Why this topic card matters even before it is proven
This topic card feels strongest because it answers one of the deepest legitimacy problems directly: many people experience governance as too distant, too opaque, and too insulated from consequence. It feels weakest wherever local knowledge is romanticized and local capture, uneven competence, and coordination failure are underweighted. The card is useful because it forces governance arguments to specify what really must stay central and what should move downward.
The problem it is trying to solve
High-complexity societies often centralize authority for efficiency, expertise, and standardization, but centralization can also weaken legitimacy, flatten local knowledge, and create institutions that are formally accountable yet practically remote. At the same time, pure decentralization can leave rights unevenly protected, infrastructure fragmented, and crisis coordination too weak. The problem is not merely where power sits, but how authority can be allocated so that correction remains possible at every level.
The proposed move
Use subsidiarity as a governing default: place decisions at the lowest competent and accountable level, then reserve higher-order authority for constitutional rights, large-scale infrastructure, spillover problems, emergency coordination, and domains where local capture or incapacity is too high. Make the boundaries explicit enough that centralization must justify itself rather than silently expanding by habit.