Very good, thorough explanation. I do read the footnotes (but then, I'm a recovering academic). I think one potential headline for this is, "Watch out, a new government could decide to rewrite the constitution."
This is the best description, not just of the Portuguese political system but of the history behind it, that I’ve seen anywhere. Originally coming from the US with its two party system, the multiple parties here came as a (very positive) shock. I was first here in 1976, during the first free elections to the Assembleia— there were something like 30 parties on the ballot, ranging from the Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyites on the left to the Monarchists on the right. An amazing and hopeful time.
I might be coming into this post a bit late, but I do want to say I’ve cleared up a bunch of general questions and doubts about this whole political system. While this may not be particularly peculiar for people who grew up with it, I was genuinely lost when it came to the PM/president duality.
From the outside, that overlap can feel less like a clean constitutional design and more like potential skullduggery, especially when you’re unfamiliar with the historical context and informal norms that keep it functioning.
I know because I went down a long rabbit hole when reading the constitution.
Article 136 (Enactment and veto)
1. Within a time limit of twenty days counting from the receipt of any decree of the Assembleia da República for enactment as a law, or of the publication of the decision in which the Constitutional Court refrains from pronouncing the unconstitutionality of any norm contained therein, the President of the Republic must enact the decree, or exercise the right of veto and send a message setting out the grounds for doing so and requesting that the legislative act be reconsidered.
2. If the Assembleia da República confirms its vote by an absolute majority of all the Members of the Assembleia da República in full exercise of their office, the President of the Republic must enact the legislative act within a time limit of eight days counting from its receipt.
3. However, a majority that is at least equal to two thirds of all Members present and is greater than an absolute majority of all the Members in full exercise of their office is required to confirm decrees that take the form of organic laws, as well as to confirm those concerning the following matters:
a) External relations;
b) Boundaries between the public, private and cooperative and social sectors of ownership of the means of production;
c) Any regulation of the electoral acts provided for in the Constitution that does not take the form of an organic law.
4. Within a time limit of forty days counting from the receipt of any Government decree for enactment, or of the publication of the decision in which the Constitutional Court refrains from pronouncing the unconstitutionality of any norm contained therein, the President of the Republic shall enact the decree, or exercise his right of veto and inform the Government in writing of the reasons for doing so.
5. The President of the Republic shall also exercise the right of veto pursuant to Articles 278 and 279.
If this isn't deep enough in the weeds for you then I'll ask ... what is an "organic law" (3)? And how does one define "external relations" 3(a)? And what in the world do 3(b) and 3(c) even mean? And, of course, this requires reading and understanding Articles 278 and 279. Which I could go on about but ... you get the idea.
I read all footnotes. (And I appreciate how accessible they are on this digital platform. The tendency to go to “endnotes” in printed volumes is infuriating.) I do think that some of these would be better placed in parentheses in the text.
No skullduggery needed from you; you prompted the idea of the FRC in the first place. And thanks for the clarification on the Articles of Confederation. Really interesting.
Thanks, I really enjoyed this piece. I wasn't totally uninformed about the government or the immediate aftermath of the revolution but this piece really brought it all together. And yes, I read the footnotes too and probably the packaging and the back of the cornflakes packet. I even rfm!
Well done. Portugal has a lot of history within my lifetime that you’ve summarized nicely. I have always had a soft spot for small countries that surprise everyone with their success, but think it’s worth a reminder that anything can happen. Voters make bad choices all the time. Is 50 years enough of a bedrock to keep Portugal as we know and love it basically intact?
I do read footnotes, comments and side notes (even in other kinds of posts)! Often they're the juiciest part. And for native speakers of languages of Latin origin (like me), these "difficult words" ("promulgate", and so on...) are a delight.
Scott -- Muita obrigada for the excellent, and understandable, history lesson. I like how you promulgated this information on all the skullduggery of the past.
Very good, thorough explanation. I do read the footnotes (but then, I'm a recovering academic). I think one potential headline for this is, "Watch out, a new government could decide to rewrite the constitution."
Yeah that's something I'm trying o figure out how to work into my next post, actually. And welcome to the FRC.
This is the best description, not just of the Portuguese political system but of the history behind it, that I’ve seen anywhere. Originally coming from the US with its two party system, the multiple parties here came as a (very positive) shock. I was first here in 1976, during the first free elections to the Assembleia— there were something like 30 parties on the ballot, ranging from the Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyites on the left to the Monarchists on the right. An amazing and hopeful time.
Gosh, thanks! And what a time to be in Portugal! Shaping the future of a nation.
Wow, politics can be a complex mess of skullduggery - thanks for the history lesson and explanations.
A fun aside: I looked up synonyms of skullduggery and found jiggery-pokery - I've never heard that fun phrase before.
Welcome to the FRC, Keri! And I love jiggery-pokery. Wow. Amazing.
I promulgate skullduggery! 😉
Love it! The FRC is proud to have you!
I might be coming into this post a bit late, but I do want to say I’ve cleared up a bunch of general questions and doubts about this whole political system. While this may not be particularly peculiar for people who grew up with it, I was genuinely lost when it came to the PM/president duality.
From the outside, that overlap can feel less like a clean constitutional design and more like potential skullduggery, especially when you’re unfamiliar with the historical context and informal norms that keep it functioning.
Thanks for the research and explanation!
First, thanks for reading and commenting! Second, welcome to the FRC. And third, I'm glad you found this helpful!
Aside from the promulgation of skullduggery, yes, i would like to know how you know (vetos)
Heh. Good eye.
I know because I went down a long rabbit hole when reading the constitution.
Article 136 (Enactment and veto)
1. Within a time limit of twenty days counting from the receipt of any decree of the Assembleia da República for enactment as a law, or of the publication of the decision in which the Constitutional Court refrains from pronouncing the unconstitutionality of any norm contained therein, the President of the Republic must enact the decree, or exercise the right of veto and send a message setting out the grounds for doing so and requesting that the legislative act be reconsidered.
2. If the Assembleia da República confirms its vote by an absolute majority of all the Members of the Assembleia da República in full exercise of their office, the President of the Republic must enact the legislative act within a time limit of eight days counting from its receipt.
3. However, a majority that is at least equal to two thirds of all Members present and is greater than an absolute majority of all the Members in full exercise of their office is required to confirm decrees that take the form of organic laws, as well as to confirm those concerning the following matters:
a) External relations;
b) Boundaries between the public, private and cooperative and social sectors of ownership of the means of production;
c) Any regulation of the electoral acts provided for in the Constitution that does not take the form of an organic law.
4. Within a time limit of forty days counting from the receipt of any Government decree for enactment, or of the publication of the decision in which the Constitutional Court refrains from pronouncing the unconstitutionality of any norm contained therein, the President of the Republic shall enact the decree, or exercise his right of veto and inform the Government in writing of the reasons for doing so.
5. The President of the Republic shall also exercise the right of veto pursuant to Articles 278 and 279.
If this isn't deep enough in the weeds for you then I'll ask ... what is an "organic law" (3)? And how does one define "external relations" 3(a)? And what in the world do 3(b) and 3(c) even mean? And, of course, this requires reading and understanding Articles 278 and 279. Which I could go on about but ... you get the idea.
I read all footnotes. (And I appreciate how accessible they are on this digital platform. The tendency to go to “endnotes” in printed volumes is infuriating.) I do think that some of these would be better placed in parentheses in the text.
I'm in and I didn't have to engage in any skullduggery 😃
Also, this whole post warms my poli sci-heart 🥰
Also also, the US is on its second constitution -- the Articles of Confederation were first.
No skullduggery needed from you; you prompted the idea of the FRC in the first place. And thanks for the clarification on the Articles of Confederation. Really interesting.
It feels like a bit of skullduggery to promulgate the reading of footnotes in your footnotes :)
Well played, sir! 😂Glad to have you in the FRC.
Thanks, I really enjoyed this piece. I wasn't totally uninformed about the government or the immediate aftermath of the revolution but this piece really brought it all together. And yes, I read the footnotes too and probably the packaging and the back of the cornflakes packet. I even rfm!
Oh no! Not the manuals! 😬😱
Well done. Portugal has a lot of history within my lifetime that you’ve summarized nicely. I have always had a soft spot for small countries that surprise everyone with their success, but think it’s worth a reminder that anything can happen. Voters make bad choices all the time. Is 50 years enough of a bedrock to keep Portugal as we know and love it basically intact?
The next few months could be interesting for sure as the new president settles in and starts building relationships.
💀…oh, wrong skullduggery…sorry, I will promulgate myself out…
😂. Welcome to the FRC! Thanks for reading!
Well, let's hope there is no skullduggery in this election!
Indeed! And welcome to the FRC!
I do read footnotes, comments and side notes (even in other kinds of posts)! Often they're the juiciest part. And for native speakers of languages of Latin origin (like me), these "difficult words" ("promulgate", and so on...) are a delight.
Aren't they, though? Thanks for being part of the FRC.
Yes I read the footnotes! Thank you for the skinny. Looking forward to your next lesson.
Thanks, Chris. Glad to have you in the FRC.
Glad to be here. Thanks.
Scott -- Muita obrigada for the excellent, and understandable, history lesson. I like how you promulgated this information on all the skullduggery of the past.
Fantastic! You'd better be careful, though, comments like that'll make you an office in the FRC pretty quick!