LISBON, Portugal — Despite living in democracies where citizens directly elect their local leaders, many people can’t name the person running their town—or the political party in charge. According to recent data from the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation and the Local Power Barometer, fewer than 60% of Portuguese citizens can name their mayor. Even fewer know which political party governs their municipality. These numbers paint a troubling picture of civic disengagement, particularly in urban areas.
The findings reveal a paradox: while local governments are often the closest institution to people’s everyday lives, they remain among the least visible.
The Disconnection Dilemma
Local government has a branding problem. For decades, city halls have been seen as bureaucratic outposts—distant, impersonal, and only visible when problems arise. Even in an age of digital communication, transparency portals, and town hall livestreams, many citizens still don’t know who represents them or what their mayor is doing on their behalf.
According to the Local Power Barometer, in non-urban municipalities—where proximity and familiarity are presumed—72% of respondents could name the ruling political party. In urban municipalities, that number drops sharply, with only 61% able to identify the mayor. The gap is telling: urban residents often interact with systems and services without knowing the people behind them.
“This reflects an institutional invisibility that is detrimental to democracy,” says Dr. Filipe Teles, political scientist and co-author of the report. “People are less likely to engage, vote, or hold leaders accountable when they don’t know who those leaders are.”
Who’s Getting It Right?
Some mayors have managed to break through the fog of anonymity. In smaller towns and municipalities where politics feels personal, citizens often interact with mayors at local events, school functions, or community meetings.
Take the example of João Barros, mayor of a 14,000-person municipality in central Portugal. His administration uses WhatsApp groups to provide live updates on local issues, from water outages to cultural events. Residents can message his office directly—and get a response.
“In small communities, you have no choice but to be accessible,” Barros told a local radio station. “If someone complains about potholes, you might see them in the bakery the next day.”
Compare that with Greater Lisbon, where residents are more likely to interact with their municipality through online forms, automated emails, or not at all. Here, visibility is tied to crises, not day-to-day governance. Satisfaction rates in the Lisbon and Algarve regions are among the lowest nationwide, according to the study.
The Satisfaction Gap
Despite the low name recognition, local government is still generally well-regarded. Half of respondents have a “very positive” view of their local administration, and 34% rate it as “positive.” Only 17% report dissatisfaction. Ironically, this approval exists alongside a clear lack of awareness.
“People may approve of clean streets, parks, or public events, but they don’t necessarily attribute these to the mayor,” explains Nuno Cruz, co-author of the study. “This disassociation shows a failure in communication strategy.”
The areas with the most positive feedback—such as the West, Tagus Valley, and the Center region—also report the highest satisfaction levels. These areas typically see more tangible municipal action in daily life, such as local repairs, school support, and direct responses to citizen concerns.
The Civic Literacy Problem
The study also highlights a deeper issue: many people simply don’t understand what their municipal government is responsible for.
- 73% correctly know that city halls hire school assistants.
- 76% understand that municipalities set property taxes (IMI).
- But 62% wrongly believe local government is responsible for maintaining all roads.
This misalignment leads to misplaced blame—or misplaced praise. As institutional literacy falters, so too does citizen pressure for accountability and reform.
The confusion is worst around institutions like CCDRs (Coordination and Regional Development Commissions), intermunicipal communities, and metropolitan areas. Over 40% of respondents admit they have no clear idea of what these bodies do.
Urban vs. Rural: A Communication Divide
Urban municipalities, with their sprawling populations and bureaucratic complexity, face a steeper challenge in keeping people informed. In cities, local governments often default to press releases, websites, and formal statements that few residents read.
Rural areas, by contrast, maintain more traditional communication structures: community radios, public bulletin boards, in-person events. In these places, the mayor’s presence is not just symbolic—it’s practical.
“People in urban areas want the same accessibility, but at scale,” says political analyst Helena Barata. “That requires digital tools, transparency, and direct communication channels that aren’t just passive. And it’s not happening fast enough.”
A Demand for More Local Power
Interestingly, while awareness is low, demand for stronger local government is rising.
- 80% of citizens believe city halls should have more authority over housing and health.
- In urban areas, 80% want greater city hall influence over public safety.
- These numbers exceed even those for education, transportation, and climate policy.
Citizens clearly want local governments to play a larger role in addressing urgent social issues—but that requires knowing who’s in charge.
Who’s to Blame: Citizens or Leaders?
It’s tempting to chalk this all up to apathy. But a closer look reveals a two-way failure.
On one side, many citizens aren’t making the effort to engage with local politics. On the other, local leaders are often failing to reach out in ways that resonate. A Facebook page isn’t enough. Neither is a line in a local newspaper.
Real communication requires listening as much as informing. It means being visible not only during elections but year-round. It means showing up in unexpected ways: on social media feeds, in school newsletters, through neighborhood WhatsApp groups.
What Needs to Change
To bridge the visibility gap, experts and civic groups are calling for:
1. Local Civic Education Campaigns
Municipalities should invest in basic education about their own roles and responsibilities. Interactive guides, town hall videos, and school programs could help fill the knowledge gap.
2. Digital Participation Platforms
Beyond just publishing reports online, governments should allow feedback and voting on municipal projects, with real-time dashboards showing progress.
3. Regular Town Halls (In Person & Online)
Monthly Q&As with the mayor—live-streamed and archived—can demystify governance and humanize leaders.
4. Civic Dashboards in Public Spaces
Displaying municipal updates, pending projects, and budgets on screens in public buildings could turn everyday errands into teachable moments.
5. Data Transparency with Plain Language
Break down budgets, tax use, and service changes into easy-to-read formats. Transparency only works if it’s understandable.
A democracy can’t thrive on invisibility. When citizens don’t know who governs them, accountability suffers—and so does trust. Portugal’s mayors may be working hard behind the scenes, but if no one sees or hears them, the effort may never translate into democratic legitimacy.
“Invisible leadership is a silent failure,” Dr. Teles concludes. “Being present isn’t just about being known—it’s about being reachable, relatable, and reliable.”
For Portugal—and any democracy facing disengagement—the solution is clear: make local leadership visible, or risk making it irrelevant.
