Subsidiarity Isn't working

Subsidiarity Isn't working

.
Sometimes, something can be said, a word or phrase, that sticks in my mind and eventually I have to go and research it, just to see where it leads.
.
Throughout most of the 80s a "fit the need of the moment terminology” was being used by European ministers which had been noted with particular emphasis embracing the word "Subsidiarity".
.
Subsidiarity was pulled from EC Drafts in the 1990s having been subjected to rigorous intelligent and intellectual debate, it was suggested it was a liberalising tendency that was difficult to put into practice and found not to work apparently. Subsidiarity doesn’t help people, instead it is used as a control by more localised forces in a rather draconian fashion by distributing power without election, but uses an outward set of images portrayed throw a Kaleidoscope to mask what can go on behind it.
.
Today, subsidiarity has been in operation, ticking away, and what might have been with good intention to introduce this 'thing' it appears to have been more corrosive to and eroding of standards, good practises, and good values than it has been of help and can be seen to affect all our lives. So what is this 'thing'?
.
We are told that it is a 'principle' quote plucked from the obscurity of Catholic social doctrine where it lurked until Pope Pius XI raised it again. Pius XI defined the word ‘subsidiarity’ in a 1931 encyclical: "Society's decisions should always be taken at the lowest practical level" - it is a "grave evil" for higher authorities to usurp powers which can be exercised by smaller local bodies.
.
Pope Pius XI may have delivered a philosophical scripture that could have been perfect for its time and place in 1931, particularly given the changed landscape following occupation in the aftermath of World War I (1914-1918) and maybe attempting to make sense of that change, in addition to being conscious of current World tensions at that time (but Pius XI I do not suggest had clairvoyance to see World War II 1939-1945).
.
Why I am writing about this now? Some months back I heard a programme on radio where an MP (for the life of me I cannot think who that was), but anyway, he suggested, along the lines, that subsidiarity isn't working. I knew the word 'subsidiarity' seemed familiar to me but I could not remember in what context. I found the source now that put it in my mind originally and that was The Times July 23 1991.
.
In 1991 subsidiarity was still being mooted as useful across the spectrum, not merely as social doctrine but useful in business as well. At that time, also, the Chinese had a 'thing' of its own called the ‘social contract’ (a word bond); a bi-lateral agreement between two business people who sat down and talked openly and honestly as to what they both wanted to get out of doing business together and what each would be prepared to agree to. Once agreed, they shook hands and the contract was formed. No higher authority was needed, no written contract necessary. The Chinese didn't invent this business strategy, but tweaked it to their cultural conditions, which seems perfectly reasonable. The concept of a ‘word bond’ actually comes from the English custom and manner, and was known as 'a gentleman's word is his bond'.
.
Subsidiarity in business tries to use concepts like these on the principles on 'when in Rome....' but fails to appreciate that rules apply and people need to play their part if the business is to succeed, or the social doctrine is to work. This is where subsidiary appears to be flawed. Because it introduces the notion that everyone is empowered (from the highest to the lowest) and we now see the rules being made up as they going along, with no litmus test to define the outcome. The employer sets rules, but doesn't really know what the employee is doing, and the employee develops actions out of those rules that may not have been intended by the rule because the monitoring of rules is operated on the principle 'hopefully it will work out alright in the end.'
.
Harold Macmillan spoke of the problems of empowerment and who's in charge on television over 35 years ago. He was speaking about changing society and changing Britain. Whether he was hankering after upstairs/downstairs society I don't know, as I only knew about him from what he said when he was alive and from time to time I would see him on television, hear recordings of him on the radio or see his comments in newspapers. Nonetheless, he did express a view on television that appears quite profound in today's context.
.
He viewed the evolution of class barriers breaking down, wealth distribution and opportunity for the less privileged, which was a large proportion of the nation at the time, as positive footsteps. He foresaw problems though of power/control elevation rising in society and potential problems with unscrutinised people having unscrutinised power and control. He demonstrated this elevation process by illustrating a 'pyramid', the pinnacle being the top and the base being the foundation, obviously. However, he demonstrated that by increasing the foundation of the pyramid the pinnacle sinks down until it reaches a flatline but then continues descending on until one ends up with an 'inverted pyramid'. No one, or worse, still the wrong elements, ends up in control; mayhem ensues.
.
If one could classify the above with historical events, then perhaps the footsteps Macmillan observed could be analogous to knowledge and understanding. In that regard, the 19th-Century Toynbee Hall in the East End of London comes to mind; where the un-educated and poverty stricken men were given education in order to take charge of their lives. Education leading to capability and an ability to generate income and wealth, perhaps Toynbee Hall’s principles sprung from Adam Smith and Bentham-ism, who knows. However, Toynbee Hall was a success, and its education structure I believe was adopted by Hull House in Chicago, itself acted for the chrysalis for the Open University.
.
So the footsteps are a positive direction. But the flatlining of the pyramid suggests polarisation and, of course, the pyramid becoming too top heavy, eventually inverts. History remembers such an inverted pyramid event defined by Dr Carroll Quigley in his book Tragedy and Hope: A history of the World in our time. Quigley refers to the diamond and gold mine masters in South Africa, when Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner despatched to find out what was happening out there, discovered the masters living in squalid conditions living in sheds with the servants living in and running the manors. Re-education was needed and the Kindergarten was born.
.
We live in an enlightened age today and see the lack of understanding and the lack of wisdom when divisions are created for the ‘haves and have not’, ‘us and them’, ‘master and slave’ and so on. However, putting all this is contrast with subsidiarity and Macmillan's vision of an inverted pyramid, does it suggest unscrutinised rules are being made up by people who have obtained unscrutinised privilege, but carry no responsibility for their unscrutinised actions. Maybe the vision of this Statesman, Macmillan, gave us a sagacious warning of what can happen if checks and measures are thrown out of the window.
.
Britain today maybe getting perilously close to flatlining as isolationism is projected in society; we find self-elected emperors around every corner. A broken, divided society is a broken nation. Britain has a brilliant heritage and glorious history, if in some parts difficult, but it deserves far better than to be broken; which can be the inevitable consequence of excessive streamlining of a system to regenerate a desired reordered society. That process introduces a Rhadamanthine approach in political and governance terms that is excessive in an attempt to portray an outcome suggested to be 'just' and 'necessary'.
.
So maybe perhaps if that was what was meant by subsidiarity isn't working then history has signposts to show us what can happen, and that we don’t have to make these mistakes. Of course, these are only observations and they could be wrong.