CARNATION REVOLUTION

The exception of a peaceful transition led by the army

January 2025

A Fondemos case study

INTRODUCTION

On April 25, 1974, Portugal, the last European colonial empire, shifted in an unprecedented way towards democracy through a peaceful coup orchestrated by the Armed Forces Movement (MFA). Nicknamed the “Carnation Revolution” because of the red flowers worn by the soldiers, this democratic transition made modern history through its peaceful nature and rejection of violence.

Yet, this success was based on deep tensions that had been brewing for decades. While the Salazarist regime, in place since 1933, kept the country in economic and social stagnation, the colonial wars in Africa weighed heavily on national finances and exacerbated frustrations both among the civilian population and within the army. The brutal repression carried out by the secret police, the PIDE, stifled all opposition but simultaneously fueled underground resistance and critical reflection, notably among the military.

Therefore, the Carnation Revolution raises a question: to what extent can this unique event be considered a successful exception among the democratic transitions initiated by armies in the 20th century?

This study aims to examine the structural causes that led to the revolution, the central role of the army in its course, and the lessons this episode offers to understand the dynamics of democratic transitions. Through an analysis of the colonial and economic context, military mobilization, and post-revolution political management, we seek to identify the elements that made this revolution a unique and inspiring historical moment.

AN ANACHRONISTIC COLONIAL CONTEXT IN EUROPE AND AN ECONOMIC CRISIS

Portugal, under the Salazarist and then Caetanist dictatorship, was one of the last European states to maintain a large colonial empire, including the following territories in Africa: Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, and São Tomé and Príncipe. These colonies were the scenes of particularly brutal wars of independence, where Portuguese forces employed repressive tactics including the use of napalm, as in Guinea-Bissau. These conflicts, spanning more than a decade (1961–1974), drained Portugal’s human and financial resources and reinforced the regime’s international isolation.

This military violence was compounded by deep economic stagnation. The dictatorship, in place since 1933 under António de Oliveira Salazar and then Marcelo Caetano, kept the country in a state of chronic poverty. Despite relative economic growth in the 1960s thanks to (limited) industrialization and (massive) emigration, a significant part of the population remained rural, illiterate, and marginalized.

Political and economic isolation, exacerbated by international sanctions, reinforced the impression of an obsolete regime disconnected from modern aspirations. This lack of access to education and information served as a tool of control for the regime, but also a barrier to modernization. This dual colonial and economic crisis extended into a climate of repression that stifled all desire for change.

REPRESSION THAT CATALYZES DISCONTENT

The regime relied on systematic repression orchestrated by the PIDE (Polícia Internacional e de Defesa do Estado). This secret police carried out surveillance, arbitrary imprisonment, and torture against dissidents, including intellectuals, students, workers, and soldiers opposed to the war. However, this repression contributed to the emergence of underground movements, notably opposition parties such as the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and union networks.

The colonial wars, perceived as unwinnable conflicts, fueled deep disillusionment among the military.
Junior officers, often educated and from the petty bourgeoisie, found themselves facing a war they deemed morally and strategically unsustainable.

Antonio de Spínola, governor of Guinea-Bissau, played a catalytic role by publishing *Portugal and the Future* (1974), in which he advocated a political solution to the colonial problem. Although the book led to his sidelining, his ideas nourished the thinking of young officers in the Armed Forces Movement (MFA), convinced that only a radical break could save the country. These internal cracks in the army soon transformed into a true breakaway movement.

THE DECISIVE ROLE OF THE ARMY IN THE TRANSITION

On April 25, 1974, the MFA, composed of a core group of young officers, launched a military coup that overthrew the regime without notable violence. The revolution was immediately supported by the civilian population, weary of decades of repression and misery.

The signal

The initial signal of the uprising was disarmingly simple: the broadcast at dawn of the revolutionary song *Grândola, Vila Morena* on public radio, thanks to a collaborator at the station. This seemingly innocuous act was in fact carefully planned: it allowed the insurgent units to synchronize without arousing the regime’s suspicion. The symbolism of the song—celebrating equality and fraternity—fit perfectly into the upcoming narrative.

Seizing strategic nerve centers

From the early hours, MFA rebels seized a series of strategic sites in Lisbon: the airport, national television, the central bank, and the Praça do Comércio, home to major state institutions. This territorial control strategy both paralyzed the regime’s response and projected an image of determined force. By occupying these locations, the revolutionaries also took control of the narrative: national television, once seized, was used to broadcast messages calling for calm while legitimizing the MFA’s actions.

Civilians follow the military’s lead

The takeover of Praça do Comércio early on April 25 marked a visual and political rupture: the authoritarian state no longer ruled there, and the public space suddenly became the people’s. Quickly, hundreds, then thousands of civilians converged, drawn by rumors of an uprising. This popular, spontaneous, and joyful occupation amplified the revolutionary momentum.

Military uniforms were both an asset and a risk. Nothing distinguished the insurgent soldiers from the loyalists: same equipment, same ranks, same language—there was great risk of confusion. Several times, units faced each other, weapons at the ready, unsure whether they were allies or enemies.

This is where the negotiation skill and composure of the insurgent leaders played a decisive role. In a situation where a single order to fire could have plunged the country into civil war, restraint was lifesaving.

Civilians did not merely observe: they applauded the soldiers, chanted slogans for freedom, offered water and food to the military, and discussed politics in the streets. Handcrafted signs, flags, and songs began to emerge, turning the square into a space of collective expression. The visible support of the people gave the MFA decisive moral weight, reinforcing their legitimacy and discouraging hesitation within loyalist ranks. The street thus became a full-fledged actor in the revolution.

The symbol of the carnations, which became a global emblem of the Portuguese revolution, was born of a spontaneous gesture. In a downtown Lisbon restaurant, a young waitress, Celeste Caeiro, handed red flowers to MFA soldiers passing by; she simply gave them what she had on hand—carnations originally intended for a birthday celebration canceled due to the uprising. Touched by the peaceful gesture, the soldiers placed the flowers in the barrels of their rifles. Very quickly, neighborhood florists and passersby joined in, and Lisbon’s streets turned red.

THE REGIME OVERTHROWN WITHOUT A SHOT FIRED

Gamble

A central figure on April 25, Captain Salgueiro Maia embodied this nonviolent revolution. At dawn, he woke up his 240 men in Santarém, convinced them in a few words, and led them to Lisbon. At the Praça do Comércio, he made the government flee without firing a single shot: when faced with an armored unit loyal to the regime, he stepped forward alone, white handkerchief in hand. A loyalist general ordered the troops to shoot—but they refused. This shift illustrates a key moment: the revolution hinged on individual acts of disobedience.

Later, Maia surrounded the barracks where Caetano had taken refuge and told the press that the entire army was on his side: this bluff helped tip the situation.

Nonviolence

The Carnation Revolution walked a fine line: that of unwavering pacifism. From the beginning, MFA officers chose to tolerate no acts of violence, aware that a single shot could trigger an uncontrollable response from the loyalist army or political police forces. Their exemplary discipline paid off: the population poured into the streets even before victory was assured, cheering the soldiers and spontaneously placing carnations in their gun barrels. This immediate popular support was decisive, both in legitimizing the coup and as a safeguard against any repression attempt.

Tactical Amnesty: Renouncing Revenge

Another key pillar of this strategy was the careful handling of the regime’s collapse. Dictator Marcelo Caetano received guarantees of exile and protection, without suffering public humiliation. This form of “tactical amnesty” made it possible to conclude the revolutionary day without reprisals, without summary trials, and most importantly, without provoking radicalization among the regime’s last supporters. Though uncomfortable for those who had hoped for immediate justice, the choice proved beneficial for transition stability. A revolution that humiliates or crushes its opponent could have triggered a backlash. Here, the intelligence of compromise paved the way to democracy. This success, without major bloodshed, demonstrated not only the insurgents’ strategic skill but also the deeply rooted culture of nonviolence in Portuguese society. Only the political police resisted with arms, firing into the crowd and causing four deaths and 45 injuries—the sole victims of this revolution.

The MFA thus facilitated the transition to a democratic regime. However, the long process was not without tensions: the years following the revolution were marked by struggles between political factions, massive economic nationalizations, and the difficult withdrawal from the colonies.

CONCLUSION

The Carnation Revolution remains a remarkable exception in the history of democratic transitions: a military coup turned, in less than twenty-four hours, into a peaceful popular uprising, leading to a durable transition. This success was not accidental but the result of a series of identifiable factors.

First, it was built on an unusual coalition between junior officers and civil society. The MFA did not represent the entire army, but a faction morally and strategically opposed to the continuation of the colonial war. This internal fracture, exacerbated by unequal recognition and promotion of officers, created a political opening. It highlights the importance, in other contexts, of identifying potential reformist segments within military institutions.

The MFA’s strategy illustrates the power of careful coordination and nonviolent tactical discipline. Not a single shot was exchanged between the insurgents and the forces loyal to the regime. This choice, far from naive, was based on a clear calculation: any armed escalation could have led to civil war or justified brutal repression.

Conversely, military restraint enabled swift popular support: people took to the streets even before the outcome was clear. Popular legitimacy merged with the military initiative to transform it into a true revolution.

Another essential factor: the intelligence of compromise. The MFA agreed to negotiate an honorable exit for Marcelo Caetano, guaranteeing him exile in Brazil. This form of “tactical amnesty” prevented a violent collapse of the state apparatus and avoided a cycle of revenge. In any transition, the ability to forgo immediate retaliation in favor of long-term stability is a major strategic condition.

The Carnation Revolution also shows the importance of storytelling and popular symbols. It swayed public opinion. The choice of occupied locations, the staging of a unified movement, and the strategic use of radio communication reinforced the perception of a legitimate, almost inevitable action. The image of carnations in rifle barrels, born of a spontaneous gesture, helped project a joyful and popular revolution.

The unique characteristics of this event—nonviolence, strong rejection of colonial wars, and a national culture oriented toward peace—make it a difficult exception to replicate, unlike some of its methods. Recent contexts show that without a firm will to return power to civilians, the military tends to remain in control. Any attempt to encourage a positive role for the army in a democratic transition must therefore be preceded by significant persuasion efforts, supported by strong institutional guarantees and an international framework backing the transition.

SOURCES

• “Carnation Revolution” in Portugal: 50 years ago, the dictatorship overthrown in popular jubilation – France 24, April 25, 2024.
• Portugal, April 25, 1974: the Carnation Revolution – History at the BnF, 2024. The Carnation Revolution in Portugal: what happened from April 25, 1974 – INA, 2024.
• The Carnation Revolution – Documentary replay – France TV, April 28, 2024.
• The Spanish press and the Carnation Revolution – Persée, 2005.
• The Carnation Revolution and the struggle over history: “History is what hurts” *Cahiers d’histoire. Revue d’histoire critique*, 2024.
• The Carnation Revolution. An event of global significance – Sciences Po, 2024.
• The death of “Celeste of the Carnations,” symbol of the Portuguese revolution – Le Monde, November 19, 2024.
• Carnations for the revolution, Brigitte Kleine, Arte Documentary, March 28, 2024