Related posts

When the papal encyclical “Rerum Novarum” by Leo XIII was released in 1891, it was a milestone not only in the foundation of Christian Social thought at the height of the Industrial Revolution. It was much more than an answer to the specific grievances of the European working class. It was a thorough reflection on the human being and humanity in times of unprecedented technological, economic and social transformation.

His successor, Leo XIV, has now taken up this tradition of rethinking human existence and the essence of a fair society at the doorstep of an era which might undermine the very essence and dignity of humankind. As his latest Encyclica “MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS” correctly puts it: the central challenge of AI is not simply what machines can do or whom they can replace, as happened during the first industrial revolution. The challenge is increasingly what algorithmic automation may do to human agency itself, how decisions are made, how information circulates and is shared, and how power is exercised.

AI algorithms increasingly shape what people see, read, believe and prioritise. At the same time, AI systems depend on vast concentrations of data, infrastructure and computational power, all controlled by a relatively small number of private and state actors. Their influence already exceeds that of many states, as the encyclical rightly warns.

The debate on AI is often framed around efficiency: how to optimise processes, accelerate decision-making, or reduce costs. Yet the Christian social tradition has always insisted that the human person and societies cannot be “measured” solely by efficiency. The point of reference is whether people remain capable of responsibility and whether spaces for participation, meaningful social interaction and responsibility continue to exist.

This is where the principle of subsidiarity, a cornerstone of Christian social thought, becomes especially relevant once again. This search for human-centred social organisations has profoundly shaped Christian-democratic thought in Europe. Subsidiarity is not simply about decentralisation or limiting the (central) state. The principle assumes that persons, families, communities and intermediary institutions should be sufficiently equipped and capable of acting responsibly within society. The goal is not fragmentation, but participation. A healthy society depends on active citizens and living communities rather than passive dependence on distant systems of control.

The encyclical strongly reaffirms subsidiarity as a way of protecting the freedom, creativity and responsibility of persons and communities in the face of and against growing concentrations of power. Artificial intelligence now challenges this principle in ways one could never have foreseen.

At present, AI systems tend towards centralisation. They require enormous investment, large volumes of training data, highly concentrated infrastructure, and large-scale behavioural modelling. The more powerful these systems become, the greater the temptation to transfer elementary human capabilities, such as judgement, coordination and even social trust, from persons and institutions to algorithms.

The societal consequences are dramatic, and the encyclical addresses them to a large extent.

First, AI might weaken human judgment itself. Those systems increasingly recommend what we should read, watch, purchase, or believe. In core institutions of society, administration, education, and even healthcare, algorithms increasingly influence decisions that were previously, and to a large part, made by human beings. A society in which citizens gradually lose the habit and the ability of self-determined judgment undercuts the very foundations of democratic life. A purely technocratic society, as envisaged by some and governed through optimisation and behavioural prediction, may remain efficient (still to be proved) – but definitely less human.

Second, AI could bypass intermediary institutions that traditionally shape civic responsibility and social cohesion: families, schools, local communities, associations, churches, and local media. Until now, they have provided the social spaces in which judgment and participation of (young) people are formed and trained. Digital platforms are increasingly establishing direct algorithmic relationships with individuals. This weakens those mediating and deliberative structures that sustain democratic societies.

These developments are of greatest concern to Christian democracy. As “Rerum Novarum” had already pointed out 135 years ago, Christian-democratic thought must always resist both excessive state centralisation and excessive market concentration. In a very clairvoyant way, it anticipated the threats to a pluralistic social order that undermine strong intermediary institutions, civic participation, and shared responsibility. AI might dwarf the 20th-century attempts to achieve all-encompassing command and control over citizens.

Third, traditional political power is at least formally visible. This creates a dangerous asymmetry. The more society depends on algorithmic systems, the greater the risk that citizens become passive users rather than active participants in democratic life.

The Encyclical does not oppose technological development. Magnifica Humanitas clearly acknowledges the enormous positive potential of technology for education, healthcare, communication and human flourishing. But it insists, in line with a long tradition of Christian social thinking, that technology must remain oriented and ordered toward the human person and the common global good.

The implications for Christian-democratic policy are clear:

• A Christian-democratic approach to AI should therefore focus not only on innovation or (de)regulation, but also on preserving human agency within technological societies.
• Human judgement must remain central in areas affecting dignity, responsibility and democratic participation; it cannot be delegated.
• Digital governance must ensure transparency and accountability so that power remains visible and contestable.
• Intermediary institutions must be strengthened rather than bypassed by technological systems.
• And, as convenient as it often might be in first hindsight, societies must resist the temptation to reduce persons to data points, consumers or objects of behavioural management.

The real AI debate, as the Pope reminds us, is therefore not simply about technology. It is about the kind of civilisation Europe wants to be. Will democratic societies remain communities of responsible persons and living institutions, or will they gradually evolve into systems driven primarily by technological optimisation and concentrated digital power? In the age of artificial intelligence, the core fight is about defending the human person itself.

Peter Hefele Innovation Subsidiarity Technology Values

A strong Europe needs the support of national, regional, and local politicians, as much as strong municipalities in Europe need a strong umbrella like the EU. Unfortunately, the EU’s credibility has been increasingly suffering due to the Euro crisis of the early 2010s, the migration crisis of the mid-2010s, and now the pandemic of the early 2020s. European citizens were unsatisfied with the results and the work of the EU in managing these three crises.

Especially when it comes to COVID-19, the Commission has faced severe criticism for the slow vaccine rollout. According to recent data, less than 20% of EU citizens have so far received their first jab, compared with 60% of British adults and more than 50% of US citizens. From an economic perspective, the EU also lags behind: in the last quarter of 2020, the US economy grew by 4,1% and China’s growth was 6,5%, while our economy was still shrinking. If the EU does not start doing a better job, we will soon face the next crisis – a crisis of the European political system, which is losing the confidence of its citizens and even of national parliamentarians.

What do we need for a stronger Europe? And what can municipalities do to help build it? To begin with, the EU needs more democratic legitimacy. Mayors and regional parliamentarians have a great deal of legitimacy, enjoying a higher level of citizens’ trust than either national or EU authorities. Therefore, the European Commission, which is appointed, also needs the support of national parliaments and regional and local entities such as municipal governments to get legitimacy. Moreover, the EU needs more transparency in all phases of the legislative process to re-establish its credibility. Finally, the EU needs a stronger involvement of citizens but also of national parliaments and regional representatives in the legislative process. In other words: the EU needs more subsidiarity!

However, we currently see the opposite: the influence of national and regional parliamentarians has decreased year by year, as proven by two examples. First, we have more and more EU regulations, with less and less directives. In the year 2000, we had sixteen regulations and thirty-nine directives. In the year 2017, we had fifty-two regulations and only fourteen directives. In the year 2020, the numbers were forty-six regulations and only five directives. Directives, unlike regulations, give national parliaments and regional legislative assemblies the chance to be fully involved as lawmakers in the legislative procedure. This means that, over the last 20 years, there was a silent but important transformation, weakening national and regional legislation and transferring power to Brussels. We see three times more regulations than in 2000, a development that threatens the principle of subsidiarity and causes more centralism and overregulation.

Second, we observe the same upward trend in the number of delegated acts, which are not subject to subsidiarity scrutiny by national parliaments. The number of delegated legal acts increased from thirty-eight in 2012 to a hundred and sixteen in 2018, reaching a hundred and twenty-five in 2020. National parliaments and regions are not involved in this procedure and with such delegated legal acts, the EU Commission intervenes in national politics with far-reaching consequences without solid controls about the added value of its actions.

We should also mention that there has been a strong reduction of ‘subsidiarity complaints’ by national parliaments. National parliaments have the right to submit a reasoned opinion (a ‘subsidiarity complaint’) whenever they consider that draft legislative acts do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission must take account of the reasoned opinions it receives and, if they exceed a certain number, must review its proposal. This is known as the ‘yellow card’ procedure. In 2013 there were eighty-three such opinions, in 2017 forty-eight, in 2018 forty-three, while they had dropped to zero in 2019 and amounted to only twelve in 2020.

The reason is simple: national parliaments have realised that this ‘yellow card’ procedure does not work properly. So far, there were no direct effects on the outcome of any legal act, even in the few instances when the ‘yellow card’ threshold was reached. Therefore, we should rethink the procedure if we really mean it to work and are serious about strengthening the role of national and local parliamentarians in EU decision-making.

I am a strong supporter of European integration. Those who, like me, care about its prospects should agree that we could bring the EU much closer to citizens by putting the principle of subsidiarity into effect in more practical ways. In 2018, the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’, of which I was a member, already elaborated valuable recommendations in this regard, especially with a view to better involving the regional and local levels. Mayors and municipal council members should play – like national parliamentarians – a more important role.

Unfortunately, preparations for the Conference on the Future of Europe, which is scheduled to start soon, in May 2021, confirm my scepticism. Subsidiarity is not a priority on its agenda. The Committee of the Regions is not invited to participate as a member in the Executive Board but is only represented by an observer. National parliaments too can only take part in an observer capacity via the COSAC troika. I am an optimist by nature, but, as far as the real importance attributed to the principle of subsidiarity in the EU goes, I cannot help feeling increasingly pessimistic.  

Reinhold Lopatka EU Institutions European Union Subsidiarity