The Pope and the UN Secretary General in World Politics

The leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the secular Pope, the United Nations Secretary General are two individuals whose voice is given particular attention in the world public. The two positions are generally viewed to be quite different. Against this prevailing perspective I argue that they are in fact quite similar. Comparing them in terms of scope and aim of their agency and normative claims illustrates that their agency is influenced by the structure of their institutions. However, it is also that those two representatives influence their institutions (i.e. the Church/Holy See and the United Nations) in dialogue with their objectives. I thus ask, what does the relation between institution and individual agency tells us about the power of moral authority and leadership of the Pope and the UNSG in world politics? I approach this question with the assumption that it is a mix of individuals in institutions leading to the evolution of the papacy and the Secretary General Secretariat since 1945. Thus they develop and possess influence apart from constitutional foundations and structural constraints. Moreover, if the position of the Pope and the Secretary General are similar as both depend on the office holder and the institution, then a parallel look on them helps to understand the independent agency of each. The aim of this project is not to merely illustrate that they are similar. Rather, in recognizing their similarity, the projects points out why this is important: First, it illustrates how both exercise their post out of a mix of weak material power and strong normative power. Second, in recognizing the similarity between the two, I argue that the nature of institutions and their office holders are evidence for the actual mix of secular and religious world political representation and normative claims. Finally, looking at both illustrates that since the middle of the 20th century both struggled between positions of liberal interventionism and realist restraint hinting to a general policy trend in international politics and thus making generalizable claims about moral leadership.

The leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the "secular Pope," the United Nations Secretary-General are two individuals whose voice is given particular attention in the world public. The two positions are generally viewed to be quite different. Other than this prevailing perspective suggest, they are in fact quite similar. Comparing them in terms of scope and aim of their agency and normative claims illustrates that their agency is influenced by the structure of their institutions. However, it is also that those two representatives influence their institutions (i.e. the Church/Holy See and the United Nations) in dialogue with their objectives. The relation between institution and individual agency thus helps us to understand the power of moral authority and leadership of the Pope and the Secretary-General in world politics. It is a mix of individuals in institutions leading to the evolution of the papacy and the Secretary-General Secretariat since 1945. Both develop and possess influence apart from constitutional foundations and structural constraints. A parallel look at the two individuals and their institutions helps to understand the independent agency of each as intermediate agents between normative requriements of world society and necessities of political international society. Recognizing their similarity, the project points out why this is important: First, it illustrates how both exercise their post out of a mix of weak material power and strong normative power. Second, in recognizing the similarity between the two, the nature of institutions and their office holders are evidence for the actual mix of "secular" and "religious" world political representation and normative claims. The Pope and the Secretary-General are thus intermediate agents between normative world society and political international society of states. Finally, looking at both illustrates that since the middle of the 20th century both struggled between positions of liberal interventionism and realist restraint - hinting to a general policy trend in international politics.