Democratization of the Papal States (Or any theocracy)

If the Popes could have kept sizable amount of land in their control. How could those lands peacefully turn into democratic country and what would be the role of the Roman Catholic Church in that country?

Or, in general, how could theocracy peacefully turn into democracy. And could it stay formally theocratic while doing it?
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
If the Popes could have kept sizable amount of land in their control. How could those lands peacefully turn into democratic country and what would be the role of the Roman Catholic Church in that country?

Or, in general, how could theocracy peacefully turn into democracy. And could it stay formally theocratic while doing it?

well, we could use ancient Athens as a precedent, and only give the vote to Priests and Cardinals.

of course, the Vatican is already democratic: the Pope is elected, after all.
 
If the Popes could have kept sizable amount of land in their control. How could those lands peacefully turn into democratic country and what would be the role of the Roman Catholic Church in that country?

Or, in general, how could theocracy peacefully turn into democracy. And could it stay formally theocratic while doing it?

Well, OTL, there were attempts to make Rome a republic during the middle ages. But they weren´t peaceful.

No unification of Italy is a start and not all that difficult to achieve. If the popes control large area of land with lots of people, folks will start demanding democracy once France, Britain, Germany and Spain have one.
 
The Papal States evolving into a constitutional monarchy (much like modern UK, etc.) in the wake of a Church council doesn't seem that impossible to me. The Pope remains head of the Church, of course, but the people of the Papal States* vote for a prime minister to handle secular affairs. Perhaps the Pope and the rest of the Papal State bishops get seats in the Papal Senate.

* - what were people from the Papal States called, anyway? I've always wondered. Romans? Papists?
 

Thande

Donor
I'm thinking of a system like Cambridge in the old days, when the members of the university voted very democratically for MPs, and the ordinary people of the city voted by the usual more corrupt system for theirs...only writ large. Basically I'm saying that the ecclesiastical government would probably be separate, and more democratic, from the civil one.
 
Technically the Islamic Republic of Iran is a democratic theocracy. Everyone over 15, even women, are allowed to vote for the President and the members of the Majilis(Parliament) of Iran. Of course the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians, which is composed of various ulama, can veto legislation and approve the candidates for President.

In the case of the Papal States, no Italian unification could lead to an independent republic, however, depending on the POD and the amount of butterflies, the Vatican or Rome could be separated out and something like the Latern Treaty could result or the French could occupy and hold Rome.
 

Keenir

Banned
:rolleyes:
There are Kingdoms that are ruled by governments elected by the populace as you well know.

Indonesia used to have something similar - but that King was selected from regional kings.

the thread didn't mention governments elected by the populace - it mentioned kings elected by the populace.
 

Keenir

Banned
It was about theocracies with democratic form of government.

Everybody else got it.

ah...here I thought that
I meant democratic in the modern sense. There are democratic monarchies. Why not democratic theocracies?
meant that you wanted the Vatican to elect its supreme leader (like they already do)

...but you wanted the Vatican to elect the Cardinals or other agents of the Church.
 
ah...here I thought that meant that you wanted the Vatican to elect its supreme leader (like they already do)

...but you wanted the Vatican to elect the Cardinals or other agents of the Church.

I was wondering, could such a situation occur, where the Pope would be in the same position in his country than the British monarch is in Britain.
 
Technically it isn't a problem since theologically, the pope need only be head of the church and its institutions and there is no requirement made of the secular government that exists under it. However, de facto the Catholic church was so heavily invested in divine right and authoritarian government throughout the 18th and 19th centuries that any such development would have to either come late, or hae a very early POD.
 
Well, if Italy doesn't unite (or maybe unites without the Papal States, since Italy often simply came to refer to the NORTH of the peninsular, Naples the South and Rome the centre), then we are only trying to look at alternate history from the 1850s/1860s onwards

A hybrid system would make sense, with a suffrage that elects a parliament, but a senate which pulls in the vatican. The PM would come from the parliament, but subject to the Pope's approval (choice ?) as head of state, and there would be cardinals in the cabinet, perhaps by a minimum % basis

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well, if Italy doesn't unite (or maybe unites without the Papal States, since Italy often simply came to refer to the NORTH of the peninsular, Naples the South and Rome the centre), then we are only trying to look at alternate history from the 1850s/1860s onwards

A hybrid system would make sense, with a suffrage that elects a parliament, but a senate which pulls in the vatican. The PM would come from the parliament, but subject to the Pope's approval (choice ?) as head of state, and there would be cardinals in the cabinet, perhaps by a minimum % basis

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

That sounds viable. I think any system is going to retain a heavy papal influence, so will never be completely democratic.
 
The problem with democratising any kind of 'continuing' Papal States is that this would neccessarily go against church doctrine, which as we know is notoriously undemocratic in respect of the Catholic Church. The Vatican didn't really believe in liberalism or democracy until well into the late 19th century, and then only grudgingly tolerated/accepted them. So the politics of any kind of Italian Papal States would be neccessarily Reactionary.

It would also directly politicise the Papacy in a way which wasn't really seen at any point in the modern period. I don't think even the Popes would be too comfortable with that. If the Papal States did succeed in remaining in control of large parts of Northern Italy, then the ultimate result might be another 'Babylonian Exile.'
 
Top