‘The very object of having a local representation, is in order that those who have any interest in common which they do not share with the general body of their countrymen may manage that joint interest by themselves.’
If we are serious about democracy we must accept that democracy requires a system of limited government with defined independent centres of power; there can be no meaningful democracy in a centralised system. A proper democracy requires legitimacy and representation and as wide a dispersal of power as is necessary, and all those three defining characteristics are wholly absent in modern Britain. The principle of local government is neatly summed up by Mill and is designed to satisfy such requirements. When such local responsibility is replaced by a centralised administration, whether from London or Edinburgh, a local individuality of approach is always sacrificed to uniformity, with the flexibility of local decision-making giving way to rigidity and the centralised imposition of a bureaucratic ‘only one way’ of doing things. In addition, given that proper systems of local government necessitate meaningful autonomy from the centre, the power of the state is therefore fragmented and limited. As I have been arguing since I started this blog, the elimination of local government is a symptom of totalitarianism and that was the process begun by Thatcher.
The diversity of life in any modern state requires different approaches to similar problems. This is one of the great strengths of the European Union with its emphasis on subsidiarity. For example, consider policing or refuse collection. It is not rocket science to understand that the solutions to both such fundamental requirements of modern life require differing methods of implementation in different locations. Policing and refuse collection in London will be markedly different in style and implementation from that in Devon or Cornwall. The principles remain the same, but the methodology will differ quite considerably. As a result, direct responsibility for the government of a locality can harness powerful forces on behalf of that community and imaginative and meaningful solutions to local issues. However, for local government and democracy to be effective, local government must be much more than local administration. Local governments are elected locally by the people in that community, and are directly accountable to them. Indeed they are normally very visible in the local community and therefore available and approachable, whereas wherever we find a system of local administration, rather than local government, with education, health gas, water, electricity etc administered by boards and by people appointed from outwith the community, control, in effect, comes from the central government, through ministers and the courts. Membership of such controlling bodies are appointed by central government, and their activities are only accountable to the system, not to the local community they are supposed to serve. One of the features of modern British life, is just such systems of administration replacing local government control through the outsourcing of such functions to the private sector and companies located in London and even overseas.
The principle of subsidiarity is the idea that matters should be handled by the lowest competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept of subsidiarity is applicable in government and all forms of management. It is a fundamental feature of federalism. Subsidiarity is derived from the Latin subsidiaries, and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. As I said earlier, it is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only legislate where member states agree that action of individual countries is insufficient. This principle has always underpinned the European Union, and argues that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that human beings are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole.
The principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, to denounce both the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and authoritarian government. The principle was further developed in a papal encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, and in a report by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops called Economic Justice for All. In the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, the Pope specifically said, in paragraphs 79 and 80:
"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.....The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State."
As neoliberalism crumbles and is finally discarded it is imperative that we recognise the need for political as well as economic reform. This post has only briefly touched on certain necessary steps, but I trust it will give cause for reflection. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
No comments:
Post a Comment