove to be a winning solution.