The distance between city hall and the citizen

This article is a part of Poland Unpacked. Weekly intelligence for decision-makers

In theory, municipalities are closest to the people. In practice, Poland’s local governments struggle to maintain meaningful engagement with residents. A recent index shows that everyday democracy – measured by openness, transparency, and citizen participation – scores barely 42 out of 100. Small and large municipalities alike face challenges, though some smaller communities prove that size does not preclude effective civic involvement.

A report by the Batory Foundation shows that Poland’s “everyday local democracy” scores just 42 out of 100 points. The weakest area is officials’ openness to dialogue with residents, suggesting that formal rules on citizen participation often fail to translate into genuine engagement at the community level.

In national politics, we mostly hear about local governments during election campaigns – and more recently when citizens launch referendums aimed at recalling city leaders, as in Zabrze or Kraków. In practice, however, the quality of local democracy is determined not at the ballot box but through residents’ daily interactions with municipal offices. This is precisely the dimension the Batory Foundation report examines.

In recent months, we have also repeatedly covered recurring proposals to lift term limits for city executives – an issue that regularly sparks debate. Yet on a day-to-day basis, the relationship between local authorities and citizens rarely commands the same attention.

Between citizens and local government

Not necessarily. The relationship between local authorities and citizens is far from straightforward. Public debate often assumes that municipalities are closest to residents, since their actions directly affect the everyday problems of local communities. The question, however, is whether this belief is supported by the data.

The Batory Foundation has developed a scale to assess so-called “everyday local democracy.” Using data from the Statistics Poland (GUS) and the Local Data Bank, researchers created an index measuring the quality of interactions between local government and residents. It takes into account, among other things, the transparency of municipal activities – such as making council resolutions available to residents – the openness of authorities to dialogue, and the responsiveness of local officials, including councilors’ office hours. It also considers residents’ activity and agency. In this latter category, the analysis looked at, for example, the use of citizen legislative initiatives and the scale of public spending from village funds and participatory budgets. The data used in the report come from 2022, i.e., the previous term of local government.

The research yields several findings, some of which are not immediately intuitive.

Local government – citizen relations? Room for improvement

First and foremost, the average Polish municipality still has a long way to go in its relationship with residents. The mean index score – on a scale of 0 to 100 – is just 42 points. Only five municipalities scored above 90, all of them regional capitals. The top performers in “everyday local democracy” are Wrocław, Toruń, Katowice, Lublin, and Szczecin.

Of the three main components of the index – transparency, citizen activity, and openness to dialogue – local governments perform best, on average, in transparency. In other words, most municipalities meet their statutory information obligations, such as publishing recordings of council sessions and posting adopted resolutions. Even here, however, gaps remain: 6 percent of municipalities did not make any session recordings available to residents.

The greatest room for improvement lies in openness to dialogue with citizens. The average score for this component across Polish local governments is only 27 out of 100. Maximum openness was observed in just six municipalities nationwide: Warsaw, Wrocław, Toruń, Krosno, Iława, and Międzychód. In these municipalities, non-mandatory advisory bodies are active, councilors hold regular office hours, and public consultations are also organized at the initiative of residents or civil society organizations.

At the other end of the spectrum, 337 municipalities lack even regular councilor office hours. In 2022, one in five municipalities did not hold any public consultations at all.

Do larger municipalities have it easier? Yes, but…

The study’s results also reveal the impact of municipality size, although it is not decisive. As a general rule, larger municipalities score higher on the index. The report’s authors note that this is unsurprising: bigger local governments usually have larger budgets and more extensive staff resources.

That said, smaller municipalities are not necessarily at a disadvantage. Sixty-nine municipalities with fewer than 5,000 residents fall into the top quartile of the index – more than the 37 cities in Poland with over 100,000 inhabitants that made it into this group.

Small municipalities often make use of tools to engage residents, such as village funds or participatory budgets. In medium-sized municipalities, local non-governmental organizations play an important role. The largest municipalities, in turn, have the capacity to combine both approaches.

Researchers also point to the influence of municipal wealth and geographic location. Slightly higher scores are observed in the northern and western parts of the country. However, these differences are not significant. Well-functioning “everyday local democracy” can be found across all regions of Poland. This is also visible on the map: every region includes municipalities in the top quartile of the index.

High voter turnout is not everything

The report’s authors also note only minor, single-digit differences between municipalities located in the former Recovered Territories and regions such as Wielkopolska, Silesia, Pomerania, or the Congress Kingdom. In the former Galicia (where Austria-Hungary once ruled), results are slightly lower than in areas of the former German and Russian partitions. Researchers hypothesize that a weaker historical rooting of local communities may actually encourage the institutionalization of democratic participation. However, this is not a claim definitively confirmed by the data.

Importantly, high voter turnout in a municipality does not automatically translate into active citizen engagement in daily public life. The Foundation previously conducted a similar study – the “Local Elections Index” – and the conclusion is clear: there is no obvious correlation between the results of the two indices.

Explainer

For much of the 18th and 19th centuries, Poland simply ceased to exist as a sovereign state — erased from the map by its powerful neighbors.

The Three Partitions (1772–1795)

Poland's troubles stemmed from a toxic combination of internal dysfunction and aggressive neighbors. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a famously paralyzed parliament — any single nobleman could veto legislation — making it almost impossible to reform the army, raise taxes, or respond to threats.

Russia, Prussia, and Austria exploited this weakness ruthlessly. In three successive land grabs, they carved up the Commonwealth between themselves:

1772 – First Partition: The three powers simply helped themselves to border territories, taking roughly a third of Poland's land and half its population.
1793 – Second Partition: After Poles attempted a liberal constitution in 1791 (one of the world's first), Russia and Prussia returned to punish the reformers, seizing even larger chunks.
1795 – Third Partition: Following a failed national uprising led by Tadeusz Kościuszko, the remaining territory was divided by the three powers. Poland disappeared from the map entirely.

The Congress Kingdom (1815–1867)

After Napoleon's defeat reshuffled Europe, the Congress of Vienna (1815) created a curious compromise. A small Polish state – the Kingdom of Poland, quickly nicknamed the Congress Kingdom – was established, but as a constitutional monarchy permanently tied to the Russian Tsar, who ruled it as a separate king.

It was an awkward arrangement. Poles had a parliament, an army, and their own administration – but ultimate power sat in St. Petersburg.

Two major uprisings shattered this fragile autonomy:

The November Uprising (1830–31) was crushed, and Russia stripped away most of the Kingdom's constitutional rights.
The January Uprising (1863–64) ended even worse. Russia abolished the Kingdom's separate status entirely, renaming the territory the Vistula Land and intensifying a campaign of Russification — banning the Polish language from schools and public life.

The partition era left a deep imprint on Polish identity. For 123 years, Poles lived under foreign rule, yet preserved their language, culture, and sense of nationhood — fueling the independence that finally came in 1918. The longing for sovereignty, and the suspicion of powerful neighbors, remains a living thread in Polish historical memory to this day.

Voluntary local governments

The report also delivers a more sobering conclusion. Some municipalities fail to fully meet their statutory obligations, even when the law clearly requires them to do so. Legislation alone, it seems, is not enough. As the report emphasizes, the quality of relations with residents largely depends on the individual standards set by local decision-makers.

On the reasons behind these results, possible ways to improve them, and how the index should be properly interpreted, we speak with one of the report’s co-authors – Dr. Marta Lackowska, Professor at the University of Warsaw.

Fireside chat

Krzysztof Figlarz, XYZ: We usually think of local governments in positive terms, and they are often praised for their effectiveness. Yet your report suggests that something is clearly not working in the so-called “soft” aspects of their functioning. Why is this happening, and what could help ensure that local authorities fulfill their obligations more effectively?

Dr. Marta Lackowska, University of Warsaw: Indeed, our report shows that the area of building relationships between municipalities and citizens performed very poorly. One commentator even argued that we were too euphemistic in describing the situation as “not the highest score” and that we should step out of the academic comfort zone and use stronger language. The situation is certainly not good, but there are nuances worth noting.

We recognize that our index is not a perfect tool. A mean score of 42 out of 100 does not automatically signify failure. Its main purpose is preliminary diagnostics. Its greatest value will be in observing trends over the coming years. Currently, we have data for 2022, and we will soon analyze data for 2024, as the Central Statistical Office collects these figures on a two-year cycle. This will allow us to see whether the situation is improving or worsening. For now, the 100-point benchmark is purely conceptual. We do not know if it is achievable for most municipalities, although a small group clearly reaches it. Nor do we know whether we are in an upward or downward trend. That is why we approach the current results with the caution of researchers. This is not a complete “red card” for local governments, but it is certainly a strong “yellow card.”

It is also important to note that we did not create a classic ranking of nearly 2,500 municipalities competing for positions. Rather, it is a set of indicators for in-depth analysis. Still, to be frank, the results achieved by municipalities are not encouraging.

K.F.: What factors explain such a weak assessment?

M.L.: Several factors are at play. On one side, responsibility lies with local authorities, which often fail to fulfil even their statutory obligations – this is alarming. Why does this happen? Probably largely because these activities are not given sufficient priority. For example, data from the Central Statistical Office show that smaller municipalities often lack regular councilor office hours, or they do not exist at all, whereas in large cities they are standard practice. This demonstrates a lack of conviction among local authorities that such measures are important – especially since organizing office hours does not require large budgets or additional resources.

Similarly, justifying inaction by citing a lack of funds for social media communication is misplaced. Almost every municipality has someone capable of managing such channels at relatively low cost. What is most concerning is that municipalities themselves admitted these shortcomings in forms submitted to the statistical office. We did not conduct a detective investigation – they explicitly declared that they were not performing certain required activities. This highlights the need to educate local authorities and make them aware that these are important issues citizens expect to be addressed.

K.F.: And what about citizens? How do they fit into this picture?

M.L.: That is the second crucial aspect. Our index also accounts for citizen activity. Local authorities can encourage initiatives, but as a society, we face a systemic problem of low participation in daily public life. We have become accustomed to thinking that elections, held every few years, are the moment for civic engagement, and not participating can carry a mild social stigma. Now, we need to learn that “everyday democracy” is equally important.

This is where our index plays a role: it measures actions such as submitting petitions, complaints, or motions, and using citizen legislative or local initiatives. Low participation in these areas shows that more education about residents’ rights is needed. Citizens should know they can – and should – hold authorities accountable. This is not about conflict; it is an essential part of ongoing oversight of municipal actions.

It is also worth remembering that mechanisms like the citizen legislative initiative and the local initiative are relatively new, introduced in 2018. Our study focuses on 2022, just four years later. It is therefore unsurprising that only 3 percent of municipalities used the citizen legislative initiative and 10 percent used the local initiative. These mechanisms are only beginning to take root in Poland.

The situation is slightly better regarding submitting complaints or comments and using participatory budgets. But this also shows that simply creating a formal tool does not automatically lead to widespread use. Collective learning is required: promoting these tools, inviting residents to participate, and clearly signaling that such opportunities exist. Even then, activity may not appear immediately, as volunteerism and NGO engagement in Poland remain low.

K.F.: Looking at the report, larger cities score better. Does this reflect higher social awareness among residents?

M.L.: Partly, yes. There is a clear difference between the functioning of large cities and small municipalities. Our index measures very formal tools, which operate differently in smaller areas. For example, the results map shows slightly better outcomes in western Poland. This is not solely due to residents’ education but also reflects the historical size of those municipalities, both in terms of area and population. This aligns with the general pattern that larger municipalities achieve higher index values.

In small municipalities, one sometimes hears the argument: “Why bother with formal councilor office hours if we already meet on the street, in the shop, or at school?” But we need to be cautious with such an idealized view of small communities. New residents arrive who are unfamiliar with local arrangements – they may not know who the councilor, village head, or municipal staff are. If this information is not institutionalized and easily accessible, for example online, new residents will not engage in community life.

K.F.: So what should municipalities do?

M.L.: Each municipality should compare its results primarily with units of similar size. It is like a street race: you compete in age categories, such as K40 or M20. A small municipality should not compete with cities of over 100,000 residents but look at how it performs relative to similar units.

At the same time, we have seen small municipalities of just a few thousand residents achieve very high scores, surpassing some regional capitals. This is one of the key advantages of our tool: there is no structural disadvantage. Even a municipality of 3,000 residents can score highly if it successfully engages citizens. In the future, we also want to use qualitative methods to better understand how this is achieved, particularly in smaller municipalities.

K.F.: Public debate often raises the issue of local media funded by municipalities.

M.L.: This is indeed a serious problem. In many small municipalities, the only local medium is a council-funded bulletin. On paper, it seems fine – the communication tool exists – but in practice, pluralism is often lacking, and political opponents are marginalized.

It is therefore worth encouraging municipalities to develop more open forms of communication. Publishing council session recordings online is one example. Yet in our research team, we asked: who will actually watch a three-hour session? Perhaps a better solution would be a two-minute social media clip summarizing the discussion, making it easier for younger generations to engage with local affairs.

This is clearly preferable to posting recordings only on a poorly designed Public Information Bulletin subpage, where finding anything can be difficult.

Ultimately, this is a clash of two logics. On one hand, there is a bureaucratic administrative machine focused on meeting formal requirements. On the other, there is a need to communicate with residents in an understandable and appealing way.

Our main goal was to create a preliminary diagnostic tool. We hope the index results will encourage reflection on both sides – local authorities and residents alike. We invite everyone to read the report.

The full report is available on the Batory Foundation’s website. Further studies on the state of local democracy in municipalities are planned for the future.

Low levels of everyday democracy stem from both government neglect and citizen passivity. Participatory tools see little uptake among residents, highlighting the ongoing need for civic education and engagement in shaping public life.
Polish municipalities struggle to build daily relationships with residents. The average local democracy index stands at just 42 out of 100, with openness to dialogue rated lowest. Hundreds of municipalities do not even hold regular councilor office hours. At the same time, most offices fulfill basic transparency obligations correctly.
Municipality size helps, but it is not decisive. Large urban centers generally score higher due to greater staff and financial resources. Yet a significant number of the smallest municipalities demonstrate that size does not preclude effectively engaging citizens in decision-making processes.