Subsidiarity isn't really named as such in the Wildrose Constitution. In plain language, it states that "We believe that functions of government should be delegated to the level of government closest to the people and best able to fulfill the function; and that the division of powers among the levels of government must be respected"(2.3.4). In other words, as the Wikipedia article points out, "a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity). I take some pride in claiming to have introduced the idea to the Wildrose Constitution. In truth, though, I was simply saying what the members were trying to express. The idea was common to all of us, even if we had never heard of it before.
The idea has its roots in Catholic social teaching. In 1891, Leo XIII set it out in an encyclical entitled Rerum Novarum, as the foundation of a middle way between communism and unfettered capitalism. First developed by the theologian Nell-Bruning, subsidiarity developed naturally from the idea of the dignity of the human person. People are real, in a way that states and social structures will never be. Because of that, there is no real justice in opposing some sort of "public interest" to the good of individuals. As the Canadian philosopher Charles de Koninck was later to say, "there is no separation between the common good and the good of individuals" (De la Primaute de la Bien Commun, 49). Because of this, it is important that "one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry." (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79). At the same time, society must be built so that humans -- who are social animals -- can flourish.
In modern days, subsidiarity has an exalted position. From 1992, the Treaty of European Union stipulates that
- Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level 5(3)
In the case of Wildrose, we also add a certain proportion of libertarians to the mix, influenced by Austrian thinkers such as Friedrich von Hayek. Hayek considered the free market to be an example of "spontaneous order," which was "the result of human action, but not of human design." Hayek suggests that these spontaneous institutions be seen in the same light as any other level of government.
For the classical philosophies which animate Catholic social teaching, this seems quite reasonable. The unintentional aspect of informal structures such as markets, families, communities, and the like, make them more natural, and hence more "real" than a constructed government such as, say, Canada. In other words, the government should be subsidiary to such organizations. As medieval jurists were apt to point out, "custom has the force of law," and our informal structures are creatures of long custom.
The purpose of the State, on this view, would be to create a society in which people can live and flourish. Somewheres between Aristotle's Politics and Aquinas' De Regno, the government becomes responsible for creating a way for someone to make a living. It is worth noting that the State does not have to provide that living: just to make sure it is possible.
This doesn't mean that there need be no social safety net. Social positions are not required to be equal in status or reward. However, there must be a way for everyone to live -- and more. The requirement is for everyone to be able to flourish. That means to live a "happy life," as opposed to feeling happy: a life in which people can make their potential abilities not just real, but excellent. Solidarity is the obverse side of subsidiarity. Even if not everyone takes advantage of those opportunities, they must be offered, and not withdrawn.
Wildrose, in other words, is not a "Canadian Tea Party." It is not the equivalent of the radical Republicans of the United States. This is not the American Neoconservatism of Newt Gingrich, but the Continental Conservatism of Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union. It's not about ideology: it's just common sense.
-John HOB
