Published in the Western Standard, December 6, 2004, p. 22. (Also available in a pdf scan.)

 

Defending Decentralization
by
Pierre Lemieux

 

The platform of the Action Démocratique du Québec calls for renaming the province “the autonomous state of Quebec.” I would suggest something slightly more glorifying, like “the Great Autonomous and Motherly State of Quebec.” Or, perhaps, as a tribute to Jean Charest’s begging for more equalization payments, “the Autonomous Beggar State of Quebec”? But as laughable as the glorification of the Quebec state is, the Anglo-Ontarian deification of Our Father Who Art in Ottawa is even more LOLROTF (that’s laughing out loud, rolling on the loor, as they used to say in Internet forums). After Stephen Harper’s Quebec City speech, an editorial blamed him for having “a soft spot for any idea that would erode central power.” “Canada,” continues the editorial, “is not a club for provinces to participate in at their pleasure.” Another commentator wrote, “The stamp [Pierre Trudeau] put on Canada is being undermined by a new generation of politicians who have no regard whatever for his belief in the need to maintain a strong central government.” Obviously, without the Big Our-Moneyman in Ottawa, we would all be savages running naked without social insurance numbers in the Hobbesian jungle. For any lover of liberty, Harper’s drive towards decentralization should be welcome. There is a strong economic argument in favour of decentralization in general, and federalism in particular. The more geographically decentralized a political system is, the better the chance that individuals will find the mix of taxes and public services they want, by moving to their preferred jurisdictions. Competition between jurisdictions will work to satisfy individual preferences (to the extent that they can be satisfied by political processes). One good example is securities regulation, where decentralization has (thus far) saved us from a federal monster regulator like the SEC in the U.S. Two different ideals clash here. On one side, the motto is standardization and more power to the central state, logically up to a world state. The other side wants to decentralize as far as possible, down to the individual whenever feasible. In Canada, this implies breaking the federal tyranny that has developed over the past few decades. Harper is on the right side. Despite his talk of “asymmetric federalism,” Paul Martin is on the wrong side: taking money in taxes and kindly returning it to subordinated levels of government, as in the health accord, is welfare-state redistribution, not decentralization. Why should not Canada be a club of provinces—as the provinces should be clubs of municipalities, which should themselves be clubs of individuals? This may be only an unattainable ideal, which should not disarm salutary distrust for the state, but it is certainly better than blind faith in the central state. Either the federal government continues violating individual rights, and decentralization allows for some shielding and for efficient resistance; or else, the federal government only enforces basic individual rights—especially the right to live, work and trade in any province—and this would be consistent with a much more decentralized confederation. Note, however, that formal decentralization along racial, tribal or (as Harper seems to propose) linguistic lines does raise problems. Consider: if “jurisdictions” were formed along racial lines, moving to another jurisdiction would be difficult as one cannot change one’s race. Linguistic lines are more porous, as one can learn a new language, but one still cannot change one’s mother tongue. As shown by the problem of the francophones excluded from English public schools in Quebec, divisions along linguistic lines are fraught with danger. In many respects, alas, Harper’s Quebec City speech is a typical politician’s rant written in speechwriter-speak. He talks about Quebec’s “collective personality” (what in heaven is that? I want one, too!), and personalizes political entities (Quebec wants such and such). He jumps into every muddy ditch he sees on the road to faddish fame, like “fiscal imbalance” and multiculturalism. In a recent op-ed, he even calls to “re-establish a strong central government”—he wants both A and non-A. Instead of abolishing the CRTC, he suggests putting it among the “francophone and anglophone community institutions.” Not once does he mention the forbidden word, “liberty.” Decentralization—real decentralization—is useful because it breaks the power of the state and promotes liberty. Anything that pushes our monstrous state back into its kennel is good. This is why decentralization must be defended.