In April 2026, the Federal Constitution completes 50 years of validity. It is a good opportunity, without easy triumphalism or useless nostalgia, to understand what it means to have a Constitution. And why does it always have to be better than we are individually?
The 1976 Constitution was born at a time of exception. The country was emerging from 50 years of dictatorship and a Colonial War that exhausted it. And the constituents made fundamental choices: they opted for a pluralistic democracy, based on the separation of powers and the protection of fundamental rights. They chose a democracy of solidarity, of free and equal citizens, with institutions that monitor each other and that no single power can capture. They chose an independent but accountable justice system. They chose that Health or Education should be universal.
But this choice is not irreversible.
The Constitution has been revised several times in five decades, as predicted. A democratic constitution is not a sacred relic, it is a living document, which can and should be updated as society evolves.
The problem begins when you want to change it not to improve it, but to circumvent it. The populist discourses of our time have in common the temptation to create differentiated citizenship statuses: those who deserve more rights and those who deserve less; those who belong and those who are tolerated. When this discourse gains sufficient strength, the risk is to convert the Rule of Law into a formal patchwork, with citizens encapsulated in categories, each with its own regime, its status – and, inevitably, its resentments.
The Constitution exists precisely to resist this impulse. Not because its drafters were infallible wise men, but because they understood that certain principles – the dignity and protection of the human person, equality before the law, the guarantee of access to justice – cannot depend on the result of each election.
They are the common ground on which all democratic politics is practiced. When this floor begins to be excavated, in the name of any urgency of the moment, the entire building is at risk. Whether in the name of a structurally unfair meritocracy, or in the name of collective fears created to better serve singular powers, or even in the name of the idolatry of the market and consumption.
Fifty years later, Portugal has its serious problems and persistent injustices. But it also has a consolidated democracy and guaranteed rights that previously simply did not exist. That’s no small feat. In fact, you only need to look around to realize how fragile and rare it is.
The best tribute to this Constitution is not to celebrate it uncritically. It’s understanding why she has to continue being better than we are. More demanding and more equitable than any passing majority would be tempted to be. And always better than any of us would be individually, isolated in our vanities and in the personal injustices perceived as such. Not to facilitate the exercise of power, but to limit it. Not to reflect the prejudices of each era, but to protect us from them.
Leave a Reply