Americans often have trouble identifying a complex definition of democracy. Sure, we have elections and everyone contributes their input and choice on how to direct the government. But when people understand democracy means their voice is as equal as everyone else’s, people start modifying that definition. Some pour millions of dollars into campaigns, others vote early and often and some elected officials decide that what the people want is either the wrong course of action or an unimportant course.

In Madison, none of these modifications is usually the case. The traditionally left-leaning citizens of Madison like their government like they like their windshields (if they had cars) — clear and clean. But when it comes to the inner workings of City Council, there is some back door negotiating — or if you prefer, caucusing for votes — that is usually inevitable, but relatively harmless. With any government, there is a pragmatic necessity to wrangle votes and find compromises.

However, in the last few days, it’s come to light that our mayor may have gone a little far in building a coalition for progress. According to a report by the Wisconsin State Journal, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz actively recruited potential candidates to run against District 2 Ald. Brenda Konkel.

Why you ask? Because she’s hard to work with.

“I’ve been somewhat disappointed with Brenda and her approach to issues,” Cieslewicz told the Wisconsin State Journal.

In an interview with The Badger Herald, he specified Konkel’s two votes against the last city budget as sending a negative tone on issues of homelessness and safety.

Meanwhile, Konkel gave with a typical holier-than-thou response to a Herald reporter: “He really wanted the budget to be over within two nights and was upset to have so many amendments.” She also told the State Journal, “He’s a nice guy but he’s cutthroat when it comes to politics. I guess I’m in his way.”

Let us be clear — there is plenty of reason to be concerned people wouldn’t run against Konkel. For someone often hailed by her supporters as “one of the most progressive alders this city has seen,” it would easy to assume Konkel is well-entrenched in her seat and satisfaction with her job performance is at a high. And an unopposed politician is often a poor exercise of the democratic process. There is always an argument against the work of one public servant and for an alternative candidate. And by putting up a candidate, there is at least a fruitful discussion and reevaluation of the needs of the community. I have seen how problematic unopposed incumbents can be — when my hometown of Racine reelected Mayor Gary Becker in 2007, he was a largely ineffective seat filler with an embarrassingly loud mouth. But Racinians had neither the drive nor the time to run against him. We could have at least challenged him publicly to prompt a discourse about his effectiveness to lead. Unfortunately, democracy didn’t work that way, and Racine continues to suffer with decapitated leadership.

And Becker? Well, he’s being prosecuted for attempted sex with a minor and child pornography after a sting at the Brookfield Square shopping mall. But that’s another story.

Cieslewicz’s frustration with Konkel is understandable. Her regularly updated blog posts often skewer the mayor for fast-tracking certain budget items without proper evaluation and what she sees as his lack of transparency. While Konkel occasionally has a few valid points — for instance, her criticism of the number of police officers to be hired for MPD based on costs and proper response seems to give one pause when contemplating the current economic crisis — she has a tendency to turn Mayor Cieslewicz’s minor slip-ups into full blown catastrophes. And for the purposes of effective city government, that sort of relationship isn’t productive.

But then again, neither is trying to put your desires for receptive alders ahead of the desires of District 2. Perhaps Konkel’s residents really do want her out — the fact that four people are running against her (even if one is Dennis Denure) seems to indicate there is some dissatisfaction with the way she does business. But that is their decision to make, not Cieslewicz’s. And while democracy can always be modified to fit the needs of efficient government, it should not be changed for issues of personal comfort or to make your job easier. She has concerns shared by “progressives” in the city and as much as she may not budge, the people can decide when they’ve had enough.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.