The principle of subsidiarity, a last chance for the Lebanese people

By Dr Amine Jules Iskandar Syriac Maronite Union – Tur Levnon

Given the complete collapse of the country, the state, and all public and even private institutions, is it still reasonable to expect some kind of hypothetical recovery of our economy? The decomposition of our country is at such an advanced stage that no local, regional, or international change can take place within the time frame necessary to save the population from the worst. Not only will Lebanon’s traditional allies not lend a helping hand to get it out of the political slump, but it is also clear that there will never be any real financial aid.

However, should we despair and surrender to a humanitarian disaster? There are always proven solutions in history and across societies and continents. And these are the simplest, most basic and most obvious possibilities. So obvious maybe you don’t even suspect them.

In his sermon of April 18, 2021, Syriac Maronite Patriarch Béchara Boutros Raï urged “the federations of municipalities, associations, and political parties to unite their efforts and to close ranks to ensure sustainable economic recovery in order to help all Lebanese in avoiding the total collapse of their country.” Where the central state has failed miserably, it is now imperative to allow the country’s local authorities to administer and respond to the most urgent day-to-day needs. This observation, however obvious, is far from being applied in Lebanon. In Lebanon everything, down to the most smallest details, must go through the central power.

Also read: Memorandum on “Lebanon and Active Neutrality” – Syriac Maronite Patriarch Béchara Boutros Raï

Direct social administration with the associated basic affairs can be done most naturally and efficiently by the local municipalities when given the necessary constitutional and legal administrative prerogatives. If the administrative echelon of the municipality lacks resources, it can go back to the higher administrative body which is the federation of the municipalities of the region or caza. This solution advocated by the patriarch appears to some as an improvised emergency measure. And yet it is the most consistent guideline of the Church’s Social Doctrine, one of the most fundamental principles of the Church’s “social philosophy”; the so-called principle of subsidiarity. It was explicitly formulated in 1931 in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno issued by Pope Pius XI.

---

According to the principle of subsidiarity, society is always built and managed from the bottom up. Having its basis in the fundamental principle of the dignity of the human person, society begins with the individual human being endowed with freedom and inalienable rights. The functions he cannot fulfill alone are performed at the level of the family, the cornerstone on which society is built. Just as the municipality cannot intervene in family matters, the higher echelon, i.e., federation of municipalities, cannot intervene in those of the municipality. This system protects, absolutely, any entity from abuse that can come from a higher power within the hierarchy.

The social doctrine of the Church states that at no time is it permissible for a higher authority to intervene in the sphere of a middle or lower collectivity, or to limit its actions. The doctrine considers such acts unjust and likely to “harmfully disrupt the social order”, because every person, family, or social entity is characterized by an originality that only they can offer to enrich the community. Limiting these originalities and abilities is tantamount to a crime. Such a crime is even worse than the already proven hypertrophy of public apparatuses drowned in the welfare mentality and excessive bureaucratization. The latter, as is known to everyone, opens the way to all forms of abuse and waste, not to mention corruption.

The political class, endowed with a virtuosity in the field of interpretation and contextualization, is sometimes inclined to limit the prerogatives and mandates of lower or middle collectivities under the guise of abnormal or temporary situations. Anticipating these misappropriations, the Church’s social doctrine warns against any attempt to “negate subsidiarity or to limit it in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all in society”. Equality between collectivities can in no way suppress or limit the initiatives and specificities of the different constituting components.

The pluralistic nature of society must be preserved at all levels as the guarantor of its vital forces. The recognition of territorial and cultural realities makes it possible to promote the dignity of the person. However, this pluralism cannot find its fulfillment outside the principle of subsidiarity which is at the heart of the teaching of the Church, and which is at the source of the political concept of federalism. Thus, the project for a “Lebanese Federal Republic” of Iyad Boustany is built entirely around this inalienable value of subsidiarity. It is also fundamentally opposed to the idea of “advanced or expanded” administrative decentralization which is, in essence, decided, applied, and administered at the top of the state.

The central power cannot under any circumstances set up the structures of regional units since the build-up has to be done from the bottom up. It is the autonomous districts that establish the upper spheres, up to the level of the federal state. The latter, therefore, can intervene in the affairs of the lower ranks only within a framework of purely limited complementary prerogatives limited in time. This function must never lose sight of its statut of exceptions.

State structures are built from man, on the basis of humanity, and for man as absolute value. Laws are not enacted for his submission, but for his individual development and as a member of a group. The entire political community has to put itself at the service of society, without which it has no legitimacy or raison d’être. After all, it is man “conceived as an autonomous, relational being, open to Transcendence” who remains the focal point of the Church’s Social Doctrine. This view, however, profoundly opposes certain forms of centralized and inadequate governance that seek to erase the social and cultural group in order to subject it to its own demands and to the needs of its bureaucratic administration. But this is precisely what the Lebanese model has repeatedly done since the early 1990s. It has done so in an aggressive and self-destructive manner. It has positioned itself as an antagonist and rival to the citizen. It has destroyed originality and private initiative, which excelled where the state was not present. Today, respecting the principle of subsidiarity is no longer a choice or a luxury, it is the only possible way out that can save us from the worst.

Dr Amine Jules Iskandar is an architect and the former president of the Syriac Maronite Union – Tur Levnon. Amine Jules Iskandar has written several articles on the Syriac Maronites, their language, culture, and history. You can follow him @Amineiskandar2

For the article in French see L’orient le Jour

For the article in Spanish see Maronitas.org

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.

Also read from the same author:

Neutrality and Federalism

You have to know how to die to be able to live

A Port, a City, and a Mountain

Language in the Formation of Nation States

“KAFNO”: The Genocide on the Christians of Mount Lebanon during the First World War

The Mysterious Origins of the Language of the Maronites