North/South local democracy: the European Charter of local self-government in action - CPL (3) 8 Part II

Rapporteur: Dr H Frendo (Malta)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

I. THE EUROPEAN CHARTER OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

I.a Beginnings

The concept of an international code setting down the principles of local autonomy was first proposed by the founders of the Council of European Municipalities (CEM) at its first General Assembly held in Versailles in 1953. Subsequently, the then newly-established European Conference of Local Authorities of the Council of Europe, the predecessor of the current CLRAE, attempted to promote the adoption by the Committee of Ministers of a "Declaration of Principles on Local Autonomy", based upon the CEM model. Such attempts got nowhere and it took quite a number of years of democratic development in Europe before agreement could be won for adopting what is now the European Charter, in the early 1980's.

Furthermore, even within the CLRAE itself there were many, at the time, who doubted whether this was more than an academic exercise, leading only to the production of another worthy and even excellent Declaration, but without much real impact.

I.b Progress

In the years immediately following its adoption by the Committee of Ministers it achieved solid but unspectacular progress as member country after member country (but not all) signed and ratified it. In recent years, however, the success of the Charter has been phenomenal. Once categorised as an idealistic vision, the Charter is now firmly established among the foundation stones of a democratic system of government and it constitutes the principal philosophy, the guiding star, the keystone of the work and approach of the CLRAE in the defence of local democracy.

The takeoff, of course, was its application in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, anxious to anchor their reforms to an internationally recognised set of standards. As such, the Charter has been used as the reference for local government reform in many such countries and often been incorporated expressis verbis into new national constitutions.

The progress of signature and ratification has not been limited, however, to new countries. Against a background of undoubted increased decentralisation and a new understanding of the benefits to be gained from decentralisation; the strengthening of international bodies such as the CLRAE; the creation of new institutions such as the Committee of Regions, momentum has gathered for its signing and ratification in some of the more longer standing member countries, to the extent that of the 39 member countries, 21 have now signed and ratified it, with 7 having signed it. 11 countries have neither signed nor ratified the Charter.

I.c Respecting its application and monitoring its progress

There is also a great deal of current interest and discussion in the CLRAE about providing some machinery to ensure that the Charter is respected by those countries which have undertaken to do so, through machinery akin to that available for the human rights jurisprudence. Whilst it is unlikely that there will be some form of Court to enforce the application of the Charter in the same way as the European Court of Human Rights does for the European Convention of Human Rights, the CLRAE, with the agreement of the Committee of Ministers, is and has been actively examining, through a specialised Working Group, the question of ensuring the application of the Charter in member countries.

The Charter is also the reference point for an assessment of the extent to which countries, old or new, respect the principles of local democracy and, as such, is the basis for the series of national monographs which the CLRAE has drawn up over the last 18 months.

II. THE CHARTER OUTSIDE EUROPE

It is thus part of an impeccable logic that the Charter be extended or its use be widened to countries outside Europe.

This idea is not new. Soon after the Charter's adoption by the Council of Europe, its guiding principles were taken up by the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA) as the basis for a World-wide Declaration of Local Self-Government. This Declaration, which largely followed the pattern of the European Charter but allowed for rather greater flexibility of application in a wider variety of circumstances, was launched at the 27th IULA World Congress in Rio de Janeiro in 1985. Attempts were then made, inspired by the European precedent, to have the Declaration endorsed and promulgated by the United Nations Economic and Social Council but, while there were some favourable moves in this direction, the necessary level of political support could not be gained at the time.

Following the major political changes in the late 1980's/early 1990's, IULA decided that the time was ripe to take up the cause again, and the World-wide Declaration was relaunched at the 31st World Congress in Toronto on June 1993 with a Preamble referring to the success of the European Charter and proclaiming the renewed Declaration `as a standard to which all nationals should aspire in their efforts to achieve a more democratic process, thereby improving the social and economic well-being of their populations'.

A number of other international local government associations and networks, subsequently, have also endorsed the IULA Declaration and/or issued statements along similar lines related to their particular focus of interest, and there has been a marked upsurge in the level of recognition at international level of the potential inherent in building up local self-government capacity and in regarding local authorities as effective partners in social and economic development programmes.

This recognition of the role of local authorities was very evident at the Rio Earth Summit ie. that many global problems have their roots in local activities and must be dealt with at the local level. Following Rio, there has been further visibility given to the question of a UN inspired global convention on local self-government - a question which has been given considerable limelight by the World Assembly of Cities and Local Authorities (WACLA) held in Istanbul on the eve of the UN Habitat II Conference. The very fact of a number of international associations of local authorities coming together as they did in the G4 Group in order to inject a municipal dimension into Habitat II, is in itself a spur towards a world charter as is the attention being given by the UN authorities to have a local government component within its international machinery.

II.a BACKGROUND TO THE CONFERENCE

Such is the background to the decision by the CLRAE, upon the recommendation of its North/South Working Group, to explore the feasibility of extending the application of the Charter to countries outside Europe. This decision was taken in the light of the expansion of the membership of the Council of Europe and the informal links established by the CLRAE with local government organisations in North America, Japan, Latin America and elsewhere and against the background of the dialogue with developing countries being pursued by the North/South Working Group. The Malta Conference is thus the first step in placing the CLRAE in a potentially pivotal position in relation to the advancement worldwide of the principles of democratic local and regional government.

III. THE MALTA CONFERENCE

III.a Genesis

The idea took root in the North/South Working Group, at its meeting in Lisbon in 1995, where the current Rapporteur, member of the North/South Working Party and Chairman of the Local Councils' Association of Malta, extended an invitation for the Conference to take place in Malta. The proposal was accepted and sharpened up at subsequent meetings.

The Group decided that the Malta Conference, first of all should examine the path and the obstacles in respect of the application of the Charter to Central and Eastern Europe, with testimony from the persons and institutions involved. Secondly, it was agreed to circumscribe the geographical area or an examination of its application elsewhere. The choice was made of (a) the Mediterranean Basin in that there are a number of nascent democracies shoulder-to-shoulder with more established democratic regimes and (b) Africa, in that there are established partnerships or tandems operating between a number of European and African countries on questions of democratic institution building and local support.

Such was the point of departure for the Malta Conference.

III.b The Conference itself

It was attended by approximately 120 participants from 28 countries, including those outside Europe and representing different professions and disciplines concerned by the theme eg., local and regional elected representatives, officials from different levels of public administration, members of universities and other academic institutions, representatives of national and international associations of local authorities, specialist institutions and NGO’s etc.

It was organised jointly by the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (CLRAE) and the Local Councils Association in Malta. Part of the work programme of the CLRAE, it was also a contribution to the 10th. anniversary of the Charter.

The Conference was structured around the following themes:-

- The Application to the South of the Experience of the European Charter in Central and Eastern European Countries

- The European Charter and the Mediterranean Basin

- Europe/Africa Co-operation in the Development of Local Democracy

In respect of the last theme, the Congress looked particularly at partnerships between the United Kingdom and Uganda; Germany and Namibia; and the Netherlands and South Africa.

All the themes were illustrated by reports and case studies drawn from a wide variety of countries and political situations.

The CLRAE felt that Malta, because of its historic and cultural traditions; its geographical position and recent reinforcement of local government, was an ideal choice for the venue of such a Conference.

IV. VIEWS OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE CONFERENCE:

IV.a On the Charter

Initially, the participants underlined some of the characteristics of the European Charter and why it is a significant and valuable reference. It remains the first and currently the only such international binding instrument on local self-government and is one of the most complete universal reference on the subject. It is an ideal instrument in anchoring local democracy in that it has been applied successfully in Central and Eastern Europe; it was the first international binding instrument to include a specific reference to and operational definition of subsidiarity; its provisions are sufficiently wide, for adaptation to a variety of specific situations; it gives a valid legal basis for the inclusion of provisions guaranteeing local democracy in national Constitutions; it is not just a statement of principles but also a practical tool for the daily practice of local government and it represents a common set of values which have universal relevance.

IV.b On the Charter and Central and Eastern European countries

Concerning Central and Eastern European countries, although the Charter has been a key in their process of democratic reform, the participants drew attention to some improvements that could still be made, eg. that is important that the political legitimacy given to locally elected representatives is matched with adequate powers, responsibilities and means to enable them to respond to the expectations citizens have in them; that national parliaments are encouraged to adopt the necessary supplementary legislation in order to support the legal guarantees for local autonomy, as stipulated in Article 11 of the Charter; that it is essential not only to incorporate the Charter into legislative procedures but also to have mechanisms for ensuring adhesion and respect of its principles in the daily practice of local government; that it is important to strengthen the role and responsibilities of associations of local and regional authorities; that it may be appropriate to create joint central/local government bodies or mechanisms empowered to review and negotiate the distribution of responsibilities, in the light of changing requirements but whilst respecting the principle of subsidiarity.

IV.c On local democracy

The participants also wished to make a number of points about local authorities and local democracy. Although these are not new they wished nonetheless to underline that:-

- Genuine local democracy is one of the key factors in achieving a stable society and promoting and securing tolerance amongst different political, ethnic and religious groups. This point was made particularly in relation to a question which arose during the Conference about a religious or political movement which might be tempted to suspend democratic procedures in the name of the belief in question. Indeed, how to guarantee that democracy is not subverted through the emergence via a democratic process of non-democratic forces was a debate in Malta which was not conclusively resolved.

- Not only are local authorities among the main foundations of a democratic regime; they are also one of the pillars of European construction and that in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is at the local level, where the rights of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs, can be most directly respected.

- Local self-government has shown itself not to be a threat to national sovereignty but a part of public administration. Local autonomy and centralisation are opposed concepts but local autonomy and a unitary state are not. Local self-government is also responsive to the wishes of local citizens and can carry out a wide range of policies and programmes which otherwise would have to be conducted nationally.

- Local authorities must be free to exercise their responsibilities without undue hindrance from or excessively complicated procedures imposed by central government and without the risk of arbitrary suspension or dismissal outside accepted judicial procedures.

V. THE EUROPEAN CHARTER AND ITS ROLE OUTSIDE EUROPE: POINTS DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE

In discussing the possibility of applying the Charter to the South, a number of speakers made the point that the South must be receptive. Principles and ideals hatched in Europe are not necessarily exportable in the same way as chocolate bars or washing machines. Nonetheless, a recent World Bank report states that, of 75 developing countries currently in the process of transition, 63 are intending to give responsibilities to the local level. Although, therefore, historic traditions and cultural pattern differ from country to country, there does indeed seem to be a demand.

On the theme of cooperation between Europe and Africa through the three tandems examined (Uganada/UK, Namibia/Germany, South Africa/Netherlands) a number of common points emerged.

V.a Africa

In all cases, substantial cooperation had developed in the post-colonial period, on help with legislation on local democracy, on help with establishing national associations, on cooperation in putting into practice global commitments, such as Agenda 21. Many of such joint programmes had been built upon the wide variety of initial links on trade, work, joint programmes for many technical and practical forms of assistance (housing, water supply, health etc.).

Although mention was made of the constitutional and legislative difficulties in the way of development cooperation, eg. Namibia/Germany, all parties, nonetheless, expressed their conviction about the value of such links in promoting understanding, professional development, joint enterprises and, above all, strengthening capacity for building local democracy.

Such links and partnerships to promote decentralised cooperation and capacity building are very much needed in that existing local government structures in some African countries suffer from an inadequate constitutional or legal base; excessive central government direction; over-dependence upon central government grants, whose basis of calculation often appear arbitrary and unstable; and a weak community base. Furthermore, they often lack the capacity to engage in meaningful negotiation with their central governments, due to the absence of statutory consultation rights and/or the weakness of their representative associations.

Such decentralised cooperation also helps to narrow the political and social gap between North and South in that concepts of democracy, good local self-government, development and many other related issues are looked at from a common point of view by peoples from widely different parts of the globe. It was felt that such experience should be widened to other countries, eg. in the words of Christopher Iga, Mayor of Kampala, "The experience of Uganda/UK relationship should be used to involved more communities, more governments, non-governmental organisations, the European Union, religious organisations and other groups in both the North and South to participate in the search for solutions to these problems and challenges to make the world a better place to live in for all of us".

In the end, however, as mentioned by Dr Elizabeth Amukugo from Namibia, it depends very much on the countries themselves as to whether local democracy works. "It is argued that although donor assistance may play a role in the development of local democracy in Namibia, its success depends on the people of Namibia themselves."

V.b The Mediterranean Basin

For the Mediterranean area, there were presentations from Turkey, in a report presented by Prof. Keles, in which a description was given of the current state of local government and local democracy in the country, and by David Cassuto, Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, in a report describing the advances and the obstacles for local democracy in Israel.

The current Rapporteur, Dr Frendo, Mayor of Attard, described the establishment and the workings of local government in Malta, since 1994, after his country had signed and ratified the Charter.

The Director of the North/South Centre in Lisbon, Mr Lemmers, provided information on movements towards democracy in Algeria. There was also, as mentioned earlier, a debate on the way in which to deal with Islamic fundamentalism.

Participants made a number of points ie. that there are countries in the region where local government is not in accordance with the principles of the Charter, despite an increase in general cooperation; and that there should be more cooperation between the Northern and Southern littorals on a wide range of topics and programmes of common interest. For its part, the Council of Europe were asked to devote part of the next Conference on the Mediterranean Regions to questions of cooperation on local democracy and, under its aegis, help to bring local authorities of the region together in order to accelerate the peace process in the Near East.

VI. REPORT ON LOCAL DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA, ASIA AND LATIN AMERICA

In this report I should also like to present the information received at the Conference about the state of local democracy in some countries in Africa, in Asia and Latin America and identify a number of approaches which might be made and a possible role of the CLRAE. For this purpose, and with his consent, I would like to draw on the excellent report prepared by Mr Paul Bongers, Consultant, for the Malta Conference and I would like, at the same time, to acknowledge here his vital role in the analysis of the issues involved.

"In several countries of Africa, the last ten years have seen a major change of attitudes towards local self-government. In many cases the colonial powers had left behind them functioning systems of local governance, bearing close resemblances in their structures and legal framework to their own systems at home. These, however, had been designed for a paternalistic, centrally directed style of governance and were easily adapted to the new-style direction by (usually) single party governments which could not readily contemplate countervailing centres of power at a local level. In this situation the old structures decayed seriously in quality, too often central government appointees took over the leadership roles to the detriment of traditional leadership practice, and the community base was weak or non-existent. Shortages of resources compounded the problems, with local authorities continuing to have statutory responsibilities for significant local services without having the capacity to deliver them effectively. While towns and cities grew rapidly in population, the services could not keep pace with the growth or draw resources from what should have been an expanding local tax base in order to manage the problems created by this movement of population. Structural adjustment programmes further reduced the scope for local authorities in a number of countries to address the needs of their populations.

In both West and East Africa, these problems have become increasingly well recognised as the moves towards multi-party democracy gathered pace. The practice of decentralised co-operation was encouraged by the European Union and a number of other donors as a means of empowerment and local capacity-building, through support for direct partnerships between towns North and South, lending new content and meaning often to what had previously been rather formal twinning agreements. The World Bank and certain northern governments supported innovative Municipal Development Programmes in West and East Africa, steered by joint committees bringing together the donors, the national governments, and representatives of local authorities in the regions concerned, which have focused on the means of enhancing the capacity of local authorities and their, often embryonic, national associations. Joint action with non-governmental organisations has been an important component of many elements in these programmes, helping to ensure that solutions are truly community-based and sustainable.

Whereas in West and East Africa, and since 1 November 1995 in South Africa, elected local councils and mayors are increasingly the norm, with all that this means in terms of the political process and the potential for the opening up of decision-making, the countries of North Africa are much more hesitant about moving in this direction. The growing trans-Mediterranean debate about all aspects of social and economic cooperation in the region should also embrace an active dialogue about approaches to local self-government and leadership issues.

Latin America has seen some remarkable moves towards democratisation, nationally and at local level, in recent years. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia have all introduced legislation to strengthen their local government systems in the cause of decentralisation and people-centred development. Brazil and Uruguay have shown similar trends, with the speed of development varying from region to region. One of the most positive moves for local democracy has been the creation of the `Red' Network of national associations of local authorities across the whole continent, which has added a strong political element to the more technical liaison and project activities of the IULA Latin American Section which provides its secretariat. Five meetings of the Network have been held to date, focusing on the promotion of decentralisation in a continent characterised by long distances and poor communications, and also upon the concerted preparation of an effective local authority contribution to the Habitat II City Summit.

In Asia, there are moves towards decentralisation of a different order. While certain countries, including India, Japan and the Philippines, have an established pattern of local democracy with substantial powers exercised at the local level, these systems operate within a centrally run structure of management which many in Europe would find contrary to the basic principles of local autonomy. In these countries the senior staff of the local authorities are all designated by central ministries, and in many Asian countries the mayors are appointed through the same channels. In China, the local authorities are very powerful institutions, responsible for controlling large sectors of the economy. There are strong moves towards privatisation and joint ventures in the manufacturing sector, but rather fewer signs as yet of real democratisation at the local level. Chinese local authorities are seeking to step up their links with partners in many European countries, and to establish new ones, for both political as well as economic purposes, and it is to be hoped that these exchanges will also help to stimulate a dialogue about the principles and practice of local democracy.

VI.a Some Key Problems of Local Self-Government in the South

Local self-government, in other words, needs to be anchored in the constitution of each state, and then the governmental system must operate in such a way as to allow it to function freely within its established framework. Several countries of Central and Eastern Europe have indeed written local self-government into their constitutions, as a key element in their renunciation of the former top-down command system. In the South the picture is much more mixed, leaving many local authorities highly vulnerable to arbitrary state action which could go so far as to threaten their very existence. Developing a strong partnership approach with central government in the heady days of democratic fervour is one thing, but sustaining the position when circumstances become difficult or politics or personalities change can be very much more difficult. Certainly, building up a strong community base and a creative relationship with non-governmental organisations will help to sustain local democracy, but these really are no substitute for constitutional guarantees.

The second major problem afflicting local authorities in many parts of the South is the gap between their statutory duties and the capacity which they can call upon to carry them out. `Unfunded mandates' - whereby functions are assigned to local authorities by legislation without any corresponding allocation of the necessary resources - are a big problem for local authorities in the United States, and examples may be found in many other developed countries. In the South, these problems are aggravated enormously by the inadequate local tax base, leading to gross over-dependence upon central grants whose basis of calculation often appears arbitrary and which may be withdrawn virtually without notice or reason.

The third problems in this series is often the absence of a proper policy dialogue between central and local government. On the one hand, consultation rights are not guaranteed, even over matters of major import for a local authority's very existence; and on the other, local government too often lacks the capacity to engage in any real negotiation with central government because of the weakness of its representative associations (if such exist). Few associations in the developed countries would claim to be able to match the expertise of the central ministries in many fields, but where they have the capacity to mound a case based upon concrete experience on the ground, and can muster the ability to make their position known in the national parliament and among other opinion-formers, the chances of influencing final decisions are very much higher.

A further aspect which is worth mentioning in this context, although it is not fully addressed in the European Charter, is that of leadership systems. Europe has a wide variety of arrangements for leadership and decision-taking at local level, ranging from typical strong directly elected mayor systems, through indirectly elected and even appointed mayors, to elected council/appointed manager structures. In some countries, the staff are directly appointed by the local authority, under conditions of service freely decided at local level (though often with co-ordination at national level through the associations), while in others the senior staff appointments require state approval, and conditions of service are determined by central government.

While there is clearly no single "right" approach, and leadership systems need to be tailored to the institutional and cultural context in which they are to operate, this would seem to be an area that would benefit from further study at European level in its own right, and where comparative European experience would be of considerable value to partners in the South. It is interesting to note that some Commonwealth countries, which inherited traditional UK-style council/manager systems, are moving towards the strong mayor system more typical of the French tradition. It would be extremely relevant to assess how each of these and other systems provides for the checks and balances necessary to assure public accountability and

probity, how the community is best protected from the inherently greater risks of corruption in a strong mayor system, and how the public comprehends and relates to the local authority leadership within the various different models."

VII. THE WAY FORWARD

The authority which stems from the Charter's enactment as an instrument of international law should not be underestimated. However, can countries other than member countries accede to the European Charter? Under present conditions it is not a legal option nor, in any case, would it appear appropriate.

An alternative approach would be to seek the adoption of the Charter's principles by a wider international community and, indeed, the first steps have been taken at the UN Conference on Human Settlements Habitat II, in Istanbul, 3-14 June 1996.

The Habitat Agenda adopted at the outset of the Conference refers to the strengthening of local government capacity and to the encouragement of the development of a world Charter of Local Self-Government. If this comes about, the CLRAE should certainly be involved.

There are also a number of proposals for the future work of the CLRAE, arising from the Malta Conference, which are put together in the Resolution accompanying this report. It is not necessary to repeat them in extenso here, but I would particularly underline the importance of the CLRAE organising further regional seminars elsewhere in the world following the Malta precedent; attendance by the CLRAE at events and seminars organised outside Europe on local democracy; the encouragement of reports on local democracy in countries outside Europe along the lines of those already conducted by the CLRAE for member and applicant countries.

APPENDIX

Closing speech delivered by His Excellency Dr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, President of Malta

Subsidiarity should be a platitude. That it is not and that what should be obvious has to be rediscovered time and again, must be indicative of some ambiguity in the very concept of delegation or assumption of power in a community or in the State. Democracy is not a new or even a modern invention. Plato and Aristotle considered its virtues and what they deemed its deficiencies some twenty-four centuries ago. Neither is local government a modern phenomenon. Indeed, in medieval Europe the commune and later the city Republics co-existed with the Emperor, perceived as universal. For that matter within the Church the local churches with their bishops maintained a similar relationship with the Papacy - in itself a counter balance to the Holy Roman Emperor.

It is of course historically evident that men have sacrificed or borne the sacrifice of their freedom, their self-government, their community's independence, their efficient and knowledgeable governance, for what was perceived or imposed as strong and safe - at times aggressive - conduct of a nation's affairs. Indeed, whilst new men subdued city republics, and plebiscites and putsches consolidated dictators, monarchical national states crushed the ectoplasm of the cells of local government. Centralisation was made a virtue of the machinery of State. Homogeneity was ensured by imposition from an enlightened elite - or in Napoleon's self-assessment - by an overwhelming genius.

Whilst strong men and tyrants must favour centralisation, decentralisation does not necessarily mean micro-democracy : it may mean simple minute distribution of executive power. Neither does it ensure by itself greater efficiency or greater equity. Indeed it can carry all the cultural deficiencies of a nation, its uncorrected - and perhaps difficult to correct - vices to their inevitable conclusions. The distribution of power does, however, favour the spread of democracy.

On the other hand, the success of micro-democracy is perhaps more dependent on the level of culture and education of a people than that of a macro-democracy. De Tocqueville made some very pertinent comments on democracy in the United States during the early nineteenth century and the interface between widespread education and a more conscious grass roots democracy was fully emphasised by Dewey. An intellectual elite can serve as a political class and work a democracy on the national level, overflying the flaws of a not fully participatory democracy. At the local level self-government is more in synchromesh with the diffused level of education. The ultimate acceptability and acceptance of the results of local government are more solidly linked to the generally acceptable level of a particular community's education. The local community will defer to a higher competence if the people who are known, closer, more accessible therefore, more effected by the decisions, are shown to be below what is expected in the management of communal affairs. The higher the common denominator, the more successful would be the result of the application of general subsidiarity. The observation has been made, that the south, especially the Italian and the Spanish south, has furnished to their respective nations a disproportionate number of first class statesmen. .....

On the other hand it has also been noted that as of today, the efficiency of local government in the south does not compare favourably with that of the north. Crispi may have had more success with the whole of Italy than with his native Agrigento. On the other hand, Sturzo started with Caltagirone and retained his attachment to local government translating this attachment into a matter of national policy in favour of the principle of subsidiarity - as regionalisation and decentralisation. Intelligence and charisma are not enough for good government at the local level. The culture of public service, of participation in affairs must be prevalent and there must also be a proportionate level of intellectual preparedness.

In the spread of the culture of public service and of participation, a great contribution can be made by twinning and direct exchange at the local level. This contact, which is usually person to person, transmits the basic personal attitudes, in a manner which is not otherwise attainable. This capillary diplomacy enriches those taking part through initiation into diversity with commonalties. It has also been said that many a patronising stance dissolves within the experience.

The Council of Europe was not born mainly to provide a nursery for democracy, but the further development of participatory democracy in the twofold thrust towards more civilised government and more efficient management of affairs, is surely within the scope and justification of this great association. Twinning and exchange should therefore be further helped and stimulated, and not restricted to the countries within the Council of Europe. Whilst the newly admitted countries might very usefully enjoy the intermingling with those of a longer experience of democracy, the whole continent should feel the call to spread the culture of local government and the techniques of efficient conduct of affairs to other continents. In the aftermath of the breakdown of dictatorial regimes or in the exodus from long periods of colonialism, local democratic self-government is the best introduction into the culture of self-dependence, self-reliance and self-control.

It has been observed that all politics are really local. One observes, however, that with greater devolution, politics at national level do become a little less provincial. When our institutional instrument is provided for the satisfaction of purely local needs. A substantial separation process occurs automatically. Subsidiarity assists unity at a higher level by avoiding some of the clashes in the priority placing of local interests.

Underpinning all subsidiarity is peace and security. Making it work requires great dissemination of knowledge (sapientia), education and culture, and the spirit of acceptance of diversity.