Regionalization is a matter of elementary justice and participation. Provided for in the Constitution, it remains unfulfilled — not for lack of arguments in its favor, but for lack of political courage. Luís Montenegro’s announcement that it is “untimely” is not surprising: it confirms the persistence of a centralist culture on the Portuguese right, concentrating power, with roots in the Estado Novo.
Portugal suffers from an excess of centralization that is neither neutral nor innocent. It accentuates the reluctance to confront vested interests and dismantle myths that are conveniently poorly explained to public opinion. When decisions are made far from the territories they concern, without the involvement of the population, the result is known: inadequate public policies, inefficient services and a growing feeling of abandonment outside large urban centers. Maintaining this model is not an exercise in prudence, but irresponsibility that calls into question the principle of subsidiarity.
The debate on Regionalization remains hostage to the ghost of the 1998 referendum, treated as an eternal verdict. It is deliberately forgotten that it took place in a very different political context, low electoral participation and a campaign that was not very enlightening. Using it today as a definitive argument is not respect for the popular will, but a strategy to avoid debate.
The cost of Regionalization is also falsely invoked, ignoring the fact that a large part of the administrative structure already exists. The Intermunicipal Communities (CIM) and the Regional Development Coordination Commissions (CCDR) demonstrate that the issue is not the creation of new bodies, but rather democratic legitimacy and public scrutiny, but we’re already there.
Regionalizing does not mean fragmenting the country or weakening municipalities, as is often alarmistically suggested. On the contrary, it promotes territorial cohesion through proximity and political accountability, allowing for a more effective mobilization of public resources. Without prejudice to the autonomy and central role of municipalities, areas such as housing, health, mobility, transport, civil protection or fighting forest fires would clearly benefit from a regional scale.
There is also a democratic dimension that is rarely assumed directly. The current model concentrates power without direct scrutiny. The regions exist in fact, but not politically: they are managed by appointed technical structures — the CCDRs — with weak democratic legitimacy, reduced transparency and a lack of effective control by citizens. This is not administrative neutrality; It is a political option that impoverishes democracy.
Postponing Regionalization has clear costs: an increasingly depopulated interior, regions dependent on erratic decisions, poor articulation of European funds and public policies designed for a uniform reality that ignores the country’s diversity.
Regionalization is scary because it redistributes power and decentralizes. If we elect representatives at national and local level, there is no reason to exclude the intermediate level. It forces the central State to give up absolute control and demands that political forces organize themselves territorially in a more consistent way.
It is not a miracle solution, but it is an essential step towards a more fair and equitable, efficient and democratic State. Refusing it is not a question of opportunity — it is a fear of giving the people a voice.
Director of the Political Association Citizens for Lisbon