Scotland's councils should be broken down into smaller authorities which have greater powers over their own finance, the Greens have suggested.
Party co-convener Patrick Harvie said the current set-up, with 32 local authorities, was both "unfair and unsustainable".
He added that the Scottish Green proposals addressed a "clear need for change" in local government.
The Greens are proposing councils should be broken down into smaller "municipalities", each containing about 20,000 people.
These would be able to raise at least half of their own revenue under the proposals, instead of the current 20%.
Issues such as health, transport, economic development and colleges would be co-ordinated across larger regional areas.
The Greens also want to see the status of local government enshrined in a written constitution for the first time.
The party, which has councillors in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeenshire, Midlothian and Stirling, unveiled its plans at an event in Nairn in the Highlands.
Mr Harvie, also a Green MSP, said: "As Scotland debates whether powers should shift from London to Edinburgh, we should also consider how we shift control from Edinburgh to local communities. The current system is unfair and unsustainable.
"Our ideas address the clear need for change but in a measured way that is flexible and involves people rather than imposes from the centre."
Green vice-convener Martha Wardrop, one of Glasgow's five Green councillors, stated: "We are determined to push the issue of local democracy up the agenda and we welcome contributions from others interested in bringing power closer to the people."
Land rights campaigner Andy Wightman backed their proposals, saying: "Everywhere should have a local democratic body to take decisions on local matters. This is what our friends across the rest of Europe take for granted.
"Scotland could have regional bodies focusing on strategic functions such as transport and economic development, while communities could have meaningful democratic institutions instead of councils like Highland trying to cover an area the size of Belgium."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article