May 2000 Fraser Forum: The Role of Subsidiarity in a Democracy
The most honest definition of government I know describes it as that institution in a society that effectively maintains a monopoly on the use of force or coercion. That harsh description cannot be repeated too often. Governments are based on coercion - always said to be for the common good. It ain't necessarily so. The danger is that those in government will use their monopoly on force for their own ends or those of their friends. Such tremendous power must be used only as justified and controlled with care.
Democracy is a concept that says that governments should be controlled by the governed. This idea unfortunately does not in itself carry any sense of limit, and many people today believe that democracy means that whatever we vote for by a majority should be delivered by the coercive power of government. Of course that is not possible, but hopeful belief routinely escapes the tedious bonds of possibility in our political culture. Many politicians have based their careers on telling the public it can have whatever it wants. That is one of our problems.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision on the Reference re: Quebec Secession found four essential aspects of Canadian society in terms of governmental process. These were a) federalism, b) democracy, c) the rule of law and, d) minority rights. All of these must be balanced in their application.
The underlying idea in my view is the idea of subsidiarity. This precept holds that authority should reside at the lowest level commensurate with the necessary information and resources for making and implementing decisions, with the onus of proof on those who would move powers to a higher level. As a practical matter, this suggests the supremacy of the individual over all decision-making authority, only some of which is to be delegated upwards. The hierarchy thus runs from the bottom to the top: individual to community to region to province to central government to international.
This theory, of course, is the exact opposite from the theory of the sovereignty of the Crown, which is the ideological foundation of our current system. Many of the lingering remnants of the "top down" approach to political legitimacy are at the centre of our current difficulties, not least of these being the imperial characteristics of our First Ministers.
These basic concepts of the sovereignty of the people, the importance of the individual, and the rule of subsidiarity are of great importance. If one buys into them, the operational result is a decentralist bias which encourages the decentralization of power.
For most things, individual preferences will best be satisfied by individual choice in the free market. However, some things (national defence for example) are so much more efficiently purchased on a collective basis that we gladly cede such tasks to governments. This means that government should do (but only do) those things where it has a demonstrable comparative advantage. They should be encouraged by internal incentives and external constraints to do only those things best done collectively.
These precepts are even more important when one recalls the view of democracy described above and held by many, i.e., that democracy means you can have whatever you vote for. There must be a check on this impulse.
Further constraints
As a society we have agreed that the control structure for our arrangements must be democratic, but there are two necessary fundamental restrictions on the rule of the majority.
This first is the rule of law. A codified system with impartial arbitrators is a significant check on democratic majorities (as well as serving to resolve disputes). Majorities are fickle, shifting over time, and even at any given moment inconsistent in their demands. The codification required by the rule of law gives stability and consistency over time, without which a society cannot prosper.
The second check is the institutionalization of minority rights. That is what the enormously popular Charter is all about, but just as democracy can have its excesses, so can the Charter or similar constitutional absolute statements. (Where the Charter acts as a restraint on government, there is little problem. When it acts as a tool for judge-made law, it is over the boundary.)
Democratic process
Democracy is, I think, the largest topic of all, because democracy is at the top of the power hierarchy of the four great principles. Majorities will eventually have their way in a democracy. Thus, the democratic process will, at the end of the day, set the conditions for each of the other three principles.
But there is also a current and very specific reason why the democratic process should be our main focus. People today feel that their governments are literally out of control - at least of their control. In other words, at the citizen level democracy is not working. The results are well known - apathy, alienation, tax cheating, attraction to fringe groups, capital export, cocooning, "I'm all right, Jack," rent seeking, declining voter turnout, the rise of interest groups, governments without legitimacy, et cetera.
In theory there are three solutions. One is to shrink governments to the point where they don't matter much. (Interestingly, technology and globalization are seriously undermining the ability of governments to command and control the economy, and starting to erode even the ability to tax.) Modern sentiment and recent trends in other parts of the world do show that there is some promise in this first solution.
A second solution is to control governments through relatively more trusted institutions such as Charters and courts. On any large scale this is totally impractical. Courts are for setting absolute priorities without consideration of the overall good. Courts create winners and losers, not balance. Balance is the job of government.
The third solution is making it possible for people to trust democracy in a complex state, which in turn means the actual political empowerment of individuals, far beyond the existing right to cast a ballot in our current system. That simple voting right is fundamentally precious, but it is also not enough in our current world. The affirmative support of millions of individuals working constructively together on a continuing basis is required to make things work well in a large modern state. Such harmony is far from automatic in the political marketplace.
Accountable government
Since citizens show little disposition to reduce their demands for services from government, we need ways to ensure that this huge machine is pointed in the right direction and running efficiently. This can only happen if, in the first instance, we know what is going on. Transparency is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of the democratic process. Government information must be public information. This principle is obviously to be modified by the usual protections required for individual and commercial privacy. It should not, however, be modified as at present by alleged requirements for "Cabinet confidences," official secrets, secrecy in dealings with other governments and the like. The public has a right to know on a timely basis the results of monitoring of governmental performance, the options available on questions of public policy, the arguments on each side, and the reasons for decisions taken.
Municipalities approach the necessary high standard of disclosure and work perfectly well. The provincial and federal levels of government are disgraceful counterexamples. Compare this to corporations in the private sector that are required to give "full, true, and plain disclosure" when raising money.
Direct democracy
Some matters are so fundamental they require "direct" democracy.
The control of government and the balancing of the many demands from the public is such an enormous task that it is a full-time job for many people. Most citizens have neither the time, the interest, nor the expertise for anything more than a casual involvement in questions of public policy. Thus almost all governmental decision-making must be done on a delegated basis.
That said, there are exceptions. The obvious and universal feature of direct democracy is in choosing representatives through regular elections. However, there are other cases calling for a direct expression of public opinion.
As always, the underlying theme must be balance and proportion. The tools of direct democracy are the tools of the majority, and a majority must be able to trigger their use. However, a wise democracy will exercise restraint in the imposition of the will of the majority if there is any voluntary or negotiated (by way of delegated democracy) manner of addressing the given question.
Supermajorities
An associated question, which also applies to making decisions in a democracy by delegated representatives, is that of a supermajority requirement on particular questions of great import, where it can properly be argued that the consequences are so significant that a greater-than-ordinary level of support is required. This is a quite usual rule around the world with respect to the amendment of constitutions. It might also be considered for such questions as deficit financing, over-riding the Charter using the "notwithstanding" clause, changing election legislation, changing the Standing Orders of the Legislature, and so on.
Delegated democracy
Delegated democracy based on simple majorities is the most familiar part of the system to most of us. It is necessarily the workhorse of the governance system. There are two basic questions for consideration here: how are our representatives selected, and what are the rules under which they make decisions?
Selecting representatives
Is it in the public interest to have strong parties with disciplinary powers backed up by the system (as we have now), or is it better to have weak, or non-existent parties with representatives mostly expressing their own or their constituents' views? In my view, the mix of objectives tends to favour a scheme of weaker parties, stronger individual representatives, more proportionality, and fixed election dates. But there is a real discussion to be had here, and we should thoroughly canvass the old debate of "responsible" versus "representative" government.
Rules
Once representatives are chosen, they have to work within the rules of a decision-making system. These rules will determine the effectiveness of the representative. There is almost no public understanding of how this works.
The present system is seen by Canadians as "normal." It is, in fact, highly unusual. While systems vary around the world, only in dictatorships or non-democracies do alleged "representatives" follow the dictates of the Chief Executive Officer - whether styled "President," or "Prime Minister" as slavishly as they do in Canada. We have become what is, in fact, a four-year elected dictatorship.
At the federal level, the Prime Minister appoints the chief of state, the heads of the military and the national police, all senators, all important judges, the heads and deputy heads of all departments of government, all significant Boards and Commissions, writes or approves all legislation and the Budget, approves or controls Chairs of committees and office space and travel of MPs, approves candidacies at election time, unilaterally calls elections at his or her pleasure, and sets the timetable and business of Parliament.
The premier has a comparable degree of power at the provincial level - less glamorous, but in fact more important, as provincial governments have far more impact on individuals and businesses than does Ottawa.
The only three significant checks on the power of these First Ministers are the courts (and the very few and cautious Officers of Parliament, specifically, the Auditor General and the Conflict Commissioner), competition among the federal and provincial levels of government (for which we must give thanks, fractious as the interchange often seems), and finally, the power of the press, itself a deeply inadequate instrument of democracy, but the best we have.But if First Ministers follow correct procedure and keep the books correctly, they can do just about anything they want when it comes to passing laws, spending money, and doling out jobs.
Many people see nothing wrong with this. However, the monopolization of power is no more justifiable in the political market than it is in the economic sphere. Even more than the private markets, the political ones need competition to work well. The concentration of political power in our system at present is unhealthy and needs to be broken.
The point is not to end the power of the CEO. He or she speaks for the government, which is a repository of a great deal of expertise, as well as the body actually charged with carrying out the ideas of legislators. But power has never been lacking from the voice of the government in Canada; rather, it has been lacking from the voice of the people, which can only flow through direct democracy or elected representatives. What Canada needs now is a redress in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.