The idea that local democracy is properly rooted in something called ‘community’ has a long history in western thought. It has had its protagonists in French political thinking, although its most notable exponents, Rousseau and Tocqueville, are in certain, if differing, respects outside some of the mainstreams of French political argument. However it is, as one of its critics has said, ‘primarily an Anglo-Saxon theory (in the Gaullist sense)’ (Bulpitt 1972:282). The prime components of the theory (also termed by Bulpitt ‘territorial democracy’) are, first, the view that communities are not the artificial constructs of central authorities, but natural units which arise out of the habitual patterns of social life. Secondly, such units should, ideally, be small allowing people to develop mutual knowledge and understanding. This will, thirdly, encourage a concern for the area and its people which will result in higher levels of participation, especially where the community has a genuine degree of autonomous governmental control over its affairs.

It is of course fundamentally a normative theory but it is in a form to which empirical evidence about the attitudes and practices of people in local life is pertinent. To the degree that localities are seen by their inhabitants to be communities one should be able to discover higher levels of participation.