The Happy State

The welfare state stands in opposition to the principle of subsidiarity, which, as a natural principle of order, is a call for personal responsibility – against the lure of convenience. By Rainhard Kloucek

It is one of the buzzwords in almost all discussions today regarding European policy, the EU, and European integration. Subsidiarity. Since the Maastricht Treaty, it has been an integral part of the European treaties. Article 5 of the EC Treaty states: “In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.”

If a new legislative initiative is to be launched at EU level, the European Commission must prove that the task in question can be better solved at EU level than in the Member States. The Treaty of Amsterdam further anchored a Protocol on Subsidiarity, containing additional clarifications. Meanwhile, a procedure exists allowing national parliaments to intervene if they believe a proposal contradicts subsidiarity.

However, the definition in Article 5 is flawed. Firstly, because it only targets the relationship between the EU and Member States; secondly, because it reduces subsidiarity to a mere demarcation of competences, whereby Member States elevate powers to the European level. In reality, subsidiarity is significantly more: a natural principle of order that incorporates the maxim “in dubiis libertas”. There is no need for a legal regulation for everything (regardless of the level), because things such as freedom, initiative, and personal responsibility exist.

Pope Pius XI was more precise in his definition in the encyclical “Quadragesimo anno”, in which he defines the “social-philosophical principle” (subsidiarity) that “cannot be shaken or altered”: “just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organisations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” Pius XI argues that by observing this principle, the respective units of society function much better than when state power interferes in all areas: “the more exactly this principle of ‘subsidiarity’ is observed, the stronger will be social authority and effectiveness, and the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.”

The economist Felix Somary, now almost forgotten, highlights exactly this principle – the better functioning of the state when the principle of subsidiarity is observed – in his “20 Social Laws of Inverted Proportions”. In Law Number 4, he says: “The more functions a state assumes, the harder its administration is to control.” And he adds in Law Number 5: “The larger and more versatile the state, the more powerless the people.”

Personal Responsibility or Convenience

But perhaps therein lies one of the problems hidden within the principle of subsidiarity. If one takes the definitions of the papal encyclical and Felix Somary seriously, an obligation for initiative and personal responsibility is also formulated here. It is not only the regulatory mania of politicians and bureaucrats, but also the convenience of the individual – the call for the state to put things in order (even though the more tasks it takes on, the more it is doomed to failure) – that has pushed the principle of subsidiarity into the background. The welfare state has taken over: a political concept that makes citizens dependent on the state – and with their own money, no less.

Subsidiarity is unthinkable without the idea of freedom, because freedom is always linked to responsibility. Freedom without responsibility cannot exist, and responsibility cannot exist without freedom. The moment the state begins to regulate things that, strictly speaking, fall within the competence of the individual, it restricts freedom and responsibility. When the individual no longer exercises their own responsibility, the concept of freedom also vanishes. Then we discuss subsidiarity without actually being clear about what subsidiarity means.

The limitation of state omnipotence is certainly part of its core essence. One could also call it “limited government”.

The article originally appeared in the MKV magazine Couleur.

c Featured image: European Union (Maastricht Treaty).