[EM] Geographical districts

Thu Sep 11 06:30:10 PDT 2008

Some notes on devolution and subsidiarity.

Maybe one could classify this so that if the real power is and  
ultimate decision making happens at some level, then levels above  
this level get their decision making power from below, and levels  
below this level get their decision making power from above.

In different questions the decision making power may lie at different  
levels. Schools may be quite autonomous low level entities. (One  
could extend this also beyond politics, e.g. companies and families  
that make their own decisions.) Countries typically decide on war and  
peace. Larger structures like EU may decide on common rules for trade  
in the unified market area.

However also in cases where power is at different levels on different  
questions one may still see the semi-permanent decision making power  
of various levels to be derived from some single strongest level that  
has the ultimate decision making power in all questions. In our world  
that is typically a country. Delegation of power upwards or downwards  
is seldom irrevocable (to a country).

In democratic systems one can also say that the voters are the  
ultimate decision makers that will make the decisions, and that the  
country is just their slave. Here the country should however be seen  
as the collection of its citizens. Individual citizens tend to be  
still subjects of their country (could e.g. be thrown to jail when  
needed). In this sense the state/country is the ultimate decision  
maker even if it is seen as the sum of the opinions of its citizens.

What is then the optimal level for decision making? My basic guess is  
that although in many questions it would be sensible to do the  
decisions at the level that is the lowest that can handle that  
question independently (=no external impact) it is typical that all  
units with power have some tendency of grabbing more of that power.  
The bigger entities typically win in this game. One should be quite  
careful and monitor where the decision making power will move in time  
(hopefully intentionally, not just as driven by individuals fighting  
for power or believing in their own role too much).

Democracy is one invention that tends to balance the situation (when  
compared to laws of jungle, dictators etc.). We can however still  
improve a lot.

Since power tends to concentrate (move up) it makes sense to monitor  
the process and lean al the time slightly towards defending the  
rights of the small (individual citizens and lower decision making  
levels).

Natural border lines are important. Countries that are not stable  
typically have some problems with unnatural border lines and possibly  
also with decision making structures that some people are not  
comfortable with. I'm not that much in favour of artificially created  
identities (maybe created with good intention to reduce conflicts,  
since artificial unification may also cause conflicts, and especially  
since individual and group differences are also a richness (that we  
should try to benefit of instead of trying to eliminate them).

Juho

On Sep 5, 2008, at 11:54 , James Gilmour wrote:

>> From: Raph Frank > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:17 AM
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, James Gilmour
>> <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It is not (or should not be) a question of whether or not there is a
>>> consensus at any particular geographical level of community. The
>>> defining factors for "the geographical community" should be the  
>>> level
>>> at which the electors can engage with the particular issue and the
>>> level at which something can actually be done.  In all cases the
>>> objective should be to ensure that the various "assemblies"  
>>> elected to
>>> deal with the issues are properly representative of those they are
>>> elected to serve.  For city-wide issues, the "geographical  
>>> community"
>>> is the whole city.  For issues affecting only my local school, the
>>> "geographical community" is the area of the city served by that  
>>> school
>>> -  but if there are no fixed geographies associated with the various
>>> schools in the city, the appropriate community for the school  
>>> board is
>>> the families whose children attend the local school.
>
>> This is called subsidiarity.  It is (in theory) the guiding
>> principle when deciding if the EU as a whole or the
>> individual members should handle an issue.
>
> With all due respect, what I was writing about was not  
> subsidiarity.  Nor has subsidiarity (senu stricto) anything to do  
> with the
> proposal for how the EU and its Member States should deal with  
> issues, despite the abuse of the term "subsidiarity" in this context.
> The EU proposals are all about devolution, i.e. handing down.  
> (Never forget: "Power devolved is power retained.")  Subsidiarity, on
> the other hand, is about building decision-making structures from  
> the bottom up, i.e. a lower (smaller, more local) group
> voluntarily giving power to a higher (larger, more widespread)  
> group only because the required decision can be made only at that
> higher level or because the decision will be better made at that  
> higher level.
>
> One could image (NB imagine) subsidiary operating in the "schools  
> case".  Decisions affecting only our local school should be and
> would be made within the school community, perhaps through the  
> mechanism of a school board.  Issues affecting school education
> across the whole city can be made only at the whole city level, so  
> they are remitted up to a wider geographical unit. And so on up.
> But that is NOT what is actually in operation.  Certain educational  
> requirements are set in state law (Scotland in my case).  The
> state (Parliament and Government) has devolved the operational  
> decision-making (and some policy making) to the 32 local authorities
> (elected Councils).  Some local authorities have devolved some  
> (minor) aspects of decision-making to individual schools.  So the
> existing structure is a top-down one that has come about by a  
> process of enforced centralisation followed by varying degrees of
> devolution.  It bears no resemblance to subsidiarity in origin,  
> legal basis or operation.
>
>
>> It is a good idea.  However, who gets to decide what is the
>> correct level.  Often, it is the larger assembly that gets to
>> decide if power should be delegated to a smaller area.
>
> If the larger assembly is deciding if power should be DELEGATED, it  
> is devolution that is in operation, not subsidiarity.
>
>
>> In the US, the federal government decides to a certain extent
>> what power the States should have.
>
> This is devolution, not subsidiarity.  It may have started out as  
> subsidiarity, i.e. the States agreed to give certain powers to the
> federal centre, but that's not how it is today.
>
> James
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1652 - Release Date:  
> 04/09/2008 18:54
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info

___________________________________________________________ 
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html