ONE OF the more striking patterns that ran through interviews with 31 legislative candidates in the primaries and general elections was the reaction when I asked what, if any, changes the Legislature should make concerning local government: deer-in-the-headlights blank stares.

That’s a slight exaggeration. Some of the candidates were familiar with some of the problems with legislative interference in local authority. But with the exception of Ken Wingate, no one we talked to had a firm handle on the depth and range of problems.

Things didn’t get a lot better when I reverted to a leading question, asking whether the Legislature needed to meddle less in local matters and remove some of the constraints it has placed on the ability of elected city and county council members to set local tax rates and manage growth and allocate local resources.

One candidate thought a moment and said that, no, he didn’t suppose there was a need for the Legislature to reduce the authority of local governments. Another suggested they might be given a bit more leeway — along with a requirement that they justify each action to the Legislature.

An all-too-frequent response was that voters hadn’t mentioned this — as if that meant it therefore couldn’t possibly be a problem.

Somewhere along the way, Brad Warthen started adding in a reference to “fulfilling the promise of Home Rule,” which seemed to trip a light-switch in several candidates’ heads. But even that led to nothing more than a denunciation of legislative attempts to further restrict local officials’ authority. Denunciation of the Legislature’s attempts to prohibit county councils zoning out mega-hog farms was commonplace.

What disturbed me most was when Joan Brady talked only about bad things she would fight to stop. This from a former mayor and current county council member who is so keenly aware of how legislative actions hamstring local governments that she says, admirably, that she hopes to be a voice for local government at the State House.

If even she can’t imagine a proactive, pro-local-government agenda, what hope is there that we’ll ever have real local government in South Carolina?

In the three decades since Home Rule was enshrined in our constitution, those who believed in the principle have mostly faded away, replaced by a generation who have no concept of what was actually promised — and how far short the Legislature has come of realizing it. Like anyone who knows only what they have experienced, they assume the status quo represents life as it should be.

It does not.

The idea of Home Rule was that decisions should be made as locally as possible, so the unique needs and preferences of each community could be taken into account. That means city councils should run cities, county councils should run counties, and the Legislature should concentrate on running the state.

Much improved immediately upon adoption of Home Rule: Local legislative delegations stopped writing the annual county budget, and thus were freed up to concentrate on doing the job they were elected to do. County councils got to decide how much to spend on the sheriff’s department and the jail, the health department, the election commission and so on. They got to designate parts of the counties where only homes could be built, and parts where only industry could locate.

But much of the promise of Home Rule has never been realized.

More than 500 special little governments that the Legislature created still run fire districts, recreation commissions and water and sewer districts. They duplicate the work of cities and counties, driving up costs for everyone. Some are elected, but many are appointed by local legislators, which means the people elected to run local affairs have no say over their actions. And legislators have little say, since there are no provisions to remove appointees.

Local delegations still pass special laws for their counties that override the authority of county councils and of the Legislature as a whole. The fact that the constitution specifically prohibits this provides no deterrent.

The Legislature passes laws to restrict all local governments’ authority to set the types and levels of taxes that the voters in those cities and counties want.

And cities are hamstrung by some of the most restrictive annexation laws in the nation. This makes it impossible to exercise some measure of control over a community’s development, as growth outside the city limits creates urban population centers that then demand counties provide duplicative municipal services.

Howard Duvall, executive director of the state Municipal Association, has become so concerned about what he calls “a continuing and probably growing problem” that his organization has launched a multi-year campaign to re-educate the public about the importance of local government.

A study soon to be published attempts to demonstrate the extent to which “municipalities serve not just city residents but their regions.”

While the campaign is focused primarily on getting the public to recognize the need for strong, empowered cities, officials hope that message will filter up to elected officials. “Our ultimate goal,” Mr. Duvall told me, “is to have a Legislature that values cities and realizes the essential function that we perform in supplying the economic power behind South Carolina.”

It’s an important and worthy goal — and one that will not be easy to achieve.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.