The recent Portuguese election results were wholly unsurprising for anyone paying even minimal attention to European politics over the last five years: an electorate tired of career politicians who continually ignore the most concerning issue for the future of their country – uncontrolled immigration – get behind a populist who addresses the issue unabashedly (if admittedly not always articulately).
The only mildly surprising aspect was that there was relatively little hysteria in the world press and even less here in Portugal. Indeed, with the exception of one or two sore-loser socialists on election night muttering grim portents of “dark times for democracy”, the general agreement among the commentariat was that the Portuguese had sent a clear message to the governing class and that the other parties needed to accept the will of the people whom they serve and try to work with Chega – the ‘far Right’ populist party that took a remarkable 48 of 230 seats, up from 12 last time.
Predictably though, the Guardian is not happy with the voice of the people being heard and has published a hand-wringing article about Chega and its leader André Ventura that deserves a brief rebuttal. For context, I am an (English) immigrant who lives, works and has a young family here in Portugal, and therefore I fully understand why good people would vote Chega. Indeed, my wife did vote Chega, albeit reluctantly. She was reluctant because, quite frankly, they’re a bit clownish. But they’re also the only party to talk seriously about reducing immigration, and unfortunately that one issue trumps all the others – even above the crippling taxation we suffer under and which multiple parties ran on reducing.
To understand the scope and speed of the immigration change, just 10 years ago my wife knew all of the residents of her road by name, everyone greeted each other in the street and I would not think twice about letting her walk home alone at midnight. Now we know almost no-one, being nearly the last native residents in a road of Airbnbs and low cost Third-World-immigrant rentals. The gentle sound of Fado music every Saturday morning from one elderly neighbour’s radio has been replaced with the repetitive, repellant bass of Kizomba. All but two of the small local stores in the area that were run by Portuguese and sold fresh vegetables, fruits and smoked meats are now run by South Asians who speak only broken English (and not a word of Portuguese) and sell only alcohol, tobacco and junk food. The central café is now a kebab shop. It no longer feels like Portugal. For us, as extortionate and unfair as the taxation is here, it is still of less importance than ensuring that the country our children grow up in will be safe and decent.
When one questions these changes brought about by unprecedented immigration levels the answer from the old guard such as my father-in-law is that immigrants contribute six times what they take (or seven times, according to the Guardian article). The provenance and accuracy of this oft-repeated statistic is dubious, but even if true should not the question then be “Okay, but which immigrants”? I am an immigrant, I contribute an exorbitant amount of tax and take almost nothing in return (we even have private healthcare), so should I really be counted in the same statistic as the South Asian women who come here simply to give birth in publicly funded hospitals? Moreover, even if it’s true that immigrants increase our GDP, many of us would happily be a little poorer if we could return to the sleepy, low-crime, culturally homogenous Portugal of the past.
Of course, the Guardian article doesn’t even attempt to address the legitimate concerns of one million Portuguese who have seen their country completely transformed in the last decade and voted en masse against it, but instead it relies on the relentless repetition of the weasel-word “racist” to hammer home its point. It mentions as evidence André Ventura calling for a serving black MP –Joacine Katar Moreira – to be returned to her own country. The statement itself is correct, but the impression given by the Guardian is that Ventura said this in all seriousness to a respectable black MP, which simply isn’t the case. “Joacine” was a hyper progressive prima donna who brought such chaos to Parliament that she was fired from her own party (despite being its only MP) after a matter of months. Her most salient characteristic was that she was almost completely incomprehensible due to an extremely severe stutter, but that could perhaps have been forgiven had the words she did manage to get out not been the most childish grievance politics imaginable. Ventura’s comment came after the endless dramas caused by her almighty ego and sense of entitlement had led pretty much everyone, everywhere just wanting her gone so we could discuss serious things again. When she requested that every item in Portuguese museums be returned to their country of origin, Ventura made an obvious, low-brow joke that rather than the priceless museum pieces being returned, perhaps she herself should be returned to her native country (she was born in Guinea-Bissau) for the sake of a peaceful Parliament.
It was a stupid thing to say, politically speaking, but then that’s why people vote for populists – they say out loud the kind of dumb, reactionary things that sometimes cross the minds of us plebs. Indeed, the article goes on to say that Ventura “initially carved out a national name for himself through a series of sustained attacks on the Roma community, accusing them of exploiting welfare benefits and alleging there is a ‘chronic problem’ of ‘delinquency and violence’ in the community”. It’s true that’s how he made his name, but what he said is exactly what the average person here actually knows to be true. Yes, some Roma do integrate well and are accepted (Ricardo Quaresma is a national football hero and proud Roma), but most don’t and have no desire to. Everyone watching the news knows the ethnic reality behind the euphemism ‘large family’ when there’s a story about them terrorising a school or hospital, and Ventura was simply the first politician to speak openly about it. Perhaps he did so opportunistically and cynically knowing it would get him press and votes, but even so, at least the problem was finally being discussed.
The remainder of the Guardian article is a defence of the (comparatively small) Muslim communities here, which are naturally presented as benevolent and charitable minorities running a wholesome community sportsground and cooking meals for the poor. Charming. But we do have television and the internet here and have seen what has happened to much of Europe over the last decade, so many of us agree with Ventura that we should perhaps have a cost-benefit analysis before importing vast numbers of people whose religion is diametrically opposed to our Catholic-based culture.
Unfortunately, although Chega annoys all the right people like the Guardian, it’s unlikely to be the permanent solution we need. For starters, the other parties have explicitly ruled out doing any kind of deal with Chega, so we’re in a political stalemate and probably nothing much of importance will happen until a new election is called. Secondly, more generally, the populists are not our saviours. It may be that each country needs its own ‘balls of steel’ straight-talking egotist to break down the taboos, but to actually effect change requires serious politicians willing and able to negotiate and compromise and having the integrity to carry the message of national sovereignty to a wider audience. This is unlikely to happen with Chega. The raucous world of populist politics attracts the wrong type of people, and it will only take one or two newly elected Chega MPs causing scandal for the more moderate voters to get squeamish. If any are found to have links to the true far Right then the press will be able to say “see, we told you, anyone against unlimited immigration truly is a Nazi”, and the issue will once again become taboo, perhaps until it’s too late.
Let’s hope not, and I wish Ventura well, but I’m not optimistic about the future here.
Granger is a pseudonym.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.