NOW IS THE TIME
- David Younger
- Jul 13
- 4 min read
We have been recently contacted with a view to expressing interest in a proposed international symposium on the state of central government in democratic countries. Although this proposal is in no way linked, it is coincidental with work we are carrying out on subsidiarity in Scotland. Our work examines, among other things, the role of central government in the UK and in Scotland and therefore such a discussion, particularly at international level, is of great interest to us.
Our initial research has involved examining the state of local government in three countries – Sweden, Switzerland and the United States – and the results so far are quite illuminating.
Of the three countries above plus a less intensive examination of France, Spain, Germany, Australia et al, all have substantially powerful self-financed community-based local governments (yes, even the USA!) but in every case bar two, upward delegation of decision-making hits a road block at some point in the process.
To explain further, for community councils to be effective they not only need access to independent funding but a means for their decision making to be taken upwards to district or regional authorities. If the process is robust enough and constitutionally protected (more about that later) then these higher authorities become increasingly administrative. Legislation is under control of the communities through representation and party politics is virtually non-existent. But to be truly democratic, the process has to extend to the national or state model.
To examine the two exceptions first, Switzerland has a unique structure with local determinism underpinned by a referendum-based system. The country’s twenty six cantons are effectively nation states of their own, constitutionally tied into an overall state known by the name “Switzerland”. We can see with this system how the upper levels become more administrative than legislative and funding co-operatively divided into local, regional and national elements. There is also a strong sense of the constitution too and this is regularly discussed and amended by popular accord.
The Estonian system is rather more centralised but with a population of 1,344,600 and a much publicised digital ID system, communication between local authorities and central government is seamless. Funding is constitutionally guaranteed and the smaller authorities often collaborate with each other. Engagement between popular opinion and requirements and central government is clear and unambiguous. Government policy is thus determined by popular accord.
Elsewhere, things are not so rosy. Sweden has an excellent local and regional government system but the disconnect with national government is showing up badly. The growth in violence and increasing hatred of immigration are mixing with economic policies and an increasingly right wing political ideology. The days when Sweden was the social democratic envy of the world, when a socialist government ran the country for over forty years are now long gone and in its place is a government which is failing to relate to the wishes and needs of its people.
And that’s not bad compared to the USA where not only the federal government but most state governments are out of direct communication with their local democracies. The reasons for this disconnect are fairly easy to identify but, rather than discuss these reasons, it is best to warn that the system is breaking down and to point out that the response politically is right wing fascist and proto-fascist movements which themselves are even less responsive to real grassroots movements and the genuine requirements of local communities and even more interested in concentrating power centrally than their predecessors were.
So what of Scotland?
Described as the most centralised system of government in Europe, the Scottish government seems to exist in a state of institutional schizophrenia, on the one hand passing the Community Empowerment Act and the Referendums Act and on the other hand avoiding real popular engagement wherever possible. The links below show that despite numerous “reviews” and so-called public consultations, nothing of substance has been achieved. We even now have the idea of citizens’ committees embedded in the process of government, an idea promoted by Jackson Carlaw – the same Jackson Carlaw who attempted to have the RSS ICCPR petition thrown out at its initial presentation. At the recent parliament meeting, the petitions committee didn’t even mention the ICCPR petition and RSS have been looking into whether Angus Robertson has breached ministerial code by failing to respond to requests for his attendance at the committee. Given that the petition is primarily about bringing the right of self-determination into Scots law, it seems that, in reality the government are allergic to the idea in practice, preferring to engage in meaningless waffle just to make it look like they support community empowerment when they want to keep those powers to themselves.
Events both nationally and internationally have developed in such a way that time has run out for us. Scotland is in a unique position to create a free, just and democratic society if only we put our minds to it. But we need to act now. We support the formation of a national convention – it should have started already but we can still get it in place before the next Holyrood election. Our voting platform is internationally recognised and completely bypasses Westminster. Local democracy is at the heart of the convention and this is the only way we can unite the people of Scotland. Leave it any longer and we risk going down the fascist rabbit hole that is opening up in Westminster. From that there is no return.
P.S. The petition has reached over 7000 signatures. Further information on our subsidiarity research paper is to follow in the next few weeks.
References:
march/www.gov.scot/publications/democracy-matters-steering-group-minutes-march/https://consult.gov.scot/local-government-and-communities/democracy-matters/
Comments