Subsidiarity

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]