not to devalue any aspect of it, wondering why is it not even democratic and still gives the feel of dictatorship.
AStonesThrow · 6h ago
Well, for starters, Vatican City is an absolute monarchy. There is simply nothing about it which is “democratic” and nobody needs to apologize for having a system of government that you don’t approve.
Secondly, that “absolute monarchial” system is quite impeded by the current lack of a monarch, and therefore operates on strict rules where not a lot of said rules can be changed or revoked, only carried out. There is, in fact, no dictator at all to dictate anything, only a devolved sort of “regency” keeping things intact until a new election can be accomplished.
serf · 5h ago
>nobody needs to apologize for having a system of government that you don’t approve.
that was never implied, and the question parent posited was never answered.
Given the world landscape, and the obvious and apparent trend towards democratization by nearly all of the worlds' actors -- it's a curiosity why this trend hasn't seemed to grab at the Vatican.
There are plenty of ancient/old organizations that have reorganized their political and internal structures to abide recent trends, it's at the very least interesting that the Vatican has moved so slowly in deciding what to keep and what to toss. We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this; it's interesting and worthy of discussion.
AStonesThrow · 5h ago
It is interesting if you consider that the Roman Curia has been reformed at least 3 times in the past 60 years, rather dramatically, in fact.
The other fact, that Popes not long ago enjoyed significant temporal power over the Papal States and Holy Roman Empire, shows that the Papacy has indeed been one of the most dynamic and enduring forms of governance in the world.
I fail to see why anyone, especially inconsequential worthless outsiders, would demand that they “go with the flow” and become democratic, for no particular reason, other than it is the new hotness in the world and it may help you win Sid Meier games?
curias · 4h ago
> Given the world landscape, and the obvious and apparent trend towards democratization by nearly all of the worlds' actors -- it's a curiosity why this trend hasn't seemed to grab at the Vatican.
I don't find it obvious that a church (with a "higher calling") should necessarily follow trends by secular governments with different purposes. As best I understand (being not a Catholic), The Vatican is not a frail government at risk of being overthrown by discontented citizens but rather a representative of divine authority to its "citizens" (i.e. Catholics worldwide). Why would it need to change its governmental structure to follow trends in secular governments?
I'm also unsure what to think of the idea that "nearly all the world's actors" are democratized. While most countries are nominally republics in some fashion, it's probably too simplistic to think they are all similarly democratized. For example, Russia is on Wikipedia's list of "presidential-parliamentary" governments[0] but in practice it's likely a pure dictatorship.
As an aside, there is an interesting report from Varieties of Democracy[1] indicating that world governments are roughly split 50/50 between democratic and autocratic implementations but 71% of the worlds population are under the latter[2]. I don't know this organization, but they look legitimate at a cursory glance and thinking about the numbers in terms of affected population is interesting. The "apparent trend towards democratization" may not be as apparent as you think?
> We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this
This is not surprising? I might need to read more history books but it seems like other monarchies, including ones where the head of state is also the head of a church, have an actual state to manage. The Vatican (again, I might just be uninformed) seems to be just a church? It answers to a deity, not its members, and has no purpose other than the perpetuation of its deity's mission. It is a sovereign City State, but no meaningful trade or military footprint. Contrast that with the British monarchs who ran the Church of England but also _The British Empire_.
Secondly, that “absolute monarchial” system is quite impeded by the current lack of a monarch, and therefore operates on strict rules where not a lot of said rules can be changed or revoked, only carried out. There is, in fact, no dictator at all to dictate anything, only a devolved sort of “regency” keeping things intact until a new election can be accomplished.
that was never implied, and the question parent posited was never answered.
Given the world landscape, and the obvious and apparent trend towards democratization by nearly all of the worlds' actors -- it's a curiosity why this trend hasn't seemed to grab at the Vatican.
There are plenty of ancient/old organizations that have reorganized their political and internal structures to abide recent trends, it's at the very least interesting that the Vatican has moved so slowly in deciding what to keep and what to toss. We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this; it's interesting and worthy of discussion.
The other fact, that Popes not long ago enjoyed significant temporal power over the Papal States and Holy Roman Empire, shows that the Papacy has indeed been one of the most dynamic and enduring forms of governance in the world.
I fail to see why anyone, especially inconsequential worthless outsiders, would demand that they “go with the flow” and become democratic, for no particular reason, other than it is the new hotness in the world and it may help you win Sid Meier games?
I don't find it obvious that a church (with a "higher calling") should necessarily follow trends by secular governments with different purposes. As best I understand (being not a Catholic), The Vatican is not a frail government at risk of being overthrown by discontented citizens but rather a representative of divine authority to its "citizens" (i.e. Catholics worldwide). Why would it need to change its governmental structure to follow trends in secular governments?
I'm also unsure what to think of the idea that "nearly all the world's actors" are democratized. While most countries are nominally republics in some fashion, it's probably too simplistic to think they are all similarly democratized. For example, Russia is on Wikipedia's list of "presidential-parliamentary" governments[0] but in practice it's likely a pure dictatorship.
As an aside, there is an interesting report from Varieties of Democracy[1] indicating that world governments are roughly split 50/50 between democratic and autocratic implementations but 71% of the worlds population are under the latter[2]. I don't know this organization, but they look legitimate at a cursory glance and thinking about the numbers in terms of affected population is interesting. The "apparent trend towards democratization" may not be as apparent as you think?
> We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this
This is not surprising? I might need to read more history books but it seems like other monarchies, including ones where the head of state is also the head of a church, have an actual state to manage. The Vatican (again, I might just be uninformed) seems to be just a church? It answers to a deity, not its members, and has no purpose other than the perpetuation of its deity's mission. It is a sovereign City State, but no meaningful trade or military footprint. Contrast that with the British monarchs who ran the Church of England but also _The British Empire_.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of... [1] https://v-dem.net/about/ [2] https://v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdf