Until 2002, local government in Flanders and the Netherlands had a monistic approach. In both systems, the city council was formally the head of the board. However, due to the interplay of factors and evolutions, the influence of the council in practice was increasing. This contribution compares and evaluates the institutional reforms that have been implemented in Flanders and the Netherlands over the past decades in an attempt to reassess the role and position of the council. While Flanders opted for more limited reforms within the existing monistic system (e.g. its own chairman for the council, a special committee for intermunicipal cooperation, a procedure for restoring structural unmanageability), the Netherlands opted with dualism for a radical personnel and functional separation between council and board. Although the reforms in Flanders often seem half-hearted and councilors in the Netherlands attribute more influence to themselves, research also shows that the revaluation of the council in the Netherlands is (still) incomplete too. This theme will undoubtedly remain on the political agenda in the coming years. The authors are thinking of the development of a better statute for council members, or the functioning of the council as a democratic watchdog of the network society.

Is local democracy in the Netherlands equipped for its mission? There is confusion and disagreement about the answer to this question. How people assess existing democratic practices is strongly influenced by one of the three main perspectives: representative democracy, participative (deliberative) democracy or ‘do-democracy’ (associative democracy). But to be able to have this discussion in the first place, empirical knowledge is required about the state of democracy at the local level. In this article (apart from the introduction, the first in a series on the local democratic audit) the authors bring together the available research data and organize these data with the help of David Easton’s system model: from input of citizens and civil society via throughput to output and finally feedback again in the political system. The research presented offers some insight in the state of local democracy, although it is not possible to give a final assessment. That depends on the perspective on democracy chosen, but it is also not possible because of the fragmented and incomplete nature of the research on local democracy in the Netherlands. The authors advocate contributing to these discussions with more empirical knowledge. The overview in this article shows that there is work to be done in this respect.

Het overheidsveld en het maatschappelijk veld zijn sterk in beweging. Burgers en organisaties willen meer invloed uitoefenen op beleid en uitvoering. Er is een ontwikkeling naar pluriformiteit, bottom-up sturing, netwerken, met lokale initiatieven. Tegelijkertijd blijft er een grote kloof tussen overheid en burgers bestaan. Het is de vraag hoe gemeentelijke (beleids)onderzoekers het best kunnen reageren op deze ontwikkelingen. Blijven zij top-down werken of gaan ook zij de uitdaging aan en sluiten zij zich aan bij de bottom-up trend? In dit artikel worden ten aanzien van burgerparticipatie en onderzoek enkele ontwikkelingen in beeld gebracht. Nieuwe media en (online) instrumenten spelen een toenemende rol. Het gemeentelijke beleidsveld krijgt te maken met een andere manier van werken. Daaruit komen kansen voor de rol van onderzoek en onderzoekers. Een werkgroep van VSO-onderzoekers heeft verkend wat de consequenties en uitdagingen zijn van de geschetste ontwikkelingen op het gebied van burgerparticipatie en sociale media.