|
| |
|
Exploring the Principle of
Subsidiarity
by Gene TeSelle
[7-10-01]
In recent years, conservative writers have taken to citing the
"principle of subsidiarity" in their arguments against
government intervention. George W. Bush's speechwriters, eager to gain
conservative Catholic votes, inject the word into his addresses. Since
most people have no idea what it means, the whole topic gets mystified
and discussion is stopped.
The recent claim by the
Salvation Army of an agreement by President Bush to exempt religious
groups from local and state civil rights laws affirming equal right for
gay and lesbian people is just the most current example of how important
this notion can be.
Well, the "principle of subsidiarity" comes from Quadragesimo
anno, the 1931 "social encyclical" issued by Pope Pius XI. In
paragraph 79 it states that what can be performed by more local bodies
should not be transferred to the higher or more central authorities, for
every social activity should be an "aid," a subsidium, to
members of the social body, not destroy or absorb them.
Thus far it looks like a requirement of non-intervention. But there is
the puzzling word subsidium, whose use clearly indicates that the more
local bodies are not "subsidiaries" of the more central one,
as in corporations, but just the reverse: the more central body is to be
an aid, a subsidium, to the local ones. And in the next paragraph (80)
Pius XI goes on to say that the more central body, although it is not to
take everyday details out of the hands of local governments, has the
task of "directing, watching, stimulating, and restraining, as
circumstances suggest or necessity demands."
This is the emphasis that John XXIII picked up in Mater et Magistra, and
the Second Vatican Council in its decree on The Church in the Modern
World, which speak of intervention by public authorities that
"encourages, stimulates, regulates, supplements, and
complements" private or more local activities. (All the essential
features are in the article "Subsidiarity" by R.E. Mulcahy in
the New Catholic Encyclopedia, available since the Sixties.)
The principle of subsidiarity not only blocks interference but calls for
intervention whenever local authorities are not doing their job
adequately. It is the reason for flood and hunger relief, economic
assistance, and a whole host of government programs. It is also the
reason for intervention by the federal government during the Sixties in
matters like voting rights, segregated transportation and housing, and
other forms of discrimination: if local governments fail to carry out
their responsibilities, then federal authority may be needed to ensure
that they do it, through a combination of the carrot and the stick, both
filling in the gaps of local government but enforcing standards that
ought to apply to all. Sometimes these have to do with basic rights;
sometimes with economic interactions; sometimes with the environment
shared across political boundaries.
Of course the devil is in the details. What is proper intervention to
some will be unreasonable tyranny to others. When it suits the needs of
the powerful, they will call upon the time-honored principle of local
responsibility, on the assumption that those who are closest to the
situation are in the best position to set the rules. Usually they are
able to control the local situation.
But when they cannot control it, they are quite happy to get
"higher" levels of government to grab authority out of the
hands of local jurisdictions. This is the strategy of
"preemption."
We saw it in Colorado a few years ago when Boulder adopted an ordinance
prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians; conservatives
quickly wrote a constitutional amendment which the voters of the state
adopted. (It was invalidated by the state's Supreme Court). The same
thing happens with rent control, which the U.S. Supreme Court has
declared to be within the legitimate powers of local governments. But
when rent control ordinances were passed in Santa Monica, CA, and
Cambridge, MA, it did not take long for investor and real estate
interests to get state laws preempting this right. In Tennessee the
legislature, responding to an industry request, has also said that
"manufactured housing" cannot be excluded by local zoning
ordinances. The U.S. Congress has given a similar exemption to cell
phone towers, which can now be placed anywhere (localities are able, if
they have the will, to require certain procedures before these are
constructed).
The most recent example of this notion of preemption was reported by the
Washington
Post on July 10, 2001: It appears that the Salvation Army had
asked the President to issue an executive order whose effect would be to
override local or state gay rights ordinances; in return, it promised to
campaign vigorously for his "charitable choice" legislation.
The Salvation Army reported that the President had promised such a
provision in the faith-based initiative program. The White
House quickly denied any such "deal."
Many of the same people who think that
"government is the problem," who talk about "the new
federalism" and the need to return decisions to the local level,
are quite willing, when their own interests are at stake, to make
government the solution and play the preemption game.
The alternative is one that will soon occur to anyone who has thought
seriously about local government. We usually want decision-making to be
as close as possible to those who are affected; and yet we also know
that there is such a thing as local tyranny, giving no consideration to
those without voting numbers or monetary power. The solution, of course,
is for the broader government to set guidelines, guaranteeing certain
rights and requiring certain procedures (in Europe they talk about
"framework directives"); then the local authority can use its
discretion within those guidelines, seeking the best answer on the basis
of full discussion.
That's why the states enact "enabling legislation" to say what
localities can and cannot do by way of zoning regulation. It's also why
preemption, a kind of "disabling legislation," is harmful to
localities and produces only suspicion when governments play this game.
The principle of subsidiarity is worth attending to. It provides a
useful rule of thumb for many policy issues. But if we are going to use
it, let's be sure we apply it in all its aspects:
 | not only (1) its caution against meddlesome
interference by the more central government, |
 | but (2) its stern disapproval of
"preemption," which is an egregious violation of
subsidiarity, |
 | and (3) its encouragement of central government
intervention in ways that help local governments do their job more
effectively and with fuller participation. |
For more on how the principle of subsidiarity is
being applied in the European Union, click
here.
And for other points of view:
Equal
Partners in Faith issued a statement on July 10, opposing the use
of government funding to permit discrimination.
And Christianity
Today sees the Salvation Army as victims of attacks, rather
than as perpetrators of discrimination.
[posted here on 7-11-01]
Americans
United for Separation of Church and State says even without
the possible "deal" with the Salvation Army, the proposed
"faith-based initiative" would still permit discrimination
by religious groups. [7-13-01]
|
| |
| |
|
If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!
Please consider making a special contribution --
large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.
Click
here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through
PayPal.
Or send your check, made out to
"Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon
Bookkeeper:
Susan Robertson
9650 Clover Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55347 |
| |
|
An index of
our reports
from
BECOMING NEIGHBORS:
An Invitation
to Global Discipleship
A Witherspoon conference
on global mission and justice
September 16 - 19, 2007
Louisville, Kentucky |
| |
|
Check out our report from the
Conference
on
Terror, Torture,
and Security |
| |
|