The difference between countries governed by a socialist left-wing vision and those inspired by conservative right-wing principles is not measured only by the words of their leaders, by electoral promises, or by party platforms. It is measured, above all, by concrete results: liberty, security, prosperity, respect for private property, trust in institutions, wealth creation, individual responsibility, national dignity, and, above all, respect for the Rule of Law.
The socialist left almost always presents itself with seductive language. It speaks of equality, of social justice, of protection, of rights, of redistribution, and of solidarity. Yet in practice, it too often begins by promising justice and ends by producing dependency. It promises equality and delivers shared poverty. It promises protection and creates bureaucracy. It promises rights and forgets duties. It promises to distribute wealth, but rarely explains how it intends to create it.
The conservative right, by contrast, starts from a more serious, more demanding, and, for that very reason, more honest vision of society. It does not promise the citizen a life without effort, without risk, or without sacrifice. It recognizes that liberty demands responsibility, that rights survive only when accompanied by duties, that prosperity is born of work, that legitimate authority must be respected, and that no Nation is built on envy, resentment, or permanent dependence on the State.
For conservatives, the Rule of Law is not a decorative expression. It is the cornerstone of a civilized society. It means that the law must stand above rulers, parties, ideologies, street pressure, and occasional interests. It means that all must be equal before the law, that private property must be protected, that contracts must be honored, that justice must be independent, that legitimate authority must be defended, and that liberty is only true when order exists.
Cuba has stood for decades as one of the clearest examples of socialist failure. For years it was presented by many left-wing intellectuals as a model of social justice. Yet the real result was a closed economy, persistent scarcity, absence of full political freedom, restriction of private property, and a society in which the State decides too much and the citizen obeys too much. The rhetoric promised liberation. The reality delivered control.
Venezuela followed a similar path. A country endowed with immense natural wealth, particularly oil, was led by socialist, statist, and populist policies into a deep economic, social, and institutional crisis. In the name of the people, the currency was destroyed. In the name of social justice, trust was ruined. In the name of equality, poverty was multiplied. Millions of Venezuelans were forced to abandon their homeland, not for lack of natural resources, but from an excess of ideology, from disregard for the free economy, and from the progressive erosion of the Rule of Law.
Nicaragua offers another troubling example. In the name of a revolution presented as liberating, an increasingly closed, less plural, and less rights-respecting regime has consolidated itself. The socialist promise, once again, ended in the concentration of power.
Argentina, before its recent political turn, is also a case worthy of reflection. For years, populist, interventionist, fiscally irresponsible, and privately hostile policies destroyed much of the potential of a country that once ranked among the most prosperous in the world. Inflation, monetary instability, excessive public spending, the weight of the State, and investor distrust became the hallmarks of a model that promised protection but produced fragility.
In North America, too, we find an instructive comparison: the United States of America and Canada.
The United States, despite its imperfections and internal divisions, continues to represent a political tradition closer to the conservative right: individual liberty, entrepreneurial spirit, private property, patriotism, defense of legitimate authority, respect for law enforcement, the value of merit, trust in the family, attachment to the Constitution, and respect for the Rule of Law. America grew because it first believed in the individual and only then in public administration. It grew because it valued risk, enterprise, legitimate ambition, work, personal independence, and the idea that the law must protect the free citizen, not serve as a tool to control him.
Canada, on the other hand, has in recent decades followed a line ever closer to the progressive and social-democratic left: more State, more taxes, more regulation, more dependence on public programs, and a political vision often more concerned with social engineering than with economic freedom. It is, of course, a respectable democracy, but it is also an example of how a wealthy society can slowly accept greater state tutelage in exchange for the permanent promise of protection.
The cultural difference between the two is clear. In the United States, the citizen tends to ask: "What can I build?" In Canada, the question increasingly heard is: "What can the State provide?" This difference is not small. It is decisive. A society that trusts the citizen creates energy, initiative, and prosperity. A society that accustoms the citizen to the tutelage of the State creates dependence, conformism, and fear of taking risks.
On the other side of the world, Singapore demonstrates what discipline, order, economic openness, the fight against corruption, and institutional seriousness can achieve. Small in territory but great in strategic vision, Singapore did not become prosperous by attacking capital, persecuting entrepreneurs, or fueling rhetoric against merit. It became prosperous because it understood that wealth is not born of decrees, but of work, education, security, clear rules, commerce, responsibility, and rigorous enforcement of the law.
Switzerland is another notable example. Its stability rests on respect for private property, fiscal responsibility, federalism, legal security, savings, sobriety, and a civic culture that values the word given. It is not a perfect country, since no country is, but it demonstrates that free, organized, and responsible societies can achieve prosperity without needing to suffocate the citizen with an omnipresent State.
Ireland, in turn, shows the value of policies favorable to investment, tax competitiveness, openness to the world, and entrepreneurial initiative. For decades, it ceased to be seen as a peripheral economy and became an attractive hub for companies, technology, innovation, and talent. Its secret was not to distrust those who invest, nor to punish those who create wealth. It was, precisely, to create the conditions for that wealth to be produced.
Australia and Taiwan confirm the same lesson. Societies that respect the law, value private property, protect security, encourage education, defend economic freedom, and cultivate merit tend to form more independent citizens, stronger companies, and more sustainable States.
Portugal must observe these examples with humility and a sense of responsibility. For too many years, we have grown accustomed to accepting high taxes, excessive bureaucracy, administrative slowness, dependence on the State, and a certain suspicion toward those who invest, work, take risks, and create jobs. Instead of celebrating those who produce, we too often prefer to envy them. Instead of making the creation of wealth easier, we complicate it. Instead of rewarding merit, we tolerate mediocrity.
Now, a Nation that punishes those who work, those who save, those who invest, and those who create jobs cannot then be surprised by the flight of talent, economic stagnation, or permanent dependence on the State. There is no true progress when success is treated as guilt and dependence as virtue.
This is perhaps the great difference between the socialist left and the conservative right. The left asks: "What can the State do for you?" The right asks: "What can the citizen build if the State stops suffocating him?"
The socialist left tends to distrust the entrepreneur. The conservative right recognizes that without entrepreneurs there are no jobs, no salaries, no innovation, no taxes, and no future. The left speaks of redistribution. The right recalls that, before distributing wealth, it must first be created. The left speaks incessantly of rights. The right insists that rights without duties end up destroying the very society that sustains them.
The left promises protection through the State. The right defends liberty with responsibility. The left speaks of equality of outcomes. The right defends equality before the law and opportunity for those who work. The left values collective dependence. The right values the independence of the citizen, of the family, of the enterprise, and of the community.
It is important, however, to clarify one thing: the conservative right does not defend an absent, indifferent, or weak State. On the contrary, it defends a strong State where it must be strong: in security, in justice, in national defense, in the protection of property, in the fight against corruption, in border control, in law enforcement, and in guaranteeing public order. What it rejects is the bloated, intrusive, bureaucratic, and paternalistic State, which treats adults as minors and companies as suspects.
A serious State protects citizens from criminals, not from responsibilities. It guarantees justice; it does not replace conscience. It defends borders; it does not dissolve national identity. It supports the vulnerable, but does not turn dependence into a way of life. It respects the family, rather than replacing it. It respects private property, rather than looking upon it with ideological resentment. It respects the law, rather than manipulating it according to the political convenience of the moment.
That is why conservative thought holds the Rule of Law as one of its foundational pillars.
Without law, there is no liberty. Without order, there is no security. Without security, there is no investment. Without investment, there is no employment. Without employment, there is no economic dignity. And without economic dignity, liberty becomes a fine word, but an empty one.
The countries that prosper are almost always those that respect liberty, reward merit, protect property, punish corruption, defend legitimate authority, value the family, respect the Rule of Law, and understand that wealth is not born of speeches, but of work, savings, investment, trust, and the word given.
Socialist countries often promise paradise in the name of equality. Conservative countries prefer to build prosperity through liberty, order, responsibility, and the law.
Between the promise and the result, I choose the result.
Between dependence and responsibility, I choose responsibility.
Between the State that controls and the Nation that trusts its citizens, I choose the Nation.
Because a truly free society is not built with envy, dependence, bureaucracy, and control. It is built with work, merit, security, family, private property, respect for the law, moral authority, the Rule of Law, and the word given.
César DePaço
Businessman and Philanthropist
Consul ad honorem of Portugal from 2014 to 2020
Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Summit Nutritionals International Inc.®
Founder and Chairman of the Board of The DePaço Foundation
Unwavering Defender of Law Enforcement and Conservative Principles