Whither subsidiarity?

There is a concept in Catholic Social Thought called “the principle of subsidiarity.” It’s a bit like the Reformed concept of “sphere sovereignty” but not exactly. The idea is that human dignity in all its richness is best served by a variety of communities – ranging from families to schools, neighbourhoods to churches – and that each governs (parts of) society toward some aspect of the common good. As such, it is, in the language of Pius XI, “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 [‘subsidium’] to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” The “higher” and greater power ought not to dominate or undermine the smaller powers “below” them, but should create a framework for those to thrive.

Decentralization

For more than a generation, conservatives in Canada championed this concept (albeit usually not under this name) as a bulwark against “liberal statism.” They more often referred to it as a principle of “decentralization.” Government, they said, should trust local communities, businesses and individuals to look out for their own interests and those of their neighbours and avoid interfering in their decision-making as far as possible. In the language of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, conservatives were “opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms.”

I’m beginning to doubt that conservatives still believe in subsidiarity. Maybe they never really did.

Alberta’s actions

The government of Alberta, for instance, invokes these principles (or pretends to) when it protests against (alleged) overreach and interference by the federal government. But is this a principled commitment to subsidiarity or an excuse to consolidate as much power as it can into its own hands? The test for that is whether the government of Alberta can respect the distinctive responsibilities and competencies of the authorities and communities that are subordinate to it.

That is a test that my government has decisively failed (and it is not alone amongst the provinces in this respect). It has acted to give the provincial cabinet (not the legislature, the cabinet) the power to depose municipal councils and repeal their bylaws, it has interfered in city government’s planning decisions in matters as granular as where to build new infrastructure, and it has forcibly removed and then unilaterally replaced locally created codes of conduct for public officials. It has also, in Bill 25, usurped schools and local school boards’ ability to supervise and regulate political discussion in classrooms and introduced legislation to “Allow the education minister to set school authorities’ priorities.” Most of these actions technically fall within the constitutional powers of provincial governments, but the point of subsidiarity is that it enjoins the more powerful authority to restrain itself in the interest of letting subordinate authorities pursue the common good without undue restriction. Conservatives used to believe in self-restraint and the decentralization of power. I wish I were more confident that they still do.