The Portuguese government is facing criticism over the police response to recent demonstrations in support of the right to housing. During an Explicador 360 discussion, Socialist MP Pedro Delgado Alves accused the executive of placing the Public Security Police (PSP) in an untenable position by seeking to remove protest tents and limit demonstrations without clearly explaining its policy.
Alves argued that the 1974 legislation governing demonstrations has generally been interpreted in accordance with the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and guidance from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In his view, the recent change in the treatment of tents and protest schedules represents a departure from established practice rather than the result of a legal problem that must necessarily be resolved by Parliament.
The Socialist MP also questioned the proportionality of the police interventions. He said the demonstrations had not permanently occupied public space in a way that prevented others from using it, pointing to the situation in Lisbon’s Praça Dom Pedro IV, where he said the protest occupied only part of the central area. He described the use of force to remove tents and disperse demonstrators as the most concerning aspect of the events, warning that it could affect public confidence in the right to demonstrate.
Carlos Bastos Leitão, a PSP superintendent, agreed that the legislation contains significant shortcomings and that its interpretation has varied over time. He said the police are affected by this uncertainty because they must apply the rules in a context in which the government’s public position appears to shift between negotiation, demands to remove tents and other restrictions.
Leitão said that, in the case discussed, the police appeared to seek a compromise by asking for the tents to be removed while maintaining a degree of tolerance. He nevertheless argued that such an approach can create uncertainty and inconsistency in police decisions. He also maintained that objects had been thrown at officers during the Lisbon demonstrations and said that the reaction of some protesters went beyond what he would regard as a peaceful protest.
Alves rejected the idea that police should have broad discretion to decide from case to case whether tents can be part of a demonstration. He stressed that the constitutional right to demonstrate does not depend on prior authorisation. Restrictions, he said, may be necessary when other rights or uses of public space are involved, but they must be balanced against the right of assembly rather than treated as an administrative permission.
As an example, Alves referred to the planned Christmas markets in Rossio, arguing that their installation could create a need to coordinate the use of the square with a future demonstration. He insisted, however, that this would not mean that a protest required authorisation from political or administrative authorities.
The debate also focused on whether recent police action reflects political instructions from the government. Alves said the public statements of the interior minister, including calls for encampments to end, suggested that the PSP was being used as a shield for a political decision to reduce the intensity or change the format of the protests. He argued that this placed the police in a position they should not have to occupy.
Leitão likewise said the government’s communication had been deficient and that police officers were being left to deal with the consequences on the ground. The discussion ended with the issue still unresolved: while Alves viewed the recent interventions as a political attempt to restrict demonstrations, Leitão emphasised the operational uncertainty created by changing messages and conflicting interpretations of the law.
Sources: Observador.