The idle talk about Passos's replacement is totally futile.
The PSD does not have anyone better for his position
as leader of the current opposition,
nor does it have a better strategy to face the current government.
That shouldn't be the case?
But that's how it is.
It seems that Passos Coelho causes a lot of embarrassment
to the Portuguese oligarchy.
The oligarchs were uneasy about him as prime minister,
and now they find it strange to see him as leader of the opposition.
As prime minister,
Passos had to execute the international adjustment/bail-out programme,
negotiated by the Socialist Party,
when Portugal faced an imminent bankruptcy.
Everyone bet that Passo Coelho would NOT be able
to stick to the programme. But he did!
He won the general elections without a clear majority,
but the fact is that he WON!
Now in the position of opposition leader,
outside the government,
he continues to lead the PSD party.
The situation of Passos is thus singular.
In forty years of democracy,
only another politician remained in front of the party
after leaving the government: Mário Soares, in 1978.
Soares in 1978 and Passos in 2015 have this in common:
his leadership did not end having "lost" the elections
as Santana, in 2005 or Socrates, in 2011)
or for having "given up", or abdicated (like all the others).
Soares was overthrown by the president,
and Passos by an extraordinary radical parliamentary maneuver.
That is to say, his "rivals" can not claim
an argument of failure against Passos,
as they did not have against Soares,
because Passos, is, after all,
the leader of the largest party
of the Assembly of the Republic.
The conversation about Passos' replacement is,
therefore, totally idle.
The PSD has no one better, nor any better strategy.
Who are his successors that are hidden somewhere in the dark?
Some would never even dare, others have already lost.
And what is the alternative policy?
Inaugurating nationalist populism in Portugal?
Or to replace the communists or the radical BE
in the role of Antonio Costa's parliamentary squires?
Shouldn't it be like that?
In a party like the PSD there must be more people,
and in a country like Portugal shouldn't there be more options?
Perhaps. But that's how it is.
The issue that should concern us, however, is none of these,
but only this one: Was Passos Coelho right?
Passos Coelho was right once, against everyone.
It was between 2011 and 2015.
Passos was convinced that it was an urgent issue
to regain the external credibility of Portugal,
so as to ensure the financing of the State and the Portuguese economy.
At times, like in July 2013,
he seemed to have been almost the only one to think that it was possible.
He held on, he did not give up.
It is no exaggeration to say that without Passos Coelho,
there would have been a second bail-out.
Finally, international exports increased, unemployment declined,
and then it became possible to reverse the temporary "cuts"
in salaries and pensions.
Passos was right again.
At the moment,
Passos is convinced that this "geringonça" concoction of a government,
with its parliamentary majority, does not serve Portugal any good.
It is a government that works only for European statistics,
because it is increasingly dependent on the ECB's money
to balance the deficit and to obtain more international debt,
but it is not a government that can empower the Portuguese workers
and entrepreneurs to compete on global markets.
Workers and investors in Portugal are limited by the burden
of generating enormous incomes for certain financial groups and corporations.
To reform the State, would be to mitigate this burden.
But the socialist-marxist-leninist-government
has made these groups and corporations their base of support.
Passos seems to admit that Costa's clientele policy
may postpone a switch of power,
but he does not believe that it will prevent the creditors from taking a closer look,
as soon as the ECB cuts down on or even cancels its financial assistance to Portugal,
at the bad side of Portugal,
as one of the countries whose economy has grown less
and its debt has increased most in the 21st century.
Is Passos Coelho right again??
We can discuss Passos's leadership,
regret certain mannerisms, expect other interventions.
Should Passos be more "eloquent" and more "visionary"?
Perhaps.
Should he be more "skilful" and more "affectionate",
as the oligarchy now seems to like so much?
Most likely.
But under the present conditions, the question is simpler:
Is Passos Coelho is right, or wrong?
Is this the government
and are these the most appropriate policies
to carry out the presidential mandate of more "economic growth"?
Everything else is oligarchic futility.
A free transcript of an opinion article by Rui Ramos in the "Observador"
No comments:
Post a Comment