Portugal, a tiny country in Southern Europe where I come from, is routinely mistaken for belonging to Spain or for resembling a place where Harry Potter could have been filmed. However, its political status quo has never been peaceful or fun-sized, especially in recent years. Many of you may not know that three legislative elections have been conducted here since 2019, with a fourth due this year. None of the governments has endured for a complete term since then, falling due to internal disputes, corruption scandals and political deadlock.

The latest crisis took place when Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who had been in office since April 2024, was defeated in a vote of confidence on March 11th, after two motions of censure had narrowly survived. He lost his mandate on charges of ethical scandal and conflict of interest. With another government disintegrating, Portugal is again ready for legislative elections, continuing its pattern of political instability. In fact, the last government to collapse in 2024 was led by António Costa, who now is President of the European Council.

The Controversy Over the New Land Law

Montenegro’s withdrawal is attributed to ratifying a new Land Law for the reform of land-use legislation in an attempt to develop real estate and urban planning. The legislation, however, became contentious when it was established that Montenegro’s law consultancy firm, Spinumviva, had ongoing contracts with private firms like the casino group Solverde. The opposition and the media argued that this was a serious issue since his company’s clients would stand to benefit from enforcement of the law. Despite his attempts to make a defense, the backlash extended. Conflict of interest charges resonated louder and his stand with his government dwindled. We should note that before a vote of confidence was presented by the government, two motions of censure were tabled.

A vote or motion of confidence is moved by the government itself in an attempt to win parliamentary approval. If the confidence vote is rejected, the government is forced to step down. Alternatively, a vote or motion of censure is a parliamentary tool which allows Members of Parliament to disapprove of what the government does. It is used to object against the government’s program or its performance.

The first motion of censure was introduced by Chega, a far-right party, but was rejected, with only the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) abstaining. A second motion was later presented by PCP, which gained support from left-wing parties, while Chega and the Socialist Party (PS), the main opposition, abstained. Many argued that if they truly wanted to bring down the government, they would have put ideological differences aside and united in the first vote. However, political strategy took precedence over immediate action. Instead of supporting the censure motions, PS pushed for a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the prime minister. Under Portuguese law, failing to comply with an inquiry by refusing to testify or withholding documents constitutes a crime of qualified disobedience. However, the commission announced by the PS was potestative, meaning Montenegro had the option to refuse participation as of March 10th. In what seems an attempt to avoid the inquiry, the government preemptively called for a vote of confidence the next day. This move backfired, as the controversy surrounding the prime minister had already eroded political support. When the government finally presented the confidence vote in the Assembly, it failed, leading to its collapse.

Three Elections in One Year

Due to this political crisis, Portugal is now preparing itself for an historic electoral year. In May 18th, parliamentary elections will take place to approve a new government. Later in the year, local elections for 308 municipalities and over 3,000 parishes will occur. One of our islands, Madeira, will also have its regional elections. In the meantime, preparations are already taking place for the 2026 presidential election.

Portugal has a semi-presidential system, where president and head of government are two separate positions. The current president, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, completes his second and final term in 2026, so a new head of state will need to be elected. Under Article 172 of the Portuguese Constitution, the president loses the power to dissolve parliament in the final half-year of a presidential term. This means that after October 2025, no elections for parliament can be called, regardless of any crisis or political impasse. With so many elections within such a short period, a major worry is voter turnout.

In 2024, Portugal witnessed one of the highest voter turnout in decades when almost 60% of the voters cast their votes in the legislative elections. Although this would appear to be a good percentage, Portugal has been struggling with high abstention in recent decades, and fatigue at the polls might deter even more individuals from casting their ballots. The test will be engaging citizens who are interested when political uncertainty has made voting feel more and more redundant and, for some, even unnecessary.

How Does a Semi-Presidential System Work?

For those curious about how various political systems function, Portugal’s semi-presidential system poses an interesting question: how does it differ from other nations with similar arrangements? Although Portugal has some similarities with France, its system works quite differently. And when compared with Canada’s parliamentary system, the contrasts are all the more obvious, particularly regarding managing political crises and leadership succession. An investigation of these differences serves to deepen our understanding of why Portugal suffers so many government collapses and other countries transition more easily.

As I mentioned before, Portugal has a semi-presidential political system under which the executive is shared between the president and the prime minister. The president, elected independently of parliament, has some executive power, such as the power to dissolve parliament and schedule elections. However, the prime minister is responsible for administration on a daily basis and must maintain the confidence of parliament. If a prime minister resigns or is removed from office, the entire government collapses, leading either to new government formation or to elections.

This discontinuity often creates political turmoil, particularly vis-a-vis purely parliamentary setups such as those in Canada. When a Canadian prime minister leaves office, for instance, the party can readily install a replacement, and there is no governmental interruption. One witnessed this clearly earlier this year when Justin Trudeau publicly announced he was stepping down after years of sliding popularity numbers and party inner circles demanding changes. While it was possible for the Liberal Party to have a seamless change of leadership without destabilizing the government, instead of forcing an election, it is not possible in Portugal. When the prime minister leaves, the entire government falls with him.

France has the same semi-presidential system of government. However, the French system is more towards the presidential side, while the Portuguese is closer to a parliamentary system. The French president has immense executive authority, as it can directly appoint the prime minister and is also responsible for making policies. While officially being the head of the government, the president can in some cases advance policies directly. In Portugal, the president is more like a moderation, a fourth different power. They do appoint the prime minister, but the government’s survival is largely dependent on parliament. The president is able to dissolve parliament in a crisis but has no control over government policy.

Another crucial distinction is how the two countries handle cohabitation, i.e. when the president and prime minister belong to opposing parties. In France, cohabitation can lead to political deadlock, as the president and prime minister often clash over policy direction. In Portugal, cohabitation is also a source of tension, but since the government’s survival is more directly tied to parliament, the president’s influence is more limited. Historical examples show that cohabitation in Portugal has varied in intensity. The 1983-85 period saw open hostility between President Mário Soares (PS) and Prime Minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva (PSD). In contrast, the recent cohabitation between António Costa (PS) and Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (PSD) was much smoother, proving that not all political rivalries lead to dysfunction.

Voter turnout at the European Parliament elections

With Portugal now moving into another round of national elections, one of my reliefs is that the European elections were conducted a year ago. If they had been scheduled for this madness of a year, voter fatigue would have been inevitable. Although they happened during relatively normal times, I believe they were nonetheless underestimated by everyone, as ever.

Portugal has always had poor turnout in European Parliament elections. In 2019, just 30.7% of those eligible to vote did so, one of the lowest rates in the EU. This is concerning because much of the legislation that determines Portuguese laws are not made exclusively in Lisbon, but in European institutions. Legislation covering everything from environmental policy to consumer protection tends to come from the European level, from directives, regulations and decisions, before being applied domestically.

Yet, European elections rarely receive the attention they are due. Most voters regard them as a secondary choice and vote on their national party ticket without seriously considering how those parties fit into greater European political groups. This can lead to shock when Portuguese parties create broader European coalitions that may not accurately reflect the attitudes of their compatriots at home.

The European Parliament is the only directly elected EU institution, and it thus has a fundamental role to play in legislating matters which influence day-to-day life. The issue, however, is that if few people vote, the decisions are, in reality, being taken by a minority, and therefore, there is no linkage between the electors and the policies affecting them.

Conclusion

With so many elections as there are in Portugal this year, no wonder voters would feel restless. And that’s exactly why, in a sense, I mentioned it’s convenient that the European elections are not contributing to the confusion. But that “convenience” should not lead to complacency. The low turnout in past European elections suggests that most Portuguese voters do not put much value on them, though EU legislation has a direct impact on significant national policies.

Portugal’s fragile political stability demonstrates how weak the national government can be. However, unlike fragile national governments that often fall, the European Union offers some consistency and policies that endure beyond political volatility at home. Selecting members to the European Parliament should not merely be a matter of party affiliation, but rather because it affects Portugal’s economy and infrastructure for decades to come.

If anything can be learnt from Portugal’s political history, it’s that elections, national or European, must never be underestimated. Voter disillusionment only makes the gap between citizens and the policies that rule them wider.