What do you think?
Rate this book
Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die
Fifty years after his death, Portugal's Salazar remains a controversial and enigmatic figure, whose conservative and authoritarian legacy still divides opinion. Some see him as a reactionary and oppressive figure who kept Portugal backward, while others praise his honesty, patriotism and dedication to duty. Contemporary radicals are wary of his unabashed elitism and skepticism about social progress, but many conservatives give credit to his persistent warnings about the threats to Western civilization from runaway materialism and endless experimentation.
For a dictator, Salazar's end was anti-climactic--a domestic accident. But during his nearly four decades in power, he survived less through reliance on force and more through guile and charm. This probing biography charts the highs and lows of Salazar's rule, from rescuing Portugal's finances and keeping his strategically-placed nation out of World War II to maintaining a police state while resisting the winds of change in Africa. It explores Salazar's long-running suspicion of and conflict with the United States, and how he kept Hitler and Mussolini at arm's length while persuading his fellow dictator Franco not to enter the war on their side.
Iberia expert Tom Gallagher brings to life a complex leader who deserves to be far better known.
For a dictator, Salazar's end was anti-climactic--a domestic accident. But during his nearly four decades in power, he survived less through reliance on force and more through guile and charm. This probing biography charts the highs and lows of Salazar's rule, from rescuing Portugal's finances and keeping his strategically-placed nation out of World War II to maintaining a police state while resisting the winds of change in Africa. It explores Salazar's long-running suspicion of and conflict with the United States, and how he kept Hitler and Mussolini at arm's length while persuading his fellow dictator Franco not to enter the war on their side.
Iberia expert Tom Gallagher brings to life a complex leader who deserves to be far better known.
360 pages, Hardcover
Published September 1, 2020
65 people are currently reading
595 people want to read
About the author
Tom Gallagher
82 books9 followersThomas Gerard Philip Gallagher is a Scottish political scientist. He taught politics at the University of Bradford until 2011 and is now Emeritus Professor of Politics at the university.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
October 17, 2025
(I have just read a selection of reviews not simply praising this book but praising Salazar and I have been so enraged by the number of reviewers describing Salazar as some benign, gentle, sweet dictator that I suggest if you want to know the horrors of living under dictator you read 'Pereira Maintains' by Antonio Tabucchi. It is not the number of people that are destroyed that matters it is allowing even one to be destroyed that matters. - October 2025)
My original review slightly improved in terms of spelling and grammar follows:
This is an extremely disappointing book which attempts to rehabilitate Salazar by emphasising how he differed from the other mid-twentieth century dictators like Franco, Hitler, Stalin by not having rose or stayed in power over a mountain of corpses. The author concentrates on Salazar's economic policies and sees in them a forerunner or maybe an example to be followed by 21st century leaders. In fairness to Mr. Gallaher he does place Salazar's policies in their historical context and shows how much Salazar did to stabilise Portugal's economy and currency after a very rocky time in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is because of his successes in stabilizing Portugal's economy that leads to him finding comparisons between what Salazar did and what governments in the 21st century need to do to tackle economic problems and uses these somewhat forced similarities to suggest Salazar was a farsighted leader.
In reality there is very little 'foresight' in Salazar's 'economic policies for the 21st century and in 20th century terms they were an unmitigated disaster for the Portuguese. Even at the time most of his economic policies made no sense and were retrogressive - most notably his colonial policy - Salazar clung to Portugal's empire with a tenacity that had more to do with outdated ideas of his country's 'glory' and position as a great power (utterly illusory of course) then any possible economic reasons. While managing to bring the Portuguese national debt down and stabilizing the currency that accomplishment hardly justified his interminable tenure in office. His failures were far more numerous including his failure to tackle rampant corruption which had a great impact in contributing to the long term problems of Portugal. The fact that Portuguese children under Salazar only managed to be guaranteed 6 years of compulsory education, and that only boys, until 1969, says more than anything about the Portugal Salazar created for most Portuguese - a land of subservient peasants is what he started and ended with. He did not believe in improving the lot of his people though he did not like to see their children barefoot. His minions made sure that before he visited any village or town that shoes were distributed, and then promptly took them back as soon as he left. In Lisbon to ensure he wasn't embarrassed by foreign visitors seeing his subjects barefoot he had the police arrest and the courts imprison any children caught without shoes in the posh parts of town - it was ok for them to be barefoot in the slums. He remained in power until his death but created no political party, ideology, or even government structure. Having said that Salazar was not a bad man, he was certainly not a good one either. Not being as awful as his Franco, Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini is not exactly a ringing epitaph. Anybody would be pleased not to be bracketed with those four but if the only good that can be said about you is that you were not as bad as them, then that is faint praise indeed.
As there are so few works in English on Portuguese history in this period it is a pity this is such a flawed and unsatisfying work.
My original review slightly improved in terms of spelling and grammar follows:
This is an extremely disappointing book which attempts to rehabilitate Salazar by emphasising how he differed from the other mid-twentieth century dictators like Franco, Hitler, Stalin by not having rose or stayed in power over a mountain of corpses. The author concentrates on Salazar's economic policies and sees in them a forerunner or maybe an example to be followed by 21st century leaders. In fairness to Mr. Gallaher he does place Salazar's policies in their historical context and shows how much Salazar did to stabilise Portugal's economy and currency after a very rocky time in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is because of his successes in stabilizing Portugal's economy that leads to him finding comparisons between what Salazar did and what governments in the 21st century need to do to tackle economic problems and uses these somewhat forced similarities to suggest Salazar was a farsighted leader.
In reality there is very little 'foresight' in Salazar's 'economic policies for the 21st century and in 20th century terms they were an unmitigated disaster for the Portuguese. Even at the time most of his economic policies made no sense and were retrogressive - most notably his colonial policy - Salazar clung to Portugal's empire with a tenacity that had more to do with outdated ideas of his country's 'glory' and position as a great power (utterly illusory of course) then any possible economic reasons. While managing to bring the Portuguese national debt down and stabilizing the currency that accomplishment hardly justified his interminable tenure in office. His failures were far more numerous including his failure to tackle rampant corruption which had a great impact in contributing to the long term problems of Portugal. The fact that Portuguese children under Salazar only managed to be guaranteed 6 years of compulsory education, and that only boys, until 1969, says more than anything about the Portugal Salazar created for most Portuguese - a land of subservient peasants is what he started and ended with. He did not believe in improving the lot of his people though he did not like to see their children barefoot. His minions made sure that before he visited any village or town that shoes were distributed, and then promptly took them back as soon as he left. In Lisbon to ensure he wasn't embarrassed by foreign visitors seeing his subjects barefoot he had the police arrest and the courts imprison any children caught without shoes in the posh parts of town - it was ok for them to be barefoot in the slums. He remained in power until his death but created no political party, ideology, or even government structure. Having said that Salazar was not a bad man, he was certainly not a good one either. Not being as awful as his Franco, Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini is not exactly a ringing epitaph. Anybody would be pleased not to be bracketed with those four but if the only good that can be said about you is that you were not as bad as them, then that is faint praise indeed.
As there are so few works in English on Portuguese history in this period it is a pity this is such a flawed and unsatisfying work.
February 15, 2021
What will be the political system of the future, in the lands that are still optimistically, or naively, viewed as containing one American nation? Certainly, the current system is doomed, which necessarily means that an alternative will rise. Some replacements are flashy, full of promise mixed with danger, such as an American Augustus, Michael Anton’s Red Caesar. But other replacements have lower amplitude, and the quiet authoritarian corporatism exemplified by the Portugal of António de Oliveira Salazar is one such. As it happens, I think it would be a bad alternative for America. Nonetheless, Salazar’s creation, which was undoubtedly good for Portugal, deserves to be better known than it is, and to be understood, for the lessons it teaches us.
For post-liberals in particular, Salazar is necessarily interesting, since he is one of the few twentieth-century examples of a long-lived Right regime that successfully opposed the corrosion of Enlightenment liberalism. But English-language information on him is scarcer than hen’s teeth. For some years, in fact, I have looked for a recent Salazar biography. And then a few months ago popped up this outstanding volume, Tom Gallagher’s Salazar, which I immediately bought.
As has become my practice when trying to grasp crucial historical periods, I have consulted a variety of other works, notably Stanley Payne’s two-volume A History of Spain and Portugal (1973); John Kay’s Salazar and Modern Portugal (1970); and The Portugal of Salazar, by Michael Derrick (1938). Although none of these cover Portugal after the system that Salazar built ended in 1974, that is not a defect, since nothing notable or worthwhile has happened in Portugal since Salazar died in 1970. True, the total amount of information is not huge, but at least these works are neutral (Derrick’s is overtly pro-Salazar), so unlike with works on the Spain of Francisco Franco, one does not have to sort propaganda from actual history.
Salazar’s rule, from 1932 to 1968, is best described as enlightened authoritarianism, through the vehicle of a corporatist system. Thus, although the (odd) subtitle of this book refers to Salazar as a dictator, that is really a misnomer, because a dictator implies the suspension of the rule of law. Authoritarian rule combined with the rule of law is not only possible, but historically much more common than without, and such rule characterized Salazar’s Portugal. Salazar rejected the appellation of dictator, claiming “Scrupulously abiding by the law and applying myself to its spirit is a permanent preoccupation.” (He also objected to the term because Western media never applied it to Communists and anti-colonial thugs like Abdel Nasser.) Every so often during Salazar’s rule there were extrajudicial killings by Salazar’s subordinates, so the rule of law was not absolute, but as Carl Schmitt taught, sovereign is he who decides the exception.
On a side note (skip ahead if you want to get to Salazar), there is actually one other book available, from 2009, Filipe de Meneses’s Salazar: A Political Biography. But like most books even a few years old, it is out of print, and thus only available used. Until quite recently, Amazon (and a few other marketplaces) offered good liquidity and reasonable prices in the used book market. However, I have noticed, although I don’t know the cause, that prices for most used history books have skyrocketed. Moreover, many are not even to be found on Amazon, the simplest location for buying books (though Jeff Bezos should be flogged with chains), and if they are, Amazon’s price is much higher than available elsewhere. This means that on or off Amazon, books, including Meneses’s, are often only available for a thousand dollars or more. I assume this is simply algorithmic, figuring that fewer sales at much higher prices will maximize revenue, because the internet allows the desperate to locate what they must have. But it’s yet another example of how we were promised the internet would improve our lives by leading to easier, better transactions. Which, for books, it has, up to a point—but only for those with money. And by offering frictionless transactions, the internet has destroyed the serendipity of an unexpected find, and of an unexpected bargain. I’m not sure the tradeoff is worth it.
Anyway, back to Salazar. Why is Salazar so little known today? Well, despite its glorious past, for several hundred years Portugal has been obscure. Its only neighbor is Spain, and what attention it does get from the English-speaking world is mostly the result of Portugal being closely tied to England for centuries. Despite a long coastline, it controls no important waters (though the Azores would matter in a new Atlantic war); it has no crucial role in global politics. Yes, as we will discuss, for a good part of the twentieth century it maintained a significant colonial empire, but even that could not make it a relevant power—rather, it was mostly a millstone, one the Portuguese were loath to give up, feeling they had to keep up appearances, and that the colonies benefitted them economically.
It is also Salazar himself that makes him little known. For better or for worse, Salazar’s life and career lack the high drama and excitement of other twentieth-century autocrats. Beyond this, he appears to have no important modern supporters or detractors, other than perhaps inside Portugal. Franco, with whom Salazar is often lumped, has detractors, because he heroically defeated the Left, in a conflict with global prominence and impact, something for which the Left will never forgive him. As a result, Franco’s memory is maintained by the Left as a talisman of hate. (He also has supporters, such as me, but for a little while yet, I lack great power. Wait a year or five.) Salazar, though a man of the Right, did not defeat the Left in any spectacular way; he came to power through technocratic skill and because Portugal was tired of leftist-run instability, and gravitated to his quiet competence. Thus, even if the Left doesn’t particularly care for Salazar, he is not an object of loathing. And so, because the Left writes all the modern histories of the West, they choose to forget him.
But he is not forgotten in Portugal. Gallagher makes much of a poll from 2007, tied to a television series on “Great Portuguese,” where forty-one percent of respondents voted Salazar as “the greatest figure in Portuguese history,” creating “huge surprise and consternation among opinion-formers.” Gallagher should make much of such a poll—one can be sure that, just as in America, in Europe the non-elites maintain very different opinions from their supposed betters, despite the torrent of indoctrination they face from birth. Moreover, this poll was before the 2008 financial crisis, which hit Portugal hard, whose elites there as elsewhere in Europe doubled down with fresh tyrannies greatly empowering the globalist EU elite and transnational corporations. I’d bet the percentage who named Salazar would be higher today. Ironically, though, Salazar would have sneered at the poll that named him the winner. He had no truck with mass opinion. As Gallagher sums the situation up, “Paradoxically, Salazar’s distrust of the ballot box, belief in rule by experts, and readiness to endorse censorship in order the control the flow of ideas now enjoy more favour among globalists on the left than among nationalists on the right.” Very true. We will see to what this leads, and that right soon.
Salazar was born in 1889, the fifth child and only son of a peasant family of modest means, in Vimieiro, a small and unimportant village in central Portugal. Unlike Spain, Portugal had been ruled, badly, by a series of liberal regimes for sixty years, the result of the Peninsular War and its aftermath (including ongoing British interference). It was still a monarchy, of sorts, and the Catholic Church was prominent, but neither Crown nor Church had anywhere near the power it did in Spain. The Church was fiercely attacked by the usual radicals and Freemasons, though it maintained a strong presence in the countryside. Portugal’s economy was almost exclusively agricultural; its people were largely illiterate. In short, Portugal was poor, politically unstable, fragmented, and backward, by the standards of the day.
When he was ten, Salazar entered the seminary. This was not so much because he, or his parents, saw the priesthood as his career, but because the Church often educated the talented poor. Salazar stayed in the seminary until he was nineteen, in 1908, the same year King Carlos and his heir apparent were assassinated by French-influenced radical republicans. He became keenly interested in the thought of French rightist Charles Maurras (French influence was of all types in Portugal, apparently), and was also heavily influenced by Gustave Le Bon (from whom he got some of his dislike of popular acclaim). While he seriously considered becoming a priest, he concluded that was not the life for him. So, in 1910, the same year the monarchy ended permanently, overthrown in a violent revolt, creating the First Republic, Salazar entered the prestigious University of Coimbra, from whose graduates and professors the ruling class tended to be drawn.
Unlike today’s American universities, Coimbra was dominated by conservatives, something causing the leftist Portuguese Republicans no end of heartburn. It was here that Salazar made many of the friends who would support him and work for his government in the coming decades—a diverse and lively group. Salazar was both talented and a workaholic, which helped him advance rapidly, even if he was prone to occasional depression (sometimes occasioned by romantic failures, though he had successes too). Already in 1916 he became a member of the economics faculty, writing theses on wheat production and the gold standard, with a focus on how Portugal could live within its means. That is, he was an economic technocrat, and placed confidence in rule by bureaucratic experts. This is an old tradition in Europe, which predates the American imposition of rule by experts, begun by the Progressives early in the twentieth century. Maybe it made some sense in the past, when the ruling classes were more virtuous and governments much smaller.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were busy trying to suppress conservatives and the Church, including by the usual Left violence, though with less violence than would characterize the Spanish Republicans of the 1920s and 1930s. In 1919, Salazar was suspended from his academic post by the government, on the grounds he was spreading “monarchist propaganda,” but no evidence could be found for the charge, and he offered a vigorous defense, so he was not cancelled. In fact, Salazar showed little interest in electoral politics, monarchist or otherwise, but he did allow himself to be put forward as a candidate for the Catholic Center party in 1921. He won—but soon thereafter leftists murdered the prime minister and the government was overthrown; Salazar did not run again.
The First Republic was extremely unstable, and Portugal’s problems were exacerbated by entering the war in 1916, on the Allied side. A military coup in 1917, followed by assassination of the leader of the coup, led to on-and-off regional civil war among Republicans and monarchists, constantly shifting governments (nine different ones in 1920 alone), and finally the end of the First Republic, by military coup yet again, in 1926. That coup was chaotic and had no clear principle or leader (which seems to have been the pattern for Portuguese coups); after several shifts of power, a general, Oscar Carmona, became the effective head of state. This began the Second Republic. At its inception, it was not as chaotic as the First Republic, but it was hardly stable, and had no consistent policy or set of beliefs, combining everyone from monarchists to moderate liberals, bound together only by disgust with the Republicans.
Salazar was asked to, or put himself forward to, advise the new government on tax policy and such matters. Finance was a crucial matter for the regime—Portugal’s chaos and poor economic shape made any government action difficult, and the new regime was fully aware Portugal desperately needed stability. Thus, in 1928 Salazar was appointed Minister of Finance, regarded as the most crucial position in government, given the challenges facing Portugal, including not losing its sovereignty as a result of accepting foreign loans. His appointment was the culmination of masterful bureaucratic infighting by him, and he demanded and was given great power—to veto any expenditure, and to individually control the budget of every ministry. And he did what he promised—balanced the books and brought stability, through ruthless control, centralization, and budget cutting.
Carmona came to rely on Salazar more and more, and funneled power in his direction. As a result, Salazar quickly became heavily involved in other critical matters such as Portugal’s extensive colonies, mostly in Africa, but also including Goa, in India, and Macau, in China. Mozambique and Angola, ruled by Portugal since the sixteenth century, were important to Portugal; their exploitation was conducted by Portuguese businesses, often with British advice and financing, and they offered avenues for ambitious Portuguese to make their fortune. Salazar thus gradually came to dominate all governmental affairs, in part because he was super-competent, in part due to political acumen. In 1930, he created the National Union, an umbrella group designed to replace all other political parties. In 1932, he became prime minister, practically by acclamation, or perhaps by default. This began, and the new 1933 constitution (approved by sixty percent of voters in a plebiscite) officially inaugurated the Estado Novo, or New State, seen as an extension of Salazar himself. Carmona stayed as president, but any functions of his with power were absorbed by Salazar; the position became essentially ceremonial, and Carmona held it until 1951.
The Estado Novo offered, as Payne says, a type of authoritarian corporatism . . . [Review continues as first comment.]
For post-liberals in particular, Salazar is necessarily interesting, since he is one of the few twentieth-century examples of a long-lived Right regime that successfully opposed the corrosion of Enlightenment liberalism. But English-language information on him is scarcer than hen’s teeth. For some years, in fact, I have looked for a recent Salazar biography. And then a few months ago popped up this outstanding volume, Tom Gallagher’s Salazar, which I immediately bought.
As has become my practice when trying to grasp crucial historical periods, I have consulted a variety of other works, notably Stanley Payne’s two-volume A History of Spain and Portugal (1973); John Kay’s Salazar and Modern Portugal (1970); and The Portugal of Salazar, by Michael Derrick (1938). Although none of these cover Portugal after the system that Salazar built ended in 1974, that is not a defect, since nothing notable or worthwhile has happened in Portugal since Salazar died in 1970. True, the total amount of information is not huge, but at least these works are neutral (Derrick’s is overtly pro-Salazar), so unlike with works on the Spain of Francisco Franco, one does not have to sort propaganda from actual history.
Salazar’s rule, from 1932 to 1968, is best described as enlightened authoritarianism, through the vehicle of a corporatist system. Thus, although the (odd) subtitle of this book refers to Salazar as a dictator, that is really a misnomer, because a dictator implies the suspension of the rule of law. Authoritarian rule combined with the rule of law is not only possible, but historically much more common than without, and such rule characterized Salazar’s Portugal. Salazar rejected the appellation of dictator, claiming “Scrupulously abiding by the law and applying myself to its spirit is a permanent preoccupation.” (He also objected to the term because Western media never applied it to Communists and anti-colonial thugs like Abdel Nasser.) Every so often during Salazar’s rule there were extrajudicial killings by Salazar’s subordinates, so the rule of law was not absolute, but as Carl Schmitt taught, sovereign is he who decides the exception.
On a side note (skip ahead if you want to get to Salazar), there is actually one other book available, from 2009, Filipe de Meneses’s Salazar: A Political Biography. But like most books even a few years old, it is out of print, and thus only available used. Until quite recently, Amazon (and a few other marketplaces) offered good liquidity and reasonable prices in the used book market. However, I have noticed, although I don’t know the cause, that prices for most used history books have skyrocketed. Moreover, many are not even to be found on Amazon, the simplest location for buying books (though Jeff Bezos should be flogged with chains), and if they are, Amazon’s price is much higher than available elsewhere. This means that on or off Amazon, books, including Meneses’s, are often only available for a thousand dollars or more. I assume this is simply algorithmic, figuring that fewer sales at much higher prices will maximize revenue, because the internet allows the desperate to locate what they must have. But it’s yet another example of how we were promised the internet would improve our lives by leading to easier, better transactions. Which, for books, it has, up to a point—but only for those with money. And by offering frictionless transactions, the internet has destroyed the serendipity of an unexpected find, and of an unexpected bargain. I’m not sure the tradeoff is worth it.
Anyway, back to Salazar. Why is Salazar so little known today? Well, despite its glorious past, for several hundred years Portugal has been obscure. Its only neighbor is Spain, and what attention it does get from the English-speaking world is mostly the result of Portugal being closely tied to England for centuries. Despite a long coastline, it controls no important waters (though the Azores would matter in a new Atlantic war); it has no crucial role in global politics. Yes, as we will discuss, for a good part of the twentieth century it maintained a significant colonial empire, but even that could not make it a relevant power—rather, it was mostly a millstone, one the Portuguese were loath to give up, feeling they had to keep up appearances, and that the colonies benefitted them economically.
It is also Salazar himself that makes him little known. For better or for worse, Salazar’s life and career lack the high drama and excitement of other twentieth-century autocrats. Beyond this, he appears to have no important modern supporters or detractors, other than perhaps inside Portugal. Franco, with whom Salazar is often lumped, has detractors, because he heroically defeated the Left, in a conflict with global prominence and impact, something for which the Left will never forgive him. As a result, Franco’s memory is maintained by the Left as a talisman of hate. (He also has supporters, such as me, but for a little while yet, I lack great power. Wait a year or five.) Salazar, though a man of the Right, did not defeat the Left in any spectacular way; he came to power through technocratic skill and because Portugal was tired of leftist-run instability, and gravitated to his quiet competence. Thus, even if the Left doesn’t particularly care for Salazar, he is not an object of loathing. And so, because the Left writes all the modern histories of the West, they choose to forget him.
But he is not forgotten in Portugal. Gallagher makes much of a poll from 2007, tied to a television series on “Great Portuguese,” where forty-one percent of respondents voted Salazar as “the greatest figure in Portuguese history,” creating “huge surprise and consternation among opinion-formers.” Gallagher should make much of such a poll—one can be sure that, just as in America, in Europe the non-elites maintain very different opinions from their supposed betters, despite the torrent of indoctrination they face from birth. Moreover, this poll was before the 2008 financial crisis, which hit Portugal hard, whose elites there as elsewhere in Europe doubled down with fresh tyrannies greatly empowering the globalist EU elite and transnational corporations. I’d bet the percentage who named Salazar would be higher today. Ironically, though, Salazar would have sneered at the poll that named him the winner. He had no truck with mass opinion. As Gallagher sums the situation up, “Paradoxically, Salazar’s distrust of the ballot box, belief in rule by experts, and readiness to endorse censorship in order the control the flow of ideas now enjoy more favour among globalists on the left than among nationalists on the right.” Very true. We will see to what this leads, and that right soon.
Salazar was born in 1889, the fifth child and only son of a peasant family of modest means, in Vimieiro, a small and unimportant village in central Portugal. Unlike Spain, Portugal had been ruled, badly, by a series of liberal regimes for sixty years, the result of the Peninsular War and its aftermath (including ongoing British interference). It was still a monarchy, of sorts, and the Catholic Church was prominent, but neither Crown nor Church had anywhere near the power it did in Spain. The Church was fiercely attacked by the usual radicals and Freemasons, though it maintained a strong presence in the countryside. Portugal’s economy was almost exclusively agricultural; its people were largely illiterate. In short, Portugal was poor, politically unstable, fragmented, and backward, by the standards of the day.
When he was ten, Salazar entered the seminary. This was not so much because he, or his parents, saw the priesthood as his career, but because the Church often educated the talented poor. Salazar stayed in the seminary until he was nineteen, in 1908, the same year King Carlos and his heir apparent were assassinated by French-influenced radical republicans. He became keenly interested in the thought of French rightist Charles Maurras (French influence was of all types in Portugal, apparently), and was also heavily influenced by Gustave Le Bon (from whom he got some of his dislike of popular acclaim). While he seriously considered becoming a priest, he concluded that was not the life for him. So, in 1910, the same year the monarchy ended permanently, overthrown in a violent revolt, creating the First Republic, Salazar entered the prestigious University of Coimbra, from whose graduates and professors the ruling class tended to be drawn.
Unlike today’s American universities, Coimbra was dominated by conservatives, something causing the leftist Portuguese Republicans no end of heartburn. It was here that Salazar made many of the friends who would support him and work for his government in the coming decades—a diverse and lively group. Salazar was both talented and a workaholic, which helped him advance rapidly, even if he was prone to occasional depression (sometimes occasioned by romantic failures, though he had successes too). Already in 1916 he became a member of the economics faculty, writing theses on wheat production and the gold standard, with a focus on how Portugal could live within its means. That is, he was an economic technocrat, and placed confidence in rule by bureaucratic experts. This is an old tradition in Europe, which predates the American imposition of rule by experts, begun by the Progressives early in the twentieth century. Maybe it made some sense in the past, when the ruling classes were more virtuous and governments much smaller.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were busy trying to suppress conservatives and the Church, including by the usual Left violence, though with less violence than would characterize the Spanish Republicans of the 1920s and 1930s. In 1919, Salazar was suspended from his academic post by the government, on the grounds he was spreading “monarchist propaganda,” but no evidence could be found for the charge, and he offered a vigorous defense, so he was not cancelled. In fact, Salazar showed little interest in electoral politics, monarchist or otherwise, but he did allow himself to be put forward as a candidate for the Catholic Center party in 1921. He won—but soon thereafter leftists murdered the prime minister and the government was overthrown; Salazar did not run again.
The First Republic was extremely unstable, and Portugal’s problems were exacerbated by entering the war in 1916, on the Allied side. A military coup in 1917, followed by assassination of the leader of the coup, led to on-and-off regional civil war among Republicans and monarchists, constantly shifting governments (nine different ones in 1920 alone), and finally the end of the First Republic, by military coup yet again, in 1926. That coup was chaotic and had no clear principle or leader (which seems to have been the pattern for Portuguese coups); after several shifts of power, a general, Oscar Carmona, became the effective head of state. This began the Second Republic. At its inception, it was not as chaotic as the First Republic, but it was hardly stable, and had no consistent policy or set of beliefs, combining everyone from monarchists to moderate liberals, bound together only by disgust with the Republicans.
Salazar was asked to, or put himself forward to, advise the new government on tax policy and such matters. Finance was a crucial matter for the regime—Portugal’s chaos and poor economic shape made any government action difficult, and the new regime was fully aware Portugal desperately needed stability. Thus, in 1928 Salazar was appointed Minister of Finance, regarded as the most crucial position in government, given the challenges facing Portugal, including not losing its sovereignty as a result of accepting foreign loans. His appointment was the culmination of masterful bureaucratic infighting by him, and he demanded and was given great power—to veto any expenditure, and to individually control the budget of every ministry. And he did what he promised—balanced the books and brought stability, through ruthless control, centralization, and budget cutting.
Carmona came to rely on Salazar more and more, and funneled power in his direction. As a result, Salazar quickly became heavily involved in other critical matters such as Portugal’s extensive colonies, mostly in Africa, but also including Goa, in India, and Macau, in China. Mozambique and Angola, ruled by Portugal since the sixteenth century, were important to Portugal; their exploitation was conducted by Portuguese businesses, often with British advice and financing, and they offered avenues for ambitious Portuguese to make their fortune. Salazar thus gradually came to dominate all governmental affairs, in part because he was super-competent, in part due to political acumen. In 1930, he created the National Union, an umbrella group designed to replace all other political parties. In 1932, he became prime minister, practically by acclamation, or perhaps by default. This began, and the new 1933 constitution (approved by sixty percent of voters in a plebiscite) officially inaugurated the Estado Novo, or New State, seen as an extension of Salazar himself. Carmona stayed as president, but any functions of his with power were absorbed by Salazar; the position became essentially ceremonial, and Carmona held it until 1951.
The Estado Novo offered, as Payne says, a type of authoritarian corporatism . . . [Review continues as first comment.]
March 2, 2025
Antonio de Oliveira Salazar was unique among the right-wing European leaders of the 20th century. He was neither a populist rabble rouser like Hitler nor a military strongman like Franco. An economist and poet of modest habits and traditionalist views, he did not take power himself but rather was installed as leader of Portugal by the military. From his austere conservatism to his determination to maintain Portugal's colonial empire, the character of Salazar hearkened back to the 19th century, a time in which he would have been exceptionally suited to lead. As it was, his Estado Novo regime rejected such fanciful, destructive notions as liberalism, democracy, free trade, and progress. Western Europe's postwar globalist leaders were desperate to change everything, but with Salazar at the helm, little Portugal would stand against this tide.
However, there are parallels between his regime and the authoritarian globalism of today. The Estado Novo was technocratic and elitist. There was a great deal of wealth inequality. Oddly enough, the theory of Luso-tropical pluricontinentalism–the idea that Portugal with its colonies (Angola and Mozambique in Africa, Goa in India, Macao in China, historically Brazil in South America) formed or ought to form a single unitary state, with the races mixing into one people within a Lusophone culture–has some similarities to the globohomo multiculturalism we see today. Though Salazar only loosely subscribed to parts of the latter, and his political philosophy was always influenced by Catholicism and strict patriarchal traditionalism.
Too small and weak to majorly influence world events, Portugal nevertheless endured the Great Depression, World War II, and the rise of the New World Order without losing itself. It was only after Salazar's death that Portugal fell to the forces of liberalism and globalism. His reputation is obviously mixed from both right and left, but none can deny that he was one of the most consequential figures in the history of his small nation. The author, Tom Gallagher, treats his subject with the respectful, nuanced, and objective distance that such a complex, dignified, and controversial figure deserves.
However, there are parallels between his regime and the authoritarian globalism of today. The Estado Novo was technocratic and elitist. There was a great deal of wealth inequality. Oddly enough, the theory of Luso-tropical pluricontinentalism–the idea that Portugal with its colonies (Angola and Mozambique in Africa, Goa in India, Macao in China, historically Brazil in South America) formed or ought to form a single unitary state, with the races mixing into one people within a Lusophone culture–has some similarities to the globohomo multiculturalism we see today. Though Salazar only loosely subscribed to parts of the latter, and his political philosophy was always influenced by Catholicism and strict patriarchal traditionalism.
Too small and weak to majorly influence world events, Portugal nevertheless endured the Great Depression, World War II, and the rise of the New World Order without losing itself. It was only after Salazar's death that Portugal fell to the forces of liberalism and globalism. His reputation is obviously mixed from both right and left, but none can deny that he was one of the most consequential figures in the history of his small nation. The author, Tom Gallagher, treats his subject with the respectful, nuanced, and objective distance that such a complex, dignified, and controversial figure deserves.
February 22, 2022
As I was reading this book, I asked my husband, "When does he get bad?" I found myself really liking and respecting Salazar for his austerity, humility and authenticity. He kept Portugal out of war during a dangerous time, which is something this author thinks no other leader could have done, then or now.
Salazar is the only autocrat known to have cried over Nazi concentration camps. He appealed to Berlin to release prisoners with Portuguese names but was turned down. I didn't know these things. He is also the only autocrat of the era that did not hold parades or marches or wear military uniform for theatre. He lived simply and died with little money. He was meticulous with his finances, making sure to pay the utilities for his living quarters separate from the utilities for his office, which were paid by the state.
I was not given much by way of why he has been canceled from Portuguese history. The author acknowledges that Salazar believed in censorship but, according to this book, he was not violent. If this is true, the violent reputation of the PIDE seems mistakenly juxtaposed with Salazar's legacy.
There is a lot about Salazar that is misunderstood. In the conclusion, the author puts forth the theory that Portugal joined the European Union to fill the void of leadership left by Salazar's regime. This is an interesting proposition. I do not think Salazar would have been keen to join the EU, just like he was reticent to join NATO. In a world where world leaders make sweeping decisions at the expense of people and planet, I would welcome an ecologist and an introvert like Salazar in a leadership position. I will have to read more to find the more controversial elements of his leadership. I am left more confused about his legacy after reading this book but I do feel more informed about the man himself. I enjoyed this.
Salazar is the only autocrat known to have cried over Nazi concentration camps. He appealed to Berlin to release prisoners with Portuguese names but was turned down. I didn't know these things. He is also the only autocrat of the era that did not hold parades or marches or wear military uniform for theatre. He lived simply and died with little money. He was meticulous with his finances, making sure to pay the utilities for his living quarters separate from the utilities for his office, which were paid by the state.
I was not given much by way of why he has been canceled from Portuguese history. The author acknowledges that Salazar believed in censorship but, according to this book, he was not violent. If this is true, the violent reputation of the PIDE seems mistakenly juxtaposed with Salazar's legacy.
There is a lot about Salazar that is misunderstood. In the conclusion, the author puts forth the theory that Portugal joined the European Union to fill the void of leadership left by Salazar's regime. This is an interesting proposition. I do not think Salazar would have been keen to join the EU, just like he was reticent to join NATO. In a world where world leaders make sweeping decisions at the expense of people and planet, I would welcome an ecologist and an introvert like Salazar in a leadership position. I will have to read more to find the more controversial elements of his leadership. I am left more confused about his legacy after reading this book but I do feel more informed about the man himself. I enjoyed this.
November 19, 2020
I bought this book in the interest of knowing more about Portuguese history in general and to know more about a dictator for little is said about nowadays. For that aspect I believe Tom Gallagher accomplished what I was hoping to get from this book.
I learned that he was a man of simple virtue that never try to be a cult leader unlike his contemporary. I his also wrong to think of him as another fascist dictator of that era ; he was certainly authoritarian and paternal in his view but his regime, for the most part, was devoid of great violence and what would be consider of bigotry.
He is an illusive figure which we rarely get a glance of his personal, preferring to live in the shadow from the public view. It is a shame for he seems to be a very interesting man and I would like to have learn more about his views.
As for the writing style, the author is clear but without the great qualities of a great writer that would have given the narrative more life.
This bring me to the biggest flaw of that book: I wish the book was bigger for I often felt that some event were glossed over or was missing informational background especially near the final third of the book were the last 15 years of his rules goes really fast.
Overall Id'say it's a good concise book on Salazar but I wish it could have been denser.
3.5/5
I learned that he was a man of simple virtue that never try to be a cult leader unlike his contemporary. I his also wrong to think of him as another fascist dictator of that era ; he was certainly authoritarian and paternal in his view but his regime, for the most part, was devoid of great violence and what would be consider of bigotry.
He is an illusive figure which we rarely get a glance of his personal, preferring to live in the shadow from the public view. It is a shame for he seems to be a very interesting man and I would like to have learn more about his views.
As for the writing style, the author is clear but without the great qualities of a great writer that would have given the narrative more life.
This bring me to the biggest flaw of that book: I wish the book was bigger for I often felt that some event were glossed over or was missing informational background especially near the final third of the book were the last 15 years of his rules goes really fast.
Overall Id'say it's a good concise book on Salazar but I wish it could have been denser.
3.5/5
November 14, 2021
Há muito tempo que adiava a imersão numa biografia de Salazar em parte pela dimensão dos 7 volumes de Franco Nogueira que me foi indicada como sendo a referência.
O intuito sempre foi ganhar impermeabilidade em relação às opiniões veiculadas por comentadores cheios de certezas, mais centrados em juizos de valor do que em factos.
Decidi fazê-lo quase por acaso, quando me ofereceram este volume que por ser escrito por um não português, admiti poder ser uma narrativa menos apaixonada e facciosa.
Na verdade não decidi. Li as primeiras páginas quando mo ofereceram e só parei na bibliografia, ao fim de 400 páginas.
Um texto fácil, com ritmo e que permite uma visão aérea do que foi a vida de Salazar e com um capítulo final muito interessante e até mordaz que aborda Salazar depois da sua morte, em contraposição aos que tomaram conta dos nossos destinos (ou não) a partir daí.
Fica a curiosidade de ir mais longe no notável trabalho diplomático de Salazar ao longo dos seus 40 anos de governação.
Obrigado Kokwana. Grande presente!
O intuito sempre foi ganhar impermeabilidade em relação às opiniões veiculadas por comentadores cheios de certezas, mais centrados em juizos de valor do que em factos.
Decidi fazê-lo quase por acaso, quando me ofereceram este volume que por ser escrito por um não português, admiti poder ser uma narrativa menos apaixonada e facciosa.
Na verdade não decidi. Li as primeiras páginas quando mo ofereceram e só parei na bibliografia, ao fim de 400 páginas.
Um texto fácil, com ritmo e que permite uma visão aérea do que foi a vida de Salazar e com um capítulo final muito interessante e até mordaz que aborda Salazar depois da sua morte, em contraposição aos que tomaram conta dos nossos destinos (ou não) a partir daí.
Fica a curiosidade de ir mais longe no notável trabalho diplomático de Salazar ao longo dos seus 40 anos de governação.
Obrigado Kokwana. Grande presente!
May 1, 2024
Je recommande pour avoir le bon cote de l’histoire mais si vous cherchez à entendre des vrais facts intéressants allez plutôt sur le podcast de la révolution des œillets en 50mn vous en apprenez plus qu’en des centaines de pages! J’ai l’impression que l’auteur faisait que relativiser y avait aucun fondement.
Ni un méchant ni un gentil mais l’avantage c’est qu’il était pas comme franco ou hitler…
Ni un méchant ni un gentil mais l’avantage c’est qu’il était pas comme franco ou hitler…
March 7, 2023
For a book titled Salazar, I learned very little about Salazar the man. Oh, his name is on nearly every page, but he remains almost peripheral, peeking in from the sidelines, never really the topic of discussion. I suppose this accurately reflects the way he was in real life, working behind the scenes, never the flamboyant autocrat, but it makes for uninspired reading.
The book is more a surface-level chronology of the Estado Novo rather than a study of an important historical figure. The first chapter, about his youth, was not only disappointingly short but littered with promises that this-or-that relationship with his mother and other people would be reflected in his future actions, but these reflections were ghosts in the mirror, never to reappear in the narrative. One measly chapter tried to give a portrait of the man and what motivated him, and that was it. Maybe there was a lack of material about his personal life, or maybe the author was simply in a hurry.
The author's note confesses that he wrote the book under a tight deadline. It shows. Maybe if he'd had time to do a second draft he might have discovered ways to flesh out the portrayal of the man and produce a book that, while interesting and the only one in English on this topic, was a bit more on the subject of the title character rather than simply an extended thread of events and intrigues around him.
The book is more a surface-level chronology of the Estado Novo rather than a study of an important historical figure. The first chapter, about his youth, was not only disappointingly short but littered with promises that this-or-that relationship with his mother and other people would be reflected in his future actions, but these reflections were ghosts in the mirror, never to reappear in the narrative. One measly chapter tried to give a portrait of the man and what motivated him, and that was it. Maybe there was a lack of material about his personal life, or maybe the author was simply in a hurry.
The author's note confesses that he wrote the book under a tight deadline. It shows. Maybe if he'd had time to do a second draft he might have discovered ways to flesh out the portrayal of the man and produce a book that, while interesting and the only one in English on this topic, was a bit more on the subject of the title character rather than simply an extended thread of events and intrigues around him.
July 1, 2021
Escrito com isenção, mostra o Bom e o menos Bom do período salazarista. Mostra, sobretudo, a integridade, sentido de estado e competência de Salazar. Leitura obrigatória.
June 12, 2024
Une biographie c'est toujours difficile à écrire sans rentrer dans le personnalisme. On ne voudrait pas porter un caractère moral à un personnage fait d'influences, de déterminismes.
Sauf que Tom Gallagher nous offre un portrait très moralisant d'un Salazar en bon petit comptable, travailleur, dans l'abnégation. Il y va de l'anecdote (il ne se chaufferait pas et garderait une couverture sur les genoux).
Il serait l'unificateur, le bon professeur, l'independant qui protègerait un portugal de ses pires travers (le jugement de Salazar sur les pulsions latines qui rendraient les portugais inaptes à la chose politique).
En se basant presque exclusivement sur des sources secondaires Gallagher, réhabilite une figure en faisant passer le dictateur pour un sage rempart au communisme et au fascisme.
Peu de cas est fait de la violence du régime.
On réalise rapidement qu'on est en face d'un essai d'histoire des idées sur les influences politiques de Salazar : la pensée Maurassienne, le catholicisme politique, Bonald etc.
Gallagher mentionne Raymond Aron comme commentateur : d'apres le philosophe, Salazar souhaitait simplement dépolitiser les portugais. Ça serait son héritage et... au final ça résume un peu tout ce que l'auteur nous dit de l'homme.
Aucune histoire "neutre" ne peut ni ne doit exister mais il est clair que le projet d'ecriture a pris plusieurs objectifs avant même d'évaluer Salazar :
-coller à une date anniversaire pour vendre le livre à chaud.
-accomplir une réhabilitation à grand coup d'histoires alternatives avec des scenarios du pire si Salazar ne s'était pas sacrifié.
- manier l'opinion publique portugaise et réduire l'historiographie portugaise pour dire que si Salazar travaillait avec les élites, il avait le peuple en tête et celui ci s'en souviendrait
- promouvoir une "voie salazarienne" comme souhaitable pour un portugal et une europe de demain.
J'ai terminé ce livre par curiosité pour le pays et l'histoire du régime. J'ai été decontenancé par les louanges immédiates et les anecdotes attendrissantes de l'auteur en introduction. J'ai beau retourner le livre dans tous les sens : il est contrefactuel et orienté sans nuance.
J'ai cherché après ma lecture et je n'ai pas trouvé de critique universitaire sérieuse qui donne le moindre crédit à ce livre.
Sauf que Tom Gallagher nous offre un portrait très moralisant d'un Salazar en bon petit comptable, travailleur, dans l'abnégation. Il y va de l'anecdote (il ne se chaufferait pas et garderait une couverture sur les genoux).
Il serait l'unificateur, le bon professeur, l'independant qui protègerait un portugal de ses pires travers (le jugement de Salazar sur les pulsions latines qui rendraient les portugais inaptes à la chose politique).
En se basant presque exclusivement sur des sources secondaires Gallagher, réhabilite une figure en faisant passer le dictateur pour un sage rempart au communisme et au fascisme.
Peu de cas est fait de la violence du régime.
On réalise rapidement qu'on est en face d'un essai d'histoire des idées sur les influences politiques de Salazar : la pensée Maurassienne, le catholicisme politique, Bonald etc.
Gallagher mentionne Raymond Aron comme commentateur : d'apres le philosophe, Salazar souhaitait simplement dépolitiser les portugais. Ça serait son héritage et... au final ça résume un peu tout ce que l'auteur nous dit de l'homme.
Aucune histoire "neutre" ne peut ni ne doit exister mais il est clair que le projet d'ecriture a pris plusieurs objectifs avant même d'évaluer Salazar :
-coller à une date anniversaire pour vendre le livre à chaud.
-accomplir une réhabilitation à grand coup d'histoires alternatives avec des scenarios du pire si Salazar ne s'était pas sacrifié.
- manier l'opinion publique portugaise et réduire l'historiographie portugaise pour dire que si Salazar travaillait avec les élites, il avait le peuple en tête et celui ci s'en souviendrait
- promouvoir une "voie salazarienne" comme souhaitable pour un portugal et une europe de demain.
J'ai terminé ce livre par curiosité pour le pays et l'histoire du régime. J'ai été decontenancé par les louanges immédiates et les anecdotes attendrissantes de l'auteur en introduction. J'ai beau retourner le livre dans tous les sens : il est contrefactuel et orienté sans nuance.
J'ai cherché après ma lecture et je n'ai pas trouvé de critique universitaire sérieuse qui donne le moindre crédit à ce livre.
September 3, 2021
A very interesting book that helps to understand the man, his time in office, his choices but most of all, it should help the portuguese readers to see through the mist and the myths surrounding not only him and his rule but also a lot of devils and saints that have been made up during the last 50 years. All portuguese should read it to get rid of the myths that make us blame Salazar and his rule for all our past and present problems and start acting like responsible adults, if that's what we want to be. A clearer picture of Humberto Delgado, Henrique Galvão, Aristides Sousa Mendes, Kennedy's and De Gaule's positions towards Portugal amongst many other clarifications, such as the similarities or differences between Salazar's regime and personality and Hitler's, Mussolini's, Franco's and the 20th century's european dictator's in general.
January 16, 2026
That this is one of only two readily available biographies in English of this important figure is unfortunate, especially when another new book about Hitler seems to come out every six months. The worse, then, that this biography kind of sucks.
The author reports that the work was completed within one year of being commissioned. It shows. Despite endless references to a huge cast of Portuguese notables, almost no sense of anyone's personhood emerges from these pages, and the portrait of Salazar himself is faint; the narrative is often jumbled and haphazard; and even at the sentence level, it is often infuriatingly difficult to, e.g., ascertain the antecedent of any given pronoun (this happens again and again--maddening). A biography of a major twentieth-century political figure, one filling a void in the Anglophone literature, should have been better-written and better-edited.
More noxious still is this book's partisan contempt for the left in all its forms. Is this history or hagiography, biography or polemic, history or allegory? Gallagher's claim that Salazar was an authoritarian of a different, milder, and even nobler variety than Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco is true enough (though that does set the bar about as low as humanly possible). It is indeed worth noting that Salazarist authoritarianism aimed, for example, at depoliticizing the masses rather than radicalizing them. But when Gallagher says his book is not an "apologia," I must call bullshit. The harshest language in the whole book is reserved for the only people Gallagher seems to deplore, viz. twenty-first century progressives. References to "Green movement zealots" and derision of "middle-class radical youth" (radical? really?) who "protest against white privilege and patriarchy" and think "colonialism is perhaps the worst sin of white patriarchy" (pp. 275, 274) seem a bit too peevish for responsible historiography and far too loud in a book that barely mentions the crimes its titular subject’s secret police committed, nor says much of anything about the lives of the colonial subjects in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, whom the “radical” snowflakes dare to deem worthy of ethical consideration. There is also a stony unconcern about the suffering of the poor rural Portuguese underclass under Salazar’s “corporativism,” even when that suffering is, at least, acknowledged. Those who received the worst treatment under the Salazarist regime are shunted aside. The result is one-sided at best and whitewashing the rest of the time.
Worse still, the few people Salazar took into his confidence are repeatedly called "soulmate[s]." Worst of all, Gallagher has the temerity to quote Jordan Peterson. Approvingly, no less. I saw these words, and they entered my consciousness. I feel violated.
Striking, given Gallagher’s admiring portrait, how full of pain and sorrow the works of Portugal's greatest writer since Pessoa, António Lobo Antunes, are. Lobo Antunes's writing returns over and over again to Salazarist Portugal, its African colonies, the psychic cost of living under an authoritarian regime. Perhaps the haunting remembrances of unspeakable cruelty and suffering in those places, to which Lobo Antunes was an eyewitness—he worked as a psychiatrist in war-torn Mozambique—is just so much proleptically "woke" whining. Perhaps it is only coincidence that the novelist's genius survives translation while the strongman’s biographer can't make a sentence work in his native tongue.
To be clear, I have no animus against this book because it has a conservative cast. Everyone speaks from some vantage point. A professedly conservative interpretation of Salazar is possible, and I am not averse to hearing viewpoints that diverge widely from my own. My annoyance with this biography is not down to confirmation bias. The book pisses me off because it is occlusive, one-sided, disingenuous, and uses the past to grind an axe with the present. It pursues an agenda that all but forces it to do violence to the past.
All that, plus unclear writing, no feeling for the life of the persons, place, or period it seeks to resurrect, and Jordan fucking Peterson.
Two stars, though, because the subject is too interesting for Gallagher to ruin entirely, try though he might. I did learn things I did not know. But I am clearly going to have to read the longer biography of Salazar by Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, and, I suspect, some works in Portuguese (such as the relevant chapters of Rui Ramos, Bernardo Vasconcelos e Sousa, and Nuno Gonçalo Monteiro's História de Portugal) for a fuller picture.
I am soon to embark upon Alex Fernandes's The Carnation Revolution, which, from what I can tell so far, envisages the spirit of 25 April 1974, rather than nostalgia for Salazar, as the appropriate response to the global rise of right-wing movements in Europe and elsewhere. Whether Fernandes will be as one-sided as Gallagher remains to be seen, but one important distinction is already clear: Fernandes writes lucid, engaging sentences.
POSTSCRIPT: The Fernandes book is also a dismal failure, and does no service to its cause. Antunes is as much that book’s bad conscience as he is this one’s.
The author reports that the work was completed within one year of being commissioned. It shows. Despite endless references to a huge cast of Portuguese notables, almost no sense of anyone's personhood emerges from these pages, and the portrait of Salazar himself is faint; the narrative is often jumbled and haphazard; and even at the sentence level, it is often infuriatingly difficult to, e.g., ascertain the antecedent of any given pronoun (this happens again and again--maddening). A biography of a major twentieth-century political figure, one filling a void in the Anglophone literature, should have been better-written and better-edited.
More noxious still is this book's partisan contempt for the left in all its forms. Is this history or hagiography, biography or polemic, history or allegory? Gallagher's claim that Salazar was an authoritarian of a different, milder, and even nobler variety than Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco is true enough (though that does set the bar about as low as humanly possible). It is indeed worth noting that Salazarist authoritarianism aimed, for example, at depoliticizing the masses rather than radicalizing them. But when Gallagher says his book is not an "apologia," I must call bullshit. The harshest language in the whole book is reserved for the only people Gallagher seems to deplore, viz. twenty-first century progressives. References to "Green movement zealots" and derision of "middle-class radical youth" (radical? really?) who "protest against white privilege and patriarchy" and think "colonialism is perhaps the worst sin of white patriarchy" (pp. 275, 274) seem a bit too peevish for responsible historiography and far too loud in a book that barely mentions the crimes its titular subject’s secret police committed, nor says much of anything about the lives of the colonial subjects in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, whom the “radical” snowflakes dare to deem worthy of ethical consideration. There is also a stony unconcern about the suffering of the poor rural Portuguese underclass under Salazar’s “corporativism,” even when that suffering is, at least, acknowledged. Those who received the worst treatment under the Salazarist regime are shunted aside. The result is one-sided at best and whitewashing the rest of the time.
Worse still, the few people Salazar took into his confidence are repeatedly called "soulmate[s]." Worst of all, Gallagher has the temerity to quote Jordan Peterson. Approvingly, no less. I saw these words, and they entered my consciousness. I feel violated.
Striking, given Gallagher’s admiring portrait, how full of pain and sorrow the works of Portugal's greatest writer since Pessoa, António Lobo Antunes, are. Lobo Antunes's writing returns over and over again to Salazarist Portugal, its African colonies, the psychic cost of living under an authoritarian regime. Perhaps the haunting remembrances of unspeakable cruelty and suffering in those places, to which Lobo Antunes was an eyewitness—he worked as a psychiatrist in war-torn Mozambique—is just so much proleptically "woke" whining. Perhaps it is only coincidence that the novelist's genius survives translation while the strongman’s biographer can't make a sentence work in his native tongue.
To be clear, I have no animus against this book because it has a conservative cast. Everyone speaks from some vantage point. A professedly conservative interpretation of Salazar is possible, and I am not averse to hearing viewpoints that diverge widely from my own. My annoyance with this biography is not down to confirmation bias. The book pisses me off because it is occlusive, one-sided, disingenuous, and uses the past to grind an axe with the present. It pursues an agenda that all but forces it to do violence to the past.
All that, plus unclear writing, no feeling for the life of the persons, place, or period it seeks to resurrect, and Jordan fucking Peterson.
Two stars, though, because the subject is too interesting for Gallagher to ruin entirely, try though he might. I did learn things I did not know. But I am clearly going to have to read the longer biography of Salazar by Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, and, I suspect, some works in Portuguese (such as the relevant chapters of Rui Ramos, Bernardo Vasconcelos e Sousa, and Nuno Gonçalo Monteiro's História de Portugal) for a fuller picture.
I am soon to embark upon Alex Fernandes's The Carnation Revolution, which, from what I can tell so far, envisages the spirit of 25 April 1974, rather than nostalgia for Salazar, as the appropriate response to the global rise of right-wing movements in Europe and elsewhere. Whether Fernandes will be as one-sided as Gallagher remains to be seen, but one important distinction is already clear: Fernandes writes lucid, engaging sentences.
POSTSCRIPT: The Fernandes book is also a dismal failure, and does no service to its cause. Antunes is as much that book’s bad conscience as he is this one’s.
February 21, 2023
As the life story of an undeniably impressive politician and man, this is illuminating. Unfortunately it suffers from the author's clear aversion to liberalism and democracy in general, as well as his own reactionary views on the pandemic and vaccines (revealed in the postscript), and regular allusions throughout to disliked 'radical' views.
It's quite clear that Salazar was distinct in his methods and beliefs from the full militaristic fascism emblematic of other European nations at the time he came to power. This helps to explain why his reputation in Portugal is far from clear.
It's quite clear that Salazar was distinct in his methods and beliefs from the full militaristic fascism emblematic of other European nations at the time he came to power. This helps to explain why his reputation in Portugal is far from clear.
February 26, 2023
"Authoritarianism with Portuguese characteristics"
Salazar's Portugal is one of the more curious results of the post-WWI crisis of Europe. A vulnerable and unstable republic found it's new man not in any modern ideology or mass movement, but in a deeply conservative University professor, bent on challenging modernity in many of its forms. He was to remain Portguals ruler for almost 4 decades, from his ascenison in 1930 to his incapacitation by stroke in 1968.
To lump Salazar together with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco - as is often done - is a disservice both to the man and to the truth. Salazar was an old-fashioned authoritarian, and his depoliticized view of politics totally at odds with the totalitarian idelogies of the 1920s and 30s.
It seems to me that interest in Salazar has a bit of a renaissance, particularly in online conservative/right-wing circles.
Obviously, the Salazar regime is the interesting history of a small European country standing up to the Cold War-era Western consenus of liberalism and decolonization. Also interesting is the fact that the regime was actively undermined by its NATO ally the United States. The US "Africa policy" aimed to stop Soviet influence in Africa through decolonization and therefore justified supplying arms to Portugals rebel enemies in the colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Leaving aside the right/wrong of decolonization itself, we can safely say with the benefit of hindsight that as an anti-communism measure it had the precise opposite effect.
In terms of building a thriving society inherently hostile to radicalism Salazar failed. His Estado Novo barely outlived himself, collapsing into a chaos in 1974-75. The chaos eventually gave birth to a different Portugal. Where Salazar had been authoritarian but honest, the new state was democratic but prone to nepotism and corruption. Depoliticization's side effects highlights the biggest failing of the Salazar regime. As it actively chose not to create a strong and patriotic minded political base among the national elites, Salazars vision of Portugal would not outlast its creator.
Salazar's Portugal is one of the more curious results of the post-WWI crisis of Europe. A vulnerable and unstable republic found it's new man not in any modern ideology or mass movement, but in a deeply conservative University professor, bent on challenging modernity in many of its forms. He was to remain Portguals ruler for almost 4 decades, from his ascenison in 1930 to his incapacitation by stroke in 1968.
To lump Salazar together with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco - as is often done - is a disservice both to the man and to the truth. Salazar was an old-fashioned authoritarian, and his depoliticized view of politics totally at odds with the totalitarian idelogies of the 1920s and 30s.
It seems to me that interest in Salazar has a bit of a renaissance, particularly in online conservative/right-wing circles.
Obviously, the Salazar regime is the interesting history of a small European country standing up to the Cold War-era Western consenus of liberalism and decolonization. Also interesting is the fact that the regime was actively undermined by its NATO ally the United States. The US "Africa policy" aimed to stop Soviet influence in Africa through decolonization and therefore justified supplying arms to Portugals rebel enemies in the colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Leaving aside the right/wrong of decolonization itself, we can safely say with the benefit of hindsight that as an anti-communism measure it had the precise opposite effect.
In terms of building a thriving society inherently hostile to radicalism Salazar failed. His Estado Novo barely outlived himself, collapsing into a chaos in 1974-75. The chaos eventually gave birth to a different Portugal. Where Salazar had been authoritarian but honest, the new state was democratic but prone to nepotism and corruption. Depoliticization's side effects highlights the biggest failing of the Salazar regime. As it actively chose not to create a strong and patriotic minded political base among the national elites, Salazars vision of Portugal would not outlast its creator.
January 22, 2022
Like Franco, Salazar was a great national leader whose legacy remains unfairly tarnished by his determination to fight against the Soviets and communist forces endeavoring to take over his nation. Too, like Franco, he deserves the everlasting gratitude of the Portuguese for managing to keep his nation and its people out of the bloodbath of the second world war. His political and geopolitical philosophy is, at least, worthy of serious reconsideration in today's utterly degenerate political environment. This attempt at a biography, however, is quite poor. It is not well written, and ridiculously superficial. Salazar deserves -- in English -- a much more serious and objective treatment.
September 1, 2022
The book should be considered as a fiction, not as a historical analysis. For those which have no knowledge on Portuguese history, Salazar as represented in the book is a fictional character who never existed. This book needs to be read together with more critical and objective analysis of Salazar dictatorship.
August 3, 2022
The book is bellow my expectations. I t has a lot of factual mistakes, words wrongly written, confusion of names etc.
The author has a very limited knowledge of the history of Portugal of the last two centuries.
The author has a very limited knowledge of the history of Portugal of the last two centuries.
June 17, 2023
A must read for anyone trying to understand post-liberal thought and, dare I say, embrace it. Given the subtle authoritarianisms pervading the west today, Salazar’s authoritarian but humane style of governance deserves the careful, if somewhat cursory, attention given to it in this biography.
October 24, 2020
A solid, readable political biography of one of the 20th Century’s most intriguing and enigmatic figures.
July 14, 2021
More of a study of diplomacy. A good biography but the thing that stood out most to me was Salazar's ability to maintain his composure and make calculated decisions devoid of emotion or ego.
September 12, 2022
A minha ideia, desde miúdo, é que Salazar era um ditador terrível que acordava de manhã a pensar quais seriam as maldades que ia fazer aos portugueses. Que o 25 de Abril de 1974 foi a vitória sobre as Trevas onde finalmente os bons venceram.
Quando estudamos o que se passou na realidade, ficamos com uma perspetiva diferente da história, de quem foi Salazar verdadeiramente e o seu impacto em Portugal.
Não há como negar que o regime tinha componentes repressivas e liberdade limitada mas parece que foi apenas esse factor que fica na cabeça quando pensamos nos 40 anos de governação de Salazar.
Origem humilde de Vimieiro, viveu duma forma minimalista e eficiente a sua vida toda.
Quando foi chamado para integrar o governo enquanto Ministro da Finanças após vários anos de revoltas e potenciais endividamentos a nível internacional. Não queria mas alguém tinha que colocar Portugal em primeiro lugar e equilibrar as contas públicas. "Imagine se eu não tivesse conseguido pôr as finanças do Estado em ordem. Que teriam pensado de mim os meus alunos da Universidade." disse Salazar mais tarde a uma jornalista francesa.
Esta seria no entanto uma das características mais vincadas do autocrata, saber para onde vai sem querer saber da opinião alheia (based Salazar). Dono de uma autoconfiança extrema, inteligência e dedicação, pôs Portugal e o bem da nação em primeiro lugar em todos os assuntos domésticos e internacionais.
Os líderes mundiais de potências infinitamente maiores como os EUA e Reino Unido respeitavam-no pois sabiam que apesar de ser um país pequeno, o seu líder era astuto e firme. Muitas vezes entraram em rota de colisão, mas embateram sempre num muro de tranquilidade, classe e resiliência que tornou o nosso Salazar um dos líderes ocidentais mais admirados na época.
Dá que pensar que nos últimos séculos desde o Marquês de Pombal (que discutivelmente fez mais mal que bem) temos assistido a luta de poder e revoltas que têm deixado Portugal cada vez mais longe da Europa desenvolvida e, onde outrora fomos o país com o PIB per capita mais alto do mundo no século XIV e XV com o domínio dos mares e rotas comerciais, tornámo-nos num antro de corrupção e egoísmo que aumentou as desigualdades entre portuguesas e destruiu o nosso lugar alto na história mundial.
Desde dos Descobrimentos e a partir do século XVI e XVII que as potências europeias como o Reino Unido, França e Holanda descolaram de Portugal e começaram a crescer num ritmo que nunca fomos capazes de acompanhar. A única altura desde o século XVII que conseguimos aproximar da Europa evoluída foi no período do Estado Novo, onde se apostou na educação, diminuiu-se a dependência externa e aumentou-se a produção de riqueza.
Após o Estado Novo, houve um crescimento económico fruto da abertura a mercados internacionais, aderência a mercados internacionais e desenvolvimento tecnológico mas continuamos envolvidos em nepotismo e corrupção em todos os sectores que nos faz estar hoje em dia na cauda da Europa como já estamos habituados há pelo menos três séculos, excetuando um pequeno período de 40 anos onde Portugal ganhou identidade novamente e foi relevante no panorama internacional.
Se calhar podemos imaginar o que seria ter uma pessoa como Salazar no poder, com toda a sua integridade, confiança, inteligência e amor ao País, podendo ainda manter as liberdades que nos permitem desfrutar da vida.
Dr. António de Oliveira Salazar carregou Portugal aos ombros durante 40 anos consciente que não haveria melhor pessoa para defender os interesses do país e das suas pessoas que ele mesmo. A confiança que lhe foi depositada durante esses 40 anos sem grandes revoltas só demonstra o apreço que os portugueses tinham pelo "temível ditador".
Numa votação em 2007 para eleger o melhor português de sempre, Salazar ganhou confortavelmente com 41% dos votos o que demonstra o impacto que ainda tem na população portuguesa.
Para terminar, uma das coisas que mais me surpreende é o facto de após o acidente de Salazar em 1968 o ter deixado debilitado mentalmente, em coma, e ter conseguido recuperar, ninguém ter tido a coragem de lhe dizer que já não era Chefe do Governo e que tinha sido substituído por Marcello Caetano. Nem mesmo o Presidente Américo Thomaz que tentou várias vezes quando o foi visitar várias vezes.
É um nível de respeito e gratidão por todo o trabalho que fez para tornar Portugal um país melhor, que não se vê hoje em dia. Penso que partiu em 1970 com sensação de dever cumprido e que fez o que pôde para guiar Portugal nos mares tempestuosos do séc XX.
Quando estudamos o que se passou na realidade, ficamos com uma perspetiva diferente da história, de quem foi Salazar verdadeiramente e o seu impacto em Portugal.
Não há como negar que o regime tinha componentes repressivas e liberdade limitada mas parece que foi apenas esse factor que fica na cabeça quando pensamos nos 40 anos de governação de Salazar.
Origem humilde de Vimieiro, viveu duma forma minimalista e eficiente a sua vida toda.
Quando foi chamado para integrar o governo enquanto Ministro da Finanças após vários anos de revoltas e potenciais endividamentos a nível internacional. Não queria mas alguém tinha que colocar Portugal em primeiro lugar e equilibrar as contas públicas. "Imagine se eu não tivesse conseguido pôr as finanças do Estado em ordem. Que teriam pensado de mim os meus alunos da Universidade." disse Salazar mais tarde a uma jornalista francesa.
Esta seria no entanto uma das características mais vincadas do autocrata, saber para onde vai sem querer saber da opinião alheia (based Salazar). Dono de uma autoconfiança extrema, inteligência e dedicação, pôs Portugal e o bem da nação em primeiro lugar em todos os assuntos domésticos e internacionais.
Os líderes mundiais de potências infinitamente maiores como os EUA e Reino Unido respeitavam-no pois sabiam que apesar de ser um país pequeno, o seu líder era astuto e firme. Muitas vezes entraram em rota de colisão, mas embateram sempre num muro de tranquilidade, classe e resiliência que tornou o nosso Salazar um dos líderes ocidentais mais admirados na época.
Dá que pensar que nos últimos séculos desde o Marquês de Pombal (que discutivelmente fez mais mal que bem) temos assistido a luta de poder e revoltas que têm deixado Portugal cada vez mais longe da Europa desenvolvida e, onde outrora fomos o país com o PIB per capita mais alto do mundo no século XIV e XV com o domínio dos mares e rotas comerciais, tornámo-nos num antro de corrupção e egoísmo que aumentou as desigualdades entre portuguesas e destruiu o nosso lugar alto na história mundial.
Desde dos Descobrimentos e a partir do século XVI e XVII que as potências europeias como o Reino Unido, França e Holanda descolaram de Portugal e começaram a crescer num ritmo que nunca fomos capazes de acompanhar. A única altura desde o século XVII que conseguimos aproximar da Europa evoluída foi no período do Estado Novo, onde se apostou na educação, diminuiu-se a dependência externa e aumentou-se a produção de riqueza.
Após o Estado Novo, houve um crescimento económico fruto da abertura a mercados internacionais, aderência a mercados internacionais e desenvolvimento tecnológico mas continuamos envolvidos em nepotismo e corrupção em todos os sectores que nos faz estar hoje em dia na cauda da Europa como já estamos habituados há pelo menos três séculos, excetuando um pequeno período de 40 anos onde Portugal ganhou identidade novamente e foi relevante no panorama internacional.
Se calhar podemos imaginar o que seria ter uma pessoa como Salazar no poder, com toda a sua integridade, confiança, inteligência e amor ao País, podendo ainda manter as liberdades que nos permitem desfrutar da vida.
Dr. António de Oliveira Salazar carregou Portugal aos ombros durante 40 anos consciente que não haveria melhor pessoa para defender os interesses do país e das suas pessoas que ele mesmo. A confiança que lhe foi depositada durante esses 40 anos sem grandes revoltas só demonstra o apreço que os portugueses tinham pelo "temível ditador".
Numa votação em 2007 para eleger o melhor português de sempre, Salazar ganhou confortavelmente com 41% dos votos o que demonstra o impacto que ainda tem na população portuguesa.
Para terminar, uma das coisas que mais me surpreende é o facto de após o acidente de Salazar em 1968 o ter deixado debilitado mentalmente, em coma, e ter conseguido recuperar, ninguém ter tido a coragem de lhe dizer que já não era Chefe do Governo e que tinha sido substituído por Marcello Caetano. Nem mesmo o Presidente Américo Thomaz que tentou várias vezes quando o foi visitar várias vezes.
É um nível de respeito e gratidão por todo o trabalho que fez para tornar Portugal um país melhor, que não se vê hoje em dia. Penso que partiu em 1970 com sensação de dever cumprido e que fez o que pôde para guiar Portugal nos mares tempestuosos do séc XX.
January 7, 2024
An engaging read, but ultimately unsatisfying.
Obviously written in haste, this book throws up details, terminology and references that require supplemental googling, paragraphs that jump from one topic to another, and sentences that need two or three readings in order to parse the meaning. Fortunately, and despite the below-average editing of this volume, Gallagher clearly knows how to organise a book so that it is well-paced and engaging.
This book tells the story of Salazar's administration, but only provides a one-dimensional picture of Salazar the human. Salazar is a bit of a mystery, apparently even to Portuguese. During his 40-odd years as dictator of Portugal he kept strict privacy, maintaining a solitary and modest lifestyle. He wanted to be known for his actions in shepherding a small, vulnerable and poor country through stormy seasons.
Rather than giving us a biography, Gallagher focuses on how Salazar's approach to government worked during the mid-20th century (and how it might provide an alternative to liberalism in the 21st century).
Unfortunately, the book does not provide a full analysis of the pros and cons of Salazar's regime: the role of PIDE (the secret service) and state repression of dissent is not analysed; post-colonial struggles are only glossed over from the perspective of the Lisbon government; Portugal's problems with poverty and lack of development are only mentioned through the eyes of Salazar's colleagues; opposition activists are only presented as enemies of the state, without exploring the validity of their grievances and alternatives.
The Postscript to the book provides some clarification about Gallagher's motivations. He rails against what he sees as the failures of liberalism, particularly during the global Covid pandemic. He clearly has some scepticism about the efficacy of Covid vaccines, and he sympathises with anti-lockdown protestors (particularly those in Ottawa) despite their avowed agenda of dismantling governments and executing medical scientists etc. Some of his takes on the Covid response are, frankly, idiotic, but his broad view of history and politics allows him to raise valid questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the current world order.
Obviously written in haste, this book throws up details, terminology and references that require supplemental googling, paragraphs that jump from one topic to another, and sentences that need two or three readings in order to parse the meaning. Fortunately, and despite the below-average editing of this volume, Gallagher clearly knows how to organise a book so that it is well-paced and engaging.
This book tells the story of Salazar's administration, but only provides a one-dimensional picture of Salazar the human. Salazar is a bit of a mystery, apparently even to Portuguese. During his 40-odd years as dictator of Portugal he kept strict privacy, maintaining a solitary and modest lifestyle. He wanted to be known for his actions in shepherding a small, vulnerable and poor country through stormy seasons.
Rather than giving us a biography, Gallagher focuses on how Salazar's approach to government worked during the mid-20th century (and how it might provide an alternative to liberalism in the 21st century).
Unfortunately, the book does not provide a full analysis of the pros and cons of Salazar's regime: the role of PIDE (the secret service) and state repression of dissent is not analysed; post-colonial struggles are only glossed over from the perspective of the Lisbon government; Portugal's problems with poverty and lack of development are only mentioned through the eyes of Salazar's colleagues; opposition activists are only presented as enemies of the state, without exploring the validity of their grievances and alternatives.
The Postscript to the book provides some clarification about Gallagher's motivations. He rails against what he sees as the failures of liberalism, particularly during the global Covid pandemic. He clearly has some scepticism about the efficacy of Covid vaccines, and he sympathises with anti-lockdown protestors (particularly those in Ottawa) despite their avowed agenda of dismantling governments and executing medical scientists etc. Some of his takes on the Covid response are, frankly, idiotic, but his broad view of history and politics allows him to raise valid questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the current world order.
October 18, 2024
Maybe not the most riveting subject or read, but it is chock full of keen insights about one of Portugal’s longest and most consequential rulers. The author neatly chronicles the autocrat’s life, governing philosophy and his accomplishments over the decades in power. While Salazar was not afraid to play hardball with opponents and other countries (including the US) and he was unyielding on Portugal’s control over its African colonies, he was firmly committed to protecting Portugal and its sovereignty in a dangerous world, ensuring political stability, and unleashing individuals to contribute to economic growth. His record was nowhere near perfect and he probably stayed in power too long, but he held true to his conservative principles, his love for country and his strong desire for economic stability. Salazar was Calvin Coolidge without the former US president’s sensibility or respect for democracy. He remains a controversial figure today in Portugal—and to an extent he has been canceled by many—but with time history may come to see him as a necessary ruler who helped Portugal turn away from massive political instability and economic hardship and paved the way for successors to advance Portugal’s standing in Europe and the world.
July 5, 2023
This is a fair and informative biography of an unusual character: the authoritarian dictator of Portugal who ruled his country for the best part of forty years. Salazar was an academic who rescued an ailing economy before trying to keep his country peaceful, prosperous and protected. He succeeded in many ways, not least by keeping Portugal out of the Second World War. His attempt to retain Portugal's colonies was rightly doomed to fail, and Portugal was not a free and enlightened country. Yet in other respects Salazar was a successful ruler. Hence, the fact that a TV poll in 2007 rated him "the Greatest Portuguese".
Tom Gallagher's account is, like its subject, sober and restrained. At times, the book seemed rather plodding and it was difficult to get a sense of why Salazar was maintained in power for so long. But the final substantive chapter is excellent in putting Salazar in context and reasonably assessing his strengths and weaknesses. Gallagher does not excuse the police-state features but he does enable the reader to understand better what Salazar was about and why he should be remembered.
Tom Gallagher's account is, like its subject, sober and restrained. At times, the book seemed rather plodding and it was difficult to get a sense of why Salazar was maintained in power for so long. But the final substantive chapter is excellent in putting Salazar in context and reasonably assessing his strengths and weaknesses. Gallagher does not excuse the police-state features but he does enable the reader to understand better what Salazar was about and why he should be remembered.
August 5, 2025
Less a biography than a flawed chronology of his reign, marred in particular by an evasiveness about what he did. Time and again we learn from oblique references about excesses of his secret police, or rural poverty leaving children unshod, or growing dissatisfaction with his regime, but it never goes beyond an aside. It’s weirdly like reading between the lines in a regime newspaper: you’ve got the text, telling us of the leader’s calm, frugality, shrewdness and resolve, and a subtext between the lines alerting us to the possibility that bad things (oh! A murder! Of a political opponent! Interesting, any more details?) occurred from time to time, but we never learn any details. Paradoxically, while we keep learning about his shrewdness and the stability he brought, it’s always very abstract - apart from discovering that the currency was strong thanks to his rule, I still have no clear sense of his achievements, if achievements they were. I get the sense from some other reviewers that he’s being touted as a more palatable Franco. For them, this book may do the job, but I’m left feeling I still know very little about Salazar.
April 30, 2024
Interesting read about a dictatorship that seems dated and out of place in post WW2 Western Europe. The author is sympathetic to his subject and that shows. There are some areas which are touched upon but not elaborated. For example, the social and economic condition of Portugal as the decades of Salazar’s rule progressed, the disaffection in the colonies as a weary old empire trudged along, the corruption scandals, nepotism and incestuousness of the elite in such a closed system, PIDE's (the secret police of the regime) modus operandi and how many of the regime’s detractors were assassinated etc. What it offers is a broad and sympathetic view of the dictator who held together Portugal up to the 2nd World War but whose rule was probably detrimental to the country beyond that. He didn’t know when to step down. More surprisingly, the Portuguese people seem so thoroughly dispirited that they didn’t know when to demand that he step down.
November 25, 2025
Tendo nascido no após o 25 de Abril, é normal que a imagem de Salazar que me foi inculcada era a de um senhor austero, que manteve Portugal na miséria. O meu avô, nascido nos anos 30, contou muitas histórias de pobreza e miséria dessa altura.
Mas com o passar do tempo, a mim e a muitos portugueses, a figura de Salazar tornou-se mais complexa e mais enigmática. Para a minha geração, o Estado Novo foi apresentado como algo sem interesse, uma mancha na história de Portugal. O que é estranho, porque a democracia, sobretudo à esquerda define-se sobretudo por oposição ao Estado Novo.
Este livro ajuda a levantar um pouco o mistério. Aqui e ali parece um pouco panegírico, mas aguçou a minha curiosidade pelo Estado Novo. Salazar foi sem dúvida, o político que mais marcou o Portugal no século XX e ainda hoje sentimos o peso do seu legado.
Mas com o passar do tempo, a mim e a muitos portugueses, a figura de Salazar tornou-se mais complexa e mais enigmática. Para a minha geração, o Estado Novo foi apresentado como algo sem interesse, uma mancha na história de Portugal. O que é estranho, porque a democracia, sobretudo à esquerda define-se sobretudo por oposição ao Estado Novo.
Este livro ajuda a levantar um pouco o mistério. Aqui e ali parece um pouco panegírico, mas aguçou a minha curiosidade pelo Estado Novo. Salazar foi sem dúvida, o político que mais marcou o Portugal no século XX e ainda hoje sentimos o peso do seu legado.
February 15, 2026
Salazar: a politician truly approaching perfection, the very embodiment of Plato’s Philosopher King. This biography fully portrays a figure akin to a medieval cleric-official, striving to reconstruct a traditional society amidst the upheavals of the 20th century, only to confront a sense of despair and helplessness as human civilization drifts down a point of no return. Yoram Hazony’s assessment of Salazar is most pertinent and profoundly applicable today: 'Where a people is incapable of self-discipline, a mild government will only encourage licentiousness and division, hatred and violence, eventually forcing a choice between civil war and tyranny. This means that the best for undisciplined people can hope for is a benevolent autocrat.'
February 15, 2026
Fascist apologia with an insane, out of left field post script complaining about Covid vaccination restrictions. In the main body of the book, Gallagher not only brings up Jordan Peterson for no reason but refers to him as a philosopher.
This book is heavily biased, and also poorly written. A true slog.
This book is heavily biased, and also poorly written. A true slog.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews