Muitas lições e ilações podem ser retiradas dos resultados eleitorais de hoje. Os comentadores televisivos estão a focar-se nas lições e efeitos de curto prazo, especialmente os atinentes à formação de governo (será que a AD se coligará com a IL?) e à liderança do PS. Iremos ainda ouvir falar muito da taxa de abstenção e da incapacidade dos partidos centrais do regime responderem aos problemas do país, e assistiremos também a vaticínios sobre a duração do próximo governo. Além disto, continuarão todos, comentadores, jornalistas e partidos, a ignorar as mudanças estruturais na sociedade portuguesa que estão intrinsecamente relacionadas com o crescimento do Chega e que irão contribuir fortemente para a erosão do regime democrático.
A principal mudança prende-se com a penetração do Chega nas camadas mais jovens da população portuguesa, designadamente os adolescentes do ensino básico e secundário. Há um conjunto de factores que permitiu ao Chega fidelizar muitos membros deste segmento demográfico. A longa decadência do sistema educativo e a ascensão das redes sociais, a que veio mais recentemente juntar-se a emergência da Inteligência Artificial – que para qualquer sistema educativo representa um autêntico retrocesso civilizacional -, facilitaram muito o contacto do Chega com estes jovens, que estavam já à mercê de um ambiente digital tóxico.
O que o Chega tem vindo a fazer é um combate cultural de longo prazo focado naqueles que serão os eleitores do futuro, que estão muito mais vulneráveis à desinformação e manipulação do que quaisquer anteriores gerações estiveram. Continuar a ignorar este problema será dramático para o regime democrático. Aliás, filósofos políticos tão diversos quanto Platão, John Locke e Rousseau debruçaram-se particularmente sobre o tema da educação e a sua importância para os regimes políticos.
A este propósito, aqui ficam alguns excertos de uma entrevista que eu e a Professora Isabel David demos no ano passado ao International Journal of Iberian Studies:
SPP: (…). Chega, on the other hand, has broken that restraint, activating these prejudices and deeply polarizing both Parliament and Portuguese society. We are already seeing the effects. Culturally, academically, and socially, things are not as healthy as they were before Chega became a significant political force.
ID: Samuel’s point about social media strategy is crucial. This phenomenon isn’t limited to Portugal; it’s happening all over Europe, the United States and Brazil. Younger generations are drawn in by parties like Chega through platforms like TikTok, where they have a huge following. I’ve asked students why they find Chega’s social media appealing, and they say it’s because the content is dynamic, concise and speaks their language. Figures like Chega’s Rita Matias, who is young and relatable, know how to connect with them. However, Chega isn’t only appealing to younger voters. Like other populist right-wing parties, they attract older, less educated voters too. But it’s their effectiveness with the younger generation that’s particularly concerning. My generation and older ones don’t speak the same language as these parties, and that’s partly why we aren’t as effective at countering them. Parties like the Left Bloc may address young people’s concerns but aren’t as popular on social media. While the Socialists and PSD are trying to catch up, and the IL has a relatively strong social media presence, no one has managed to grow like Chega.
SPP: The IL is another party worth noting. They target young voters and are skilled at marketing, with strong messaging about taxes and affordable housing. Yet they lack the polarizing, anti-establishment appeal that Chega has. They’re more of a civil, centre-right party and they don’t engage in the kind of racist rhetoric that Chega does. There’s a pervasive idea in Portugal that the current regime is dominated by the left, and many right-wing intellectuals argue that political correctness stifles free speech. This is a key part of Chega’s appeal. They position themselves as the ones challenging political correctness and fighting against a supposed left-wing cultural dominance. For young people who feel disillusioned or rebellious, this message can be very attractive.
DK: In your opinion, how do you think education, particularly in the humanities, can serve as a counterbalance to the appeal of these right-wing movements?
ID: That’s a really tough question. I believe the task ahead is monumental. One of the main issues is the overwhelming dependence on social media. This brings us to the broader issue of the education system. It’s failing to provide the critical thinking skills and foundational knowledge that young people need. There’s too much reliance on gadgets and not enough emphasis on books and traditional learning. We need to reduce, if not completely eliminate, the use of mobile phones in the classroom. There needs to be a serious conversation about what is right and what is wrong. (…).
Many students have told me that until they got to university, they didn’t know the difference between right and wrong when it came to politics. They were heavily influenced by what they saw on social media, and it was only through academic debate and discussion that they started to form informed opinions. This problem isn’t limited to social sciences students. In fields like engineering and health, students are even more disconnected from political engagement. Many simply don’t care about politics, don’t trust politicians and get most of their information from social media, which leaves them vulnerable to misinformation. Addressing this requires a serious conversation involving universities, democratic institutions and families. We need to rebuild the connection between education, values and critical thinking, because the future of our democracies depends on it.
SPP: The impact of social media is very concerning. Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Anxious Generation (Penguin Press, 2024), and Michel Desmurget, in La Fabrique du crétin digital (‘The Digital Idiot Factory’) (Seuil, 2019), talk about how social media companies are effectively holding our children hostage. Ironically, the engineers who designed these platforms send their children to schools that don’t allow mobile phones or iPads because they know the harm they can cause. Yet, as a society, we allow children to be overexposed to technology. We need to push back against this.
