Pope and political leader

The last three have been, and it's fitting to consider them as such: leaders of a political society, albeit unique and perhaps even avant-garde, despite appearances. With these three, the papacy, the dominant institution of the West, is shifting away from Europe as if seeking to keep pace with globalization, and it isn't exactly doing so at a slow pace.

The first Latin American in history, now deceased, points the way to other continents, just as the unexpected appointment of a Polish pope brought forward the European unification of 1989, just as the appointment of the next represented recognition of the legitimacy of Germany, guilty of the Second World War. The fact that the small Vatican City is the hub of international relations is no longer a scandal for the great powers; its capacity to convene is evident, in the sole place of that tiny state. Last Friday's audiovisual shock was merely the culmination of the constant media coverage enjoyed by contemporary popes, regardless of their personalities and governmental programs, surely to the secret envy of any of the civilian heads of state and government gathered there.

Many of Francis's traits fit the new politicians like a glove.

Perhaps a couple of polite objections can be made to what has already been said about Francis's mandate. One is the certain muted tone that the papal accounts place on his status as a ruler with command—a "shepherd," in evangelical vocabulary—if we don't take for granted that the politics of popes are exhausted in a mechanical back-and-forth between those who resist the outside world and those who open up, full of goodwill but ultimately powerless.

Many of these traits of the Argentine pope fit the new politicians like a glove. From Trump to Macron, from Meloni to Milei, the same anti-institutional pattern leads them to turn their backs on their parties or acronyms of origin; in the case of the religious leader, his public rebuke of the Curia, gathered in full for the New Year, was famous, hardly surprising for someone who bears the nickname of Francis, the quintessential rebellious saint. They also have in common their personalistic manner, frequently changing collaborators, even those closest to them, as if fearful of being affected by a "Moncloa syndrome," or Apostolic Palace syndrome, which could curtail their tendency toward direct action and contact with the public. Not to mention the coincidence in the intensive use of the media and casual messages, which pay little attention to the principle of non-contradiction, but which succeed brilliantly in maintaining the public's attention.

Bergoglio has been right not to seek the brilliance of the charismatic Wojtyla, nor to delve into the ideological depths of the high-ranking bureaucrat Ratzinger. Until the fourth pope arrives, we could take careful note of the political leadership style exercised by the three, and before anyone else, the political parties that declare themselves interested in Christian humanism.