ULBs of Toronto and Hyderabad
2 Cities, 2 Worlds, 2 Democratic Designs
Y. Babji, Prez, Hyd'bad (GHMC) Chapter, UFeRWAs
On 26 Oct 2026, Toronto went to the polls to elect its Mayor and city Councillors. Yet the polling booth I visited in Dovercourt told a quieter story than the usual image of an election. No crowds, no loud slogans, no jostling and no visible tension. Voters arrived, showed the Voter Information Card they had received by post from the City Clerk, produced their photo identification, marked their ballots electronically and left. Democracy in Toronto often wears a very calm face.
Toronto is divided into 25 wards, each electing one Councillor. The city also elects a Mayor at large. The City had 2,143,771 eligible voters listed for the election and 361 candidates had been certified - 53 for Mayor and 190 for Councillor, besides school-board trustee candidates. Polling stations were open from 10 am to 8 pm with advance voting held from 6th to 11th Oct at 50 locations, two booths in every ward.
The result in Toronto
Olivia Chow was re-elected Mayor of Toronto, defeating Brad Bradford. Early results showed her leading with just over 50 per cent of the vote, while Bradford trailed at about 44.6 per cent. Several familiar councillors were returned, while other wards chose new representatives.
In Davenport (Ward 9, where I own two properties, one on Shanly St. and the other on Bristol Ave, both in the Dufferin West area of Toronto) Alejandra Bravo was re-elected as councillor.
The absence of a rush at the booth did not mean indifference. It reflected a system in which advance voting, mail ballots and clearly assigned polling places spread voters across time and space. Of course, the voter turnout was only around 40 per cent.
Eligibility and Candidacy
To vote in Toronto, one must be a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years old and either live in Toronto or along with one’s spouse, own or rent property there. A person may vote only once, irrespective of the number of properties owned or rented and must vote in the ward of residence.
There are no reserved wards in Toronto. Candidates compete openly for the Mayor’s office or for a ward seat. In Hyderabad, by contrast, the electoral system is built around social justice through reservation i.e. seats and offices are reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and women, with the total reservation not exceeding 50 per cent. In GHMC, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are chosen by the elected councillors after the election, rather than being directly elected by voters.
GHMC: A different democratic design
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has historically had 150 wards. (Hyderabad City now has 3 corporations: GHMC, MMC & CMC). GHMC elections are conducted under the supervision of the State Election Commission and campaigning is governed by a Model Code of Conduct. In the recent Telangana urban local body elections, each candidate was permitted campaign expenditure of up to Rs.1.50 lakh, while officials were empowered to seize unexplained cash above Rs.50,000.
This is a sharp contrast with Toronto, where campaign finance is regulated through contribution limits, disclosure requirements and spending rules rather than a fixed rupee-style ceiling. More importantly, Toronto campaigns rely heavily on lawn signs, doorstep canvassing, community meetings, email lists, social media and endorsements. Propaganda is less theatrical; persuasion is more local, issue-based and personalised.
Canvassing and Publicity
In Toronto, a candidate’s visibility often begins at the doorstep. Volunteers distribute flyers, make telephone calls, attend apartment meetings and place small signs on front lawns, with the permission of the owner. No processions, no banners, no hoardings, never loudspeakers, not even megaphones. The tone is usually restrained: housing affordability, transit, road safety, property taxes, climate resilience and neighbourhood services dominate the conversation.
In GHMC elections, publicity tends to be more visible and immediate with banners, wall posters, processions, public meetings, social-media campaigns and party mobilisation.
The intensity of canvassing is often higher, but so too is the risk of money, muscle power and communal or caste-based appeals. The reservation system, however, gives historically excluded communities a guaranteed entry point into local power - a feature absent in Toronto’s system.
What Mayors and Councillors do
Toronto’s Mayor chairs City Council and provides citywide political leadership, but must build majorities among the 25 councillors to pass budgets and policies. Councillors represent their wards, respond to constituents, participate in committee work, approve the city budget and decide on planning, zoning, infrastructure, housing and local services.
In GHMC, the Mayor presides over Council meetings, represents the corporation and chairs the Standing Committee. The Mayor may sanction urgent works up to Rs.50,000 in each case, while the Standing Committee handles larger financial and administrative decisions. Councillors or ward members, raise local problems, move resolutions, participate in budget discussions and act as the democratic link between residents and the municipal administration.
Meetings and accountability
Toronto City Council meets regularly in a structured and transparent setting, with agendas, deputations, committee reports and recorded votes. In GHMC, the Corporation must meet at least once every three months, while the Standing Committee meets weekly. Special meetings may be convened on requisition and the Mayor presides over Council proceedings.
The contrast is instructive. Toronto’s election day was quiet because much of the democratic work had already been done through advance polls, mail ballots, candidate debates and months of ward-level campaigning. GHMC elections are often more energetic, but they also carry the heavier burden of ensuring fair expenditure, free campaigning and meaningful representation for reserved categories.
Both systems seek the same end: accountable local government. Toronto offers procedural calm and individual voter convenience. Hyderabad offers constitutional safeguards for social inclusion. A good municipal democracy needs both - orderly elections and assured representation.
