Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy

Opinion

Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy
a person standing on a sidewalk with a hat on
Photo by Chris Weiher on Unsplash

When the bells of St. Peter's Basilica tolled on Easter Monday, announcing Pope Francis's death at 88, they rang for the world's 1.3 billion Catholics and all of humanity. During the moment of transition for the Catholic Church, we witnessed the conclave, a ritual of power transfer that predates modern democracy yet might offer surprising lessons for our contemporary political moment.

The death of a pope represents more than a religious milestone. It is a moment that transcends theological boundaries, offering insights into how institutions navigate succession, how power transfers in an age of global uncertainty, and how ancient traditions might illuminate modern challenges.


The word "catholic" means universal, and there is something universally compelling about this moment. Even for those of us who don't genuflect or make the sign of the cross, who have never whispered a prayer in a confessional, or who have never received communion, Pope Francis's passing and the selection of his successor resonate with deep questions about leadership, legacy, and legitimate power.

A profound understanding of this universality marked Francis's papacy. He spoke not just to Catholics but to the human family, addressing climate change, economic inequality, and the dignity of migrants. He understood that in our interconnected world, the moral authority of his office extended far beyond the Vatican's walls. His death, therefore, creates a vacuum that transcends religious boundaries—a moment of reflection for anyone concerned with how we organize ourselves as a global community.

The conclave—that peculiar mixture of spiritual discernment and political maneuvering—offered particularly relevant lessons for democratic movements worldwide. Here is a system designed to select a supreme leader that somehow manages to be both deeply hierarchical and surprisingly egalitarian. Once the doors closed in the Sistine Chapel, a cardinal from the Global South's vote carries the same weight as his European counterpart's. The requirement for a two-thirds majority forces consensus-building across ideological lines, starkly contrasting the winner-take-all mentality that plagues many modern democracies.

The most striking aspect of papal succession is its ability to maintain across centuries. In a historically unprecedented period of democratic questioning regarding election results, legitimacy, and peaceful power transfers no longer trusted, the papal transition process maintains remarkable stability. This stability doesn't stem from the absence of conflict—the Catholic Church has weathered its share of schisms and antipopes—but from a shared commitment to the process.

The prophetic tradition, which speaks truth to power while remaining engaged with institutions, finds a curious echo in this moment. I recognize the death of a pope creates a space for both mourning and possibility—a liminal moment when institutions live up to their highest ideals. The conclave's tradition of radical silence and separation from the outside world models a kind of deliberative democracy that seems almost foreign in our age of constant connectivity and instantaneous reactions.

Caution to all: Do not romanticize the Catholic Church or its processes. The institution, like all, faces profound challenges. Yet its ability to maintain cohesion while facilitating transition offers valuable lessons for secular institutions grappling with similar challenges of succession and legitimacy. As the cardinals gathered in Rome, how could other institutions benefit from this succession-planning model? What if political parties invested as much in developing future leaders? What if corporations thought about succession not just in terms of the next quarter but the next quarter-century? What if social movements built structures that could outlast their charismatic founders?

The death of Pope Francis and the conclave remind us that succession is not just about selecting new leadership—it's about renewing institutional purpose and legitimacy. In an age when democratic institutions face unprecedented challenges and the idea of peaceful power transfer seems increasingly fragile, the Catholic Church's ability to maintain continuity through change offers both challenge and inspiration.

For those working in democratic movements, the lesson is not to copy the conclave's specific mechanisms but to understand its essential principles: the importance of established procedures, the value of deliberative decision-making, and the need for transitions that honor tradition and transformation. Thus, bells that tolled for Francis remind us that no leader is permanent, but institutions, at their best, can carry forward the work of justice and human dignity across generations. In this universal moment of transition, we are all called to consider how we build and sustain the institutions that will outlast us—and how we ensure that the power we hold today serves the common good tomorrow.

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less