The better question is: why would you think popular democracy is a good thing, especially where the Church is concerned? In the Church's understanding of itself

The better question is: why would you think popular democracy is a good thing, especially where the Church is concerned? In the Church's understanding of itself, the pope is the vicar of Christ, which is to say, he represents Christ on earth, not the people. What you suggest is an inversion. It would be horrifying to authority, especially moral and religious authority, to democratic rule. And self-refuting. It is a common fallacy in liberal democratic societies to believe that not only is democratic rule necessarily a sign of social political progress, and that democracies somehow guard against bad politics, but also that anything that isn't democratic is ipso facto a dictatorship. This is not the case and it is a caricature that has been encouraged by some with an ax to grind against monarchies, categorically. Monarchies in general are bound by numerous obligations, traditions, duties, institutions, etc. that weigh heavily on a monarch. He is not some god who is at liberty to do whatever he wants. Indeed, as is the case with the presidency, even the honor that is due to a monarch is not because of who occupies the throne (he may very well be a scoundrel), but in virtue of the office. The pope is no different. In fact, his role as pope is highly constrained. He only has authority to guard the deposit of faith, not to innovate. He is "not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on" [0]. Prelates, including the pope, if they err, can be corrected, even publicly if the error was publicly made, for his own benefit and the benefit of the Church. The pope is not supposed to micromanage the Church either. They should instead enable bishops to do their jobs. This is the true meaning of leadership: to serve those you lead by enabling them to be who they are and to do what they are called to do. Popes and bishops are best thought of as referees. Frankly, that is what a good monarchy is like. (Curiously, contrary to the image peddled by the media of the "kindly pope", Francis was unusually dictatorial in temperament. Many felt alienated by his imperious, heavy-handed style. He routinely avoided discussion with bishops and allowed problems to fester as a result. In part, the excess centralization of power in the papacy beyond the authority prudently circumscribed to it is a development that arose in the 19th century, most notably in the form of an ultramontane reaction to Gallicanism and hostile revolutionary attacks on the Church, like the bloody ones in France we like to downplay.) [0] https://firstthings.com/the-future-of-the-catholic-church/ https://firstthings.com/the-future-of-the-catholic-church/