The stability of some and the other
Stability and governability are perhaps the most repeated words by major political leaders in this election campaign. Luís Montenegro has asked voters that in addition to concrete policies value ‘stability’. Pedro Nuno Santos has promised to find a solution in the post elections that allow this same stability and boasted from work in the years of the ‘Geringonça’. Both require the other conditions of governability in the event of victory but refuse to commit to the same conditions in the event of defeat, only not to admit this possibility. André Ventura guarantees in an interview that we publish in this edition that arrives has always been for stability – but stresses that she is not everything. Rui Rocha is said to be available to help the country’s governing stability.
Of course the word has different meanings. For Luís Montenegro and Pedro Nuno Santos, stability means enough votes for an absolute majority, an increasingly less likely scenario in an increasingly fragmented parliament, or for a possible post-election coalition-is what Rui Rocha aims for the liberal initiative: having a result that allows him to enter government with AD. For André Ventura means that the arrival will be part of a solution – but the problem is that in the current PSD leadership no one seems to want anything with him. Hence the stability is not everything to Ventura.
On the other side of the political spectrum stability is also an interesting word, but for other reasons. For Mariana Mortágua is a kind of blackmail, an appeal to the useful vote, soon against the small parties. Rui Tavares, intelligent, subvert the issue to accuse the right to promote instability. Already Paulo Raimundo should not be very concerned about the theme since, regarding the budget he had already proclaimed a « that sand stability ».
The question that matters is just one: If the Portuguese will elect a highly fragmented parliament again-without forgetting the possibility of the current parties to join Madeiran deputy together for the people-how do the two main parties intend to understand to ensure governing stability in the next four years and prevent the country from returning to elections? And to this question, unfortunately, none seems to want to answer. On the contrary. Everything seems to indicate that on 19 May the possibility of understanding of the center will be even harder than a year ago.
After accusing Luis Montenegro of not having a suitability to be a prime minister, how can Pedro Nuno Santos negotiate with him? After announcing that even if it wins the elections, there will be a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the activity and conduct of the PM, an easy way to undermine the credibility of the head of government and keep the executive burning in white heat, how are they expected to understand each other? After listening to Montenegro call him sour, liar and accuse him of not having civic, political or business life to question him, how will the socialist leader sit at the table with the PSD president?
The political confrontation, the discussion of ideas and proposals, scrutiny are healthy and necessary. But when bridges are burned, when political disagreements become personal to the point where political leaders are unable to speak to each other in a civilized way, it is democracy they lose. When the language of the anonymity of social networks contaminates public and political discourse we are making room for hatred and resentment. When those who must be the most responsible are lost in the sea of irresponsibility we are, citizens, those who expect leaders to be able to put the national interest and the common good at the head of personal interests, which we are defeated. And, definitely, this is not how the stability of the country is achieved.
Few political leaders today have the gift of the word. Not in the sense of oratory ability, but in the sense that when they speak, they are heard – really heard. Perhaps this happens because they have not trivialized public interventions or because they are publicly recognized as someone with political and moral authority. Pedro Passos Coelho is one of those people. Each time the former prime minister says something, as obvious as it may be, the country is to discuss and scrutinize his words-to the harm of Luis Montenegro. At PSD’s birthday lunch, it has been enough to tell him, in brief words, that the world lives times of great uncertainty from which the country cannot be alienated and that in addition to stability the next government needs a reformist spirit to mark the campaign. Many others have said the same. But none with so much property and impact. Since he himself remains out of active politics unless he is heard by those who can do something.
