Mind the gap: radicalism, reality and a prophetic Pope

In Britain the gap between our actual political horizons and the need for radical change is deep and wide. It is that gap, and not the word radical, that ought to  inspire fear. “Radical”

means getting to the roots of a problem, not twisting, turning and tweaking as things get predictably worse. The fear comes from sloppy use of the word as a synonym for extremism, used to

shut down all debate.  

Compared to secular leaders, religious leaders have the advantage of a traditionally accepted way of highlighting the perils of business as usual and of expounding radical approaches. The

religious code word for this form of discourse is “prophetic”. It is a word that implies not just authority for seeing into the future but, more importantly, divine approval of the prophet’s

broad-brush account of what is wrong and ethical prescriptions for changing direction and putting things right.  

Pope Francis’ book Let Us Dream, published last year as a user-friendly and personalised synopsis of his lengthy and more formal encyclical Fratelli Tutti, is an excellent example of the

prophetic mode. But his little book has proved to be much more than that. The pandemic provided a context in which prophetic words and ideas coming from an admired religious leader, speaking

informally and intimately at a time of acute uncertainty and unprecedented upheaval, would be heard and considered. The secular press carried respectful reviews. Waves of appreciative

discussion washed through Catholic social media. There was none of the usual complaints of “the Church shouldn’t meddle in politics”, though the book described what politics should be about

but wasn’t. 

The subtitle of Let us Dream is The Path to a Better Future. Not an entirely accurate description of its content. Popes do not prescribe in practical detail how to get from A to B. They

provide counsel on where to find and how to read the signposts. The religious code for this is “reading the signs of the times”, or “discernment” for short. Choosing pathways, turning

principles and plans into practice is the role of politicians, civil servants, policy-oriented academics and experts in various disciplines. It should be achieved in close collaboration with

civil society. 

The remarkable feature of Francis’ brand of prophetic writing is that it dovetails with others who start off from where he, of necessity as a religious leader, has to end. For example, the

American political scientist Robert Putnam and the social entrepreneur Shaylyn Romney Garrett’s How We Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do it again and Jon Cruddas MP’s The Dignity

of Labour go into the detail of what it will take to make absolutely vital changes. Tellingly the distinctly secular political and cultural weekly, the New Statesman, asked the former

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to review both these books.

The gap between the reality of our politics here in UK and the radical change  imagined by Pope Francis seems unbridgeable. Let us Dream promotes change emerging from the margins and led by

popular movements. Not to be confused with populism. It is an understandable view, given that the Pope is Argentinian and given the history of Latin America. We get a glimpse of

possibilities from the Black Lives Matter movement. But, at present, putting together a powerful, sustainable coalition for radical change in a British context is a daunting prospect. 

Progressive politics traditionally, culturally, aims at incremental changes. Finding an umbrella mobilising theme would be a beginning.  Perhaps a Campaign to Defend our Democracy. There is

something similar in South Africa.   In Britain it would require pulling together scattered, legal, human rights, environmental and civic initiatives.     

Britain faces a particular difficulty in coming to terms with two overwhelming aspects of present reality. Firstly, we cannot and should not return to the injustice, anger and division of

the old normal. But it is an inevitable reaction to the pandemic to want a return to normality. Secondly, we are in denial about our history. We want a brave and glorious past, a

compensation for recent decline. “History is what was, not what we want it to have been”, Pope Francis says in Let us Dream “and when we throw an ideological blanket over it, we make it so

much harder to see what in our present needs to change in order to move to a better future”.  

Afforded a large Parliamentary majority, those who have most control over the past, present and future today — the Johnson government — demonstrate the paradox of a British form of

authoritarianism undermining the British structure of governance, hard-won in the past. Less accountability, more control by the few for the few, more greed and self-interest, appear as the

change they have in mind. Governing in this manner requires negligible concern for truth and thus negligible purchase on reality. Its vision of a better future is refracted through the

short-term good of the Party. An obvious symptom of this authoritarianism is that serious challenge, within and without the inner circle of the Conservative Party, has been, and will be,

punished: by expulsions, resignations or sacking.

But at the same time, against the background of a future of devastating climate change, a significant and growing consensus is emerging about the urgency of radical economic transformation

and the social and political reforms that must accompany it. This is a consensus that unites religious and secular thinkers. Laudato Si, Francis’ 2015 encyclical, grounding the Christian

Green movement in the Bible and Revelation and calling for “swift and united action”, provides a supportive religious commentary on the report of the UN’s 2009 Sustainable Development

Commission. We need to go back to the 1960s, when the Catholic emphasis on human dignity met the human rights movement for such a confluence of thinking.  

The Pope’s dream is as radical as it gets at a personal and social level. Yet he is not a voice crying in the wilderness. But if the fate of Martin Luther King’s dream is anything to go by,

the virtue of patience, recommended by Pope Francis in Let Us Dream, will be indispensable.  Meanwhile, as the disembodied voice warns those waiting expectantly on the London Underground

platform: “Mind the gap.”

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add [email protected] to your safe list.