The political system as a functional adversary
The recent presidential elections once again provided a privileged opportunity to observe the nation’s civic psychology. With the electoral cycle concluded, the emotions of the campaign dissipated and the media noise subdued, the country quickly returned to its habitual rhythm, revealing the remarkable stability of political behaviors that appear to span generations with little substantive variation.
Julius Caesar, consul of the Roman Republic and a general of recognized political and military authority, observed in the far reaches of Iberia the existence of a people who neither governed themselves nor allowed themselves to be governed. The passage of time has not diminished the relevance of that observation. On the contrary, a careful examination of contemporary Portuguese public life suggests the persistence of behavioral traits that have withstood time, regimes, and successive elections.
A close observation of the national civic sphere reveals a phenomenon of an almost psychological nature that transcends specific political circumstances. It consists of a persistent inclination toward systematic complaint, accompanied by an equally persistent resistance to meaningful changes in political behavior. Public lament does not emerge merely as an accessory to democratic discourse, but as a recurring mechanism of collective emotional self-regulation.
The protesting citizen finds in verbal criticism of the system a socially legitimized form of catharsis. By voicing dissatisfaction, he or she experiences a momentary sense of lucidity and moral superiority, as though the mere act of pointing out the state’s shortcomings placed the individual in an elevated and intellectually detached position relative to the order being criticized. Yet such criticism rarely translates into consequential action. On the contrary, it is exhausted in the very act of being expressed.
At election time, when coherence would require translating discontent into an effective choice, a curious phenomenon of psychological withdrawal emerges.
Voting tends to reproduce habitual patterns, functioning as a refuge in the predictability of the familiar. Change, though desired in the abstract, is perceived as a concrete threat. Even in presidential elections, often imbued with strong symbolic weight, electoral behavior reveals a preference for secure continuity over assumed risk.
This behavior exposes an internal tension between the abstract desire for change and the concrete fear of the responsibility such change entails. Voting differently requires accepting that any future failure may be attributed to one’s own choice, rather than to a diffuse entity conveniently labeled “the system.” The irony lies in the fact that, by avoiding this risk, the voter preserves the permanent right to complain after the election.
In this way, the political system becomes a functional adversary. It is close enough to serve as the target of everyday criticism, yet abstract enough never to be fully held accountable. The citizen thus establishes a paradoxical relationship with power—simultaneously critical and complicit, hostile and dependent—a relationship renewed with each election, regardless of its outcome.
This cycle is reinforced by a subtle form of historical fatalism, according to which nothing truly changes, even though everything is endlessly commented upon. Such a belief stems less from empirical experience of failed change than from a prior refusal to attempt change in concrete terms. The electoral act, even at the highest institutional level, thus assumes the nature of a repetitive ritual, reassuring precisely because it is innocuous.
A mature democracy requires more than citizens who are eloquent in criticism or temporarily mobilized during electoral periods. It demands individuals capable of enduring the psychological discomfort of coherence, that is, the capacity to align convictions, speech, and action, while accepting the possibility of error as the inevitable price of civic responsibility.
As long as complaint continues to function as a substitute for action, the system will not only survive but will be continually sustained by those who most loudly denounce it after each electoral cycle. The ultimate irony lies in the fact that the citizen who perceives himself or herself as a victim of the system is, in psychological terms, one of its most faithful pillars.
César DePaço
Entrepreneur and Philanthropist
Honorary Consul of Portugal (2014–2020)
Founder and CEO, Summit Nutritionals International Inc.
Founder and Chairman of the Board, DePaço Foundation
Unwavering Defender of Law Enforcement and Conservative Principles