Início

Política Portuguesa

Todos os posts que tenham de alguma forma a ver com política em Portugal.

As Eleições de Ontem - Artigo publicado no sítio da LYMEC

Por Igor CaldeiraSegunda, 06/06/2011 - 15:56

Comentar
Retrato de Igor Caldeira

Nothing new, many things yet to decide: Portuguese national elections 2011

 

As in the rest of Europe, the party in government suffered a considerable defeat, the opposition won. In Portugal’s case (the exact opposite of Greece’s) the party in power at the time of the financial crisis was the socialist, and so the conservatives won.

 

Let us take an overview of what happened.

PSD - went from 29,1% in 2009 to 38,6%. A smaller score than Barroso’s in 2002 but the times have changed - namely, CDS, has a lot more votes than in the previous decades. PSD more or less openly presented an economically very radical program (which I have my doubts the voters actually know) and so the result is all in all a very good one.

PS - dropped from 36,5% to 28%. The worst result since the all time low of 1987, when they had 22%. Despite what many socialists think, PS could have had a much higher score, should the Prime Minister José Sócrates had avoided presenting himself to elections. More than PS, citizens were tired of this man.

CDS - the right-wing conservatives consolidated their position as the third party, going from 10,4% to 11,7%. CDS is no longer regarded as a right-wing populist group and has managed to play, at several times, an important role. The voters have certainly given a prize to the party - though 2% less than what the polls indicated just a few days ago...

CDU - the communist and green alliance kept their 7,9% of the votes, and got one more MP. They resisted very well to the debacle of the Left, but they did not gain anything from popular discontent. They have no role to play in national politics (since they refuse to make any agreements with PS) and so they keep their congregation - and that is it.

BE - the Left Block, which despite of its history and its name was in the past actually more moderate than CDU, played a dangerous game and was punished for it. Since its founding, slightly more than a decade ago, they have managed to grow consistently, catching left-wing votes from PS and some electorate that, not necessarily being left-winged in economics, was progressive on moral issues. They grew fighting for abortion and gay rights, for example. With the crisis, BE decided to enter into competition with CDU. The result was the loss of half of the votes, from 10 to 5%, and half of the MP’s.


 

What will this change? Well, in my opinion (which is not necessarily the dominant one) as we say in Portugal, the flies will change but the sh... will be the same. The main thing everybody has to understand is that the most responsible parties (responsible because they created the problems that we now face, and responsible because they are the only ones who are ready to meet the challenges ahead of us) have little space for maneuver. As some political commentators pointed out during the electoral night, Portugal needs to have at least PS and PSD, and also CDS in the ideal solution, all working together to figure out how to implement the Troika’s (EC, ECB, IMF) plan. That is the only real government program for the coming years. Who will implement it, and the exact details, are, precisely, details.

 

Unfortunately - and this is probably the only thing in which the two Left parties (CDU and BE) were right to the point - this was not discussed during the elections. These were bitter elections between the two main parties. A lot of personal accusations. Even episodes of small violence, especially when José Sócrates, the Prime Minister, was around. And so the most important will only be known now.

 

Does any of this have any relevance for liberals across Europe? Well, let me start by saying that my political movement, MLS, has recently done an analysis of the electoral programs of the four parties that a liberal voter may feel attracted to (BE, PS, PSD and CDS)#. Many people asked us who should they vote for. Many of us (me included) did not know either. We had a working group dedicated to it  and our results and our voting recommendation anticipated in some way the results of the elections.

BE’s program was awfully bad. PSD had the best program in economic subjects. CDS could be interesting for those liberal voters interested in voting strategically, to provide a good coalition party. PS did not have a very bad program, having a slightly better score than CDS, essentially due to their clearly pro-European stances (the only one doing that, for PSD gave little importance to Europe, preferring the links with the Portuguese-speaking world and the United States) and their positions on individual freedoms.  

Though I am sure that many think that the victory of the two EPP (PSD and CDS) parties are a sign of hope for Portugal, I’m much less enthusiastic. First of all, and as we have seen with Greece, austerity measures are but a small part of the solution. The market’s good will is actually more important. And, above all, the economy has to grow. PSD and CDS were in government only six years ago, and they left the economy as bad as they received it, and the budget deficit twice as big. So will they change their past incompetence? Let us see. I believe more in the IMF than in Portuguese parties, I must admit.  

 

As I said previously, while the most important (the Troika’s rescue plan) is already decided but yet to be unveiled, all the rest followed more or less the present European trends, with governments in general losing the elections. What we now have to see is how PSD and CDS will implement the necessary changes, and how deep will PS’s (necessary) cooperation with the conservative government be. Without such cooperation the task will be impossible.

 

Igor Caldeira

Individual Member of LYMEC

International Officer of Movimento Liberal Social

 

___________________________________________________________

Sorry, but only in Portuguese - but if you want to take a look at it, check http://www.liberal-social.org/analise-programas-eleitorais-legislativas-2011.

A IVG em risco: um aborto político e um voto abortado

Por Igor CaldeiraQuinta, 26/05/2011 - 12:11

9 comentários
Retrato de Igor Caldeira

Eu pensava que, uma vez no poder, a Direita ia começar por atacar o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo. Parecia-me óbvio, tratando-se de uma lei aprovada no parlamento e em relação à qual, estou certo, a maioria dos portugueses está contra (o que em nada diminui a sua legitimidade, dado que eu, antes de ser um democrata, sou liberal).


Parecia óbvio, também, por que me pareceria descabido a Direita atacar uma questão tão dolorosa que acabou com uma vitória tão esmagadora de um dos lados. Enfim, politicamente não seria propriamente brilhante desenterrar este cadáver, passe a expressão tétrica. Há coisas bem mais relevantes e politicamente bem mais lucrativas do que atacar o aborto.

 

Hélas, começo a achar que Passos Coelho não só não é tão liberal quanto gosta de se fazer, como é tão inapto quanto muitos nos queriam fazer crer. Ou o senhor é louco ou tem conselheiros políticos loucos. Ou estúpidos. Ou seja o que for. 

 

Porque seja como for, eu que vacilava entre o PS e o PSD, acabei de decidir o meu voto. Gastei demasiado tempo dos meus últimos anos a lutar por esta causa para permitir que agora um chanfrado qualquer venha impôr este retrocesso (e outros, está visto, bem mais fáceis de atingir) gigantesco ao país.

 

Não, não é desta que teremos um Primeiro Ministro liberal.

 

O líder do PSD, Pedro Passos Coelho, quer rever a lei do aborto e admite um novo referendo sobre a matéria.

Portugal needs a Liberal Left - Part III (final)

Por Igor CaldeiraTerça, 24/05/2011 - 15:31

8 comentários
Retrato de Igor Caldeira
If somehow it is not yet clear, I will summarize it: Portugal needs a political force that breaks all the political prejudices that we may have. Someone that defends: a non-interventionist State on the economy; a pervasive but realistic Welfare State; the deepening of recent societal and legal progressive changes, such as abortion (2006) and same-sex marriage (2010).
 
The road is rocky.
 
Every political force will tell you, for example, that the State should support small and medium companies. They probably have in mind lots of subsidies and State-funded internships that will only serve to fund unscrupulous businessmen at the expenses of tax-payers and the interns themselves. They can hardly think that all the licenses, declarations, forms, tax-returns, etc., all those annoying and often imbecile procedures hurt a lot more the small companies than the big ones. And they can hardly think, or if they do think, they do not act on it, that complex fiscal systems only defend the richer, the best informed, those who can pay for someone to play with the law or win the subsidies. No political force realizes that the more power the State (and the local authorities) has on the economy, the bigger problems such as corruption will be. Centralization is not only economically hurtful. It is morally wrong and ethically deviant.

 

All political forces will also tell you how much they love Welfare State. But the Left is unable to accept the reforms in Social Security that will guarantee its sustainability; in Education, pedagogic theories of dubious origins have resulted in undoubtedly disastrous results. The Right knows its electorate, and does not seem all too keen on rising retirement ages, but they accept that the rich - and only the rich - get off of the system and have their pensions at least partially in private schemes. And, of course, the Right wants dearly education vouchers that will be used to finance religious schools (even more than they already are) and to allow, via this State subsidy, the upper sections of society to keep their children in private schools, away from the general scoundrel and the calamitous public education system governed by the Left.

 
Like we have recently seen with the judges and with the teachers, all political forces, once in opposition, will block any kind of reform affecting powerful professional groups. It is easy to cut any normal civil servant wage. Try doing that to a judge: from the far-ends of Communism to the far-ends of Conservatism, all voices will rise against you. And that explains why, much more than labour laws (something that all Liberals tend to emphasize) one of Portugal's biggest problems is actually the (at best) inoperative judicial system.
 
In our near future, we may get to a situation in which the Welfare State starts being dismantled because we need to cut costs. But the problem in Portugal is certainly not a big Welfare State. Checking OECD data, you may easily find out that Portuguese Welfare State is as big as any other European Welfare State, certainly smaller than not few of them. And that non-biased analysis of the Welfare State is what distinguishes a Left Liberal from many other Liberals.
What we must question is where all the rest of the money goes in Portugal. Why do we have so many doctors (and we do)? Why do we have so many judges (and we do, despite our calamitous judicial system)? Why do we have so many unproductive public investments? Why so many subsidies? Why so many taxes imposed for "social justice", with no positive effects whatsoever after all the tax benefits that only benefit the rich? And it is this critical view of the State's power of intervention in the economy that distinguishes a Left Liberal from the Socialist Left.
 
The road is rocky - but I still believe that a Liberal Left, a Liberalism that knows that (sane) social policies are crucial for people to be free, a Leftism that understands that economic growth is crucial for social justice, is the only key for our future. We need to continue of road from religious serfdom to rational freedom. We need a State that keeps its hands off the economy. We need a State that guarantees that everybody has some chances in life. All of these three goals are only possible through the combination of a Leftist inclination and a Liberal reasoning.

Portugal needs a Liberal Left - Part II

Por Igor CaldeiraTerça, 24/05/2011 - 13:13

Comentar
Retrato de Igor Caldeira
The Centre-Right normally rules with the brains (exception: Berlusconi - if you consider him Centre-Right, of course, something that I would not). The Centre-Left normally rules with the heart (exception: Blair - if you consider him Centre-Left, of course, something that I would not).

The result is that European governments on the Right do the right things for the bad reasons and European governments on the Left have the good reasons while defending them with the most unspeakably stupid policies (1). So, for example, you have Zapatero, a decent politician that changed the face of Spain and affronted PP, a party depending from Opus Dei and still holding on in some way (or at least in some factions) to Franquism. What did he do to PP's good heritage from PP? Well, the recent defeat in the local elections is a proof that Spanish people do prefer, when the going gets rough, competent bastards to incompetent good guys.

So that is the challenge. Do the right things for the right reasons. It cannot be impossible to have a progressive society, opportunities for all and economic growth. In fact, it makes sense that all those factors go hand in hand. Growth creates opportunities that can be effectively used by people if social prejudices do not create artificial barriers to social mobility and individual freedom.

So Portugal needs a political force that is clear on a number of subjects:

  1. We need a change in mentalities regarding finances: we have to save part of what we earn, we cannot spend more than what we earn; we cannot see as normal having deficits of more than 3%, and certainly not on consecutive years (or, as is the case, decades!).
  2. We need a change in mentalities regarding the economy: we have to allow entrepreneurs to appear, we have to avoid defining what the economy should look like and let society decide it on its own; we have to ask ourselves why countries having simpler fiscal laws or having more agile judicial systems keep better growth rates than us.

That is what I call the "Liberal" side of the answer. The other what I call the "Left" side:

  1. We need to have a more intelligent view of society: we have to put aside our pre-conceived ideas about social rights, we have to protect less those who are already powerful, we have to have the same laws for everybody.
  2. We need to defend a good public Education system: public schools are the only way of creating a "republican" society, a society based on equal opportunities; public schools must be ideologically neutral (no financing of religious institutions) and equally accessible for all (the education voucher is actually just a way of financing private schools and rich families that would in any case put their children in such schools because they know that exclusive environments are a way of maintaining the ancestral dynasties that rule the country); but public schools also have to be demanding, hard, and discipline must prevail - otherwise the middle class will no longer believe in it.
  3. We need to defend a good public Health system: WHO data proves that the Portuguese health care system is, counter-intuitively, one of the few things the country can be proud of; it also shows that public systems are cheaper and more cost-effective than private ones; but it needs to face the ageing problem and be sustainable.
  4. We need to defend Social Security: and this can only be done with radical reforms, including eventual limits on accumulation of pensions and fixing ceilings, while the retirement age has to go as up as 68, eventually more if needed - we have to be prepared for it, if we do want to keep a public pension system, having at the same time a good notion of intergenerational justice in which young people are not transformed into fiscal slaves of richer, more numerous (thus more powerful in a democratic society) and older generations.

___________________________________
(1) Do not mix up Europe and the United States. The American Right is only right when it shuts up, and since Republicans are very verbal, they are never right. The Democrats (that, despite the myths that we have among us, are frequently more to the Right than many European Liberals) pursue fairer social policies while having a more "conservative" budgetary policy - as the Clinton governments vs. Reagan and both Bushes example easily proves.

Portugal needs a Liberal Left - Part I

Por Igor CaldeiraTerça, 24/05/2011 - 13:12

Comentar
Retrato de Igor Caldeira
Less than thirty years after the last IMF intervention, Portugal finds itself again in the hands of international institutions, this time with the European Commission and the European Central Bank joining IMF. The years in which the IMF was here seem to be the last years in which some reasonable budgetary policy was followed in the country, with a large coalition of the two main parties, PS (Social Democrats) and PSD (at the time, Liberals by international affiliation, though Conservative at heart).

After that, we had ten years of PSD governments, the ones in which the weight of the State grew the most.
We had six years of PS governments, in which the deficit was reduced, but no reforms were introduced, in some cases pursuing the PSD reality-detached policies, such as regarding pensions. We got to 2001/2002 amid a political, social, budgetary and economic crisis that allowed a victory for a coalition between the two Conservative parties, PSD and CDS.
After less than three years, the country was angry. The Right had promised a "Liberal Revolution" and instead no real changes came, those which came were less than understandable and the government supported an unfair war that had the opposition of over 75% of the population. The Prime Minister, Barroso, fled the country and left it with all its budgetary and economic crisis to be solved, and got the dream job at Berlaymont, and left at his place a man that became a practical joke (and a very sad one) and that had the honour of being the first Portuguese Prime Minister to be fired by the President for outright incompetence.
At the 2005 elections the two Conservative parties had the worst result for the Right in the democratic period of Portugal. Not even in 1974/75, when the country was on the verge of Socialism, did the two Right-wing parties got such a bad result; on the contrary, PS had its best result ever.
And so, we could think (I certainly did) that with an absolute majority and five years of economic crisis the situation would change. Until 2008 it seemed so. It was not perfect, but the Socialists did more and did better than the Right. Right - but wrong. As soon as the financial crisis broke down the old Keynesian monsters were unleashed and PS, that had managed to drop the 6% budget deficit inherited from the Right to a 2,8%, soon brought us to unimaginable deficits of over 9%, while persisting with megalomaniac plans for a new airport and a high speed train.

The rest of the story is more or less known: the deficit is still not under control, the markets and rating agencies dragged the country to its knees, the government tried to resist receiving the international aid, but finally had to accept it, while the now (after the 2009 elections) minority Socialist government and the opposition were unable or unwilling to find a compromise, leading to the upcoming elections in the beginning of June.

How could we summarize Portugal's last years?
- Persistent economic crisis;
- Persistent unbalanced budgets;
- No real differences, in economic and financial policies, between Centre-Left and the Right;
- An irrelevant Left, barricaded in an unwillingness to compromise, though they represent about 20% of the electorate;
- Persistent marks of unequal development, with education results and the most unequal society in Europe and with one of the lowest levels of social mobility, only to be equalled by the United States;
- Crisis is not used as a moment of reflection and reform, but ends up in another wave of migration towards Europe or Africa, such as now is happening with many skilled young Portuguese;
- While changes, cuts and reforms that affect poorer citizens may be done, it is impossible to introduce changes affecting professional corporations, such as judges, doctors or teachers.

How can we move from this? What do we need to move from this?

Novas Oportunidades

Por Luís LavouraTerça, 17/05/2011 - 17:23

2 comentários
Retrato de Luís Lavoura

O líder do PSD escusava de ter ontem insultado o esforço de todos aqueles que - como um prima minha, que é operária industrial, mãe e agricultora nos tempos livres e que, nas poucas horas vagas que lhe sobram de tudo isso, andou meses a queimar as pestanas em livros e a preparar-se para exames - estudam no programa Novas Oportunidades, ao dizer que esse programa mais não faz do que "credenciar a ignorância".

 

Isso são coisas que se podem pensar, mas que um líder político deve ter a delicadeza de não dizer em voz alta.

Sem Sócrates

Por Luís LavouraSegunda, 09/05/2011 - 08:56

1 comentário
Retrato de Luís Lavoura

O líder do PSD já tinha declarado que, depois das eleições, o seu partido estaria disposto a fazer uma aliança com o PS, desde que sem Sócrates.

 

A novidade do fim-de-semana é que o líder do BE assumiu a mesma posição: aliança com o PS sim, mas sem Sócrates.

 

Isto é, para mim, política de meninos mimados. O Zequinha não gosta do Luisinho e, por isso, recusa-se a jogar na mesma equipa que ele. O professor de ginástica tolera, porque o Zequinha é um menino mimado e tem que se lhe fazer as vontadinhas, se não ele amua.

Crise inútil

Por Luís LavouraSexta, 06/05/2011 - 08:39

1 comentário
Retrato de Luís Lavoura

As duas sondagens de opinião hoje publicadas, de acordo com as quais PS e PSD se encontram em empate técnico (isto é, com uma diferença de intenções de voto inferior à margem de erro da sondagem), apenas vêem confirmar aquela que foi desde sempre a minha opinião: que a atual crise política e que as próximas eleições são perfeitamente inúteis - de facto, são profundamente prejudiciais, pois constituem uma perda de tempo para o país, uma fonte de insegurança e a causa imediata de uma enorme subida dos juros cobrados ao Estado português pelos prestamistas internacionais.

 

O que acontece é que as próximas eleições legislativas vão ter um resultado bastante similar ao das eleições de 2009. Nem o PS nem o PSD obterão maioria absoluta e a única hipótese viável de um governo estável será a mesma que já antes existia - uma coligação PS-PSD. Ou seja, as eleições em nada de essencial mudarão o estado do jogo político.

 

Nesta situação, é preciso condenar veementemente todos os participantes no jogo - a começar pelo PSD, principal culpado pela rejeição do PEC 4, mas abrangendo o PS, culpado por ter resistido obstinadamente a pedir ajuda ao FMI quando isso já se impunha, abrangendo o Presidente da República, que em muito ajudou à queda do governo e que foi quem convocou as eleições, e a terminar nos partidos menores, que também ficaram todos contentes com a porcaria que ajudaram a fazer.

 

Enfim, toda a classe política portuguesa merece uma total condenação por ter colaborado ativamente na convocação de umas eleições inúteis, no final das quais o país estará na mesma situação política que anteriormente mas terá adquirido uma péssima reputação política junto dos prestamistas internacionais.

 

Esperemos que, pelo menos no dia seguinte às eleições, PS e PSD saibam concluir aquilo que aqui escrevi - e que para mim já é evidente há muito tempo -, que comecem a portar-se responsavelmente e que façam uma coligação governativa e legislativa para pôr em prática o programa que a troika teve a gentileza de lhes elaborar. Era aqulo que já deveriam ter feito há dois anos atrás, como na altura escrevi, e é aquilo que agora se imporá que façam.

 

Basta de birras de meninos mimados entre os principais dirigentes políticos! Comportem-se como homens adultos, falem uns com os outros, negoceiem, sem passarem o tempo com invejas, ciúmes e rancores uns dos outros, próprios de crianças mimadas e não de homens!

A foleirice americana

Por Luís LavouraTerça, 26/04/2011 - 09:59

2 comentários
Retrato de Luís Lavoura

O líder do PSD Pedro Passos Coelho divulgou aos portugueses uma mensagem filmada, na qual aparece em ambiente familiar, com a mulher sentada ao lado num sofá, a acenar que sim com a cabeça à medida que o marido fala.

Isto é de uma lamentável foleirice.

O PSD deveria já saber, após as acusações de homossexualidade a José Sócrates que numa campanha eleitoral anterior fez divulgar, que o marketing político brasileiro / americano não é recomendável em Portugal, onde a separação entre a política e a vida pessoal, familiar e sexual segue normas, felizmente, muito diferentes das americanas. Mas parece mesmo que não aprendeu e que continua a recorrer a marqueteiros brasileiros que, com as suas técnicas (para nós) de péssimo gosto, só o poderão fazer perder votos.

Uma questão de carácter

Por Igor CaldeiraTerça, 12/04/2011 - 11:43

2 comentários
Retrato de Igor Caldeira
‎Partido político nem pensar. Nunca!... Não aceitarei nenhum cargo partidário ou governativo

Fernando Nobre, SIC Notícias, 1 de Março de 2011

 

GARANTO-VOS, EXCLUÍ A MINHA PARTICIPAÇÃO POLÍTICA, NEM COMO INDEPENDENTE, NO ÂMBITO DOS PARTIDOS EXISTENTES.

Fernando Nobre, em nota do Facebook, 20 de Fevereiro de 2011

 

 

Eu desconfio sempre de quem fala mal dos partidos políticos. Fico sempre com a impressão que, se lhes abrissem as portas, essas pessoas conseguiriam ultrapassar muitos dos apparatchik que por lá andam.
Claro, isto é apenas instinto pessoal. E não é todos os dias que podemos ver a confirmação de um instinto.
 

Fernando Nobre conseguiu em um mês fazer uma mudança de 180º na sua posição relativamente aos partidos políticos. Veja-se a desfaçatez: não só aceita um lugar de cabeça de lista no principal círculo eleitoral, como até se posiciona já como futuro Presidente da Assembleia da República. Assim mais ou menos como se Salazar se candidatasse a Secretário Geral do PCP, ou como se Jerónimo de Sousa se preparasse para liderar o CDS.

No discurso anti-partidos muitas vezes andam de braço dado a crítica das ideologias e a crítica do vazio moral. O que muitas vezes não se percebe é que, justamente, o esvaziamento ideológico é que produz o vazio moral.
Porque um político pode prometer tudo. Baixar os impostos, aumentar as receitas, criar empregos, diminuir o peso do Estado ao mesmo tempo que aumentando exponencialmente os seus gastos. Os cidadãos, está visto, acreditam em tudo (e por isso é que agora vamos ter cá pela segunda vez em trinta anos o FMI).

 

Mas também sabemos que a taxa de cumprimento das promessas eleitorais está, digamos, bom, de certa forma, abaixo do que seria desejável. É por isso que eu raramente olho a promessas quando vou votar. Eu olho para aquilo que me permite fazer um julgamento geral da pessoa (no caso de eleições presidenciais) ou do partido (em todas as outras). E para isso é preciso haver consistência, coerência; sim, adaptação, mas a adaptação às circunstâncias não tem de implicar uma descaracterização. Descaracterização. Eis a palavra!


Nos partidos, esse julgamento geral sobre o ethos, é dado pela ideologia. Pela ideologia e pela coerência no respeito de certos princípios e valores. Eu posso não gostar do CDS, mas sei que não devo votar neles porque são de um conservadorismo aberrante, e que são coerentes nesse conservadorismo. Eu posso não gostar do PCP porque levariam o país à ruína caso chegassem ao poder - mas só sei isso porque em oitenta anos de existência a única mudança que deve ter havido deverá ter sido algures nos anos 20 ou 30 do século XX, quando repudiaram Trotsky.

 

Nas pessoas, o ethos é o carácter. O carácter de Fernando Nobre estava intimamente ligado à ideia da participação cívica metapartidária. Aliás, mesmo, a uma certa negação dos partidos, mais recentemente. Ao mudar radicalmente de opinião, Nobre ficou descaracterizado.

 

Quer dizer, mostrou que não tem carácter. E eu não voto em tipos sem carácter.