The Constitutional Court's Decision: A Deep Dive into Portugal's Democratic Debate

The Constitutional Court's recent ruling has sparked a wide array of criticisms and counter-criticisms, a phenomenon that is both normal and healthy in a mature democracy. However, as time passed, the counter-criticisms began to follow a pattern, revealing serious misconceptions that, when unpacked, pose a significant threat to the institution of the Constitutional Court itself.

Two main arguments have dominated the debate surrounding the Court's decision. The first suggests that all institutional decisions are inherently ideological, driven by the beliefs and preferences of those in power. This perspective equates the criticism of the Court's decision with the decision itself, implying a nullity where all positions are equally ideological and thus equally valid or invalid. This viewpoint, while seemingly sophisticated, undermines the very foundation of the Constitutional Court by dismissing the importance of legal reasoning and the autonomy of judicial decision-making.

The second argument accuses critics of the Court's decision of ideological interference, even going so far as to label such criticism as 'authoritarian' or 'fascist'. This not only represents a misunderstanding of democratic values but also a dangerous inversion of the principle that open criticism of power is a cornerstone of democratic culture.

The role of the Constitutional Court is to ensure the legality of public decisions, grounded in legal rather than ideological reasoning. This principle, which has guided constitutional review for over a century, is essential for the preservation of liberal democracy. The Court's decisions must be based on the constitutional text and general principles inherent to it, with judges acting impartially and free from ideological conditioning.

Historical context provides insight into the importance of maintaining the Court's integrity. The creation of specialized constitutional courts was aimed at safeguarding the legal order, a necessity highlighted by the experiences of both the United States and Europe. The erosion of this principle, as seen in the early 20th century, can lead to the destabilization of democratic institutions.

The current debate reflects broader trends of institutional subversion and the devaluation of rational debate. Protecting the functional vocation of institutions and the principles that underpin them is more crucial than ever in these times.