Only an iron hand, multiplied, could set things right
In the opening months of Portugal's presidential campaign, André Ventura invoked the ghost of Salazar — not once, but threefold — to argue that only authoritarian discipline could rescue a nation he sees as corroded by corruption and unguarded borders. His rival Luís Marques Mendes answered not with equal fire, but with a quieter claim: that the presidency exists to bind a people together, not to fracture them along lines of fear and resentment. The exchange, unfolding across Madeira and Santarém ahead of the January 18 election, reveals something older than any campaign — the perennial tension between the promise of order and the fragile architecture of democratic trust.
- Ventura's call for 'three Salazares' electrified his Chega base in Funchal while alarming those who remember what one Salazar actually meant for Portuguese freedom.
- The invocation of a decades-long dictatorship as a remedy for modern corruption is not a slip of the tongue — it is a deliberate provocation designed to reshape the boundaries of acceptable political speech.
- Marques Mendes, speaking from a fair in Tomar, framed the contest as a civilizational choice: a president who unites versus a candidate who, in his view, exists only to divide, confuse, and provoke.
- Mendes argued that Ventura's true ambition lies in the prime ministership, not the presidency — suggesting the entire campaign is a performance aimed at a different stage.
- With four major candidates now staking out sharply distinct visions, the race is hardening into an ideological referendum on what Portugal's highest office is actually for.
André Ventura stood before a crowd of Chega municipal officials in Funchal and delivered the phrase that would define the week: Portugal needs not one Salazar, but three. The country had grown soft, he argued — flooded with corruption, its immigration unchecked, its dignity surrendered. Only a multiplied iron hand could restore what decades of weak leadership had squandered. In Madeira alone, he suggested, one or two such figures might be enough to dismantle what he called the region's drug racket.
Ventura framed the January 18 presidential election as a choice between four visions, positioning himself as the sole candidate of true Portugality — not the candidate of the 1974 Carnation Revolution, he said, but of Portugal itself. He called on young emigrants to return to their homeland, and warned his own elected officials that proximity to power was proximity to corruption. Integrity, he insisted, mattered more than electoral results.
The Salazar invocation did not go unanswered. Luís Marques Mendes, the former PSD leader and presidential candidate, called Ventura's remarks simply lamentable. Speaking at a fair in Tomar, he argued that a president's purpose is to unite the Portuguese, not to set them against one another — and that Ventura was doing precisely the latter, corroding democratic institutions rather than reinforcing them.
Mendes suggested that Ventura's real target was the prime ministership, and that his presidential campaign was built more on noise and provocation than on genuine constitutional ambition. A true president, he said, must strengthen the quality of democracy itself. On that ground, he concluded, the two men stood at opposite ends — and on that ground, Ventura would not prevail.
André Ventura stood before a crowd of Chega-elected municipal officials in Funchal, Madeira, and made his case with a phrase that would echo through the campaign: Portugal needs three Salazares. Not one strongman, but three—to undo what he saw as decades of decay. Corruption had flooded the country. Immigration had proceeded without proper vetting. The nation had grown soft, its head bowed, its knees bent. Only an iron hand, multiplied, could set things right.
Ventura, who leads the far-right Chega party and is running for president, has returned to this image repeatedly. In a recent television interview, he laid out the logic: three Salazares would be necessary because previous leaders had allowed Portugal to become, in his words, a complete mess—a country drowning in graft, overrun by people who should never have been admitted. In Madeira alone, he suggested, one or two would suffice to end what he called the drug racket plaguing the region. The invocation of Salazar—Portugal's authoritarian dictator who ruled for nearly five decades—was deliberate. It was a call for order, for discipline, for a leader willing to break rules in service of national restoration.
Ventura framed the January 18 presidential election as a choice between four visions. Three of his rivals, he argued, wanted to sell the country out, to genuflect before foreign powers. His alone stood for dignity, for keeping Portugal's head high, for the values of Lusitania and true Portugality. He distanced himself from the legacy of the 1974 Carnation Revolution—the democratic uprising that had toppled the dictatorship—saying he was not the candidate of April but of Portugal itself. The young who had emigrated, he said, needed to hear that they should return to their great homeland. The country had spent too long humiliated, impoverished while elites enriched themselves, while former soldiers died in poverty.
The speech, punctuated by strong applause, was a direct challenge to his main opponents: Gouveia e Melo, Marques Mendes, and António José Seguro. Ventura criticized them especially for their positions on immigration and for looking to figures like former president Mário Soares as models. He also warned the Chega municipal officials elected across the country that proximity to power was proximity to corruption—that influence could quickly become graft, trafficking, favoritism. They had a duty to be honest, he said. Forget the elections; integrity was what mattered.
But the phrase about three Salazares did not sit well with everyone. Luís Marques Mendes, a former leader of the center-right PSD and himself a presidential candidate, responded sharply. Speaking at a fair in Tomar, Santarém district, Mendes called Ventura's statements simply lamentable. A president, he said, should unite the Portuguese, not pit them against each other. Ventura, in his view, was doing exactly that—dividing the nation, undermining democracy, showing no respect for anyone or anything.
Mendes positioned himself as the alternative: a leader who would defend mutual respect, strengthen democratic institutions, and bring people together rather than tear them apart. He suggested that Ventura's real ambition was to be prime minister, not president, and that his candidacy was designed mainly to create noise, confusion, and provocation. A true president of the republic, Mendes argued, must do the opposite—reinforce the quality of democracy itself, not corrode it. On that fundamental point, he said, the two men occupied completely opposite ground. And on that ground, Ventura could not and would not become president, because it was not what the Portuguese people wanted from their leader.
Citas Notables
Portugal needs three Salazares because previous leaders allowed the country to become a complete mess, drowning in corruption and overrun by unvetted immigration— André Ventura
A president should unite the Portuguese, not divide them. This man shows no respect for anyone or anything, and cannot and will not become president— Luís Marques Mendes
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When Ventura invokes Salazar—three of him, no less—what is he actually asking for?
He's asking for someone willing to govern without the constraints he sees as having weakened Portugal. Corruption, immigration, emigration of youth—these are real problems in his telling. But the solution he's naming is authoritarian order, multiplied. It's not subtle.
And his opponents see this as dangerous?
Mendes especially sees it as a threat to democracy itself. Not because Ventura is wrong about corruption—everyone agrees that's a problem—but because the cure he's proposing requires dismantling the very thing that protects citizens from abuse of power.
Is Ventura actually calling for a return to dictatorship?
He's not saying it directly. He's using Salazar as a symbol of strength and order. But yes, he's invoking a man who ruled through fear and suppression. The audience understands the reference. That's the point.
Why does Mendes keep saying Ventura "cannot and will not" be president?
It's partly conviction—he genuinely believes the Portuguese won't elect someone like that. But it's also a rhetorical move, a way of saying: this man is outside the bounds of acceptable leadership. He's trying to delegitimize Ventura before the vote.
What's really at stake in this election?
Two different ideas of what Portugal is and should be. One says the country is broken and needs a strong hand to fix it, consequences be damned. The other says democracy, however messy, is what protects you from that strong hand becoming tyranny. They're not debating policy. They're debating the nature of power itself.