José Gil, one of Portugal’s most influential contemporary philosophers, delivers a blunt warning about the future of democracy: without radical reinvention, societies are drifting toward a new form of authoritarian rule shaped by technology, inequality, and ecological collapse. In an interview originally reported by El Pais, Gil argues that figures like Donald Trump represent not an isolated phenomenon but a transition toward a deeper and more dangerous political order.
Gil’s intellectual trajectory has always been shaped by displacement and distance. Born in 1939 in Mozambique during Portuguese colonial rule, he grew up on the margins of empire. Later, he fled the authoritarian regime of Salazar in Portugal and moved to France, where he studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and was influenced by thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze. This life between geographies and political systems, he suggests, has allowed him to see Europe from its edges rather than its center.
For Gil, colonialism has not disappeared but has transformed. He argues that modern exploitation no longer relies on territorial control but on economic extraction and resource domination. In this new phase, former colonial relationships persist through global capitalism, reshaping not only economies but also cultures and identities. Independence, he notes, did not necessarily break these structures, especially in parts of Africa where weak institutions struggled to resist new forms of dependency.
A central theme of his analysis is the reemergence of authoritarian politics. Gil rejects the idea that today’s movements can be easily labeled as classical fascism, arguing instead that multiple forms of authoritarianism are emerging simultaneously. In the United States, he sees attempts to build a system with dictatorial features, including pressure on the media and the normalization of paramilitary-style political forces. Yet he insists that the present moment is not a repetition of the twentieth century but something structurally different.
What distinguishes this new phase, according to Gil, is its ideological emptiness and its dependence on digital systems. He describes it as a “double reality” shaped by technology, where truth and simulation merge. In this environment, traditional appeals to values, religion, or ideology lose relevance. He even suggests that society no longer needs a God-like figure to legitimize authority, because digital systems and algorithms now perform that function in subtle but powerful ways.
Donald Trump, in this reading, is not the endpoint but a transitional figure. Gil characterizes him as part of a broader movement toward what he calls a proto-dictatorial model, one that paradoxically presents itself as liberating while attacking existing regimes. This contradiction, he argues, is characteristic of a new political culture that is still taking shape. The real transformation, however, lies ahead and may be far more technologically driven than anything seen before.
A major source of concern for Gil is the rise of artificial intelligence and the power of technology billionaires. He warns that the most dangerous actors are not only current political leaders but those who control future infrastructures of power. In his view, wealthy technology elites are laying the groundwork for a form of control that could eventually surpass traditional democratic systems. This emerging order, he argues, is being built with public consent and limited awareness of its long term consequences.
He also highlights the ecological dimension of this transformation. Climate change, he argues, is not a secondary issue but a central threat to political and economic survival. He links environmental degradation to technological expansion, particularly the energy demands of artificial intelligence systems and digital infrastructure. In his view, these developments are accelerating what economist Yanis Varoufakis has called technofeudalism, a system in which wealth extraction is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a digital elite.
Gil is especially critical of Europe’s political response. He believes democratic systems across the continent are on the defensive and lacking in imagination. Political parties, whether left or right, he argues, are failing to propose meaningful reforms or articulate a new vision for democracy. This absence of political creativity, he suggests, leaves Europe vulnerable in a world dominated by the United States, China, and Russia.
He proposes that Europe could only survive as a geopolitical force if it rethinks its fundamental structure, moving beyond the traditional nation state model toward a deeper form of federation. This would require not only institutional change but also a shift in public consciousness. Without it, he warns, Europe risks remaining fragmented and powerless in the face of global technological and political forces.
Migration is another key issue in Gil’s analysis. He criticizes both left and right for failing to develop coherent policies that integrate immigrant populations effectively. Instead, he argues, migration has become a political tool exploited by far right movements to create division and fear. This dynamic, he suggests, echoes older fascist strategies that rely on defining internal enemies to unify political support.
Perhaps most striking is Gil’s concern about everyday life under technological influence. He describes how artificial intelligence is already reshaping human behavior, citing friends who spend hours interacting with AI systems and begin to perceive them as more than machines. For him, this signals a deeper form of dependency that is rarely discussed but potentially dangerous.
Despite these warnings, Gil acknowledges that democratic systems still retain some resilience. Recent political developments in Portugal, where moderate socialist forces defeated far right candidates, suggest that democratic opposition is not yet exhausted. However, he sees these victories as temporary delays rather than real solutions.
Gil’s message is one of urgency. Without a fundamental rethinking of democracy, he believes societies are moving toward a future defined by technological domination, ecological crisis, and new forms of authoritarian power. The choice, as he sees it, is not between stability and change, but between transformation and collapse.
