The main cause pointed to the emergence of populism, and to the divorce between voters and the system, is the alienation that some of the installed political class has revealed when it comes to matters that require the involvement and participation of all.
It is no longer sustainable for political parties to go out on the street in search of the popular vote every four years, and ostensibly turn their backs on those same voters in the inter-election period. Worse, that they consider that the people who entrusted them with the vote will not be able to decide the big questions that directly interfere with the fundamental themes of their life.
The behavior of a significant part of our political class in the face of euthanasia, or death on request, is a paradigmatic example of this. Without shame, or a hint of dignity, the militants of fracturing causes want to impose death upon request on the country, without being invested with the indispensable political mandate.
Only PAN and BE endorsed euthanasia in their electoral programs, meaning that 80% of voters did not take this issue into account when voting, and that, given the fundamental importance of the issue, none of the other parties are politically legitimate to decide on this matter , unless, giving the floor to the people.
With evident authoritarianism, a conjunctural majority not mandated or democratically legitimated in this matter, decided to obstinately move forward with the legislative process to legalize death upon request.
The bills, now brought together in a single version, were all rejected by the overwhelming majority of experts heard in hearing by the Assembly of the Republic, including the Order of Doctors, through all living Chairmans, the Bar Association, the Order of Nurses and , extremely important, the National Ethics Committee for Life Sciences. Also 15 full professors of Public Law considered that this measure was unconstitutional!
In addition, there is an open and clear opposition from very important organizations in the social and health sector, which are the mainstay of what we know as a social state, such as the National Palliative Care Association, the União das Misericórdias Portuguesa, Caritas, and the largest social health groups. and private.
At the very least, a questionable process. An inexplicable rush to impose a deeply impacting law, without the necessary social consensus. The use of human essence to sponsor divisionism and the fracture. Everything absolutely pitiful. Everything to shame the institutions, due to the work of those who reveal that they are not up to their standards.
Meanwhile, society reacted and made itself heard. The petition of the Portuguese who demand a referendum on euthanasia is the strongest since there is memory. In record time, more than 95.000 Portuguese people made a point of reminding the political power that, not only did they not mandate him to legislate on death on request, but they also insist on having a say directly on this fundamental issue in their lives.
Do institutions now have sufficient credibility to turn their backs on almost 100.000 Portuguese people who made a point of expressing their will? Is refusing the floor to the People a good service to Democracy? What, after all, will the death campaigners be afraid of? Why the hurried schedule for tomorrow, in the middle of a pandemic peak, and the generalized crisis of this very important matter, after its promoters have guaranteed that there would be no rush?
Populisms, the promotion of ideas of a totalitarian nature, the violent polarization of society, do not appear by spontaneous generation; they are always a response to a system problem and taking advantage of an opportunity created by the establishment. As a rule, they arise when the deterioration of the bond of trust between voters and elected officials is decomposing.
In democracy, it is not the people's fault, it is those who do not know how to interpret their will, revealing that they are not up to their trust. Tomorrow, October 23, 2020, is a fundamental day for Democracy, the power of the People, for the People and for the People. We will see who is up to his responsibilities.
The author writes according to the old spelling.