The new republic established by the April Revolution of 1974 was founded on three realities. It has now run its course. Therefore, we are not experiencing a new electoral cycle, which is by definition temporary, but rather the establishment of a new regime.
The Socialist Party (Partido Socialista or PS) fell behind the far right. The Left Bloc and the Portuguese Communist
Party (Partido Comunista Português or PCP) suffered their worst electoral defeats. No one in the center or on the left determines policy, and the immediate consequence of these disasters has been confusion and fear. Therefore, and as expected, a cacophony of score-settling has taken hold: bloody editorials announce the extinction of the left and effusive intermediaries celebrate victory, while the opposition can't agree on what to do, as evidenced by the multiplication of supposed mini-candidates for the presidential elections, starting with those of the Socialist Party (PS), from which three are emerging but represent zero. Against this chaos, I present two theses: that the regime has already changed and that, consequently, the alternative is not (only) to resist.
The 50-year old regime has ended
The new republic established by the April Revolution was based on three realities: the real effects of that inaugural moment, the reconfiguration established by November 251, and a system of alternation between two dominant parties. These pillars gave rise to the compromise enshrined in the 1976 Constitution, and the model was adapted over the next fifty years. It has now run its course. Therefore, we are not experiencing a new electoral cycle, which is by definition temporary, but rather the establishment of a new regime.
The disintegration of the previous compromise responds to a structural change in the relationship of forces. This is the result of the imposition, by the dominant sectors of finance, of a triple guarantee: first, to correct the stagnation of capital accumulation in recent decades through the historic reduction of wages (and, consequently, the precariousness of skilled labour and the promotion of undocumented immigration); second, to guarantee the income backed by political power, upon which the fortunes of the oligarchs depend; and, third, to shield the extravagant inequality, the matrix of this regime, through the intensity of social submission. The turn toward fascism among millionaires and political operatives is its expression, so Trump is not an anecdote; he is the king of the world. The new regime is not an accidental worm, it is the chosen fruit; it is not a coincidence, it is the triumph of a new system of power in which the extreme right becomes the vector of government.
Now, surprisingly, what predominates on the left is a denial of the evidence of this mutation. The left is disarmed by its refusal to see the enemy. Contextualising explanations (that there is social resentment due to the inconsistency of public policies) are multiplying, leading to easy excuses (innocent people do not become fascist) and weak conclusions (it would be enough to correct those material roots of frustration) and, above all, ineffective, since they implore those who caused the crisis of confidence to do the opposite of what they decide. Now, the social crisis is not the result of mistakes; on the contrary, it is the result of the market's success, and the market is insatiable. Therefore, no government of this brutalist regime will correct the collapse of healthcare or housing, but will instead strive to dismantle the National Health Service and raise housing prices, two of the conditions for the accumulation of oligarchic rents.
Forging a people
Amid the rubble of the old regime, some nuggets still shine, such as the constitutional rights that made pension cuts difficult under the Troika (although they did not prevent the market's bazooka attacks on housing or the erosion of democracy). They can support a front-line resistance that, where it can rally the people, will not relinquish any terrain of struggle. However, we must not delude ourselves: hoping for a saving hand from the glories of the past, or looking back as in the legend of Lot's wife (the Bible ignores her name), will only turn us into pillars of salt.
From this concern arise evasive responses presented to us in the current chaos, which deserve attention. One is resignation: the death of alternation has given way to the cynical "three-body theory," which calls on the left to support the Social Democratic Party (Partido Social Democrata or PSD)2 so that it remains pure, without realising that that ship has already sailed and that the only political body that would benefit from the left's void would be Chega3. Another is adaptation through Zelig-type parties that, as in the Woody Allen film, tell each person what they like to hear, hoping that banality will act as a barrier against evil spirits. The third is to renounce the rights of women or the LGBT community because they provoke enemies and must be appeased by accepting just the right amount of machismo. The fourth, even more dangerous, is to howl with the wolves, dehumanising immigrants or supporting genocide, thus fleeing from any politics in which the demand for decency is fundamental. With these options -- and all of them are available to the left-- the left would die.
The alternative depends, I believe, on a new beginning; on two bold moves to create a people. Breathing, first: the only viable left will be outside the Zuckerberg-Musk networks, where adversaries can be blown up—the reactionary relentlessness against Mariana Mortagua [a deputy from the Bloco de Esqueda] is a case in point: a young woman is set up to be lynched for leading a leftist force—and the culture of illusion can be trivialised whilst deifying meritocracy or racial superiority. This algorithmic power of living in a bubble and emotional fascism cannot be defeated on its own ground. And if some guerrillas remain behind enemy lines, there will only be a popular left if it lives by free modes of communication. It is necessary to create a new public space, without the toxicity that degrades us. Only by fleeing the sewer will the people recognise themselves in their communities.
And finally to politics: if the new regime is defined by the class inequality of capital accumulation, supported by rents and the fear of impoverishment, that's where the struggle must be defined. It won't be the old regime's promises of patchwork solutions that will mobilise those who suffer through waiting times at hospitals or those who know they'll only have a home if a family member dies. It would lack credibility and, worse still, it would be renouncing the future. Therefore, uniting only to resist would be accepting defeat step by step, the fate of Lot's wife. It would be renouncing a rising hope. Instead, when the unitary congresses for alternatives declare their opposition to this new regime and outline paths toward a transformative, viable, and coherent social policy, the movement will speak with a strong voice, and we will witness the beginning of the left's offensive to overthrow this new prison. It is in moments of darkness that light is most needed.
23 June 2025
Francisco Louça is a founding member of the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc) in Portugal.
Translated and annotated by David Fagan from vientosur
- 1
The coup of 25 November 1975 was a military movement led by parts of the Portuguese Armed Forces, whose outcome would later lead to the end of the Ongoing Revolutionary Process (PREC) and to a process of stabilisation of representative democracy in Portugal.
- 2
The PSD is the current governing party in Portugal.
- 3
Chega or Enough! is a far right party currently, since the 2025 elections, the second largest party in Portugal’s parliament.