Some representatives of the “Contra Narrativa” movement, the primary initiator of the petition, were heard today in the Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees Committee of the Assembly of the Republic.
During their presentation, they urged the deputies to request the Constitutional Court to deliberate on the issue and proposed forming a “parliamentary inquiry commission to analyze the growth of extremist movements.”
“We well understand that you cannot unilaterally decree the dissolution of a political party, but you can and should do what is within your capacity,” they appealed, emphasizing the importance of “defending democracy” and the Constitution.
The petitioners also challenged parliament to amend party laws to “strengthen the requirements for party legalization, with clauses mandating explicit commitment to constitutional fundamental rights, financial transparency, and internal democracy.”
Susana Marques, one of the spokespersons for the petitioners, asserted that this initiative does not aim to “censor opinions, silence political opponents or achieve through administrative means what cannot be achieved at the polls.”
The petitioner also argued that Chega lives “in constant internal inequality” and “consistently operates outside the law,” referring to Constitutional Court decisions that validated the party’s governing bodies and statutes.
“A party that does not respect internal democracy cannot respect external democracy,” the petitioners argued, also accusing Chega’s leaders of racism, deliberately spreading misinformation, and having ties to supremacist movements.
When it was submitted to parliament in June, the petition had been signed by over 12,000 people, but it now has nearly 30,000 supporters.
In response, deputy Rita Matias criticized the petition, asserting that “there is no legal basis to discuss the illegalization of Chega” and that the initiative was “based on lies.”
The Chega parliamentarian accused the petitioners of “seeking attention and media notoriety” and defended that “party illegalization is incompatible with plural democracy.”
“Eliminating parties with which one disagrees is a sign of authoritarianism,” she criticized, arguing that “Chega is legitimized by popular vote” and “complies with the Constitution and party law.”
PSD deputy Paulo Edson Cunha stated that “it is not the duty of the Assembly of the Republic to concretely assess” what is requested, but rather it is the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Constitutional Court, highlighting “the principle of separation of powers.”
Filipe Sousa, from JPP, also suggested that the petitioners present the case to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Socialist Isabel Moreira noted that parliament does not have “the competence to oversee the constitutionality of a party,” nor can “deputies request the oversight of a party’s constitutionality,” but there is a provision to “forward a certain resolution to the Public Prosecutor,” provided that decision is made in plenary.
PS deputy accused Chega of “undermining fundamental values” and being “a violently racist, violently xenophobic party that uses every far-right technique to spread lies.”
Filipa Pinto, from Livre, mentioned that “Chega has accumulated internal irregularities” and “operates outside the law.”
“A democracy cannot accept that a party continues to ignore Constitutional Court decisions and yet claims popular legitimacy,” she emphasized.
