Why Mayors Thrive While National Leaders Struggle: Lessons from the Local Level

When I sat down with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently, I was struck by his enduring popularity—more than six months into his tenure, he maintained a 58 percent approval rating, a benchmark many national leaders can only envy.

Some of this undoubtedly reflects Mamdani’s personal political acumen and his rapid implementation of popular policies. But a more intriguing question emerges: could his success simply be a product of being a mayor?

Mayors across the globe, regardless of political affiliation, appear to be defying the anti-incumbent wave that has characterized recent years. Today, we explore this phenomenon—what some are calling “mayor magic”—and whether national leaders have anything to learn from it.

The Enduring Appeal of Local Leadership

Zohran Mamdani isn’t merely popular; he’s actually grown more popular since taking office.

We inhabit an era of anti-incumbency. In 2024, every incumbent across the world’s major developed economies experienced declining vote shares in national elections. Yet center-right Mayor Eduardo Paes of Rio de Janeiro secured an unprecedented fourth term that same year with over 60 percent of the vote. Similarly, center-left Mayor Andre Dickens of Atlanta won re-election the following year with an remarkable 85 percent.

Not every local leader enjoys such popularity, of course. Corruption, broken promises, and electoral defeats certainly occur at the municipal level. Nevertheless, the pattern remains striking: numerous mayors on both sides of the political spectrum maintain voter trust even as national politicians see theirs erode rapidly.

Struggling leaders have occasionally sought to borrow some of this municipal magic. During the height of the yellow vest protests, President Emmanuel Macron held televised town hall meetings with mayors throughout France, even posing with approximately 600 of them in an effort to boost his approval rating. The strategy yielded temporary results.

This summer, Andy Burnham ascended to the role of Britain’s Prime Minister. Notably, Burnham had served as the popular mayor of Greater Manchester, winning three consecutive terms. He now inherits one of the most politically volatile positions in Western Europe—Britain has cycled through six prime ministers in the past decade.

There are lessons national leaders can derive from mayors, and Burnham seems intent on applying them. The question is whether they can help him navigate the treacherous waters ahead.

The Advantage of Human Scale

Democracy’s origins in Athens, a city-state, may not be coincidental. Mayors possess a fundamental advantage over national leaders: their jurisdictions are simply smaller. They know their constituents personally, and constituents know them.

I spoke with Alexander Heffner, a journalist who recently visited mayors of ten cities for an ongoing PBS documentary series titled “Mayors of the World.” He described how these leaders received warm greetings—fist bumps and friendly pats on the back—as they walked through their communities.

Voters don’t merely recognize their local leaders; they possess the capacity to directly evaluate their policies because those policies impact their daily lives in tangible ways, Heffner explained.

This resonates with countless accounts from New Yorkers who have encountered Mamdani around the city and experienced his policies firsthand. Whether they appreciate the newly expanded cycle lanes or find them inconvenient, they know precisely whom to credit—or blame.

As Heffner noted: “There’s a democratic and civic accountability that’s almost unavoidable if you’re the mayor.”

Citizens feel a greater sense of control. They can readily assess the gap between campaign promises and actual delivery.

Mayors, in essence, make democracy feel functional.

Can National Leadership Learn from Local Success?

I consulted Bruce Katz, author of “The New Localism,” who has advised mayors in both Britain and the United States while also serving in national government. Katz contends that local governments not only connect more effectively with voters but actually govern more competently. He argues that municipal authorities frequently collaborate across departments and with private and civic sectors in ways national governments struggle to replicate—approaches that prove essential for solving complex problems.

Katz advocates for shifting more power away from national governments to local authorities.

Andy Burnham appears to share this vision.

Burnham has transitioned from leading a working-class northern region to heading one of the most centralized countries in the Western world, where power remains heavily concentrated in London. Yet if taken at his word, he intends to fundamentally restructure this arrangement.

He has already established “No. 10 North,” an official northern outpost for the Prime Minister’s Office at 10 Downing Street in London. His cabinet has adopted “devolving by default” as its governing principle. Burnham aims to grant local governments greater fiscal autonomy, along with expanded control over public services and infrastructure—from transportation to healthcare—part of his broader strategy to address regional inequality and reignite economic growth.

Will this approach succeed? Katz suggests it depends largely on how effectively local authorities wield these new powers.

And if it does succeed, will Burnham receive credit? That’s an entirely separate matter, according to Katz.

Effective devolution strategies assign primary responsibility to local officials while maintaining national leaders within the accountability framework. Leaders should receive recognition for both successes and failures within the broader strategy.

In this sense, Burnham’s premiership represents a dual experiment: testing whether transferring power to local officials can help Britain address its most persistent challenges, and if successful, whether it convinces voters that certain national politicians deserve continued support.

Source link