The 50 least corrupt years in history. Opinion by Filipe Luís

The last 50 years, a period that coincides with the democratic regime, were probably the ones in which the level of corruption in Portugal was lowest. Even with the countless scams associated with money coming from Europe, the country has followed a safe and steady path, especially in terms of mentalities, practices and scrutiny. All of this in the field of ethical requirements, collective awareness and social censure against “favors”, nepotism, clientelism and cronyism – which we have come to criminalize under the criminal framework attributed to “influence peddling”. And the behaviors that we previously accepted as normal are now condemned, investigated by an independent judiciary and monitored by a free press. Not to mention the institutional powers of opposition parties that function and have the freedom to act, monitor and denounce. The posters and populist speeches – yes, I am referring to Chega – that speak of 50 years of corruption are contradicted by the facts: there was immense corruption, as there is in all regimes, but never before had it been so systematically prevented, investigated and, in the end – the most difficult and therefore still a long way to go – punished. Older Portuguese people, with good memories, remember the country of “atendência” (a little attention), of “commitment”, of greasing the palms of the tax inspector, the traffic policeman or the simple alpaca sleeve of the Finance Ministry. Does all this still happen? Yes, occasionally. But it is much riskier. In the pyramid of systemic favors, connections and inbreeding, the size of the corrupt metastasis increased as the importance of the holder of public office or the State servant grew, to the extent of pure and simple oligarchy. Before that, from the Discoveries, through the Constitutional Monarchy and the excesses of the First Republic, it is better not to mention. In the Estado Novo, the lack of a free press and the fiction of a separation of powers that did not exist were synonymous with the lack of examples of corruption. Of course, they never came to light. And even a sex scandal, the Ballet Rose case, in which high-ranking figures of the regime were proven to be involved in a terrible paedophile organisation, when it was denounced by the opposition to the international press, earned its whistleblowers relentless political persecution, ordered by the government and Salazar's police.

In this edition (see pages 50-55), a researcher from the University of Coimbra, who has written a book about the scandals that have shaken democracy, states that there is always “something rotten in a regime that has no scandals”. What is clear is that scandals of this type are a result of human nature. When they “don’t exist”, they are hushed up, hidden, the press is muzzled and the authorities are complicit.

António de Oliveira Salazar himself – according to his nostalgic followers, the “most upright statesman” in our history – cannot withstand (even, in this case, through no fault of his own) closer scrutiny, the scrutiny of democracy. What would one say today if a former prime minister, who no longer holds office, were allowed to continue living in the official residence, with all expenses paid and at the expense of taxpayers? That is exactly what happened to the dictator after he was removed from office in 1968. And he did so for life!

Until we went to press, and despite last-minute delaying attempts, everything indicated that José Sócrates would begin his trial this Thursday, as part of – finally! – Operation Marquês. Sócrates was initially indicted by investigating judge Carlos Alexandre for 31 crimes: three of passive corruption while holding public office, 16 of money laundering, nine of document forgery and three of aggravated tax fraud. The former prime minister was arrested (as part of an investigation that had already been going on for two years…) on 21 November 2014. He was held in pre-trial detention until 4 September 2015 and under house arrest for another month and 12 days. When the case reached the hands of the second investigating judge, Ivo Rosa, he dropped most of the crimes, some due to insufficient evidence, others because they had expired, and harshly criticized the Public Prosecutor's Office. However, his appeal to the Court of Appeal allowed the respective judges, in turn, to criticise Ivo Rosa's “naivety”, recovering almost all of the crimes. Sócrates is accused of three crimes of passive corruption (as initially), 13 of money laundering and six of tax fraud. Of the initial total of 28 defendants, 22 remain; and, of 189 crimes, 118 survived. Names such as Carlos Santos Silva, Ricardo Salgado, Armando Vara, Zeinal Bava and Henrique Granadeiro are among those accused.

But the main figure, José Sócrates, absorbs the general attention. His character would be the stuff of Hollywood movies. Contradictory, in the role of “Dr. Jeckyll”, he led a very strong, qualified and reformist first government, the last reformist government we had, after Cavaco Silva (who, as President of the Republic at the same time as that executive, even praised Socrates’ impetus). Cutting corners, confronting lobbies, he reduced judicial vacations, removed privileges from corporations, began the digitalization of public administration, imposed English teaching in schools from the first cycle onwards and full-time classes, provided a computer to every school-age child, controlled the deficit, sponsored an important European treaty and continued the construction of communication routes and other infrastructures essential for the country's development. But the "Mr. Hide" within him brought authoritarianism, the lack of democratic culture, through the drive to dominate the media and silence television news and, yes, through this route, showing signs of an attack on the rule of law (a crime for which he was allegedly investigated) and putting pressure on the justice system. After he left, we learned about the luxurious life he led without any known means to do so, the payments of astronomical expenses in cash, the generous “friend” who “paid” his bills and the bizarre explanations about houses in Paris and safes where money was born. We also heard wiretaps and recordings of his interrogations and those of his “friend”, which reveal the shamelessness, the implausibility and the fable. The courts of the rule of law, from which we do not expect prejudices or preconceived ideas, will distinguish between perceptions and reality. But if it is the regime that is going to trial, let us say, from now on, that it is acquitted: no other regime, of those that are praised by the forces that speak of 50 years of corruption, would accept subjecting itself to this scrutiny. If Sócrates had Salazar’s means, he would still be in São Bento. That is the moral superiority of the last 50 years.