[EM] Geographical districts

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:35 PM
> > On 9/5/08, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > 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.
 
> Erm, that *is* what the EU is about.  The EU member countries 
> are giving up some of their power (the so-called 'pooled' 
> sovereignty), so that decisions on those issues can be 
> handled at the EU level.

I don't agree with your analysis of what is really happening (or not happening) in the EU.  Indeed, you say as much yourself in your
next paragraph.

> I did say in theory, because, it isn't really followed.  The 
> EU wants as much power as it can get its hands on 
> irrespective of the optimal level of making decisions.

What has to be remembered is that "the EU" is not a simple political structure.  Instead there are three (unequal) parts to its
political structure: the Commission (like a very political civil service), the European Parliament (directly elected, but with less
power), and the Council (comprising ministers from the governments of the Member States).  The real power lies with the Council, a
body that until very recently met in secret.  In a UK context, it often suits UK Government ministers to allow blame to be directed
at "Brussels" (seat of the Commission) for unpopular EU-wide decisions, when the reality is that UK government ministers approved
those decision when they met in the EU Council.  The Council, and the government ministers it comprises, are most reluctant to give
up any of the power they have.

 < cut> 

> > If the larger assembly is deciding if power should be DELEGATED, it is 
> > devolution that is in operation, not subsidiarity.
> 
> I guess it depends on how you want do define the term.  I 
> don't think subsidiarity is determined by actual power, it is 
> determined by where the decisions are made.

The power lies where the decisions are made, so I cannot see the distinction you are trying to make.


> From wiki
> 
> "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought 
> to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized 
> competent authority."

That sounds fairly neutral, but there is something missing if that definition allows you to adduce the example below as an
illustration of "subsidiarity".

> For example, if the UK Parliament passed a bill setting up 
> the structure you recommend for schools.  Then there would be 
> subsidiarity, even though Parliament would retain the power 
> to reverse its decisions and take direct rule again.

This is not subsidiarity - this is devolution.  The decision-make here was not bottom-up, it was top-down.  There is a fundamentally
different philosophy in subsidiarity, even though the fully developed political structure may look nearly identical to one derived
by devolution.


> If Parliament decides the levels that each type of decision 
> is made, then you would expect that they would assign more 
> powers to larger councils than is optimal (i.e. decide more 
> centrally than is optimal).
> 
> OTOH, if all powers are given to the individual school 
> boards, then you would expect that  powers would decided at 
> smaller councils than is optimal.
> 
> Generally, political bodies will keep powers to themselves, 
> if at all reasonable.

Certainly in the UK, the history of political development over many centuries has been one of struggle to wrest power progressively
from the centre, originally from the monarch, but now from Parliament at Westminster (and similarly all the way down the various
levels of government).

 < cut >

> Btw, on the schools issue, how would you decide who can vote. 
>  Would voters get to vote for the nearest school?  
> Alternatively, only parents with children in the school might 
> be allowed to vote (or maybe parents who have expressed an 
> interest in sending their children to that school).

I would say it depends on the responsibilities of the elected school board.  If those responsibilities extend only to the education
of the children who are within the school, I would consider it reasonable that the electorate should comprise only the parents of
children at that school (one child = one vote).  [You may also want to allow the children to elect their own representatives, but
that's a separate issue.]  If the responsibilities extend to the provision of school education within a defined geographical area, I
would consider it reasonable for all electors within that geographical area to have a vote (one person = one vote).


> Where should the decision on the question "Should parents be 
> allowed to send their children to any school that they want 
> to?" be made?

I don't think there is one simple answer to this question, except that it should not be made at the level of the individual school
because it affects a wider community.  Given the existing political hierarchy, one could remit this decision up to the city level,
the state level or even the federal level.  Views on the appropriate level will differ, but if we applied the original principles of
subsidiarity strictly, we should remit the decision up only to the lowest level above the individual school at which such a decision
could be made.  That would suggest at the city level in the hierarchy I gave above.  Others however would want uniformity on such
policy across the whole state or even across the whole federal country.

 
> Also, what is optimal for "Should we use subsidiarity to make decisions?".

I don't think this question can be answered as you have asked it.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask "Do we want our
decision-making to be based on the principles of subsidiarity (i.e. bottom-up)?"  There are also problems with regard to "optimal".
A benign dictator might make a more "optimal" decision than any democratic group, but on the other hand you could say that that
could never be "optimal" because it was not democratic.  [As Professor Joab (BBC Brains Trust - long ago!) might have said: "It all
depends on what you mean by 'optimal'"!!]

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