“Local politics isn’t a spectator sport for young people,” says 28-year-old elected official

How did you decide to run for municipal elections?

It began with a sense of responsibility. I joined my party when it was still very small and I felt almost a duty to help it grow and establish itself. About a year and a half ago I became the local leader of the party in my hometown, Cascais. I helped put together the team and the candidates who would represent us in this year’s municipal elections.

In the last election our vote share went from around 4% to just over 6%, and we increased our representation in the municipal assembly. Local politics is the first stage of democratic life for citizens, and for people like me who have not spent years inside youth party structures it is a crucial learning space.

Why choose party politics, for you personally? What motivates you?

I studied politics and have always been very interested in it. For me, getting involved in a party and standing in elections was the way I felt I could make a difference. There are people who devote their time to volunteering, and I find that even more generous in some ways. It is often less visible and more selfless. But whether you volunteer, build associations or join a party, the question is the same: are you trying to improve the society you live in? In my case politics was what I felt suited me best.

Freedom is what best captures my motivation. I have seen many friends emigrate. I have also lived outside Portugal myself. Those experiences made me see Portugal as a country that could be much better. I want to live in a country that provides my generation with more opportunities for the future. I will contribute in the ways I can, and sometimes that means public communication, sometimes supporting projects I know can have an impact but need a push. I do not think politics can solve everything, but it can shape the conditions in which people decide whether to stay or leave.

Was it important to bring young people from outside traditional party circles in the process?

In Cascais, we went from three elected officials to seven. Of those seven, five are young people under 30, some under 25. In the municipal assembly group we have people in their early twenties and late twenties. That was a deliberate choice. For our generation in particular, it is important to see people our age represented and to understand that politics is not just a spectator sport. It is a responsibility. You can engage from the outside, of course, but there is also value in standing for office and trying to change things from within.

I also think it is healthy when people who have not spent a long time in youth wings or party environments get involved. They arrive with fresh perspectives and fewer bad habits. Young people should feel safe to learn, to give their opinion and even to make mistakes. Politicians are often blamed for everything, but they are people just like us. Our generation needs to see that and if we want institutions to evolve, we need to let new people in.

How do you see liberal parties like yours across Europe today?

Liberal parties in Europe form a very broad tent. Under the same label you can find movements that are social‑democratic and others that are almost libertarian. There are people further to the right and further to the left within that family.

In Portugal, our party emerged in a context dominated by a large left‑wing majority. Naturally it positioned itself on the right of the spectrum. I personally identify more with the right, but Portugal remains a predominantly left‑leaning country. If the political context were reversed, with a solid right‑wing majority and a right‑wing government, perhaps a liberal party might find it more natural to occupy space on the centre‑left instead. Liberalism is sensitive to context.

Given what is happening in Europe, do you believe the values you defend, and those of your party, can still be advanced? Are you optimistic or pessimistic?

I do think there is a rise of more conservative, sometimes far‑right forces. But I also believe in the corrective capacity of liberal democracy. If the parties that win elections operate within a democratic framework, they face constraints: constitutions, courts, international commitments and public opinion. Those factors shape their behaviour over time.

When I read about leaders like Giorgia Meloni before she took office in Italy, the narrative was that this was the end of the world. The far-right had won. In government, her approach to Europe and the European Union has been more pragmatic than many expected. That does not mean everything is fine or that all concerns disappear. It simply shows that the story is not over the day after an election.

In some ways, this is cyclical. When societies lean strongly to one side for a long time, there is often a reaction in the other direction. I do not like extremes, either on the left or on the right, but I also trust the safeguards built into liberal democracies. If you ask me whether a future government will end abortion rights or same‑sex marriage in Portugal, I would say no. I do not believe that will happen. I do think we could see a tougher line on immigration, for example. That worries me. But I also believe that, over time, political systems rebalance.

How do you see Portugal’s role in the European landscape? Would you like to see more leadership from Portuguese officials?

Portugal matters most as part of Europe. We are not at a point in history where a country of our size can have a significant voice in global affairs on its own. Within the European Union, however, our influence is much greater. A recent example is the fact that the President of the European Council is Portuguese. My party opposed António Costa’s nomination, but I did not. I think he is a good fit for that position. He has political and governmental experience and a profile that can build bridges. In a European context, that is valuable.

Portuguese leadership is not a goal in itself. What matters most is that Portugal is an active, constructive member of the European Union and that our representatives make themselves heard in key decisions. Having Portuguese people in leadership positions is symbolically important. It signals that we are not less capable than others. But I do not think simply increasing the number of Portuguese people at the top is, on its own, a major objective. The quality of our participation matters more than the passport of the people occupying high offices.

What is the biggest strength of liberal democracy, and what is its biggest vulnerability?

The strength, which might sound paradoxical, is that liberal democracy gives space to non-liberal and even anti-liberal voices. It allows those parties and movements to operate in the democratic arena instead of in the arena of violence. It is healthier to have uncomfortable ideas debated in parliaments than acted out on the streets by armed groups.

The main vulnerability comes from the digital environment. Social networks and algorithms have created a communication ecosystem that liberal democracies are struggling to cope with. Misinformation spreads faster than institutions can respond. The incentives favour polarisation and outrage. That fragility is being exploited by actors who do not share democratic values.

How can democracies respond to that digital vulnerability without simply trying to silence people?

That is exactly the dilemma. I do not think banning technologies or trying to silence people is a good answer. It would undermine the very freedoms democracy is supposed to protect. What we can do is invest in media literacy, transparency and institutional adaptation. That means teaching citizens how to navigate information critically and expecting platforms to be more accountable for the systems they design. It also means our institutions communicate faster, clearer and more accessibly.

Institutions across Europe face distrust. How do you think they should change to rebuild trust?

One of the weakest points of liberal democracy at the moment is the state of its institutions. Many feel outdated, opaque or too distant from people’s lives. I think they should become much more accessible, in the simplest sense of the word. It should be easy to understand what they do and how they function.

I can give you a small, personal example. When I was elected to the municipal assembly, many family members and friends congratulated me. Half of them then asked, “but what exactly is the municipal assembly?” That is a problem. If people do not know what an institution is for, it is partly because those of us who hold positions in it have not made the effort to explain. Democratic, political and judicial institutions should be simple, transparent and constantly communicating their role and usefulness.