We are used to major system, program or public policy reforms. It has become our second national sport. After hockey, of course. Each time, we imagine that a simple solution will solve the complex problem that torments us. Unfortunately, we also have the bad habit of preferring the less winding roads, so we never achieve the desired result.
When it comes to governance, institutions have a natural inclination towards models that they believe are easily maneuverable. This trap into which they have repeatedly fallen exacerbates the discontent of those who aspire to better quality public services.
It is not uncommon to hear criticism of the complexity of Montreal’s structures and its boroughs. We also condemn the number of its elected officials. But how many wonder about the primary motivations for its architectural choices in terms of governance? Some, who have never even really been involved in municipal management, profess with disconcerting confidence that simplifying is synonymous with efficiency. Happy are the stage managers!
So let’s talk about subsidiarity. Sorry, for what, you will no doubt say. Basically, it’s about the fact that power should emanate from where the action is being taken, right at the heart of the issue, on the ground. Two criteria make it possible to define who is best placed to act: proximity to the challenge and the ability to resolve it effectively. Thus, each level of government, as well as each service, should be ready and equipped to respond directly to the needs of citizens and the challenges they face. In other words, it’s about decentralizing power where it can be most beneficial.
How many times at work have you wished your leaders would consult those on the ground before introducing new procedures? How many times have you also hoped that you would be delegated more power to make the right decisions at the right time, but without being overwhelmed by paperwork? Subsidiarity is exactly that. We often have the bad habit of responding to complex problems by standardizing practices and centralizing decision-making processes.
Consider for example the Canadian Armed Forces, one of the most hierarchical organizations you can find. During field operations or in crisis situations, they systematically adopt the principle of subsidiarity. Why this approach and not another? Because this allows units on the ground to adapt their actions according to circumstances and to make the best decisions based on the context. This has the advantage of reducing losses and improving the effectiveness of their interventions.
In short, if soldiers on the ground find themselves in a position where they need to make a decision quickly, it is better if they can do it for themselves. They are best placed to analyze and understand the situation on the ground. Does this prevent high command from determining the objectives to be achieved for the organization? Of course not.
In terms of public services, we can very well establish general frameworks and establish principles of equity without unduly complicating decision-making by shifting it far from the place of action. Take pothole repair: it seems logical that those who know their territory best and who work there daily are in the best position to decide how to take care of them. However, for large-scale projects such as the renovation of a city’s water networks, centralized management is more appropriate. There is more to decision making than a straight line; it must above all serve the realities on the ground.
The pandemic and climate change have shown us that a local entity, when deprived of its power to make rapid decisions, is incapable of adaptation in times of crisis. It is surprising to note that, despite these lessons, we persist in sticking to a rhetoric of exaggerated centralization which makes our local institutions more powerless in the face of local issues.
These fundamental questions also arise for our housing and health crises. Too often, some argue for a radical simplification of governance mechanisms, thereby failing to explore the deep and multiple roots of these problems. Addressing a real estate project in a sparsely populated area does not require the same regulatory approach or the same governance as in a central district. The public health response should vary by region to better respond to diverse local realities.
The quest should always be focused on achieving common objectives, based on equity, while respecting the particularities of each environment. Let us hope that such sagacity will be at the heart of our next reforms, or at least the questioning of our current decision-making processes.
If our ambition is to achieve rapid adaptability and promote the resilience of our institutions, we must firmly anchor ourselves in the principle of subsidiarity. To innovate, we must break the cursed cycle that pushes us to repeat our past mistakes. Some will say that it would be even easier to designate a single decision-maker and make him guilty of all the failings of the system! This is indeed the mirage of a deceptive centralizing simplicity.
CEO of the Institute of Resilience and Urban Innovation, professor and associate researcher, François William Croteau was mayor of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie.