38
this case, but in others as well, differentiating Portugal from Spain – and many other
contemporary cases as well.
Perhaps most importantly, the openness of Portuguese authorities to public protest and
even “agitation” contrasts sharply with the frequent tendency of Spanish governments, even
under democracy, to essentially deny discordant voices. Both Spain and Portugal have lively
publics and Spanish democracy stands out – for better or for worse, depending on one’s
perspective – as a world leader in social protest.
48
Yet the attitude of public authorities toward
democracy’s wide array of voices and perspectives – and toward police excess in the face of
protest – sharply differentiates the two cases. Whereas, the Portuguese President, Jorge Sampaio
issued a call for “democratic agitation” on a visit to Beja two years ago
49
, Spanish authorities
often treat the “agitation” of opposing voices with disinterest, denial – or worse, as reflected in
the bitterly angry response of the Partido Popular to small spontaneous demonstrations on March
13, 2004, denouncing the PP’s official information policy on the investigation into the massive
terrorist incident in Madrid on March 11. Whereas as police excesses in handling demonstrators
are quickly taken up in insitutionalized public debate in Portugal, in Spain such excesses have
been frequently ignored – even by the political opposition. The Portuguese public sphere, born
in a formative collective experience of public protest and military insubordination to hierarchies,
takes for granted the frequent public expression of widely divergent views and views as
48
On Spanish protest, see Robert M. Fishman and Suzanne Coshow, “Setting the Reach
of Protest: Institutions, Movements and Social Ties in Spanish Working-Class Collective
Action”, presented at Authority in Contention: Collective Behavior and Social Movements
Workshop, University of Notre Dame, August 14 - 15, 2002.
49
See Publico, internet edition (publico.pt) for June 11, 2002.
Convention