We live well with differences of opinion and we don't condemn anyone for the crime of speaking their mind
In Portugal, a political party's claim to pluralism is being tested by the words of one of its own candidates — words that tell a Portuguese citizen to leave for a country that is not his, and that call for punishments most democracies have long abandoned. The PSD's leadership has chosen not to rebuke Suzana Garcia, candidate for mayor of Amadora, but to embrace her statements as legitimate difference of opinion within a broad social-democratic tent. It is a moment that asks an old question anew: where does pluralism end and the normalization of exclusion begin?
- Suzana Garcia, PSD candidate for Amadora, publicly told a Portuguese activist of Senegalese origin to return to 'his country' and advocated chemical castration as state punishment — statements now at the center of a national controversy.
- Rather than distancing itself, the PSD's secretary-general José Silvano defended Garcia's remarks as falling within acceptable party diversity, framing xenophobia and extreme punitive advocacy as simply 'differences of opinion.'
- The party's history complicates this defense: André Ventura made similarly inflammatory statements as a PSD mayoral candidate, and while a coalition partner withdrew support, the PSD held firm — a pattern now repeating itself.
- Critics and observers are pressing the question of whether 'pluralism' can coherently shelter rhetoric that denies belonging to a Portuguese citizen based on his ethnic origins.
- The episode is landing not as an internal party matter but as a referendum on what social democracy means in practice — and whether its boundaries are elastic enough to absorb the language of exclusion.
On a Wednesday in April, PSD national secretary José Silvano stood before reporters and declared that the party had reviewed the statements of Suzana Garcia — their candidate for mayor of Amadora — and found nothing worth condemning. Pluralism, he said, was the party's shield.
The statements in question were not minor. Garcia had called for chemical and physical castration as punishment for pedophiles. More pointedly, she had told Mamadou Ba — a Portuguese activist, born to Senegalese parents, and leader of SOS Racismo — that he was a traitor who should go solve problems in Senegal rather than 'corrupt' her homeland. Ba is Portuguese. Garcia's remarks were recorded and deliberate.
Silvano's defense was sweeping: the PSD, he said, is a party where everyone belongs so long as they don't undermine the essential values of social democracy. Condemning someone for speaking their mind, he suggested, was not something the party did.
The claim invites scrutiny. When André Ventura — now leader of the far-right Chega party — was a PSD mayoral candidate in Loures, he made repeated attacks on the Romani community and called for life imprisonment without parole. The CDS withdrew its coalition support. The PSD, under Passos Coelho, did not. Ventura stayed on as their candidate.
What makes Garcia's case distinct is not the severity of her words but the party's active framing of them as normal. Silvano was not merely tolerating a difficult candidate — he was insisting that telling a Portuguese citizen to leave the country, and advocating state violence against bodies deemed dangerous, fits comfortably within social-democratic values.
For now, the party line holds. Whether it will continue to hold depends on how the PSD's own members, candidates, and voters choose to respond — and whether anyone inside the party decides that some differences of opinion are, in fact, differences too far.
On Wednesday, the PSD's national secretary José Silvano stood before reporters and made a straightforward claim: the party had examined the statements of Suzana Garcia, their candidate for mayor of Amadora, and found nothing objectionable. The remarks in question, he said, fell comfortably within the bounds of party pluralism.
Garcia had advocated for chemical and physical castration as punishment for pedophiles. She had also, in a recorded statement, told Mamadou Ba—a Portuguese activist and leader of SOS Racismo—that he was a traitor who should leave for his "own country." Ba is Portuguese, born to Senegalese parents. "When he says the Portuguese people are racist, he's a traitor," Garcia had said. "He could make those attacks in his own country, where he might be useful. Senegal has enormous problems—let him go solve them there, corrupt their cultural legacy, not mine, not my homeland, not my father's."
Silvano's defense was expansive. "The PSD is a party where everyone belongs, as long as they don't undermine the essential values of social democracy," he said. "We live well with differences of opinion and we don't condemn anyone for the crime of speaking their mind." The party had found nothing in Garcia's statements that fell outside acceptable discourse within its ranks.
But the party's tolerance for such rhetoric has limits, or at least a history of inconsistency. André Ventura, now the leader of the far-right Chega party, was once a PSD candidate for mayor of Loures. During that campaign, he called for life imprisonment without parole and made repeated attacks on the Romani ethnic group. The CDS, the junior coalition partner at the time, withdrew its support. The PSD, then led by Passos Coelho, did not. Ventura remained their candidate.
What distinguishes Garcia's case from Ventura's is less the substance of the statements than the party's explicit framing of them. Silvano was not merely tolerating dissent; he was actively normalizing it, insisting that xenophobic remarks and calls for extreme punishment fit naturally within social-democratic pluralism. The claim rests on a particular reading of what the party stands for—one that stretches the definition of acceptable difference quite far.
The statements themselves are not ambiguous. Garcia did not misspeak or get quoted out of context. She made a deliberate argument that a Portuguese citizen of African descent should leave the country because his criticism of racism was itself a form of betrayal. She advocated for a punishment that most democracies consider a human rights violation. These are not matters of tax policy or regional development strategy. They touch on who belongs in the national community and what the state should do to bodies it deems dangerous.
Silvano's defense suggests the PSD sees no contradiction between these positions and its foundational commitments. Whether that assessment holds will depend partly on how the party's base responds, and partly on whether other candidates or officials choose to distance themselves from Garcia's remarks. For now, the party line is clear: this is what pluralism looks like.
Citas Notables
The PSD is a party where everyone belongs, as long as they don't undermine the essential values of social democracy. We live well with differences of opinion and we don't condemn anyone for the crime of speaking their mind.— José Silvano, PSD secretary-general
When he says the Portuguese people are racist, he's a traitor. He could make those attacks in his own country, where he might be useful. Senegal has enormous problems—let him go solve them there.— Suzana Garcia, PSD mayoral candidate
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When Silvano says the party accommodates "differences of opinion," what exactly is he protecting—the right to disagree, or the right to say these specific things?
He's using pluralism as a shield. The difference matters. You can disagree on whether the state should fund private schools or raise taxes. But telling a Portuguese citizen he doesn't belong here because of his race—that's not an opinion, it's a claim about who deserves membership in the nation.
But the PSD has done this before with Ventura. Why is that precedent not disqualifying?
Because Ventura was a candidate they could distance themselves from later. With Garcia, Silvano is actively defending her. He's not saying "we tolerate her views." He's saying "her views are fine." That's a choice.
Does Garcia have any defenders within the party itself, or is this just leadership?
The source doesn't say. But that silence is telling. If there were genuine internal support, you'd expect to hear it. Instead, you get a bureaucratic defense from the top—the minimum required to keep her as a candidate.
What happens if she wins in Amadora?
Then the party has to live with her as an elected official. The statements don't disappear. They become part of the record of what the PSD was willing to put in office.
And if she loses?
The party can move on without having to resolve what it actually believes about pluralism and belonging. That might be the safest outcome for them.