Presidential Elections: Democracy vs. Manipulation

Living in a democracy means assuming responsibility for respecting the truth. Freedom of choice does not legitimise lies or manipulation. At a decisive electoral moment, what is at stake is not the old left–right dichotomy, but the defence of integrity against narratives that distort facts and undermine public trust. Democracy requires leaders who honour it, not those who exploit it. It requires leaders capable of remaining calm in times of turbulence, and capable of acting with discretion.

A healthy democracy does not live solely from the act of voting; it lives, above all, from what happens between elections: respect for pluralism, the demand for scrutiny, and a culture of verification. When lies become normalised, when manipulation becomes an instrument for gaining or maintaining power, what is broken is not only political debate, but the civic commitment that underpins trust between people and institutions.

Truth, in a democracy, is not a moral ornament. It is the invisible infrastructure that enables productive disagreement: we may differ in values and preferences, but we start from shared, intelligible facts. Without this common ground, public conversation turns into noise — and noise is fertile ground for manipulation. This is therefore not about choosing an ideological camp, but about protecting the space in which differences can exist without falsehood capturing collective decision-making.

Some confuse freedom of expression with a licence to deceive. It is not. Freedom entails responsibility: it requires sources, context, and accountability. In economic life, we call this transparency; in political life, public integrity; in social life, trust. In any of these dimensions, lies carry concrete costs: they distort choices, align resources with the wrong priorities, and generate frustration that turns into hatred, which can lead to social unrest and coercive policing.

In an electoral cycle, the temptation to oversimplify complex problems is great. Slogans condense promises that seduce the public, many of which are unrealistic and devoid of any truth.

Democratic maturity is measured by the ability to resist the comfort of illusion — the comfort of wanting to believe in an attractive but false slogan.

Leadership that honours democracy is leadership that tells the truth about limits, that recognises costs and the time required for change, in order to safeguard respect for the human being and the common public cause. Such leadership does not promise immediate worlds; it builds shared paths. And at a time when hatred, envy, frustration, and manipulation are narratives used by various parties and politicians, it is essential that the next President of the Republic be moderate and aspire to build a more up-to-date democracy that continues to respect the human being, their freedom, and their protection.

Integrity does not eliminate political conflict — it gives it form. It requires that opponents be seen as interlocutors, not enemies. This distinction is decisive: where there are enemies, there is fear and symbolic violence; where there are interlocutors, there are rules and a future. This is why lying, even if effective in the short term, is always self-destructive, leading to illusions that generate frustration and may result in social unrest, with consequences for the most disadvantaged — those who are already the most frustrated.

Living in a democracy also means accepting the humility of the process: changing one’s mind in the face of good arguments, correcting mistakes, recognising ambiguities. Democratic truth is not dogma; it is method. And method requires strong institutions, a free press, active citizens with rights and duties, and leaders capable of turning power into a practice of service.

At this point, the choice that matters is not between ideological labels, but between two ways of being: honouring democracy or exploiting democracy. To honour it is to speak clearly, be accountable, and respect limits. To exploit it is to use the vote as a shield to distort facts and divide society.

In a global and European context of rupture and looming war, all of us — the roughly 10 million Portuguese — must do everything we can to prevent our society from becoming divided, to avoid hatreds that only amplify problems and never provide solutions. This international context requires small countries like ours to be intelligent in maintaining cohesion, a democratic spirit, and social solidarity.

Faced with the two candidates now presenting themselves for the responsibility of becoming the next President of the Portuguese Republic, it seems unquestionable to me that António Seguro stands for democracy. For this reason, I appeal to those who remain attached to the dogma of extremes — “left vs. right” — to move beyond that bias and to understand that what is at stake goes far beyond this dichotomy: what is at stake is democracy itself.

We never thought a Trump could become President of the United States, and yet he did. Never assume that the unthinkable cannot happen. History has shown us that the unthinkable can happen. And I will do everything I can to ensure that the unthinkable is also made impossible.

PhD, CEO of Systemic

Published on Diário de Notícias