There are various forms of localism, as this wikipedia article shows. However, ‘localism’ in a political context is usually used to mean de-centralisation or devolution. This implies however a centre from which things – power, services etc – are handed out, which is perhaps the wrong way round. Governments – all governments – take their power, their authority, from individuals being willing to cede that authority to them. This is not just an academic argument. We can see in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Colombia, Chechnya what happens when significant portions of a society refuse to accept or recognise government - whether for political/ideological or criminal reasons.
While this idea seems central to libertarianism it isn’t necessary to be a libertarian to argue that we should only cede to government the minimum power needed to achieve the objective we have in mind, or that Government must justify not only the use and retention of a given power/degree of power but also the extent to which that power should be concentrated – for it is in the concentration of power that the most potential exists for its misuse.
What stems from this view? First - whatever powers we agree to cede to government, we should make that government as local and as accountable as possible. Second – and counter-intuitively – perhaps we should not be aiming to limit government but to encourage its proliferation since by proliferation we can counter concentration. Government even at very local level can still have an authoritarian streak as the the activities of some of the neighbourhood associations described in The Voluntary City show. Privatised government is still government, but governments which have to genuinely compete for our support can mitigate their worst excesses.
The libertarian opposition to government has its roots in the concept of self-ownership. Most libertarians appear to argue that self-ownership is incompatible with government in any form. However, while individuals are ‘sovereign’, that sovereignty does not and cannot exist in isolation. Perhaps the way forward therefore lies in the parallel concept of self-government – people organising themselves into cooperatives, collectives, communes and yes, trades unions – governments based not on geography but on willing communities of interest.
Gritting my teeth as I do so I must also point out a pamphlet from the Adam Smith Institute which argues for a replacement of VAT by a Local Sales Tax as a way of paying for localism and removing it from central government control. This is a much more statist approach than most libertarians would be ready to accept I'm sure. Even so, its core message that real power must reside locally if localism is to mean anything, is something that I and probably libertarians too, would agree with.
As a counter balance to the ASI it may be worth looking at this publication from DEMOS which deals with the idea of Trust. It is clear that many people don't trust career politicians but it is equally clear that many politicians are contemptuous of their electorate - that barrier must be overcome for local power to work. Centralised localism, which is what projects like the New Deal for Communities are really about, just won't work.
Also available to download on this issue from Demos is this speech from Alan Milburn, which argues that argues that "localism should not be regarded as simply tipping the balance of power and funding from central towards local government." I'm not sure what else it can be but Milburn seems to think ther is something else.
He sees an increasing role for neighbourhood councils and directly elected representatives on the boards of public sector bodies."Local authorities will increasingly focus on commissioning not providing. They will exercise genuine community leadership by building communities own capacity to lead."
Superficially this sounds like the multiple institutions I described above (an idea incidentally which I picked up from Ken McLeod's SF novel The Star Fraction) but that first quote from MIlburn - 'not simply tipping the balance of power' - worries me.
How we might make it happen is of course a real problem. Another DEMOS pamphlet (downloadable) called The Adaptive State, Strategies for personalising the public realm may have something to say here:
In this collection of essays, leading thinkers and practitioners argue that these questions can only be answered with a sharper moral and political vision of the role that public services play in people’s lives. There is a need to revisit the purpose of government itself, and explore models of organisational change for which the state is not currently equipped. It remains to be seen which political party or set of institutions will make these new approaches its own.
Also worth looking at is The Voluntary City (referred to above) with many examples of mutual organisation independent of the state.
I should say that I haven't finished reading these various reports - I'm linking to them because they came up as I googled around looking for relevant info on the idea of localism and I'm simply passing on the findings. It is up to you to make of them what you will.
Because I'm still reading around and thinking about this issue I don't have a clear set of ideas - other than the clear need to break up the extreme centralism and micromanagement which has become a characteristic of British government over the past 20 odd years.
