By Bernard Mukwaira
The historian Simon Schama in his great work of imaginative history, The Embarrassment of Riches, asks an intriguing question – when the Dutch consulted the Mirror of Time, what did they see or who did they think they were?
In response, Schama suggests that to be Dutch was to be local, parochial, traditional and customary. It meant insisting that power ascended from the local community to higher authorities only on specific terms and conditions – in short, subsidiarity. The first time I was properly introduced to the concept of subsidiarity was at law school, sad to relate many years ago, in an EU law course. Mirabile dictu, legal education in England, Wales, and Scotland actively still incorporates the study of EU law, emphasising essential principles such as proportionality and subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity in particular regulates EU powers, allowing the EU to act only if member states cannot sufficiently achieve the objectives at any level, but can be better achieved at the EU level due to the scale or effects of the proposed action.
What is subsidiarity and where does it come from?
In its simplest form, subsidiarity means that decision-making should occur where the responsibility for outcomes lies and as close as possible to where actions are taken. Put differently, larger organisations should not handle tasks that smaller, simpler ones can do just as well. Any activity that can be performed by a more decentralised entity should be. Subsidiarity is firmly rooted in both Catholic and Protestant social teachings. A classic example of how subsidiarity is applied is the Catholic Church’s belief that parents should have the primary authority and responsibility for raising their children, as this impacts them more directly than the State. That is why the State should only intervene in child-rearing when and if individual families fail to discharge their responsibilities.
Probably the best expressions of subsidiarity are to be found in Papal encyclicals. Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical letter Quadragesimo anno, emphasised that subsidiarity is a:
most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: 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.
Pope Benedict put it this way in Caritas in veritate, “Subsidiarity is always designed to achieve…emancipation because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility”. He added that subsidiarity even:
manifests a ‘vertical’ dimension pointing towards the Creator of the social order. A society that honors the principle of subsidiarity liberates people…granting them the freedom to engage with one another in the spheres of commerce, politics and culture…they leave space for individual responsibility and initiative, but most importantly, they leave space for love.
In Centesimus annus, Pope John Paul II wrote “subsidiarity insists on necessary limits to the State’s intervention…inasmuch as the individual, the family and society are prior to the State and inasmuch as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them”. This was affirmed by Pope Benedict in Deus caritas est:
We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.
Perhaps reflecting on the causes of the Second World War, Pope John XIII in Mater et magistra, wrote, “experience has shown that where personal initiative is lacking, political tyranny ensues and, in addition, economic stagnation”
Subsidiarity and governance in Zimbabwe
One of the more unfortunate aspects of governance in Zimbabwe is over centralisation and suffocating bureaucracy. The first post-colonial government, despite being nominally socialist, favoured centralisation due to ideological reasons and inherited government machinery resistant to decentralisation, partly due to historical factors and a protracted civil war. Alan Megahey’s magisterial biography of Sir Humphrey Gibbs, humorously notes civil servants in Bulawayo complaining about how all resources and preferments were invariably diverted to Salisbury, plus ça change… You only need to follow the Mayor of Bulawayo, David Coltart, on social media for his eloquent pleas addressing chronic underdevelopment in Bulawayo specifically and the Matabeleland region in general. There must be a better governance model that ensures resources are allocated equitably, leaving no region behind. Subsidiarity might offer some solutions.”
Fiscal federalism studies highlight several benefits of devolving responsibilities to state and local governments. These benefits include improved governance by making decisions closer to those being served, respecting local preferences and diverse needs while maintaining national standards, and enhancing accountability through migration (exit) and local participation (voice) by citizens, community leaders, and politicians. Additionally, innovation and experimentation in service delivery, known as laboratory federalism, and beneficial fiscal competition with other jurisdictions, including yardstick competition and mimicking best practices, further demonstrate the advantages of decentralization.
Some lessons from infrastructure projects in Madrid
Outside of China, Madrid has the sixth longest metro and the third longest in Europe after London and Moscow. In 1995, the Madrid metro was 71 miles long and over the next 12 years nearly tripled in length to grow by 126 miles. For those counting, that is greater than the distance between Harare and Rusape. Madrid expanded its metro faster and cheaper than almost any other city in the world. What explains this, and why is it that Spain continues to build infrastructure at some of the lowest costs in Europe? Ben Hopkinson, the head of research at Britain Remade, has some answers which include, you guessed it, our favourite word – subsidiarity.
Spain under Francisco Franco, who ruled from 1939 to 1975, was marked by an authoritarian dictatorship. Franco’s death in 1975 led to Spain’s transition to democracy, culminating in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. The 1978 constitution created 17 autonomous communities, including the city of Madrid and other outlying cities and towns. Each community has an elected parliament, which in turn chooses the President of the Community. Madrid’s regional assembly has significant discretion in levying taxes, including income and VAT, and manages a budget of approximately €25 billion. This budget is higher per capita compared to London. Enterprising politicians in Madrid can approve new projects, fund them through borrowing, and oversee their construction, with their political fortunes tied to the successful completion of these projects. In contrast, centralised states like the US and the UK often have multiple levels of government, making it harder for a single politician to take ownership of a project. Accountability is limited when something goes wrong, weakening the incentives and ability of politicians to take full responsibility for successfully delivering projects.
The other benefit of federalism for Madrid is the steady pipeline of projects which enable investments in state capacity. Madrid has been able to deliver infrastructure projects by building necessary capacity through hire of local and experienced engineers and managers working in house to deliver technical design and oversee construction. Teams stay largely the same through different projects, meaning they can learn from their experience and apply it to future projects. Costs are minimised as a result. Infrastructure projects in the UK or the US on the other hand are notorious for high costs partly due to heavy reliance on external consultants to manage all stages of projects. Take High Speed 2 (HS2) for instance, conceived in 2009 as a scheme to build a high-speed railway between London and Northern England. The initial estimate in 2009 was £37.5 bn and the costs rose from over £40bn in 2011 to a high of £140bn in 2020. The reduced scope of work is now estimated to bring down the costs to under £60 bn. The troubled history of HS2 makes you wonder if centralisation is the right way of planning and executing major infrastructure projects in the UK.
How has Madrid Metros’s expansion transformed the city? Well, the Metro is very popular with local and foreign passengers. 75 % of locals are very satisfied with the Metro giving the metro an average rating of 8.2 out of 10. Foreign visitors give the metro a rating of 8.9 out of 10. New York’s subway only has a 56% satisfaction rate in a most recent survey. In 2019, the Madrid Metro carried 677.5 million riders which is about 210 trips a resident. London underground is at 155 trips per Londoner and NYC Metro is at 203 trips per New Yorker. More importantly, they have been economic benefits as well. Houses near stations on the Metro expansion are worth eight percent more than houses not within walking distance. Areas accessible by public transport within half an hour is 198.0 in Madrid. It’s only 39.7 in London and 46.3 in New York City. Madrid’s Metro expansion offers numerous lessons for other cities and regions aiming to enhance their transport networks and other infrastructure.
Imagine what could be accomplished if say Bulawayo, Gweru, Mutare and the provinces had the power to levy taxes including VAT and income taxes, manage budgets, and have full responsibility for delivering infrastructure projects? Locals know what is best for them and what they need. They do not need officials from centralised Olympian heights to define what is best for them. On the face of it, it would only require an Act of Parliament to make these changes possible. The constitution after all confers on provincial or metropolitan councils to exercise any other functions, including legislative functions, that may be conferred or imposed on them by or under an Act of Parliament. Let the people of Masvingo and Manicaland build the road, rail and other infrastructural links which work best for them, and which have been ignored and/or overlooked by the Central government for the past 40 years or so. Ditto Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South. Let’s learn from others, share best practices and engage with successful case studies like Madrid to build critical infrastructure Zimbabwe needs for economic growth.
