Pope Leo a breath of fresh air in Trump's belligerent world
Pope Leo XIV, in the strict sense of the word, is no politician. But, as the foremost world church leader — head of the Catholic Church — his voice holds sway, and carries weight, in shaping the world's political discourse.
He speaks to the universal church and, by extension, to the people who populate the world. His voice reverberates; it reaches billions of the faithful — and those with no faith.
He speaks with the authority conferred on him by his office, and when he does, the world takes notice; the political principalities of the world pay attention.
This is because his views are couched in language that, although gentle, speaks with great force to all citizens of the world — especially to political leaders who abuse their authority, causing great pain to 'the children of God', to use the biblical lexicon.
Of course, for a variety of reasons, this seems a tall order. Implied in what is given to us by historical facts is that society, since time immemorial, has been driven by different understandings of the workings of the world. The people of the world have been at each other's throats, even as they seek to achieve happiness.
Billions of dollars, or whatever denomination one might prefer to choose, have been used to try to settle political and ideological scores, while billions of people throughout the world continue to starve to death because of a plethora of unfavourable human conditions that militate against good living.
It does bother the pope when political ideologies are used to cause conflict that threatens peace in the world — and he does raise his concerns sharply, offering advice through the church and its bishops and archbishops, who in turn become transmitters of his concerns and words to the world.
We know Donald Trump, president of the US, wants to make, in his own words, 'America great again', whatever that might mean. This he does through belligerent language, and at the risk of creating worldwide tensions, keeping everyone on tenterhooks, with no knowledge of what might happen next.
Some political analysts and thinkers have, in the recent past, responding to Trump's belligerence, expressed trepidation about what might happen if the stand-off between the warring parties does not stop.
Some are already predicting the onset of an armageddon or a third world war.
In the past few months and weeks, dangerous missiles have flown, causing mayhem and panic, with Israeli soldiers and American bombers being, in the main, the aggressors and seemingly stoking fires and showing their countries' military muscle.
World War II was caused by belligerence and racial animosity. Adolf Hitler's madness contributed to the madness.
This was because of a lack of foresight, with the mind of a sadist and racial bigot at work, obsessed with power and putrid thoughts of racial hatred, driven by anti-Semitism that knew no bounds. And the desire to corrupt the world order.
Trump, driven by his own destructive and divisive evangelical zeal, and given to a great deal of abusing biblical texts, consistent with what American religious zealotry stands for, is hellbent on resurrecting America and 'rescuing' it from the imagined jaws of communism and socialism which, in his small mind, are a threat to the well-being of society.
The world Trump inhabits is marked by America spoiling for a fight, flaunting the military might of the US army. His language is militaristic.
But we have to wonder, at a philosophical level, could it be that humans have not been completely cleansed of their original state of nature, as seen by philosopher Thomas Hobbes, when the world is beset by leaders of Trump's calibre?
In that old society, disruption was the order of the day, with no rules, and a society marked with unmitigated violence, with no government to speak of.
But the recent election of Pope Leo XIV as the head of the worldwide Catholic Church seemed to bring about a much-needed breath of fresh air — and indirectly critiqued the chaos unleashed by Trump and his warring allies and adversaries.
First, it is axiomatic that political leaders ought to set the tone for sound world politics and for good governance.
When World War II ended, the UN committed itself to securing international peace, preventing conflicts and promoting cooperation, among other things, underpinned by a culture of human rights.
This is exactly where Leo comes in. As the head of the Catholic Church his comments about society, morality, politics and social justice carry weight.
Recently, when the pope addressed his archbishops in Rome, he talked about the value of good ethical leadership and the need for the archbishops to cascade this value down to communities.
He spoke about 'the human virtues of fairness, sincerity, magnanimity, openness of mind and heart … great openness to listening and engaging in dialogue and willingness to serve'.
A few points can be teased out of what the pope is telling, not only the faithful, but the world at large.
First, he explores the idea of human virtue which is made up of fairness, sincerity, magnanimity and openness.
Without these qualities, or virtues, society is bound to produce self-serving world leaders who are incapable of thinking about the people they lead.
To make 'America great' is to play a dominant role in world affairs — and possibly shorthand for expressing racial barbs directed at Barack Obama's two-term tenure in the White House — the first black US president.
Trump, in his wildest dreams, could never countenance the idea of a black man elected to the high office of president of the US.
These sentiments are contrary to what the UN demands and desires. It encourages cooperation; gestures of support for others, particularly under-resourced nations; dialoguing about the well-being of all countries and being magnanimous in all things, of human rights and social justice and the willingness to embrace others for the common good of all nations.
Also, significantly, it is for the powerful nations 'to rejoice with those who rejoice and suffer with those who suffer' — in a spirit of human solidarity, of caring about others and ensuring, if you are a wealthy nation, you owe it to yourself to help less well-endowed countries.
Speaking pertinently about things that matter, albeit theological, the pope said: 'Our patron saints followed different paths, had different ideas and at times argued with one another with evangelical frankness. Yet this did not prevent them from a fruitful harmony in diversity.'
We all need each other. Our separateness, continent by continent, is artificial and has often resulted in seeing each other as different.
In biblical language, humans are children of God, belonging to one common ancestry, sharing the same life-giving planet and the wisdom it offers — which is that we ought to belong to each other and desist from mounting hegemonic battles against each other.
And so, we all belong to Mother Earth — we are all her products. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that some belong and others do not belong.
Colonisation was driven by the idea that others, weaker folk, could easily be dispensed of or displaced by stronger folk — all in the name of hegemony.
Stephen Bantu Biko, using his liberating black consciousness philosophy, urged black people to recognise their inherent worth and unite to challenge the psychological effects apartheid and racial oppression imposed on them and, with pride and conviction, he urged them to focus on black solidarity and strive to create an egalitarian society where all races coexist.
Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, the president of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania — and in some circles regarded as the 'president Azania (South Africa) never had' — rejected the notion of multiracialism. However, he strongly averred that 'there is only one race, the human race', emphatic throughout his short life — he died at 53 in 1978 — about the shared humanity of all people, holding that, in the 'new Azania', racial classification would be rendered irrelevant, arguing that it is an artificial construct 'used to divide the oppressed', which must have no place in a nonracial society.
Today, Leo is saying the same things — he is telling us to be complete as humanity. We need each other, even though we might not always agree on everything.
The world is lucky to have a thoughtful leader such as Pope Leo XIV — a wise prophet emerging from the crucible of human struggle in Peru — described in an editorial in that country in these terms: 'We have a pope who understands the true meaning of living in solidarity with the poor.'
Contrast him with Trump, his countryman. They are poles apart, with the pope filled with the spirit of love and humanity and compassion and kindness, and Trump given to bullying and with no time to entertain other people's viewpoints.
Jo-Mangaliso Mdhlela is an independent journalist, a social justice activist, a former trade unionist and an Anglican priest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
4 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Digital gold rush: How Stablecoins threaten monetary sovereignty globally
Europe's digital euro has got off to a late start in terms of geopolitical leverage in the digital era. Photo: File Imagine a world where the dollar, already the lifeblood of global finance, morphs into a digital juggernaut, coursing through blockchain veins to tighten US's grip on the world's capital. This isn't science fiction — it's happening now, with stablecoins, those dollar-pegged crypto tokens, reshaping the financial landscape. As Jürgen Schaaf, an adviser to the European Central Bank, warned on 28 July, the rise of these instruments risks 'dollarisation' of the eurozone, a phenomenon that could kneecap the ECB's monetary sovereignty. This isn't only a European problem; it's a global wake-up call. The US is leveraging stablecoins to harvest capital worldwide and the rest of the world needs to decide — adapt or be subsumed. Stablecoins — cryptocurrencies pegged to assets such as the US dollar — are designed to maintain a stable value while enabling frictionless, cross-border transactions on blockchain networks, independent of traditional banking infrastructure. As of 28 July, the global stablecoin market has surged to Financial Times . By contrast, Yet the foundation of this emerging digital currency ecosystem remains precarious. In a 24 June 2025 report, Europe's response? The digital euro, which Schaaf calls a 'solid line of defence'. Yet, Europe faces a steep climb. The dollar's network effects — its entrenched role in trade, reserves and now digital finance — are formidable. At its core, the stablecoin debate is less about currency mechanics and more about geopolitical leverage in the digital era. The US is leveraging dollar-backed tokens to reinforce its financial primacy, attracting global capital flows while other jurisdictions struggle to respond. The eurozone's efforts — through the digital euro and MiCA-compliant stablecoins — represent an attempt to reassert monetary sovereignty. However, as Jürgen Schaaf has argued, effective countermeasures require global regulatory alignment. In the absence of coordinated standards, regulatory arbitrage will probably benefit the US, where the recently enacted Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (Genius) Act provides a more permissive framework. For emerging markets, already susceptible to external monetary shocks, the risks of unchecked dollarisation in the digital realm are even more acute — as underscored by warnings from the Bank for International Settlements. Looking ahead, the policy roadmap is clear. Europe must accelerate development of the digital euro and actively support euro-denominated stablecoins — initiatives like Deutsche Bank's At the international level, regulators must work towards a coherent framework that addresses the systemic risks of stablecoins — ranging from illicit finance to reserve opacity — without stifling technological progress. Central banks, too, must adapt with greater urgency, combining institutional credibility with the operational agility of the private sector. Meanwhile, the US is moving swiftly. Its stablecoin strategy, underpinned by They harvest capital, influence and control, leaving other economies to play catch-up or pay tribute. Europe's digital euro is a start, but it's a race against a US that's already lapping the field. The question isn't just whether the euro can compete, it's whether any currency can. In this digital gold rush, the dollar's grip is tightening and the world must decide how to respond before the blockchain binds us all. Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan.
Daily Maverick
24-07-2025
- Daily Maverick
The pernicious association of coups d'etat as somehow unique to Africa
The word 'coup' has been dropped into the political lexicon of South Africa. The public lexicon, that is… The word, now dropped in public, seems to have provided grist to the mill of Afro-pessimists and those self-assured people who would insist that certain societies are 'not ready for democracy'. During a media briefing on SA's national security strategy for 2024-28, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni raised the spectre of a coup as part of the deliberations of the security community in government. 'One of the risks is the risk of a coup d'état. There is a potential risk of a coup d'état. We have identified it and put measures [in place] to mitigate against it,' Ntshavheni said. A few things may be discussed about this public statement, and about the idea of coups d'etat. One stand-out thing is that it is somehow an African thing (and it could not possibly be part of the European world with its deep history of democracy) – which simply cranks up the music for those who dance on South Africa's grave. Another, more important issue and potentially dangerous, is a type of stochastic messaging sent out by Minister Ntshavheni and the equally dangerous suggestion that the topic should be avoided. Let us start with the Europe-is-good-and-great notion, and that Africa is prone to coups d'etat. None of what follows justifies or even suggests that coups are necessary. It is, also, not a judgement call on 'good' or 'bad' coups… The mis-education about coups d'etat and democracy in Africa and Europe There is a quite wilful and pernicious association of coups d'etat with Africa as somehow unique to the continent, starting, as it usually does, by ripping it from the multiplicity of contexts that shape post-independence democracy on the continent. Consider the view of Abu-Bakarr Jalloh, an editor from Sierra Leone with the German news service, Deutsche Welle: 'The year 2021 went down in history as the year when military coups returned to Africa. In just a few months, the African continent witnessed dozens of coups and attempted coups in Mali, Guinea, Sudan and Chad. So far, 2022 has been no different. Last week, a military junta took power in Burkina Faso. For people who were around in the '60s, '70s and '80s — the heyday of coups across the continent — it feels a bit like déjà vu.' That last sentence bites. Given, especially, that it comes from a European news platform – as if the rise of the far-right and Nazism in Europe is not 'a bit like déjà vu'. European history of the past 100 years (at least) is pocked by attempted, planned, or actual coups and self-replacement – which basically refers to coups in which the leaders put themselves back in office. Over less than 100 years (since the Spartacus League's attempt to overthrow the Social Democrat-led government in 1919), Germany has had at least 10 coups or attempted/planned coups. The word does, indeed, weigh like ironwood on the imagination of Afropessimists, flagrant racists, Africans in the belly of the beast (paying for their national board and lodging), and those apparently sophisticated types who would have for decades insisted that some societies are not ready for democracy – and have to be saved from themselves. This 'not ready for democracy' claim was reproduced about Russia by (predictably) the Washington Post, and raised in discussions hosted by Eurasianet – a news service that covers the South Caucasus and Central Asia. It is thrown about, mainly in the West, with reference to Iran, and for most of the post-war period, there has been a to-and-fro over Africa's apparent incompatibility with democracy. There is nothing apophenic about seeing a pattern in all of this. Hint: It's always about the enemies of the West. Almost always, actually. There are among us Africans, too, who would have us believe that democracy tends to fail in Africa, as Aribiah David Attoe, of Wits University, wrote last year – as if democracy is one thing and one thing only. Let's set aside, for now, just what democracy actually is in the life world of people, and whether it is usually stable and progressive. A very cursory look at Europe shows that that continent, too (never mind Jolloh's suggestion that Africa is synonymous with coups d'etat), has had very many coups – at least over the past 100 years. There have, for instance, been at least 10 actual or attempted coups d'etat in Spain over the past 100 years – since the removal of Primo de Rivera on 15 September 1923. Early in the last century, Austria had a handful of attempted coups or 'self-removals' – and that famous July Putsch of 1934. French settlers in Algeria staged a putsch of the generals to prevent Algerian independence, because the settlers claimed that Algeria was part of France. Let's turn to Greece, which provides a segue to democracy, where we are reminded of extended periods of dictatorial rule over the course of the 20th century, most notably by the 4th of August Metaxas regime and the 21st of April military junta of 1967. That country which 'gave the world democracy' has been through about 19 coups d'etat in the 20th century. There is no need to look very far for evidence. Consider this; over four years (between 1924 and 1928), Greece, the purported birthplace of modern democracy, went through 10 prime ministers; two presidents were deposed and one resigned, with 'numerous military coups' – the most brutal of which was that of Theodoros Pangalos. The dude installed himself. It helps, then, to have a more complete appreciation for the extent of military coups around the world, including the civilised Europeans and their centuries of democracy and freedom, when compared with Africa's barely seven decades of independence – with the multiplicity of conditionalities and lingering chains to the European metropoles, how these have constrained democracy on the continent, and limited the abilities of African countries ' to make policy decisions and … ownership of national development strategies '. The dangers of stochastic messaging Minister Ntshavheni does not get away with her statement easily. The problem with what seemed like an honest and open statement about the likelihood or the real or actual threat of a coup in South Africa is that it is somewhat of a stochastic messaging which, in lay terms, puts ideas in the heads of the populists who were behind the violence and destruction of July 2021. Now, we should be careful. The state can choose to never mention the word 'coup', and leave it underground, so to speak. Or reference can be made to it in public. There's a downside to both. Let's get some definitional stuff out of the way. There is a danger, always, of messaging that works through suggestion or implication as opposed to explicit directives. Donald Trump's speech on 6 January 2021 is a good example of stochastic messaging, and has been described as ' ambiguously inciting '. At Trump's 'Stop the Steal' rally, before an armed crowd stormed the US legislature, he gave a speech urging the crowd to 'fight like hell'. Julius Malema is a better example. Malema has, on various occasions, said things (like) 'we are revolutionaries; revolutionaries are prepared to fight; revolutionaries are prepared to shed blood', and at some point he brandished a firearm. To his audience and followers who feel aggrieved and who believe they have been stripped of 'economic freedom', voice and/or access to power, all these statements may amount to an exhortation to violence – without Malema actually telling people to go and destroy things or shoot people. I am not a great supporter of censorship. I have always contested censorship, and I have the emotional, mental and physical scars to prove it. Kinda. I do, however, accept that there may be times when the state cannot share information with the public because any such exposure may jeopardise policy or bargaining processes, or, for example, throw a spanner in the works of criminal investigations. At best, government officials, or anyone for that matter, ought to know that words matter, and in the case of South Africa, there was a spike in sales of magnifying glasses and fine-tooth combs after 27 April 1994. And, the people behind the July 2021 unrest may pose an actual (or imagined) threat to the state. They ought to know, also, that context modulates the influence of action; we live in a period of increased public dissatisfaction; increased distrust in the ability of the state to provide the definitive of public goods, security and protection of the public; and the idealistic populism (not all populism is bad) led by ethno-nationalists of a particular kind, tribalists and nativists, and political leaders bearing grudges. In this multiplicity of contexts, of loose lips, when do you criminalise public statements or public incitement? Acts of violence and destruction, and liability for public statements, rest heavier on the state/government than they do on political parties or individuals in public. That the government's security community has investigated all threats to the state (actual or perceived) is necessarily a good thing. That a Cabinet minister has come out and mentioned the likelihood or possibility (not probability) of a coup d'etat is up for discussion. What is necessary, at the least, is to shake off those terrible confirmation biases and prejudices; notions that Africa is the home of coups d'etat; or that Africans are not ready for, or are 'too immature' for democracy. Democracy is not stable, nor static. For the record, states that claim to have been democracies for centuries have dark sides that they would prefer to conceal. varying degrees of 'democratic backsliding' in as many as 40 countries around the world – including the United States. DM
Mail & Guardian
17-07-2025
- Mail & Guardian
‘Fortress Europe's' African victims
African refugees and migrants fleeing war and dictatorships in search of safety on European shores. (AFP) Europeans may be horrified by United States President Worse, the European Commission seeks to double down on this approach: a leaked proposal for the next long-term budget cycle calls for conditioning development aid for African countries on meeting migration-reduction targets. Africans comprise a fairly large share of the EU's irregular migrants, with West and Central African countries accounting for about a third of those arriving in the first half of 2024. At least 11 million African-born migrants live in Europe — more than double the number living in Asia and North America — where they boost the labour force and ease economic pressures caused by a rapidly aging local population. But many Europeans treat irregular migrants as a security threat, criminalising their entry and scapegoating them for broader societal problems. After millions of Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi refugees fled to the bloc in 2015-16, the EU began strengthening 'Fortress Europe'. Some countries, including Greece, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, built external border fences, while others, like Germany and the Netherlands, have reintroduced border controls. Efforts to secure the bloc have included violent pushbacks against refugees and migrants at external borders — a violation of international human-rights law — and partnerships with third countries to curb flows. According to Amnesty International, the EU's externalisation policy, coupled with Italy and Malta's hostility to rescue ships, were responsible for 721 migrant deaths in the Mediterranean in June and July 2018. More recently, several European rescue organisations blamed the deaths of 3000 people in the Mediterranean in 2023 partly on an EU decree enacted that year that severely restricted their response capacity. There is a stark divide between how European and African governments view this issue. From Sweden and Poland to Italy and Germany, far-right parties have surged in popularity by stoking anti-immigrant sentiment, which has pushed many mainstream European politicians to embrace xenophobic policies. By contrast, African governments largely oppose the EU's forced return of migrants, for both humanitarian and economic reasons. African migrants are a vital source of remittances, sending back $100 billion in 2022 — more than the continent received in official development assistance and foreign direct investment combined. These governments are also quick to note that they bear the brunt of African migration: of the more than 45 million Africans forcibly displaced last year, 34.5 million remained in the continent. This does not absolve African governments of responsibility for their actions: poor governance, political exclusion and development failures have contributed to the migration surge. The lack of economic opportunities, in particular, has forced many young Africans to flee to wealthier countries. The continent has the world's youngest population, with 70% in sub-Saharan Africa under the age of 30. But instead of using its economic might to bolster growth and support job creation in Africa, the EU poured €500 million ($585 million) into its 2016 Migration Partnership Framework, a new way of working with source countries to reduce migration. The resulting partnerships with Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal subordinated development aid to migration goals. This heavy-handed approach, particularly the EU's obsession with negotiating the forced return of African migrants and pushing its own interests, failed to stem the flow of people, alienated African governments and undermined the bloc's human-rights and development principles. Now, the commission has its sights on hardening this negative-incentive structure and applying it more widely. Overall, migrant arrivals in the EU declined by about 20% in the first five months of 2025. But this decline came after years of human-rights abuses by the EU's third-country partners, which were effectively bribed to slow the movement of people. In 2024, the European Court of Auditors criticised the bloc's €5 billion Emergency Trust Fund for Africa for failing to address the human-rights risks involved in subcontracting migration policy to autocratic regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. That same year, more than 2000 African migrants died while trying to reach Europe. The behaviour of these regimes is reprehensible. The Libyan coast guard has subjected African migrants to 'unimaginable horrors' — sexual violence, torture, arbitrary detention, beatings and enslavement. Tunisia's security forces have raped women, beaten children, dumped others in the desert and reportedly colluded with smugglers. Last year, a leaked internal report from the European External Action Service warned that continued support for Tunisia, which has cracked down hard on dissent, would damage the EU's reputation. The cruelty on display in the bloc is no less shocking. Frontex, the EU's border control agency, was reportedly involved in covering up hundreds of illegal pushbacks in the Aegean Sea. Polish border guards forced migrants back into Belarus, where they were beaten and raped. Last year, three Egyptian teenagers froze to death after Bulgarian officers reportedly obstructed their rescue near the Turkish border. Many Sudanese asylum seekers continue to be held illegally in Greek prisons. The EU's current approach is ineffective and inhumane; its proposal to use foreign aid as a stick is even more so. To address the source of African migration, European policymakers must understand why young people embark on this perilous journey. A 2019 report by the United Nations Development Programme, based on interviews with 1970 African migrants from 39 nations, conducted in 13 EU member states, found that they were typically educated above the average levels in their home countries and had held steady jobs there. But only 38% said they had earned enough 'to get by'. Unable to fulfill their ambitions in Africa, and with many facing war and repression, these young people looked to Europe for opportunity and safety. Reducing migration from Africa requires contributing generously to its development, not funding third countries — many of them ruled by repressive regimes — to harden borders by any means. The EU has cynically chosen the latter approach, eroding its moral standing. If the bloc wants to portray itself as a global force for good following the US's retreat from the world stage, it must pursue migration policies that reflect our shared humanity, rather than self-interest. Adekeye Adebajo, a professor and a senior research fellow at the University of Pretoria's Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, served on UN missions in South Africa, Western Sahara and Iraq. He is the author of (Routledge, 2025) and (Routledge, 2024). This article was first published in .
