Former Chief of the Navy Staff and potential presidential candidate, Henrique Gouveia e Melo, addressed a luncheon debate organized by the International Club of Portugal at a hotel in Lisbon.
During a Q&A session with attendees, the admiral initially focused on the judicial system, arguing that “the judiciary cannot fall into the temptation of public spectacles,” noting, “such media-driven justice undermines the very essence of justice.”
However, he faced more inquiries concerning the “behavior of the political class.”
Expressing discontent, Gouveia e Melo remarked, “We seem to be embroiled in discussions about the behavior of politicians A, B, and C, rather than focusing on their policy choices.”
“As a citizen, I wish to have the option to choose among programs A, B, or C, supported by concrete proposals,” he countered.
Commenting on the current political atmosphere, the ex-Chief of the Navy Staff extended his critique by warning about the future quality of political leaders.
“Are we going to risk debating whether individual A, B, or C is more or less immaculate than the other, rather than discussing what each offers as a leader?” he questioned, emphasizing the importance of prior professional experience before taking up political roles.
“At some point, only a party operative who has done nothing but paste posters could pursue politics. That would be detrimental to the political system. Caution is necessary to avoid excess. Leaders should uphold republican ethics, but, eventually, we may end up with ‘angels’ lacking governance capabilities,” he emphasized.
The admiral dismissed suggestions that he is authoritarian or anti-party.
“I support parties, but parties are not individuals. A party represents a collection of ideas supported by a group. If we personify the party, we face problems,” he noted, without citing specific instances.
He further distinguished between authority and authoritarianism, reflecting on consensus, military life, and civil society. Gouveia e Melo acknowledged that in the military, “action takes precedence over consensus.”
“In the military, there is no time for consensus. Situations are so critical, complex, and urgent that if solutions were adopted by consensus, there would be no victories. However, transitioning to this life makes one realize that civil society operates on an entirely different model, which I am not unaccustomed to or unable to adapt to,” he stated.
Despite the differences between military and civil life, Gouveia e Melo added that most decisions in the Navy are made by consensus “because it is challenging to compel a group of men to perform any action.”
“Making decisions in an aircraft is one thing; doing so on a ship with 200 men is much more demanding. Hence, these consensions are established, albeit in a more hierarchical and disciplined system, but with considerable internal discussion,” he concluded.
Related:
