Foi em 1961 que, nesta data, foi lançado o primeiro homem no espaço: o russo Yuri Gagarine. Foi há tão pouco tempo que os olhos de um humano, pela primeira vez na história, olharam a Terra inteira, vencendo os limites do horizonte. Já lá vão quarenta e cinco anos e ainda não demos a necessária volta ao mundo. Apesar das independências afro-asiáticas, apesar da Queda do Muro ou apesar da globalização. Hoje ainda é ontem. Basta repararmos na crise do Irão, na guerra do Iraque, na avassaladora vitória de Prodi sobre Berlusconi ou na dupla Villepin/Chirac, com Barroso na presidência da Comissão de Bruxelas e Sócrates a engaiolar num avião cerca de um terço do nosso PIB, todos aterrando na terra do Zédu, para que, ao cheiro da canela, o reino se despovoe, torcendo com medo de quebrar.

Hoje ainda é ontem, porque ontem será sempre amanhã. E recordo, emocionadamente, os desafios das saudades de futuro que tentei comunicar, nomeadamente ao fim da tarde, mesmo por cima da muralha fernandina, em dia de memória do nascer do mestre que elegemos rei, de acordo com os princípios da bela Constituição de 1385. E transcrevo parcela do que ontem comuniquei à assembleia-geral da Real Associação de Lisboa, diante do senhor duque de Bragança, conforme detectei nos capítulos gerais e especiais das Cortes de 1385 que o rei, ao despachar em Conselho, contratualizou.

E assim tive a honra de dizer pela minha voz o que aprendi em João Telo de Magalhães Colaço e Paulo Merêa, mestres que me ajudaram a vencer o esquecimento das teses do partido constitucional velho contra os absolutismos do Império, da Teocracia e da personalização do poder e os seguidistas da constituição-pudim, com os seus monopolizadores do conceito de constitucionalista, alvos ainda hoje dos discursos oficiosos do comemorativismo desta sociedade quase funerária que reduz o passado a trinta anos de armistício constitucional que esquece o fundamento plurissecular das nossas leis fundamentais.

Na base de todo o processo, estava a própria eleição do rei, dado que as Cortes assumem o princípio da origem popular do poder, declarando vaga a coroa, ficando os Reinos de Portugal e do Algarve sem embargo nenhum à nossa disposição e sem rei como sempre acostumaram de haver, pelo que se tornava necessário nomear, escolher, tomar e receber alguma pessoa digna e tal qual cumpria para os ditos reinos reger, governar, defender. O Mestre de Avis consentiu a esta eleição tomando nome, dignidade e honra de Rei e encargo dos ditos regimento e defensão ca para ele os tinha Deus guardados.

Institui-se o princípio do governo pelo conselho por prol e honra dos reinos, ca assi se acostuma de fazer pelos reis de Inglaterra e por esto som louvados em todalas partes do Mundo, indicando-se que na composição do chamado Conselho de El Rei deveriam entrar não só prelados, fidalgos, como também letrados e cidadãos das cidades de Lisboa, Porto, Coimbra e Évora.

Reforça-se o princípio do qot quando se estabelece no capítulo 7º o seguinte: porque é direito que nas cousas que a todos pertencem de que todos sentem carrego sejam a ello chamados, e disto foram os povos destes reinos privados por el-rei vosso irmão, a que Deus perdoe, que nunca os do seu Conselho consentiram que os concelhos fossem chamdos aos grandes feitos que lhes pertenciam, assim em seu casamento como em sua guerra.

Deste modo, se pede a D. João I que convoque sempre Cortes para fazer a guerra ou firmar a paz, cunhar moeda e casar-se. O rei responde concordando com o pedido a respeito da guerra e da paz, nada dizendo sobre a moeda, mas opondo-se à ideia de consentimento para o casamento.

Mais do que isso: os povos pediram que se fizessem cortes gerais anualmente, coisa que mereceu o deferimento real.

Sublinhe-se que então, não só se consolidaram as bases de uma consciência nacional, quando se considerou que os Infantes D. João e D. Dinis se desnaturaram do Reino, como se integrou o processo no âmbito das relações internacionais, quando se dirigiu uma suplicatória ao papa para que absolvesse D. João I da trangressão ao direito canónico, tanto pelo defeito de nascimento como pela dispensa de votos, invocando-se para o efeito um estado de necessidade. O que apenas vem a conseguir-se formalmente por bulas de 1391, já com o rei regendo e bem casado com D. Filipa de Lencastre.

Algo de mais acontece, principalmente com a tentativa de teorização dos intelectuais da Corte de Avis, que deu os seus frutos nos tratados que tiveram como autores formais o rei D. Duarte, principalmente em o Leal Conselheiro, e o Infante D. Pedro, principalmente no Livro da Virtuosa Benfeitoria.

Aliás, esses tratados da Inclita Geração talvez devam considerar-se meros epifenómenos de um esforço teórico colectivo que procurarava nacionalizar tendências importadas, de acordo com uma estratégia global que conseguimos recolher através de vários vestígios. São trabalhos daquela Corte que era uma escola, pelo que pouco interessa que, em vez dos príncipes e infantes, os efectivos escrevedores do texto tenham sido os assessores espirituais dos mesmos, como, com razão, se diz de Frei João Verba quanto à Virtuosa Benfeitoria.

Uma estratégia global do poder político que, de acordo com as divisas dos filhos de D. João I e de D. Filipa de Lencastre, procura ser fiel àquela honra da cavalaria que impunha uma coerência entre o pensamento e a acção, como é expresso pelo Désir do Infante D. Pedro e pelo Talent de bien faire do Infante D. Henrique.

Veja-se, por exemplo, um Gomes Eanes de Azurara que, na Crónica de D. Duarte, muito à maneira de Duns Scotus e do laicismo, vem dizer que aos homens pareceu necessário ordenarem entre si reis e também pelas conveniências ordenaram que tais dignidades viessem por direita sucessão de pai a filho. Assim se sublinhava uma ideia comum ao tomismo, ao occamismo e ao escotismo, segundo o qual a organização política nasce de um elemento voluntário, o consentimento dos membros da cidade, não sendo suficiente o elemento necessário ou natural.

Neste segundo dia de férias ditas pascais, tempo em que, afinal, mais intensamente trabalhamos, não é mera coincidência que se comemore o nascimento de D. João I, em 1357 e que, na data, se misturem efemérides como o estabelecimento do regime da censura prévia salazarenta (1933), a emissão da encíclica “Pacem in Terris” de João XXIII (1963) ou a assinatura do I Pacto MFA/Partidos instalados (1975). Sinto que posso transgredir cumprindo as regras que eu próprio faço, em nome daquela autonomia pessoal que tem o nós dentro do eu. Temos de transgredir para nos cumprirmos.

Reparo que hoje, dia dez de Abril, tenho de comemorar a data de nascimento do meu poeta, Sebastião da Gama (1924), esse paradigma do professor que me ensinou a peregrinar por tudo quanto era “Serra Mãe”. Apenas digo que tenho a idade do filho que ele nunca teve.

Aliás, nesta data, também nasceu Hugo Grócio (1583), que alguns qualificam como fundador do direito internacional ainda actual, esse protestante das Províncias Unidas cujas teorias serviram para que em nome do “mare liberum” se fechasse o ciclo de um dito “mare clausum”, nomes eruditos que significam apenas o triunfo do imperialismo dos protestantes contra o imperialismo dos católicos ibéricos. Curiosamente, as novidades do autor são quase todas assentes em citações de tomistas e neotomistas católicos, mas os editores protestantes das respectivas obras preferiram censurar tais referências, repetindo o que a censura católica do “nihil obstat” praticava.

Por mim, prefiro o mar sem fim que é português, porque compreende o imenso e impossível oceano. O que, largando dos mediterrâneos, ou mares interiores, vai do Atlântico ao Índico e circum-navega o Pacífico, à procura do abraço armilar.

E para que o dia se feche em efemérides, marquem-se também, nesta data, a carta de lei que cria a Caixa Geral de Depósitos (1876) e a constituição da União Liberal Republicana (1926), um pouco antes do 28 de Maio, dequem os principais líderes do novo partido quiseram ser o espírito, desde Francisco da Cunha Leal a Bissaya Barreto ou Duarte Pacheco, para misturarmos opositores, aliados e activistas do salazarismo.

Já agora, uma nota para duas efemérides do dia 8, anteontem, que não assinalei: o surgimento da revista “Nação Portuguesa” (1914), órgão do Integralismo Lusitano, e do jornal “A Rua”, de Manuel Maria Múrias. Ainda conservo na memória o primeiro número deste belo pasquim, onde o actual ministro dos estrangeiros deste governo socialista já se antevia a si mesmo: ele que era, então, o chefe dos “endireitas do Caldas” (Múrias dixit) atacava Salazar, considerando-o um socialista. Voltas que a marquesa do psicanalista dá…

Por mim, ando para aí a arrumar ideias para a conferência que, amanhã, dia 11, terei a honra de proferir como convidado na Real Associação de Lisboa, Espaço Chiado, pelas 18, 30 h, sobre os conceitos de consensualismo e absolutismo, onde tentarei recordar quem somos, donde viemos e para onde vamos. São assim as férias pascais de um professor, que logo terá de preparar outra, a proferir na Comisão de Ética da Assembleia da República, sobre ética e política, no contexto da relação entre opinião pública e mandato parlamentar, a emitir no dia 18, no Palácio de São Bento.

Apenas para marcar a agenda e recordar que, hoje, 7 de Abril, data do nascimento de São Francisco Xavier, em 1506, e de Almada Negreiros, em 1893, também D. Pedro foi obrigado a abdicar de Imperador do Brasil (1831) e começou a conspiração de Saldanha contra os Cabrais, que vai dar origem à Regeneração (1851).

Já em 1921 surgia o “Diário de Lisboa” e, em 1983, no Algarve, numa reunião da Internacional Socialista, era abatido Issam Sartawi, coisa que levou a que recriássemos, quase à pressa, aquilo que são hoje os nossos serviços de informação.

Dos tempos que hoje nos circundam, apenas os tento digerir, em dor de solidão ou minoria. Anda meio mundo em bicos-de-pé e outro tanto de pé-atrás, dizendo que a culpa é sempre do outro que não nossa: do governo anterior, do regime anterior, do partido que estava, do partido que está, do chefe visível ou da oposição difusa.

Que manda quem pode e obedece quem deve, como dizia António Feliciano de Castilho, mas que quase todos interpretam de forma antiliberal, confundindo o dito com um “slogan” da propaganda salazarenta.

Para mim, é tudo mais simples: há falta daquilo a que metaforicamente se chama espinha. Porque o nosso colectivismo moral, de longas raízes inquisitoriais, recentemente pintadas de esquerdismo, ao variar de “ismo” conforme as modas que passam de moda, continua a cobardia de dizer que tem razão quem vence, fingindo que vale mais um pássaro na mão que dois a voar e que enquanto o pau vai e vem folgam as costas. Prefere o torcer da cobardia ao risco de quebrar e, cedendo à Corte, nunca vive como diz pensar.

O que é comum não é de nenhum, como era o lema das nossas aldeias comunitárias, mas que todos interpretam contra os bens públicos.

O problema da democracia e das instituições actuais está na circunstância de continuar a existir uma plurissecular má relação entre o Estado e o Povo.

Mantemos um Estado estrangeiro e não conseguimos fazer casar a honra com a inteligência.

Ainda não decepámos as raízes do mal autoritário, ainda não esprememos, gota a gota, aquele escravo que temos dentro de nós e que está sempre disponível para saudar a chegada do usurpador totalitário.

O micro-autoritarismo que um difuso subsistema de medo pós-salazarento deixou gerar nas instituições subestatais é a causa da falta de sentido que marca as larvares crises estatais que nos comandam e que levará a que, de um momento para o outro, o estado de graça dos Sócrates se afunde nos tabus cavacais, nos pantanais guterristas ou nas fugas dos durões.

Quando tenho mais de meia hora em plenitude para viajar na blogosfera, vou notando muito cair da folha por parte dos tais que, chegando (veni) e mal vendo (vidi), logo dizem que venceram (vinci), para, mais depressa, se irem desta nova zona de comunicação humana para outra secção do Estado-Espectáculo, onde lhes paguem, depois de, aqui, procurarem polémicas para contadores de visitas e se candidataram a papas da vaidade. Nunca os citei ou referenciei, porque, como agora se demonstra, não valia a pena.

Apenas resisto neste devagar do semear navegador. Porque, por cá, nesta resistência de quem procura uma real-utopia, ou tenta encontrar a essência na existência, dizendo que o transcendente afinal pode estar está situado em qualquer raiz do mais além, a tal revolta, que alguns consideram hipérbole e outros metáfora, apenas é registo de um alerta, neste sismógrafo de um “observador comprometido”.

Basta repararmos nos impunes burocratas e consultores desta sociedade de corte que, assumindo o título de reformistas, só porque bebem do fino, continuam o seu trabalho de sapa de inconsciente destruição institucional daquilo que era um dos últimos focos da autonomia nacional e que tinha a ver com um certo conceito cultural de resistência nacional.

Veja-se o caso do velho partido dos funcionários que colocava a ideia de competência acima da ideia de lealdade e que nos garantia a continuidade certa perspectiva racional-normativa do Estado Moderno, contra a perspectiva patrimonialista e feudal dos activistas do partido dos fidalgos, do partido dos revolucionários, do partido dos partidocratas e do recente partido dos eurocratas.

Outro elemento que vai sendo aniquilado é o partido dos becas, ou magistrados, que, brincando ao Estado dos Juízes, deixou de ter uma ideia de direito e, invertendo a hierarquia, também deixou de reparar que a lei é inferior ao direito e o direito inferior à justiça, aceitando a tolice positivista de não entenderem kantianamente o Estado de Direito, dado confundirem-no com o Estado de Legalidade do “primauté de la loi”. Assim se explica como, nesta encruzilhada, tenham sido assaltados pela simples luta pelos privilégios adquiridos, reduzindo-se a mera “boca que prouncia as palavras da lei”, mas de uma lei que se afasta cada vez mais da vida e transforma os processos em teatro de fingimento, onde “in actis” não está o “mundo”.

Já, aliás, tinha sido destruído o velho partido dos tropas, quando, em nome da racionalidade importada das superpotências e das organizações internacionais, os profissionalizaram, impedindo-os do necessário serviço como “espelho da nação” e supremo quadrado da “pátria em perigo”. Infelizmente, regressaram aos quartéis que acabaram transformados em activos imobiliários para uso dos tecnocratas dos patos bravos e das secretarias-gerais das consultadorias multinacionais.

Prepara-se agora novo assalto ao que restava da antiga ordem do clero, a universidade, mais por culpa dos universitários que dos inconscientes tradutores em calão da falsa racionalidade importada a que vamos dando os nomes de reforma do ensino superior, de avaliação e de espírito de Bolonha e a que se ligam os nomes de certa gerontocracia que tem como fotografias Veiga Simão, Adriano Moreira ou Mariano Gago, mediaticamente transformados no selo de qualidade de um processo deixado ao ninguém burocrático de uma certa mentalidade geométrica e unidimensionalizadora que não entende o “esprit de finesse” da unidade na diversidade.

Os mesmos que transformaram a autonomia das universidades numa explosão de cogumelos endogâmicos, unidos de forma neocorporativa e neofeudal, através de uma rede de amiguismos e favoritismos, preparam-se agora para uma encenação reformista que, cortando a torto e a direito, tende optar por um “pronto a vestir” feito de índices objectivamente cegos, entregando a sargentos verbeteiros uma missão que devia caber a avaliadores do mérito. Não tardará que os três primeiros anos do novo ciclo de estudos se reduzam ao velho sétimo ano dos liceus ou ao actual 12º ano, para que o 2º ano do novo ciclo de estudos transforme os actuais mestrados no que hoje são as licenciaturas e os futuros doutoramentos, nos actuais mestrados.

O mesmo Senhor Estado que definiu “numerus clausus” e planeou licenciaturas, conforme as pressões da lei da selva, espera, agora, que um mercado rigorosamente vigiado e condicionado liquide cerca de quarenta por cento das instituições rechonchudas que as vaidades descontroladas erigiram em fábricas de “sôtôres” pela pressão dos caciques e dos burocratas, quando se exigia centralismo na organização dos concursos para professores e rigoroso controlo de uma oferta estadual descentralizadora das competências, à semelhança dos modelos vigentes nos nossos vizinhos europeus. Basta recordar que, em nome do corporativismo da indústria dos pareceres, consultas e avenças, chegámos a ter trinta faculdades de um curso, mas mantendo-se o mesmo número de doutores do tempo em que só havia duas delas em funcionamento.

Nestes dois dias em que estou e estarei mobilizado por uma prova de agregação, reparo na agenda das efemérides e noto como ainda ontem, 4 de Abril, me passaram tantas e fundamentais recordações. Porque ontem importaria recordar o nascimento da nossa D. Maria da Glória (1819) que, se tivesse um adequado sistema de apoio materno-infantil poderia ter chegado como rainha de Portugal ao século XX, tal como a Constituição de meio-termo de 1838, do mesmo dia, poderia ter evitado a revolta da Madeira de 1931 ou a fundação da ASDI, em 1979. Aliás, ainda ontem se comemorava tanto a fundação da NATO, que nunca conseguiu ser OTAN, em 1949, como o assassinato de Martin Luther King, que nos obriga a continuar a plantar macieiras.

Já hoje, 5 de Abril, há que marcar o começo da invasão nazi da Jugoslávia, aproveitando para homenagear a gloriosa resistência “chetnik”, que os ocidentais, por razões de Estado, decapitaram, para apoiarem Tito e os comunistas. Por isso, não discursarei sobre o juiz do Supremo feito director da PJ e agora demitido em “status” de demissionário, depois de termos todos visto o jogo de sucessivas fugas de informação para gáudio dos assessores de imprensa do Terreiro do Paço, da Gomes Freire e do Palácio de São Bento, num espectáculo degradante, mas onde tenho que dar razão ao mal amado do Senhor Ministro.

As tais razões de Estado da modernidade, semeadas por um grande pensador político, nascido também na data de hoje, mas em 1588, um tal Thomas Hobbes. Veio à luz cinzenta das brumas britânicas, em Malmesbury, no ano da derrota da Invencível Armada. Era filho de um clérigo que tinha abandonado o lar, depois de ter agredido um colega à porta da igreja, e nasceu antes do tempo, no dia 5 de Abril, quando a mãe andava sobressaltada com as notícias da aproximação da armada de Filipe II às costas britânicas. Uma circunstância que o vai levar, mais tarde, a considerar: o medo e eu somos irmãos gémeos.

Depois de educado por um tio, termina os seus estudos em Oxford. A partir de 1602 tornou-se preceptor da família Cavendish/ Devonshire e é, no exercício destas funções, que conhece Francis Bacon, de quem chega a ser secretário. Graças às suas funções de preceptor, efectuará longas viagens e prolongadas estadias no continente europeu. Está em Paris no ano de 1610, quando é assassinado Henrique IV, e é também aí que, em 1634, frequenta o círculo do Abade Gassendi, por onde também circulava Descartes; em 1636, passa por Florença, onde conhece Galileu.

Entretanto, na Grã-Bretanha, ocorria a primeira revolução que levará ao poder a chamada república dos santos, de Oliver Cromwell, talvez a primeira grande ditadura dos tempos modernos. Thomas Hobbes, que era adepto dos Stuarts e que vivia no exílio parisiense, desde 1640, regressa à pátria, onze anos depois, no ano da promulgação do Navigation Act, quando Cromwell está no seu auge.

É no exílio que Hobbes matura as suas obras sobre política, The Elements of Law, Natural and Political, escritos e difundidos em 1640, mas apenas publicados em 1650; De Cive, publicado em 1642. Ponto de partida para Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme & Power of a Common-Wealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil, já editado em Londres, no ano de 1651. Finalmente, em 1679, publica Behemot or the Long Parliament .

A ideia básica que transmite é a alegoria do Leviathan, quando a multidão que vivia no estado de natureza em regime de insegurança, onde os homens eram lobos para os homens, criam um deus mortal ou um homem artificial, uma persona ficta que passa a representá-los a todos. No estado de natureza, cada indivíduo posuía direitos ilimitados, cada um tinha tanto direito quanto o respectivo poder, pelo que, ao criarem o Estado delegaram-lhe essa força. Logo, o soberano tem também um direito ilimitado, tem a maior força e é a mais alta autoridade humana. Os indivíduos são átomos e só o soberano, essa ordem artificial que está fora do indivíduo, é capaz de constituir o todo, tendo toda a espécie de poder que lhe pode ser conferido.

No estado de natureza há potentia, a força individual, o poder de facto, no Estado, potestas, uma delegação da força dos indivíduos, de carácter supra-individual. O individualismo possessivo gera assim um totalitarismo racional. O Leviathan tem um corpo, a sociedade civil, e uma alma, o soberano, o que lhe dá movimento, detendo tanto a espada, o símbolo do poder temporal, como o báculo, o símbolo do poder espiritual.

No estado de natureza, onde homo hominis lupum, há bellum omnium contra omnes. Porque todos os homens se odeiam naturalmente uns aos outros. Na república, pelo contrário, instaura-se a segurança, funciona o salus populi essa suprema lex, vencendo-se essa anterior guerra perpétua de cada homem contra outro homem, onde tudo pertence àquele que conservar a força. Um Estado construído pela arte do homem imitando a arte de Deus.

Vence-se assim o estado de natureza, onde a razão é filha da necessidade, onde a medida do direito é a utilidade, onde a própria liberdade é entendida como mera ausência de obstáculos externos, porque domina o medo da morte, o desejo de conservação e a luta pela vida.

O velho Hobbes foi de facto o filósofo da burguesia. Foi ele que inventou a teoria justificadora do pensamento dominante, porque nos veio trazer a tal necessidade de coonciliarmos o estadualismo com o o individualismo, fazendo com que nascessem tanto o Estado Moderno como o capitalismo que são irmãos gémeos, ao contrário do que decretam algumas ideologias vesgas pelo dogmatismo e que ainda andam para aí a proclamar que há esquerdas e direitas ideologicamente puras. Continuo a preferir Aristóteles, São Tomás de Aquino, Rousseau e Kant. Prefiro o optimismo antropológico. Dá mais esperança aos desesperados. E um dia a história deixará de ser escrita pelos vencedores.

Depois da efemérides de ontem, entre a morte de João Paulo II (2005) e a aprovação da Constituição que, revista, nos rege (1976) e as de hoje, com o escudo a aderir ao SME (1992), resta recordar o regresso à terra e ao mar que ontem peregrinei.

Reparei que o moinho ainda lá está de sentinela, diante do oceano e da nortada, e que as flores começaram a romper a carapaça verde da invernia.

Não vale a pena comentar as recandidaturas de Ribeiro e Castro e Marques Mendes às lideranças partidocráticas daquilo que chamam direita, prefiro notar que acabou o ruído, com o silêncio de Manuel Alegre, Mário Soares e Cavaco Silva. Reparem nos rebentos do meu pessegueiro, no Valbom dos Gaviões.

http://politicsinmotion.blogspot.com/2007/01/it-didnt-happen-here-why-post-1974.html

Daniel Alvarenga

Interview – Jose Adelino Maltez, Professor of Political Science at the Higher Education Institute for Social Sciences and Politics in LInterview – Jose Adelino Maltez, Professor of Political Science at the Higher Education Institute for Social Sciences and Politics in Lisbon; Member of the Political Commission of Lucas Pires’ CDS between 1983-1985; founding member of the Party of the New Democracy (having now left)

03-04-2006Lisbon

I and Paulo Ferreira da Cunha must have been two Portuguese to have gone to a Liberal International. It was two years ago inDakar.

One thing is to take Lipset, Fukuyama, Schmiter, make an outside analysis about the Portuguese situation and run the risk of reaching precipitated conclusions. Why do we not have a Liberal Party? Because the group of the Liberal International and the European Liberal parties, born in the post-war period acted in a terrain that had nothing to do with our 20^th century model, their “ready-made” proposals did not adapt to the Portuguese circumstances. It is important to avoid a possible Anglo-American reading that Portugal is incompatible with Liberalism. Take Benfica for example, and I’m not kidding, Benfica is something that does not exist anywhere else in Europe – a product of liberal activism in the turn from the 19^th to the 20^th century. Something unprecedented and quite interesting of that age was activism and elections for several associations in civil society. These traditions, in one way or another, persist up until today. There is since 1834 a rooted liberal tradition which does not capture the state but does capture Portuguese civil society. There is a rooted liberalism in civil society because Salazarist authoritarianism/dictatorship did not penetrate into civil society, Salazarism never meddled into Benfica’s elections (there were always communists in the board of Benfica during Salazarism), Salazarism did not meddle into trade union activism (until the 39-45 war), it was a form of authoritarianism in the state that did not interfere with civil society. This civil society is composed of elements attentive to egalitarianism and of strong activism living detached from the state. One thing is the analysis of the state and another is the analysis of Civil Society, in terms of Civil Society we can say that Portugal is a triumph of the demo-liberal models of the 19^th century, meaning that its society of the “ancient regime” deeply changed as was seen in “Pupilas do senhor Reitor”, romances of Julio Dinis, etc. A curious anecdote is the story behind the first name of the English Liberal Party. They were first called “Liberales” because of the two liberal revolutions in Europe (Spain in 1812 and Portugal 1820). So this first name is not English but actually Castellan. In the context of the 19^th century Liberal movements there are successful liberal movements in Portugal and Spain, something that did not happen for example in Germany, Italy (until 1861).

Portugalis, with its 1974 transition from an authoritarian to a democratic situation, an atypical case where when the parties are formed, none of the parties existing before the dictatorship were recovered. Spainstill has PSOE, even in Russiathat was the case with the parties existing before the Bolshevik revolution. In Portugalthat did not happen because our parties were all of “statist fabrication” and (all curiously from the German model). The parties were implemented in a pre-revolutionary epoch. The only parties that exist are the ones that will have a place in government as their inception was from the government towards civil society. Their denominations are somewhat hypocritical, the right is social democrat, the left is socialist democrat member of the social democrat international. These two parties (PS and PSD) which have been controlling power in Portugalare Parties formed in a specific era of great ideological aggression where the party programs are on the left of the leaders, the leaders on the left of the party-members and the party-members. This kind of hypocrisy turned us into the most social-democrat country in Europe. Parties were created from the state to society. The main problematic is society being weak and the state strong. This goes all the way back to Salazar – he had a party (the national union) which was the only party in Europepart of a one-party system created by a resolution of the Council of Ministers. The Christian Democrat Party of which Salazar was a militant was created in 1917 by a resolution of the Conference of the Portuguese Bishops. Even after 1974 we kept a certain control of civil society by the state, the parties are the agents of the state, a country highly centralized in its public administration, a country without regionalization, without changed to the local forms of organization, with something called districts that comes from 1834 (attempted to suppress with 1866 constitution). There is an inheritance of what Herculano in the 19^th century qualified as the inheritance possessed from demo-liberalism from absolutism.

Portugalis a small state, with specific traditions, a “Scotlandwith success”, that is the dimension we have. We are the Cataloniawhich managed to separate itself from Madridthanks to the Luso-British alliance. Readingsthat put us right next to other models frequently do not acknowledge our type of formation and our type of inheritance. The absolutism of Marques de Pombal was very likely to the English model in contrast with another group composed by Castela and France which were strongly centralized. We have a conformation of medieval permanence. We were the only medieval thing that lasted, Portugal, Swedenand Denmark. This has consequences in explaining why there isn’t a liberal party in Portugalsince the function exercised by liberal parties in the post-war period was assumed in Portugalby the Social Democrat party and the socialist party. All the parties were Marxist, PSD was Marxist, CDS had Marxist humanism in its constitutional project. The adaptation of the Socialist party to the models of the German SPD of Bad Godesberg happens when Mario Soares leaves and Vitor Constancio comes in, and PSD only cuts with Marxism when Cavaco Silva comes to manage it. We had a point where we had the socialist party as a social democrat party and a PSD that was still Marxist. Over here no one reads the programmes and no one knows what that is, practice is one and the theory is another. For example, in terms of European integration we are the most pro-European country in but also the most pessimist one. They are in the end forms of opportunism of the Portuguese community when it comes to challenges such as the European integration. Look at decolonisation. It wasn’t like the Indian with the British or the Argelines with the French. Portugal had a different dimension, we had 10 million inhabitants and had 1 million returnees in one week, we had to make two or three extremely complicated jumps in the 20^th century and did them with considerable success: overcome authoritarianism, stay away from WW2, fight a colonial war when all the other European powers had let go, making the transition to democracy without civil war and proceed with European integration. This reveals a certain flexibility of a people that for example in the 1960s had 2 million emigrants toEurope while it carried out a colonial war.

1. I would like to know a bit more about your notion of Liberalism and on what the term represents to you. Taking into account the last 30 years how have you seen Liberalism at play in the Portuguese political narrative?

Is there a political party in Portugal? You are before someone who is liberal one of the few who assumes his liberal position on that domain – a traditional liberal. Each country can invent its own notion of liberalism. The notion of multi-secular liberalism is a bit the notion of the revolution of 1820, the notion of Almeida Garret, of Alexandre Herculano, the notion of the liberals of the first Republic. There is a tradition of Portuguese Liberalism, very profound and with success. How do you measure liberalism? Liberalism is freedom, particularly personal freedom. The Portuguese are some of the freest in history: look at property, the Portuguese has free alluvial property since the middle ages. We are the most property-ridden people of Europein terms of land ownership. Everyone has a wood, everyone has a little house, and this reality is represented in our notion of personal liberty which has an extension both in terms of freedom of thought and freedom of ownership. Even, when we have a revolution the first thing we try and scrap is for individual benefit, the 25^th of April revolution had a huge success because of the nationalization of banking and insurance allowing for the purchase of housing with financed interest. Every Portuguese is an owner, it is the regime with most private houses within cities, and there is no such thing as a viable letting market. All the Portuguese temptations are in terms of property, in terms of becoming an independent and free man.

This is not comparable to, for example, Eastern European countries which had forms of servitude until the end of the 19^th century, we have a land ownership-based place of free men that when things are not going so well they move. (oBrazil andEurope, etc.). They moved looking for the things that mark any liberal regime, earn more money, work better, being awarded in work, get a house, get out and find a better place. The enemy of liberalism inPortugal is the state, the state is a foreign occupier, our relationship with the state is awful and in those terms liberals never conquered the state as it still remains foreign. The relationship with the state is of the thief-state and as the saying goes “thief that robs thief has 100 years of forgiveness”. Notions such as avoiding taxes over here are not seen as a social sin, the notion of respect for public property does not exist. This is a bad inheritance from absolutism, there is a democracy of civil society, a deep feeling of equality between people but there are the bad indexes that because the state was not educated there is a lot of “uncivicism” in regards to public goods (not lack of civic posture). Curiously enough, democracy produced some profound yet unexpected (by MFA program) changes, such as the municipalities and the autonomous regions (Madeira and Azores), these changes were successful and just show how organizationally and culturally there is a degree of cultural appetence to anti-statism. Another awful thing is public teaching which was not able to educate people, spending too many energies and money for little to be produced.

2. In your book you point to the absence in Portugal of a party that, not only claims that wants to liberalize us but that, actually says that it is Liberal. Considering the reality of the Portuguese political spectrum what do you see as the main obstacles hindering the entrance of a Liberal party in Portugal? Why do you think that is the case?

The Portuguese productive structure is more or less, 3500 000 actives. Just as many actives in the interior as emigrants active in the exterior, the earnings coming from abroad are still superior than the structural funding from the European Union. We then have 2600 000 pensioners. What has been Portuguese politics? Very simple! One million pensioners on Monday vote PS and on Tuesday vote PSD. Politics is about those 1 million pensioners that swing from PS to PSD. None of these swing voters want to make a reform of the welfare state, they are all hypocritical, never able to lead a reform until the end because a government that has absolute majority such as PS does right now, in two years time knows that PSD will be in power. Power still rests on the beneficiary who is going to decide how the money is going to be spent, and since he does not decide on civic terms he decides according to promises. They are not trade union parties. They are pensioners’ parties, a “pensionism” that results from a natural reaction to the 25^th of April.

3. What do you think of projects such as the Lucas Pires’ one for CDS, the group of Ofir, movements such as the MLS and the Liberal Cause and the Party for the New Democracy?

Francisco Lucas Pires was a curious case. He appeared in 1983-1985. He was the first politician inPortugalclaiming both Liberal and from the right, which was a sin! The very Church pursues liberals, which is an important point I hadn’t referred before. The Catholic Church is anti-liberal, because liberalism inPortugalwas a creation of the Masonry; as so, being liberal was being Mason…up until 1974. I remember on the first campaign of Lucas Pires, on a party which was even supposed to be in name “Christian democrat”, you had bishops saying “don’t vote on that bunch because they are liberal”. What did Lucas Pires do? I happened to be a young collaborator and a member of his political commission. To put it bluntly we simply “translated” to Portuguese the successes, of that time, of Thatcher and Reagan. It was the reflex of what some saw as the liberal and conservative revolution inEurope. The movement inPortugalhad its importance thanks to its actor, Lucas Pires, who was someone with great energetic capabilities, and was a protagonist who represented very well the environment at the time, letting an established left know that there were some alternatives from a different model. He arrived well in the press, attracting a lot of media attention which resulted on an effective and profound reflection in society at the time. As for the other movements: the liberal cause movement is a group of urban intellectuals who read and write some interesting things, after having discovered authors such as Hayek – they do have their penetration in a minority at an intellectual level. In an environment dominated by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Ignacio Ramognet, etc. at least you start having some form of counterpoint to an intellectual domain of a revolutionary left.

The Party of the new democracy, I was one of the founders together with 3 or 4 Liberals but I can say that by now all the Liberals have left. Who stayed were Manuel Monteiro and his group who actually say they are not liberal. Some of the MLS’s members also used to be militants of the Party of the New Democracy and left. They (New democracy) use the liberal stamp but they are not, they are clearly conservative. The Liberal in this process is always dominated by Christian Conservatism; the trend of the Liberal is often to be of a left of the right to the point of voting often on the left. Why? Because the colleagues of the group, conservatives and Catholics pay special attention to moral causes and who is not catholic finds itself in trouble within this context.

Problem is that often (MLS for example) you don’t have an intellectual basis, which in turn is a particular strength of the Liberal Cause as they occupy a terrain that until five years ago was unoccupied. What was missing inPortugalwas the existence, as is the case inFrance, of a radical Party. A Radical party, individualist, liberal and with Masonry background. The main victims of Salazar’s authoritarianism were not the communists. These, in fact, grew in dimension and became better organized killing anarcho-syndicalism. The main victims were mostly the liberals that lost their tradition and intellectual control. The rupture was terrible and there still hasn’t been a regrouping neither of the republican tradition of liberalism nor of the monarchical tradition of liberalism. There was a discontinuity, authoritarianism by jailing and prohibiting thought, controlling the university there was a rupture with this old demo-liberal tradition. So these new groups are seeds, curious seeds on that domain. Another important thing at this level is the inter-university contact; many of the members of the liberal cause are people who did master programmes elsewhere who got hold of interesting readings. But many are ex-extreme left painted as liberals, other such as Dr. Espada used to be Maoist, Leninist, etc. and then, after taking MA courses, found their “Road toDamascus”. They are rather “foreignized”, not knowing the Portuguese story or the Portuguese tradition which is one of the causes of this failure; in addition everyone’s a liberal no one listens to anyone. They also discuss a lot which is typical. Also important is the role of the patrons and corporations which keep subsidizing the socialists and ex-extreme left and communists. It doesn’t happen as in theUSwhere liberal think tanks and studies are often sponsored. It is cheaper and easier for them to make intellectual corruption next to the extreme left since it is better to have as a protector a socialist or a social-democrat than having a liberal. Take for example big capitalists who have newspapers inPortugal, a big part of the opinion-making on those newspapers is socialist and from the left, there is no need to subsidize or give opportunities to liberal thinking.

4. What about opportunities for a Liberal Party?

Because the big parties are also catch-all parties there are not going to be any ideological parties, there will be federations of families of parties. The two main parties in Portugalhave many downs but do have one virtue which is being very good federators, as so I don’t see the chance of there being an ideological party. The chances that there are is the federation of families and in a way that does happen, more than individual movements it is important there being the existence of liberal thought on every party, including the socialist party. There is a plurality among the families. The parties are very cunning and their centralizing mechanisms are very effective. Any attempts at penetrating the system are easily and structurally suppressed. There is a big dose of opportunism. Our regime is a democracy of success; naturally the protagonists of this process hold some privileges and reputation. The big parties have been successful because they have been able to understand the great movements of opinion are flexible and carry out several metamorphoses. (The election of leaders occurs like this, pragmatically and tactically). Between the political analyst and the simple man of the village there is a big coincidence of analysis, there is a big pragmatism in terms of what is good for the stability of democracy. This already has 30 years, we are now 10 years short of the governing time of Salazarism, it has the double of the first republic, exactly half of the constitutional democracy. So if we do the Maths between 1820 and today Portugalhas more than a century of authentic freedom, with hundreds of elections.
Considering this, the authoritarian memory is already a bit grey, so the analysis made of Salazarism interest extreme right and extreme left and some analysts who see us as a transition towards democracy. We are not a transition towards democracy, the regimes here never had a transition, the regimes here come down “rotten”. It wasn’t a king put in place by Franco to put democracy in place or Adolfo Soares who was a militant of the single party. We have a specific model that is our model.

5. In a small prospective exercise how do you imagine an overcoming/transformation of this present condition of “unidimensionality and micropowers”? How do you describe what you called “real utopia” in your last book and what would its method be?

I am a professor not a politician, every reasonable political scientist that goes into politics are usually a disaster. The analyst is different from the actor, they have distinct qualities. I jokingly usually say that in 10 years time Portugalwill have something completely different. It will be the issue of European integration; the issue of non-emigration, the Portuguese economy is not that much in crisis as it is said. We are producing jobs but (97000 jobs) although we produce jobs they are jobs that the Portuguese do not want. We already are in a phase of rich country crisis (not too rich, of a 25^th in PNUD ranking rich), it is the first time this happens and with a curious psychological element attached to it which is feeling of terrible pessimism. This can be a good thing. It means we realized we are going into a new phase. The democratization of education after the 1970s and the appetence for democracy will produce new elites that will challenge the old one. We are not, however, going to be sole actors. The next Portuguese crisis will be the next European crisis. We will be receptors. In a similar way that the extreme left has already change with these crisis I believe the next crisis will affect the other side of the barricade, the big right, the non-PS towards the right. There will be a change in circumstances. The kind of crisis will change from a national closed nation-state to a broader multi-dimensional regional basis. We have had the capability to suffer and go through predicaments before but will future generations be willing to pay pensions and sustain a welfare state model that is failed a growth in youth employment? So far the welfare state still hangs on like is the case in the privileged “out of time”France. Over here there is no CPE – we only got out good old temporary green receipts.

isbon; Member of the Political Commission of Lucas Pires’ CDS between 1983-1985; founding member of the Party of the New Democracy (having now left)

03-04-2006Lisbon

I and Paulo Ferreira da Cunha must have been two of the first Portuguese to have gone to a Liberal International. It was two years ago inDakar.

One thing is to take Lipset, Fukuyama, Schmiter, make an outside analysis about the Portuguese situation and run the risk of reaching precipitated conclusions. Why do we not have a Liberal Party? Because the group of the Liberal International and the European Liberal parties, born in the post-war period acted in a terrain that had nothing to do with our 20^th century model, their “ready-made” proposals did not adapt to the Portuguese circumstances. It is important to avoid a possible Anglo-American reading that Portugal is incompatible with Liberalism. Take Benfica for example, and I’m not kidding, Benfica is something that does not exist anywhere else in Europe – a product of liberal activism in the turn from the 19^th to the 20^th century. Something unprecedented and quite interesting of that age was activism and elections for several associations in civil society. These traditions, in one way or another, persist up until today. There is since 1834 a rooted liberal tradition which does not capture the state but does capture Portuguese civil society. There is a rooted liberalism in civil society because Salazarist authoritarianism/dictatorship did not penetrate into civil society, Salazarism never meddled into Benfica’s elections (there were always communists in the board of Benfica during Salazarism), Salazarism did not meddle into trade union activism (until the 39-45 war), it was a form of authoritarianism in the state that did not interfere with civil society. This civil society is composed of elements attentive to egalitarianism and of strong activism living detached from the state. One thing is the analysis of the state and another is the analysis of Civil Society, in terms of Civil Society we can say that Portugal is a triumph of the demo-liberal models of the 19^th century, meaning that its society of the “ancient regime” deeply changed as was seen in “Pupilas do senhor Reitor”, romances of Julio Dinis, etc. A curious anecdote is the story behind the first name of the English Liberal Party. They were first called “Liberales” because of the two liberal revolutions in Europe (Spain in 1812 and Portugal 1820). So this first name is not English but actually Castellan. In the context of the 19^th century Liberal movements there are successful liberal movements in Portugal and Spain, something that did not happen for example in Germany, Italy (until 1861).

Portugalis, with its 1974 transition from an authoritarian to a democratic situation, an atypical case where when the parties are formed, none of the parties existing before the dictatorship were recovered. Spainstill has PSOE, even in Russiathat was the case with the parties existing before the Bolshevik revolution. In Portugalthat did not happen because our parties were all of “statist fabrication” and (all curiously from the German model). The parties were implemented in a pre-revolutionary epoch. The only parties that exist are the ones that will have a place in government as their inception was from the government towards civil society. Their denominations are somewhat hypocritical, the right is social democrat, the left is socialist democrat member of the social democrat international. These two parties (PS and PSD) which have been controlling power in Portugalare Parties formed in a specific era of great ideological aggression where the party programs are on the left of the leaders, the leaders on the left of the party-members and the party-members. This kind of hypocrisy turned us into the most social-democrat country in Europe. Parties were created from the state to society. The main problematic is society being weak and the state strong. This goes all the way back to Salazar – he had a party (the national union) which was the only party in Europepart of a one-party system created by a resolution of the Council of Ministers. The Christian Democrat Party of which Salazar was a militant was created in 1917 by a resolution of the Conference of the Portuguese Bishops. Even after 1974 we kept a certain control of civil society by the state, the parties are the agents of the state, a country highly centralized in its public administration, a country without regionalization, without changed to the local forms of organization, with something called districts that comes from 1834 (attempted to suppress with 1866 constitution). There is an inheritance of what Herculano in the 19^th century qualified as the inheritance possessed from demo-liberalism from absolutism.

Portugalis a small state, with specific traditions, a “Scotlandwith success”, that is the dimension we have. We are the Cataloniawhich managed to separate itself from Madridthanks to the Luso-British alliance. Readingsthat put us right next to other models frequently do not acknowledge our type of formation and our type of inheritance. The absolutism of Marques de Pombal was very likely to the English model in contrast with another group composed by Castela and France which were strongly centralized. We have a conformation of medieval permanence. We were the only medieval thing that lasted, Portugal, Swedenand Denmark. This has consequences in explaining why there isn’t a liberal party in Portugalsince the function exercised by liberal parties in the post-war period was assumed in Portugalby the Social Democrat party and the socialist party. All the parties were Marxist, PSD was Marxist, CDS had Marxist humanism in its constitutional project. The adaptation of the Socialist party to the models of the German SPD of Bad Godesberg happens when Mario Soares leaves and Vitor Constancio comes in, and PSD only cuts with Marxism when Cavaco Silva comes to manage it. We had a point where we had the socialist party as a social democrat party and a PSD that was still Marxist. Over here no one reads the programmes and no one knows what that is, practice is one and the theory is another. For example, in terms of European integration we are the most pro-European country in but also the most pessimist one. They are in the end forms of opportunism of the Portuguese community when it comes to challenges such as the European integration. Look at decolonisation. It wasn’t like the Indian with the British or the Argelines with the French. Portugal had a different dimension, we had 10 million inhabitants and had 1 million returnees in one week, we had to make two or three extremely complicated jumps in the 20^th century and did them with considerable success: overcome authoritarianism, stay away from WW2, fight a colonial war when all the other European powers had let go, making the transition to democracy without civil war and proceed with European integration. This reveals a certain flexibility of a people that for example in the 1960s had 2 million emigrants toEurope while it carried out a colonial war.

1. I would like to know a bit more about your notion of Liberalism and on what the term represents to you. Taking into account the last 30 years how have you seen Liberalism at play in the Portuguese political narrative?

Is there a political party in Portugal? You are before someone who is liberal one of the few who assumes his liberal position on that domain – a traditional liberal. Each country can invent its own notion of liberalism. The notion of multi-secular liberalism is a bit the notion of the revolution of 1820, the notion of Almeida Garret, of Alexandre Herculano, the notion of the liberals of the first Republic. There is a tradition of Portuguese Liberalism, very profound and with success. How do you measure liberalism? Liberalism is freedom, particularly personal freedom. The Portuguese are some of the freest in history: look at property, the Portuguese has free alluvial property since the middle ages. We are the most property-ridden people of Europein terms of land ownership. Everyone has a wood, everyone has a little house, and this reality is represented in our notion of personal liberty which has an extension both in terms of freedom of thought and freedom of ownership. Even, when we have a revolution the first thing we try and scrap is for individual benefit, the 25^th of April revolution had a huge success because of the nationalization of banking and insurance allowing for the purchase of housing with financed interest. Every Portuguese is an owner, it is the regime with most private houses within cities, and there is no such thing as a viable letting market. All the Portuguese temptations are in terms of property, in terms of becoming an independent and free man.

This is not comparable to, for example, Eastern European countries which had forms of servitude until the end of the 19^th century, we have a land ownership-based place of free men that when things are not going so well they move. (oBrazil andEurope, etc.). They moved looking for the things that mark any liberal regime, earn more money, work better, being awarded in work, get a house, get out and find a better place. The enemy of liberalism inPortugal is the state, the state is a foreign occupier, our relationship with the state is awful and in those terms liberals never conquered the state as it still remains foreign. The relationship with the state is of the thief-state and as the saying goes “thief that robs thief has 100 years of forgiveness”. Notions such as avoiding taxes over here are not seen as a social sin, the notion of respect for public property does not exist. This is a bad inheritance from absolutism, there is a democracy of civil society, a deep feeling of equality between people but there are the bad indexes that because the state was not educated there is a lot of “uncivicism” in regards to public goods (not lack of civic posture). Curiously enough, democracy produced some profound yet unexpected (by MFA program) changes, such as the municipalities and the autonomous regions (Madeira and Azores), these changes were successful and just show how organizationally and culturally there is a degree of cultural appetence to anti-statism. Another awful thing is public teaching which was not able to educate people, spending too many energies and money for little to be produced.

2. In your book you point to the absence in Portugal of a party that, not only claims that wants to liberalize us but that, actually says that it is Liberal. Considering the reality of the Portuguese political spectrum what do you see as the main obstacles hindering the entrance of a Liberal party in Portugal? Why do you think that is the case?

The Portuguese productive structure is more or less, 3500 000 actives. Just as many actives in the interior as emigrants active in the exterior, the earnings coming from abroad are still superior than the structural funding from the European Union. We then have 2600 000 pensioners. What has been Portuguese politics? Very simple! One million pensioners on Monday vote PS and on Tuesday vote PSD. Politics is about those 1 million pensioners that swing from PS to PSD. None of these swing voters want to make a reform of the welfare state, they are all hypocritical, never able to lead a reform until the end because a government that has absolute majority such as PS does right now, in two years time knows that PSD will be in power. Power still rests on the beneficiary who is going to decide how the money is going to be spent, and since he does not decide on civic terms he decides according to promises. They are not trade union parties. They are pensioners’ parties, a “pensionism” that results from a natural reaction to the 25^th of April.

3. What do you think of projects such as the Lucas Pires’ one for CDS, the group of Ofir, movements such as the MLS and the Liberal Cause and the Party for the New Democracy?

Francisco Lucas Pires was a curious case. He appeared in 1983-1985. He was the first politician inPortugalclaiming both Liberal and from the right, which was a sin! The very Church pursues liberals, which is an important point I hadn’t referred before. The Catholic Church is anti-liberal, because liberalism inPortugalwas a creation of the Masonry; as so, being liberal was being Mason…up until 1974. I remember on the first campaign of Lucas Pires, on a party which was even supposed to be in name “Christian democrat”, you had bishops saying “don’t vote on that bunch because they are liberal”. What did Lucas Pires do? I happened to be a young collaborator and a member of his political commission. To put it bluntly we simply “translated” to Portuguese the successes, of that time, of Thatcher and Reagan. It was the reflex of what some saw as the liberal and conservative revolution inEurope. The movement inPortugalhad its importance thanks to its actor, Lucas Pires, who was someone with great energetic capabilities, and was a protagonist who represented very well the environment at the time, letting an established left know that there were some alternatives from a different model. He arrived well in the press, attracting a lot of media attention which resulted on an effective and profound reflection in society at the time. As for the other movements: the liberal cause movement is a group of urban intellectuals who read and write some interesting things, after having discovered authors such as Hayek – they do have their penetration in a minority at an intellectual level. In an environment dominated by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Ignacio Ramognet, etc. at least you start having some form of counterpoint to an intellectual domain of a revolutionary left.

The Party of the new democracy, I was one of the founders together with 3 or 4 Liberals but I can say that by now all the Liberals have left. Who stayed were Manuel Monteiro and his group who actually say they are not liberal. Some of the MLS’s members also used to be militants of the Party of the New Democracy and left. They (New democracy) use the liberal stamp but they are not, they are clearly conservative. The Liberal in this process is always dominated by Christian Conservatism; the trend of the Liberal is often to be of a left of the right to the point of voting often on the left. Why? Because the colleagues of the group, conservatives and Catholics pay special attention to moral causes and who is not catholic finds itself in trouble within this context.

Problem is that often (MLS for example) you don’t have an intellectual basis, which in turn is a particular strength of the Liberal Cause as they occupy a terrain that until five years ago was unoccupied. What was missing inPortugalwas the existence, as is the case inFrance, of a radical Party. A Radical party, individualist, liberal and with Masonry background. The main victims of Salazar’s authoritarianism were not the communists. These, in fact, grew in dimension and became better organized killing anarcho-syndicalism. The main victims were mostly the liberals that lost their tradition and intellectual control. The rupture was terrible and there still hasn’t been a regrouping neither of the republican tradition of liberalism nor of the monarchical tradition of liberalism. There was a discontinuity, authoritarianism by jailing and prohibiting thought, controlling the university there was a rupture with this old demo-liberal tradition. So these new groups are seeds, curious seeds on that domain. Another important thing at this level is the inter-university contact; many of the members of the liberal cause are people who did master programmes elsewhere who got hold of interesting readings. But many are ex-extreme left painted as liberals, other such as Dr. Espada used to be Maoist, Leninist, etc. and then, after taking MA courses, found their “Road toDamascus”. They are rather “foreignized”, not knowing the Portuguese story or the Portuguese tradition which is one of the causes of this failure; in addition everyone’s a liberal no one listens to anyone. They also discuss a lot which is typical. Also important is the role of the patrons and corporations which keep subsidizing the socialists and ex-extreme left and communists. It doesn’t happen as in theUSwhere liberal think tanks and studies are often sponsored. It is cheaper and easier for them to make intellectual corruption next to the extreme left since it is better to have as a protector a socialist or a social-democrat than having a liberal. Take for example big capitalists who have newspapers inPortugal, a big part of the opinion-making on those newspapers is socialist and from the left, there is no need to subsidize or give opportunities to liberal thinking.

4. What about opportunities for a Liberal Party?

Because the big parties are also catch-all parties there are not going to be any ideological parties, there will be federations of families of parties. The two main parties in Portugalhave many downs but do have one virtue which is being very good federators, as so I don’t see the chance of there being an ideological party. The chances that there are is the federation of families and in a way that does happen, more than individual movements it is important there being the existence of liberal thought on every party, including the socialist party. There is a plurality among the families. The parties are very cunning and their centralizing mechanisms are very effective. Any attempts at penetrating the system are easily and structurally suppressed. There is a big dose of opportunism. Our regime is a democracy of success; naturally the protagonists of this process hold some privileges and reputation. The big parties have been successful because they have been able to understand the great movements of opinion are flexible and carry out several metamorphoses. (The election of leaders occurs like this, pragmatically and tactically). Between the political analyst and the simple man of the village there is a big coincidence of analysis, there is a big pragmatism in terms of what is good for the stability of democracy. This already has 30 years, we are now 10 years short of the governing time of Salazarism, it has the double of the first republic, exactly half of the constitutional democracy. So if we do the Maths between 1820 and today Portugalhas more than a century of authentic freedom, with hundreds of elections.
Considering this, the authoritarian memory is already a bit grey, so the analysis made of Salazarism interest extreme right and extreme left and some analysts who see us as a transition towards democracy. We are not a transition towards democracy, the regimes here never had a transition, the regimes here come down “rotten”. It wasn’t a king put in place by Franco to put democracy in place or Adolfo Soares who was a militant of the single party. We have a specific model that is our model.

5. In a small prospective exercise how do you imagine an overcoming/transformation of this present condition of “unidimensionality and micropowers”? How do you describe what you called “real utopia” in your last book and what would its method be?

I am a professor not a politician, every reasonable political scientist that goes into politics are usually a disaster. The analyst is different from the actor, they have distinct qualities. I jokingly usually say that in 10 years time Portugalwill have something completely different. It will be the issue of European integration; the issue of non-emigration, the Portuguese economy is not that much in crisis as it is said. We are producing jobs but (97000 jobs) although we produce jobs they are jobs that the Portuguese do not want. We already are in a phase of rich country crisis (not too rich, of a 25^th in PNUD ranking rich), it is the first time this happens and with a curious psychological element attached to it which is feeling of terrible pessimism. This can be a good thing. It means we realized we are going into a new phase. The democratization of education after the 1970s and the appetence for democracy will produce new elites that will challenge the old one. We are not, however, going to be sole actors. The next Portuguese crisis will be the next European crisis. We will be receptors. In a similar way that the extreme left has already change with these crisis I believe the next crisis will affect the other side of the barricade, the big right, the non-PS towards the right. There will be a change in circumstances. The kind of crisis will change from a national closed nation-state to a broader multi-dimensional regional basis. We have had the capability to suffer and go through predicaments before but will future generations be willing to pay pensions and sustain a welfare state model that is failed a growth in youth employment? So far the welfare state still hangs on like is the case in the privileged “out of time”France. Over here there is no CPE – we only got out good old temporary green receipts.