Insurance: Between Institution and Character

In all mature democracies, the role of the Head of State is simultaneously symbolic and operational, being the point of convergence between legitimacy and ethics, between the State and the citizenry. In the Portuguese case, the Constitution enshrines a unique semi-presidential model, which makes the President of the Republic not only an arbiter of institutions, but an active guarantor of the regular functioning of democracy. This function, however, has been, over the last few years, either reduced to a decorative role or distorted by excessive opinionated intervention. And it is precisely in this imbalance that one of the weaknesses of our political system lies.

The vitality of democracies depends on the existence of institutional checks and balances, but also on figures of reference who know how to exercise authority without hegemony, and presence without protagonism. The President of the Portuguese Republic should not seek to govern, but to influence; not to legislate, but to frame; not to execute, but to arbitrate. His strength should be the strength of his word, of the right time, and of republican prudence. However, in recent decades, this role has been weakened by two antagonistic vices: the trivialization of the presidential word and political omission disguised as neutrality.

In recent years, we have witnessed, on too many occasions, the transformation of the President of the Republic into an institutional commentator. Constant media exposure, the dilution of silence or strategic pronouncements, and the attempt to occupy the Government's space in political, and even social, matters have contributed to eroding the authority of the office. Instead of an arbiter, the President of the Republic has constantly tried to become part of the game; and instead of a magistracy of influence, a strange and inappropriate magistracy of opinion has been established. To that extent, the President's word has ceased to carry weight, because it now echoes daily, without reservation, without gravity, and without political substance.

Paradoxically, when the country began to face moments of institutional tension or ethical and governmental degradation, the same voice that once prevailed became hesitant. The omission in the face of the crisis of public confidence, the complacency with practices that distorted governance – and which clearly altered the political landscape in Portugal based on opacity and emptiness – and the silence in the face of signs of collusion between politics and private interests, revealed a worrying deviation. The President of the Republic, in the name of supposed stability, has preferred passivity and complacency to demanding accountability, forgetting the role of balance between transparency, responsibility, and moral authority.

Indeed, Portugal is currently experiencing a time when democracy is showing signs of fatigue, and the discrediting of politics threatens to transform into civic disillusionment. Populism thrives where the State retreats and where institutions seem powerless or complicit. Therefore, more than ever, the country needs a President who can restore confidence and a sense of collective responsibility. A President who, without being part of the government, ensures that the government does not override the Republic. A President who is not afraid to exercise their moderating power, nor abdicate from being a mirror of public ethics.

In my view, the presidential role therefore demands three paramount virtues: independence, decency, and prudence. i) Independence, to remain equidistant from partisan interests and tactical calculations that sometimes undermine the credibility and independence of institutions; ii) Decency, because moral example is the first political act of any head of state; and iii) Prudence, because the presidential word is a strategic reserve and not a banal instrument of daily life. It is on this tripartite basis that the authority of the Republic rests, and it is precisely on this that we have failed.

It is in this context that António José Seguro's candidacy acquires, in my view, a unique relevance. Seguro represents a lost idea of ​​the State: that politics is service, not a career; that the exercise of power must be subordinated to decency and truth; and that loyalty to democracy is measured more by ethics than by convenience and media presence.

António José Seguro has a clean but experienced biography, as well as a measured way of speaking – something that is rare today given the national political paradigm. He was loyal in difficult times, rejected easy populism, and remained faithful to a humanist vision of politics, even when opportunism would have been more profitable – after having confronted it. Unlike so many others, he did not need media reinventions to occupy or return to the public sphere, having been satisfied with the silent respect he earned from citizens and the credibility he built outside the spotlight or in academia.

His candidacy is not merely that of a man, but of an ideal, namely that the President of the Republic should be the guarantor of patriotism, balance, common sense, and transparency, as well as the promoter of inter-party dialogue and the guardian of social cohesion. In an era where tension and political tribalism have replaced the debate of ideas, António José Seguro symbolizes the possibility of a return to moderation as a transformative force. Not a vision of pursuing fear, populism, and division, but one of balance and civic courage.

Portugal needs a President who restores dignity to words and sobriety to politics, and who knows how to distinguish the essential from the ephemeral, the public interest from partisan maneuvering, the exercise of authority from the abuse of influence. A President who unites without diluting, who intervenes without dominating, and who symbolizes and honors the Republic through constructive and institutional dialogue.

It is in this sense that what is at stake in the upcoming presidential elections is not merely a personal choice, but a choice of regime, namely between i) the continuity of a presidential style that has become devoid of institutional depth and dignity; ii) the emergence of populist presidential styles or those guided by reactionary values; and iii) the rebirth of a presidential magistracy that inspires confidence, balance, and responsibility in a country in moral and political decline. António José Seguro, therefore, embodies the only choice that will allow for the reconciliation of ethics and decency with politics, and the possibility of once again making the office of President of the Republic the moral and guiding heart of Portuguese democracy.