With their protests against tax increases, Wellesley residents are setting an example that should be followed by other municipal ratepayers.

A 14 per cent tax hike would be a bridge too far at any time, but is especially irksome given the economic burden already heaped on residents.

More than half of the tax increase represents debt payments on a new township recreation complex. In opting to spend a large chunk of money on the facility, council knew there would be a large burden spread out over a fairly small tax base – such is the reality of spending in all of the townships and especially in Wellesley.

The township went through the usual public process, but only now are questions and concerns being raised, as residents face the real financial consequences of that decision. A large general tax increase is also under fire, with residents scrutinizing many of the budget items that we’ve long decried as problematic.

Wellesley is not alone in both using the cover of “public consultation” and routinely making spending choices with little input. In fact, it’s historically been more conscious of such issues, its size putting a limit on revenues and, thus, spending options. The kind of scrutiny now underway is long overdue. Profligacy is rampant at every municipality in the area, the regional government being the most egregious of the lot.

Municipal councils do have a great deal of influence over the quality of life in their communities. That’s especially true in the townships, where even small decisions can have a noticeable impact.

Co-opted into the bubble, local politicians have largely taken on the mindset of the public sector employees whose interests are increasingly at odds with residents’ needs, particularly when it comes to spending priorities and keeping budgets under control.

For the system to work properly, even municipal politics must be like the legal system: adversarial. When warranted, council members must be at odds with staff and even with each other, as debate makes for better representation. Unfortunately, such democratic and accountable action is in short supply.

Where things could improve is the use of direct democracy – taking much of the power away from politicians and bureaucrats and putting it in the hands of voters. Major spending and other changes would demand a referendum, one in which a majority of voters would have to take part.

Given the increasingly undemocratic nature of governments globally, even in the ersatz democracies of the West, anything that provides us with a more representative democracy is a good idea. By that I mean democracy that represents the will of the people, as opposed to our system of representative democracy wherein we elect a few people to make decisions in our name. That’s a system that’s clearly showing some strain.

Only the most partisan among us would agree we’re well governed: from the autocratic financial mismanagement in Ottawa and Queen’s Park right on down through regional and local governments, we’re hardly getting full value, yet along anything resembling true representation.

The fact that government has deteriorated to its current state is testament to what happens when we disengage from politics, ironically. In giving the power to a few elected officials and overzealous bureaucrats, we have politicians who make themselves unaccountable for their actions, civil servants pursuing pet projects and pestering of citizens in equal measures.

Those in power – those officially so and those pulling the strings – won’t cede control easily. The public will have to take it. Communication technology theoretically provides the means to exercise direct control, though only if it widens the disingenuous public consultation farce we see from governments today: so few people participate as to not only render it undemocratic, but the process opens the door to the tyranny of the minority while providing cover to officials bent on circumventing the public will.