As Portugal headed to the polls on 8 February for the second round of its presidential election, André Ventura, the candidate of the far-right Chega party, has advanced to the run-off after securing 23.5 percent of the vote in the first round. It is the first time a far-right candidate has reached this stage of a presidential election in Portugal’s democratic history. Ventura has built his campaign around promises to fight corruption and restore order. Central to that strategy has been the deliberate targeting of Roma communities. Ventura’s rise has reshaped Portugal’s political landscape, normalising extremist language, dominating public debate and pulling the centre right closer to far-right positions.
As part of the campaign, Ventura placed billboards across the country declaring that “Gypsies must obey the law,” singling out Roma as a collective threat and portraying them as outside the bounds of citizenship. A Lisbon court correctly ruled that the billboards were discriminatory and risked inciting hatred, ordering their removal.
Under mounting pressure, Portugal’s main parties have taken a clear political decision, joining forces to prevent the xenophobic André Ventura from becoming the next President of Portugal.
The mainstream conservative parties have decided to back the centre-left candidate, António José Seguro, signalling a willingness to cross traditional political lines to contain the advance of far-right politics. Many expected Portugal to join Europe’s far-right surge. Instead, this move reflects the kind of political choice democratic actors across Europe increasingly must make.
In the runoff election on 8 February, António José Seguro won a commanding victory with roughly 66–67 percent of the vote, while Ventura trailed with about 33 percent, an outcome that halted a farright breakthrough at the presidential level even as Chega’s support remains historically high.
This is a model other democratic forces across Europe should take seriously.
When far-right candidates normalise racism, target minorities, or undermine democratic norms, neutrality is not an option. Preventing far-right candidates who dismiss democratic norms from entering office requires clear political choices, the willingness to overcome traditional political boundaries, and reaching across the aisle to form principled alliances. This moment underlines that defending democracy means drawing firm lines against political projects that rely on the stigmatisation of entire communities.
Roma communities already face persistent discrimination in Portugal, where the Roma population is estimated at up to 70,000. According to the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights Roma Survey, 63% of Roma in Portugal reported experiencing discrimination in the past year, the second highest rate recorded in the EU, alongside rising levels of bullying of Roma children in schools.
Though the decision by the main parties may act as a bulwark against the divisive far right in Portugal, the legal and political system remains ill-equipped to contain far-right incitement.
The court imposed a €2,500 fine against Ventura, he formally complied — and then proceeded to install new billboards in the town of Vila Nova de Milfontes that were widely understood to communicate the same message, only expressed with greater care.
Courts do not merely adjudicate legality; they also define what is politically acceptable. In this case, the signal risks being dangerously weak.
A minimal fine does not deter a major candidate in the middle of a high-stakes election campaign. It effectively sets a price on discriminatory misconduct. The message is not that bigotry is unacceptable, but that it is affordable. Extremist politics is not being blocked — it is being budgeted for.
This escalation comes as CHEGA has consolidated support and its position within national politics, with Ventura’s first-round result reinforcing his electoral credibility. Across Europe, this pattern is familiar. Following an electoral breakthrough, extremist actors intensify their boundary-testing. Institutions hesitate. Provocation appears to carry limited consequences.
It should be said plainly that this form of targeting makes no sense as public policy. Roma communities do not drive Portugal’s fiscal pressures, security challenges, or institutional shortcomings. Scapegoating does nothing to reduce corruption or improve public services. Its function is symbolic — a low-cost way to project broader social grievances onto those with the least political protection.
Europe has seen this pattern before.
In Hungary and Slovakia, anti-Roma mobilisation was repeatedly ruled unlawful, but sanctions were slow and inconsistent. Extremist actors adapted quickly, shifting from overt incitement to coded language. By the time authorities responded more forcefully, the political baseline had shifted.
In Bulgaria, anti-Roma targeting became embedded in everyday political practice, sustained by tolerated intimidation and vote-buying.
Romania’s persistent targeting of Roma has weakened the state itself, eroding institutional trust, distorting political representation, and creating vulnerabilities that external actors can exploit. Democratic fragility becomes a national security risk.
Germany and Spain demonstrate that anti-Roma attacks can be checked. There, boundary-testing was treated as a threat to the constitutional order. Sanctions were proportionate and consistently enforced. Extremist actors did not disappear, but their capacity to escalate was significantly constrained.
Preventing anti-Roma exclusion requires early and credible intervention: sanctions that reflect democratic legitimacy rather than symbolism; consistent enforcement; clear political condemnation across the spectrum; and sustained investment in Roma political participation and equal access to public services. Minority protections are not a niche concern — it is a measure of democratic health.
Portugal now stands at a decisive fork in the road.
The Lisbon court acted correctly within the law. But democracy under pressure cannot rely on minimalist legality alone.
The real question is whether Portugal — and Europe — are prepared to defend the democratic order before its erosion becomes irreversible. Until that resolution is clear, rulings of this kind do not deter escalation. They encourage it. When extremist politics is cheap to practise, equal citizenship becomes conditional and democratic norms begin to erode.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
