Constitutional monarchy is not, by definition, a throwback. On the contrary, it is a model in which the head of State exercises functions within legal limits, in a system in which effective political power belongs to elected institutions. In several European democracies, the monarch functions as an institutional arbiter and symbol of continuity, separate from party disputes. This separation is an advantage: an unelected but politically neutral head of state can reinforce stability and reduce the personalization of power. Furthermore, succession predictability eliminates electoral disputes for the head of the State, allowing political debate to be concentrated in the government and Parliament.
Implementing the constitutional monarchy in Portugal in a democratic way is currently impossible. Not for lack of arguments, but due to constitutional imposition.
The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic enshrines in article 1 that “Portugal is a sovereign Republic”, symbolically closing the door to any alternative. More than that, article 288, paragraph b), prevents revisions that alter the “republican form of government”, transforming a political option into an untouchable clause. In other words: the Constitution not only defines the regime, it shields it against the popular will.
In a system that claims to be democratic, this rigidity raises an obvious contradiction. Even recourse to the referendum is conditional. Article 115 excludes matters that involve constitutional review, which, in practice, prevents citizens from being consulted about the form of the State itself. Thus, the people can have a say in almost everything, except the regime in which they live.
Whether constitutional monarchy can offer advantages such as institutional stability, neutrality of the head of state and clearer separation between state and government, this should be a matter of free debate, not legal interdiction.
When there is so much talk about revising the Constitution, taking this issue seriously requires courage: reviewing article 1, eliminating the rigid definition of the regime; amend article 288 to remove the absolute character of the republican form; and reformulate article 115, allowing referenda on structural issues.
This is not about defending the monarchy. It is about questioning a more fundamental principle: can a democracy prevent its citizens from choosing their own regime? If the answer is “yes”, then the problem is not the monarchy, it is Portuguese democracy itself.
Taking this debate seriously requires, first of all, a constitutional review that eliminates or relaxes this material limit. Not to impose change, but to allow choice.
A mature democracy is not afraid of structural questions, it institutionalizes them. Discussing the monarchy is not returning to the past. It is to test the coherence of the democratic present.
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement
Leave a Reply