Inspirations for democracy from pope Francis' legacy

One man was elected to an autocratic office with a large majority, but ruled in a democratic manner. Another man was narrowly elected to a democratic office, but rules like an autocrat. We live in strange times.

I am talking about pope Francis and US president Donald Trump. The pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, which has 1.4 billion followers, and in that role, he enjoys full supremacy. In the words of the catechism: "The pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls." He alone also represents the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Vatican City, the small territory in Rome.

There were high hopes and fears when cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope Francis in 2013. Catholics are divided between social liberals, who are mostly found in Europe, and social conservatives, who are mostly found in the US and many parts of the 'Global South'. This division is well known in many societies, but within the global Catholic community, it gives rise to issues of a complexity similar to those faced by the UN.

Given his background, left-leaning Catholics expected pope Francis to make progressive decisions. His parents fled Italian fascism for Argentina, and as an archbishop he worked in the shantytowns of Buenos Aires. He had a down-to-earth, approachable style that contrasted sharply with the often formal, ceremonial demeanour of the high clergy. He was a man of the people.

They thought: Now that he held supreme power, he could simply enact the changes they longed for, whether relating to same-sex marriage, birth control, or the celibacy of priests. Such changes were feared by social conservatives. The familiar battle lines of the culture war were drawn. 

However, Francis did not use his supreme power to decisively arbitrate in either direction. He disappointed the left's expectations of clear victories, but that did not make him a social conservative.

Instead of outcomes, he looked at process. When asked about gay people, he responded "who am I to judge?". He announced that he wanted pastoral work to be more open and inclusive. He used the Synod, the authoritative meeting of bishops on church matters, to listen to ideas and positions, rather than imposing his own. He wanted the clergy, theologians, and laypeople to freely discuss the issues, without the formulaic language that means little to today's publics. 

He gave local priests more freedom to decide how to deal with divorced and remarried Catholics. He permitted priests to bless same-sex couples, while not obliging those who opposed the idea to do so too. Although he rejected the idea of women becoming priests, he promoted women into important administrative positions. 

Democracies should take some inspiration from Francis' legacy. The solution to highly polarised issues is not to use narrow majorities to overpower dissent with laws and policy, but to broaden support in society for a given position. It is an aberration that a US president, who is supposed to oversee the day-to-day running of the government, makes himself the sole arbiter of significant moral issues.

Pope Francis also urged his church to present their case in simple language and to speak from the heart rather than using abstractions to shame others into superficial acceptance. 

On these points, the pope has been an inspiration. Most analysts agree that he has changed the culture of the Roman Catholic church to make it more accessible and less hierarchical. He has tried to distil opinions from discussions rather than impose them, and has allowed more freedom for local approaches.

In management science, organisational culture is considered to be of great importance. In fact, it is considered to be more relevant than documents or guidelines. The popular slogan is 'culture eats strategy for breakfast'. In this context, Francis' cultural change has been significant.  

However, there is another side to Francis' legacy: The question of the Church's dogma and the role of the pope — in other words, the institutional repercussions of his papacy. In this respect, Francis was conservative. He largely upheld dogma and did nothing to diminish the pope's overwhelming power. He could have done so. The pope's supremacy also means that he can reduce his own power. Two millennia of church history provide precedents for different institutional design.

Institutions do matter for organisations. Culture does not eat institutions for breakfast. It is more likely that institutions eat culture for dinner. Once a new pope has settled in, he could use the institution of supremacy and undivided power to steer the church and its culture in a very different direction. 

Therefore, pope Francis' achievements should not be overstated. Much will depend on his successor. However, his emphasis on discussion and consensus-building could serve as an inspiration to democracies that have become overly focused on policies and laws.