Democratization of the Papal States (Or any theocracy)

Eh, I think it is doable. Not even that hard, really. Like any organization that lives through its 1000th birthday, the Papacy had a lot of resistance to change. On the other hand, it has always placed a tremendous amount of power and influence into whoever happens to be Pope at the time.

What this scenario requires is just one liberal Pope. Well, I suppose it also has to be a Pope who is in office long enough to get some things done. So a young liberal Pope, and one that is somehow actually elected by the cardinals in spite of himself.
 
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.
Democratic means rule by the people, meaning that the people in general are the electorate, not just a small, heavily limited franchise.
It doesn't just mean "voting". The Pope is elected, but not democratically. He's elected by old fogies his predecessor appointed.

Now, here's an idea:
The people elect the Assemblies, which are the legislature. The College of Cardinals, appointed by previous Popes, would serve as the Senate, or executive council, which elects one of two Consuls; the other Consul would be Pope, elected by Popular Referendum from amongst the Cardinals. Meanwhile, the judiciary would be nominated by the Senate and approved by the Assemblies.
This comes into effect, say, 1848, in a hybrid revolution supporting both democracy and the pope.
 

Keenir

Banned
Democratic means rule by the people, meaning that the people in general are the electorate, not just a small, heavily limited franchise.

in one of my initial posts in this thread, I did point out that it would be like ancient Athens, which had a limited franchise of democracy - yet pretty much everybody these days calls Athens a democracy.

no worries.
 
in one of my initial posts in this thread, I did point out that it would be like ancient Athens, which had a limited franchise of democracy - yet pretty much everybody these days calls Athens a democracy.

no worries.
Depends on how you take "The people" to mean. To Athenians, these were citizens, and all propertied citizens had voting rights in the city. So, by their standards, they were a democracy.

But, by mid-19th century European standards, the Papal States were not, and in modern standards, they definitely are not, democratic.
 
As a start, let's have Pius VII knock off early. Say, around 1821, instead of 1823. The next man up goes by Benedict XV, and lasts only to 1824, at which time OTL's Leo XII is elected. He dies on schedule in 1829, and is replaced by Pius VIII who is dead before the end of 1830. Gregory XVI is elected next but fall ill and dies only 9 months later (as opposed to 1846 in OTL).

After going through five popes in eleven years, the Church wants a steady hand at the tiller. Rather than risk a pope who could be gone inside the decade, the cardinals elect a young (43 year old) John XXIII in October of 1831. Relatively little known, aside from his devoutness, John XXIII is the first to bear that name in nearly five hundred years. A great many in the church heirarchy will quietly regret their choice over the years.

John kept quiet liberal sympathies throughout his youth. Despite "coming around" as he rose in the church, they never completely left him, and the Revolutions that flickered across Europe in 1830 reinforced his views on the inevitability of liberal ideas. In power, he determines to "moderate" liberalism's "excesses," convinced that Catholicism and the modern world are not incompatible.

In other words, he has a bit of the late 20th century popes in him, and a whole lot of Otto von Bismarck.
 
I think it can be done, but in order to do that, I have some ideas of my own.

First off, the Pope remains as Head of State in the Vatican City and also head of the Catholic Church. That is a start. As in OTL, the College of Cardinals (in this case, the Conclave) still elect the Pope.

The Curia could function as a form of Privy Council, with a separate set of dicasteries functioning as ministries in the form of a State Congress. The State Congress would be run by Captains-Regent, fufilling similar roles to the consuls of ancient Rome, and elected by the people. A Senate would function as the Papal States' unicameral legislature and also elected by the people.

That's a start, I think. (Yes, it's a combo of the OTL modern-day institutions of the Vatican and San Marino, expanded to a larger scale.)
 
Like a contitutional monarcy. Would it be called a constitutional thocracy? Would it be cheating to postulate a European state make the king he head of the church?
 
Hrm.... That makes a certain amount of sense, though it'd be best to keep in mind that the Vatican's government is very recent and both have been shaped to some degree in reaction to events around them. The institutions put in place to reform would not likely match the ones put up retroactively by remnant states in OTL.

So. John XXIII.

Under his reign, the Papal States enact a national land survey, just as Sardinia-Piedmont was doing. This sorts out what land is being held illegally, and what useful land is being left unused. It actually works better for the Papacy than for that northern kingdom, because an enormous amount of land falls into those categories.

Otherwise, the early years of John XXIII's papacy parallel the reign of Ferdinand II in the Two Sicilies, crowned a year earlier. A part of the money from the land reforms goes to efforts to gradually industrialize. Local industries are encouraged and a (slow) start made on a railroad to stretch between Rome and Bologna. There's a limit to how much can be accomplished in this way. Foreign competition is partly dealt with by tariff barriers (he's not a perfect liberal), but there's little cure for the utter lack of local markets.

Like much of Italy the Papal States have actually gotten poorer since the Renaissance, but the problem is particularly severe there. The church does a sterling job feeding the poverty stricken masses under its care. Unfortunately, a fair part of the origin of that poverty is in the fact that in, an agrarian economy, the church owns much of the best available land. Even as things improve there aren't many to buy the products of the first factories.

It doesn't help matters that part of John's idea of moderating liberalism includes keeping it from ruining the cities. The first few major manufactories under the papal domains are set up well outside and downwind of population centers. That's all very well and good for the tourists and pilgrims, but it makes the process that little bit more difficult.

Ideally, our good pope would like to set up some sort of representative body for his domains, but in the 1830s there's a limit to what he can do - the Church is a very conservative organization. Not that they'd necessarily refuse him outright, but incomplete compliance and procrastination will do the job just as well if he forces the issue. And he knows it. He's already being called "the banker-pope" by his detractors. In the meantime, he contents himself by exhorting the monarchs of Europe to live up to his example and by distributing land turned up by his reforms.

Ironically, the opposition to his policies actually makes the latter more successful. Rather than dividing everything equally among the poor - which would leave the average family with a smallish amount of land but no livestock, seed, or tools - he is stuck giving it out in increments. Those who do get new land get a fair amount and often some basic necessities to work it as well. Most are able to maintain the land they get without going straight into debt.

All in all, John XXIII is a popular man when 1848 comes around.
 
And popularity is what counts.

When Revolution comes to Europe, most monarchs find themselves either thrust from power outright, or forced to grant constitutions. The former category has to wait for someone to come return them to their thrones. The latter is effectively free to revoke those constitutions at leisure.

This TL's pope has the popularity to move the Papal States between categories. When the angry mobs turn up in St. Peter's Square, John is ready. By the time the dust settles he is ruler of an entity that could best be termed a Constitutional Theocracy. While the Church retains most of the power, there is now an additional legislative parlamento (senate had too many pagan connotations) composed partly of those elected by property owners and partly by those nominated by various church officials. The cabinet and prime minister are selected by the Pope from members of parliament with a certain set proportion of elected and ecclesiastical cabinet seats.

There you go. You can get more democratic, certainly, but the pressure of decades tended to force countries in the right direction. Of course, you still need a reason this creature would avoid the ravenous attentions of the Piedmontese....
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
As a start, let's have Pius VII knock off early. Say, around 1821, instead of 1823. The next man up goes by Benedict XV, and lasts only to 1824, at which time OTL's Leo XII is elected. He dies on schedule in 1829, and is replaced by Pius VIII who is dead before the end of 1830. Gregory XVI is elected next but fall ill and dies only 9 months later (as opposed to 1846 in OTL).

After going through five popes in eleven years, the Church wants a steady hand at the tiller. Rather than risk a pope who could be gone inside the decade, the cardinals elect a young (43 year old) John XXIII in October of 1831. Relatively little known, aside from his devoutness, John XXIII is the first to bear that name in nearly five hundred years. A great many in the church heirarchy will quietly regret their choice over the years.

John kept quiet liberal sympathies throughout his youth. Despite "coming around" as he rose in the church, they never completely left him, and the Revolutions that flickered across Europe in 1830 reinforced his views on the inevitability of liberal ideas. In power, he determines to "moderate" liberalism's "excesses," convinced that Catholicism and the modern world are not incompatible.

In other words, he has a bit of the late 20th century popes in him, and a whole lot of Otto von Bismarck.


Hrm.... That makes a certain amount of sense, though it'd be best to keep in mind that the Vatican's government is very recent and both have been shaped to some degree in reaction to events around them. The institutions put in place to reform would not likely match the ones put up retroactively by remnant states in OTL.

So. John XXIII.

Under his reign, the Papal States enact a national land survey, just as Sardinia-Piedmont was doing. This sorts out what land is being held illegally, and what useful land is being left unused. It actually works better for the Papacy than for that northern kingdom, because an enormous amount of land falls into those categories.

Otherwise, the early years of John XXIII's papacy parallel the reign of Ferdinand II in the Two Sicilies, crowned a year earlier. A part of the money from the land reforms goes to efforts to gradually industrialize. Local industries are encouraged and a (slow) start made on a railroad to stretch between Rome and Bologna. There's a limit to how much can be accomplished in this way. Foreign competition is partly dealt with by tariff barriers (he's not a perfect liberal), but there's little cure for the utter lack of local markets.

Like much of Italy the Papal States have actually gotten poorer since the Renaissance, but the problem is particularly severe there. The church does a sterling job feeding the poverty stricken masses under its care. Unfortunately, a fair part of the origin of that poverty is in the fact that in, an agrarian economy, the church owns much of the best available land. Even as things improve there aren't many to buy the products of the first factories.

It doesn't help matters that part of John's idea of moderating liberalism includes keeping it from ruining the cities. The first few major manufactories under the papal domains are set up well outside and downwind of population centers. That's all very well and good for the tourists and pilgrims, but it makes the process that little bit more difficult.

Ideally, our good pope would like to set up some sort of representative body for his domains, but in the 1830s there's a limit to what he can do - the Church is a very conservative organization. Not that they'd necessarily refuse him outright, but incomplete compliance and procrastination will do the job just as well if he forces the issue. And he knows it. He's already being called "the banker-pope" by his detractors. In the meantime, he contents himself by exhorting the monarchs of Europe to live up to his example and by distributing land turned up by his reforms.

Ironically, the opposition to his policies actually makes the latter more successful. Rather than dividing everything equally among the poor - which would leave the average family with a smallish amount of land but no livestock, seed, or tools - he is stuck giving it out in increments. Those who do get new land get a fair amount and often some basic necessities to work it as well. Most are able to maintain the land they get without going straight into debt.

All in all, John XXIII is a popular man when 1848 comes around.

And popularity is what counts.

When Revolution comes to Europe, most monarchs find themselves either thrust from power outright, or forced to grant constitutions. The former category has to wait for someone to come return them to their thrones. The latter is effectively free to revoke those constitutions at leisure.

This TL's pope has the popularity to move the Papal States between categories. When the angry mobs turn up in St. Peter's Square, John is ready. By the time the dust settles he is ruler of an entity that could best be termed a Constitutional Theocracy. While the Church retains most of the power, there is now an additional legislative parlamento (senate had too many pagan connotations) composed partly of those elected by property owners and partly by those nominated by various church officials. The cabinet and prime minister are selected by the Pope from members of parliament with a certain set proportion of elected and ecclesiastical cabinet seats.

There you go. You can get more democratic, certainly, but the pressure of decades tended to force countries in the right direction. Of course, you still need a reason this creature would avoid the ravenous attentions of the Piedmontese....

I like this Matt, very interesting. Not entirely sure about all aspects of it, but pray do continue.


Sargon
 
Top