Donald Trump offers a vivid lesson in why temperament matters when substantial executive authority rests with one person.

Supporters call his aggressive use of presidential power decisive leadership. Critics see a dangerous concentration of authority. Either way, one lesson is difficult to dispute: the judgment and temperament of the person holding executive power can shape how far that power is pushed.

Kawartha Lakes is not Washington, and a mayor is not a president.

But voters here now face their own, parallel version of the same institutional question.

Since November 2023, Kawartha Lakes has been subject to Ontario’s strong mayor legislation. The mayor can exercise certain powers without the explicit consent of council.

Those powers include appointing and dismissing the chief administrative officer, hiring or dismissing certain senior division heads, changing parts of the municipal organization, directing staff in writing, proposing the municipal budget and exercising additional powers involving provincial priorities.

Those are not ceremonial powers.

Nor can council always simply overrule the mayor.

Kawartha Lakes has eight ward councillors plus the mayor. Where provincial law permits council to override a mayoral veto, two-thirds of the entire council must agree — six votes.

If the mayor stands behind the veto, six of the eight ward councillors must unite against it. A normal five-vote majority is not enough. Some other strong mayor powers do not come with that same override mechanism.

That makes temperament, judgment and experience legitimate election issues.

Serving first as a councillor is not essential to becoming a good mayor, but it can be an excellent apprenticeship.

Councillors learn how budgets are built, how municipal law constrains decisions, how professional staff advice is weighed, how compromise works and what happens when colleagues disagree. They learn that governing is very different from campaigning.

A mayoral candidate who has not served on council should not be dismissed for that reason alone. But in the absence of municipal experience, voters should look for substantial executive leadership elsewhere — leading a large organization, public institution, corporation or comparable operation where the candidate has managed people, budgets, conflict and serious consequences.

Strong mayor powers make on-the-job training a risky proposition.

That does not mean voters should fear change.

In fact, elections are often driven by a desire for it. Frustrated voters may reasonably decide that a more disruptive candidate is worth the risk because the status quo no longer satisfies them.

But change and risk are not the same thing.

A desire to shake things up should not cause voters to ignore questions they would ask before handing anyone significant executive authority.

How does a candidate react when challenged? Can they tolerate disagreement without treating it as disloyalty? Do they listen to professional staff? Have they demonstrated restraint when angry? Can they work constructively with people they dislike?

Past mistakes should be judged fairly and in context. An isolated lapse should not define anyone.

But a documented pattern of impulsive decision-making, retaliation, intolerance of dissent or misuse of authority deserves serious scrutiny — especially when the argument for overlooking those concerns is simply that the community wants change.

Voters are entitled to choose disruption.

They should also understand the risk they are accepting.

Every candidate for mayor should therefore answer two questions clearly:

What experience has prepared you to exercise executive authority?

Which strong mayor powers would you personally exercise, which would you delegate, and what restraints would you place on yourself before using them?

Strong mayor legislation has changed the office Kawartha Lakes voters are filling.

We cannot choose whether our next mayor receives those powers.

We can choose how much risk we are prepared to accept in the person entrusted with them.