in Público, February 2021

Right after the presidential elections on January 24, images of Hitler in front of thousands of soldiers were shared – in a gesture of alarm about the possible return of that kind of scenario. What still exists in those images today is the figure of Hitler; what does not exist are the thousands of young soldiers, kept in complete ignorance of the purposes of war, ready to obey orders without questioning them. There are no such million men, recruited from the civilian population, of whom only the blind and brute force is expected. Today, the ranks of soldiers are filled by members of the Portuguese Armed Forces, who were behind the 1974 revolution. Regrettably, we have to revisit places that we thought had been tidied away in our memory, but this is the moment we are living and not another. Now that the extreme right has arrived in Portugal, we are in the world and with the world; it is good that this fight involves us. While the alarm is understandable, it may be enough to be vigilant.

To fight the far right is to trust the institutions that we know are the backbone of democracy, albeit imperfect. To begin with, it is essential to trust the government and its leaders, who are elected and legitimated through democratic processes. Trust does not mean ceasing to be vigilant, but vigilance should not be confused with the presumption of failure by default. It is strange how we keep questioning the actions of those who govern us as if they had no other purpose than to deceive and lie to us. Power corrupts. Rulers are in power. Therefore rulers are corrupt – populist primers live by the same basic deductions. This assumption of failure, the crisp tone made up of interruptions and suspicions, even if only to exercise contradiction, may amplify the far right's attack on institutions, both in content and form. That deserves our vigilance as well.

Beyond our borders exists the world, in the magnitude of its problems. And here too, it is vital to trust bodies of world governance like the United Nations – even if we know all about its limitations and structural problems. Knowledge production in organizations such as the United Nations is networked, articulating the contribution of multiple sectors, governmental and independent, from different areas in each member country. Once again, it is impossible to conceive today that these structures, organized in extension, are made up in their entirety by evil and corrupt people, who organize themselves in an accomplice manner to, with one voice, lie to humanity about humanity. Quite the contrary: the knowledge produced by collaborative, interdependent networks tends to be rigorous, enlightened, and inclusive, which should reassure us both about the information disseminated by these institutions and about the danger of returning to some dark age.

Despite all that remains to be changed, despite the adverse circumstances – or the adverse circumstances of capitalism – today's sensibility is admirable compared to any previous decade or century. In the 1970s, not to go too far back, and because it is a decade preferred by many, the likelihood of me – as a woman – being a director was remote. My creative work would largely depend on male interlocutors who legally, openly, and systematically preferred each other. I recall that it was only in 2010 that the Oscar for Best Director was given to a woman. Also, in that year, Portugal was the eighth country to approve same–sex weddings; today, there are 29 countries in which same–sex marriage is allowed and 124 in which homosexuality is free, against 71 in which it is forbidden.

It is crucial to make these and other struggles present, celebrate them, and understand the magnitude and traction of what has been achieved. For example, we may think it unfair that a series with a cross–human theme like I May Destroy You – about sex and consent – was not nominated in any category at the Golden Globes. We can and should denounce the injustice, but without forgetting that 20 years ago, a series written, acted, and directed by a black female was impossible to start with.

The road, slow for some, too fast for others, seems to be moving in the right direction. I would go so far as to say that the world has already changed, and strangely enough, that has not been in the news. Perhaps it would be justified to take a break, dance a little dance, and then return to the game with the strength of someone who had a victory in the first half.

Faced with the complexity of the moment we live in, the extreme right thinks this way, and has its logic, although perverse: if the problem is the scarcity of resources, if it is not enough for all, let it be enough for a handful of white men and their well–to–do families. Now, in a world that is already diverse, more inclusive, extraordinarily complex, and in search of global solutions, it is too late for this type of proposal. It is, in fact, because they feel – and are – out of time that all populist politicians shout so much and with so little sense. They lack temporal synchronicity, as do those who today resent complexity, variety, and change.

It is up to democratic institutions – and everyone, in and of themselves – to devise policies that allow us, at a given time, to look back with joyfulness. Strictly speaking, what we will look at depends on the enthusiasm we are capable of today. This may be why the joy of each and every one of us has never been as necessary or as political as it is today.