01/26/10 - Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque)
[Temas Magazine]*
Cuba fifty years later:
continuity and political change
By
Carlos Alzugaray Treto, Professor, University of Havana
We must do at every moment what at every moment becomes
necessary.
José Martí
Revolution is a sense of the historic moment: it’s changing everything
that must be changed.
Fidel Castro
On July 31,
2006, when Fidel Castro temporarily handed over to his brother Raúl,
Cuba embarked on a process of political change which has now reached a
critical crossroads. Almost nineteen months later, on February 24, 2008,
the VII Session of the National Assembly of the People’s Power (NAPP)
appointed a new government headed by the then interim President.
Yet, a new era hitherto unknown in recent Cuban history began when
Fidel Castro stepped down as the Head of State and of Government for the
first time since 1959 –when he took office as the Prime Minister– and
became instead “comrade Fidel”. In light of the historic moment that
Cuba is going through, it can’t be denied that there are unavoidable
changes looming on its near future and, naturally, a certain degree of
uncertainty.
At a crossroads: continuity and change
This essay is
just an attempt to reflect on the meaning of continuity and political
change. It’s not my intention to either lecture the reader or suggest
any change, nor put forward any wrapped-up alternatives. Of itself, the
topic calls for open debate, dialogue and deliberation. In the words of
Julio Carranza, “The scientists and their scientific institutions are
responsible for doing a public service that entails providing society
with direct information and specialized assessments, not as a political
proposal but as well-founded interpretations that contribute to improve
people’s cultural level and general knowledge about a number of
subjects”. [1]
I start from the premise that a foreseeable process of evolution
toward new ways of leading the Cuban society is already on the go. It’s
not about what political science has branded as “transition”, which has
set in motion a whole body of opinion about “transitology” [2], even if
the need to adjust, transform and change within the framework of
continuity may befit the broadest sense of such notion. However, the
concept has become too “heavy”, as it hints at a “change of regime” and,
mostly, the exaltation of what Atilio Borón has called “democratic
capitalism” in societies previously ruled by regimes considered to be
“authoritarian” or “totalitarian” [3]. But Cuba is neither, since both
its starting point and its ultimate goal are different from those of the
most well-known “transitions”.
It’s rather
about the fact that, for obvious reasons, Fidel Castro’s leadership has
been unique. It’s been often said in some high political circles that
Fidel’s absence will change nothing, to the extreme that, in keeping
with such reasoning, the notion that socialism is irrevocable was made
constitutional, on grounds that we had to protect the continuity of a
process otherwise faced with outside maneuvers to the opposite, mainly
in the United States. Unfortunately, it can also be a straight path
toward immobilism and opposition to reform. Nonetheless, as Atilio Borón
recently said, “The nonsense of cursing any reform as heresy or a
treason to socialism –understood as unchangeable dogma, not only from
the viewpoint of its tenets, which is fine, but also as a historic
project, which is wrong, is patently obvious, as it would be like
consecrating a suicidal kind of immobilism, negating our ability to
correct any mistakes, and giving up collective learning, all of which
are essential conditions for socialism’s continual improvement." [4]
Needless to say, this warning heralds the need for changes in the
way to do politics and rule, even if these chances stem from our own
internal dynamics rather than from outside pressure. Raúl Castro put it
very well when he said: “We will never take a decision, not even one,
that results from pressure or blackmail, come from where it may, be it a
powerful country or an entire continent!” [5]
These changes are taking place within the context of continuity as
we have always done it in Cuba: challenging preconceptions, which raises
questions about what fate is likely to have in store for Cuba given the
unprecedented circumstances facing us today. Many, even the
left-wingers, surmise and conjecture to no end on the basis of other
known, seemingly similar processes from not so long ago. But as usual,
it will be the Cuban people who will deal with their own predicaments.
Fidel Castro, the Revolution and its place in history
As the driving force behind the political regime ruling in Cuba
today, the Revolution has been a process at once necessary and original.
As a necessity, from a historic standpoint, it sprang from what can be
defined as the four great national designs that Cuba had pursued since
the 19th century: national sovereignty, social justice, a sustainable
economy, and its own democratic government. Unlike socialism in Eastern
Europe –excepting the USSR– the triumph of the Revolution in 1959
resulted from specific internal circumstances rather than from foreign
demands.
For all its flaws and setbacks, Fidel Castro’s fabulous 47-year-long
political success has stemmed precisely from his ability to lead the Cuban
nation toward the achievement of these four aspirations despite any
inadequacies and setbacks. Not all of them have reached the desired
extent, but Cuba today is a far cry from what it was in back in 1958,
thanks to the change of government and political structure that people
wanted and which came to be despite many obstacles put in its path and,
in particular, the never-ending hostility shown by its powerful
neighbor, the United States.
To illustrate this point with an example, suffice it to quote in
extensor the words of Harvard University professor Jorge I. Domínguez,
whom we could hardly accuse of being an advocate of socialism or the
Cuban model:
"To honor, honors: one of José Martí’s finest phrases,
was added to the
Cuban cultural vernacular more than a century ago. So let’s all, both
those who supported him and those, myself included, who never did, honor
Fidel Castro in the twilight of his life, as he was the one who
transformed a people into a nation, played a decisive role in the
modernization of its society, and understood like no one else that the
Cubans wanted to “be someone”, not just an appendage of the United
States. He was the one who saw that such a hypochondriacal people needed
more doctors and nurses per square centimeter than any other on the face
of the earth. He was the architect of a policy to invest in human
resources which turns Cuban children into Olympic champions of Latin
American education and therefore bodes well for Cuba’s future. He made
it possible for Cubans of all races to access public health, education,
a decent life which befits every human being, and right to think that I,
my children and their children deserve equal respect and opportunities
as anyone else regardless of our skin color. He was not the one who
first said that women had the same rights as men, but he did promoted
gender equality in everyday life. (…) He was the spirit behind a gesture
that all of mankind appreciates: he sent his soldiers into harm’s way to
fight for the honorable cause of keeping Angola safe from South Africa’s
apartheid –whose abolition he also contributed to attain– and helped
Namibia and Angola protect their independence. The day Fidel dies, the
flags of those African countries should be at half-mast.” [6]
"The chance that both the Cuban people and their leaders resign of
their own free will to what we have accomplished in these fifty years
is, at best, highly unlikely. However, Fidel Castro’s successors at the
head of the nation are in for a serious challenge if they want to keep
the system going on without his essential presence. That the Cuban
revolutionary process can be compromised as a result of internal
mistakes rather than external pressure is a fact that Fidel Castro
himself stated dramatically at the University of Havana on November 17,
2005." [7]
A major strength of the Cuban political regime today is its internal
and external legitimacy. The latter is given by the Island’s well-known
international activism and a large network of foreign relations, which
has earned it on two occasions the Chair of the Non-Aligned Countries
and a long series of wins in the United Nations when resolutions
condemning and demanding the end of the U.S. blockade against Cuba have
been put to the vote. Having neutralized the policy to isolate Cuba from
the rest of the world has been one of the Cuban diplomacy’s most
important victories.
At domestic level, add to a widespread support for what has come to
be known as “the achievements of the Revolution” an institutional
structure that subsists on two chief mainstays: the Communist Party of
Cuba (PCC) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR). Many people around
the world have wrongly assumed that the PCC is a carbon copy of similar
bodies in the former European socialist bloc. Despite the fact that the
Party leadership has made mistakes –admitted and/or corrected– and still
uses some working methods in the style of the Soviet political model
–such as too much centralization, for instance– the Cuban leaders have
indeed taken great interest in two main issues: making the Party members
practice what they preach and being in the forefront of any socio-political
program, and tackling what signs of corruption arise in its ranks. The
honesty, humbleness and spirit of self-sacrifice advocated by Che
Guevara’s thought has been in general a tradition in the rules of
behavior embraced by the Cuban communists, not the perks and
prerogatives of the old
nomenklatura that existed back in the heyday of
the real socialism.
The provincial and municipal Party leaders, who work closely with
the People’s Power assemblies at those levels, are the main bodies of
local government. Even though the system is largely effective, there’s
much more disagreement in the provinces and municipalities than at
central level, where the PCC plays its leading role without any
differences between political and administrative matters. Everyone knows
that the First Secretary of the Party Committee is the highest
administrative authority in their territory, to the extent that they
formally preside over the Defense Councils, the top ruling body in case
of natural disasters or wars. At national level, however, things are
better understood because the President and Vice president are
respectively the First and Second Secretary of the Party.
In any event –and this is a significant challenge– a truly
democratic culture is still a long way off. As Aurelio Alonso has
pointed out:
"Lenin’s proposal of ‘democratic centralism’ as the formula for
proletarian power has only served to establish centralism in
decision-making and democracy to back it up, when its value lies in the
fact that any centralized action must be contingent on what’s
democratically decided." [8]
Too many leaders seem to believe that discussion’s sole purpose is
to convince the citizens, regardless of their opinions, that the route
followed by the highest levels of government at any given time is the
truly revolutionary one and, ergo, any criticism or dissent sprouts from
ideological confusion or, even worse, counterrevolutionary feelings.
“Any upfront statement at odds with the official discourse is
stigmatized as immature, naïve, careless or plainly antagonistic”. [9]
Depending on the political rhetoric used by many leaders, those who dare
are described more often than not as “poorly informed”, never mind that
the truth behind their views is not available either because if it were
public knowledge “the enemy might find it useful”. The paternalistic
reproach that those who differ or dissent are just falling into the
error of being “ingenuous” is also very common.
On the other hand, no real culture of discussion and debate exists
in Cuba, a fact particularly noticeable among the young generations,
more educated and learned. So it has been remarked by Jesús Arencibia
Lorenzo in an article published in Alma Mater, the journal of the
Federation of University Students (FEU), where he mentions the “seven
bricks” that get in the way of a truly productive debate with our
national project in mind: the fear of risk, the besieged city syndrome,
the monopoly of information, widespread ambiguity, fanatical Puritanism,
all-embracing planning, and the language of the tasks. [10]
Finally, the need to protect the achievements of the Revolution from
imperialism’s increasing attacks as well as the trend to have everything
in state ownership and a centralized decision-making process for so many
years have led to what Mayra Espina calls the “hypernationalization” of
society.
"Everything translates into the hypernationalization of social
relations, centralization and verticality, paternalistim,
authoritarianism, and a far-reaching homogeneity that is anything but
capable of meeting the rich variety of heterogeneous needs and
expectations found in groups, territories or areas and pave the way for
alienation for lack of a real participation in decision-making." [11]
We often see malformations in the bond between the citizenry and
some officials, themselves citizens, who hold important positions in the
State apparatus. These bureaucrats behave like bosses who decide what’s
right or wrong and enjoy such privilege rather than individuals at the
service of, and accountable to, the people they work for. As early as in
1963, Raúl Roa defined bureaucracy as “one of socialism’s worst
stumbling blocks”. [12]
The need for economic and political changes
Without Fidel Castro’s great pull with people and appeal for
consensus, it will be increasingly vital to make room for the kind of
dialogue and debate that brings with it real and stronger forms of
collective and deliberative participation.
It’s impossible to address here the topic of alternative democratic
models. Most left-wing movements have countered the age-old capitalistic
concept of “representative democracy”, so closely related to the idea of
“procedural democracy”, with the notion of “participatory democracy”.
Throw in the idea of deliberation and we will be reinforcing the norm
that the citizens should not only take part in political decision-making
and the implementation of its output, but also contribute to its
development through a rational, well-founded dialogue about every option
at hand.
Contemporary political science puts forward the concept of
deliberative democracy as a means to make up for what’s missing in the
developed capitalist societies. Its promoters have described it
essentially as “the need to justify the decisions made by the citizens
and their representatives, both of whom are expected to justify any
mutually binding laws. Therefore, the leaders of a democracy should
explain why they made a given decision and heed what the citizens argue
to the contrary. But not all matters need deliberation all the time.
Deliberative democracy allows for other forms of decision-making
–including deals and agreements between groups and secret operations
ordered by executives– provided they are of themselves justifiable at
some point through deliberation. Thus, the requirement to provide
reasons is their first and foremost feature." [13]
The other mainstays of the system, –the FAR and its important sister
institution the Ministry of the Interior (MININT), originally linked to
the Rebel Army, the former’s predecessor– are the most effective and
prestigious of the institutions established by Cuba's historic
leadership. Their popular extraction, as well as their constant
attention to the population’s problems and their historic contribution to
national defense and liberation both in and outside Cuba, in addition to
an economic pragmatism noticeable through the implementation of the
“corporate improvement” process in their industries, place them in very
good standing with large sectors of society. The top brass boasts a
tradition of heroism, trustworthiness and professionalism that few
countries in the world can equal.
Cohesion between the Party and the Armed Forces, which must be
nourished all the time, depend on the prevailing trends seen at other
major levels of leadership in Cuban society. On one hand, there’s the
noted corporate sector, partly administered by high-ranking FAR officers
but also by a younger generation of economists and managers presumably
willing to maintain the existing consensus, even if demands for a more
flexible economic policy have been made in their midst, not unlike those
expressed –albeit for different reasons– by top army
officers: the
former set their sights on managerial effectiveness, while the latter
are concerned about preserving social stability. It’s not about
embracing a market economy, but adopting initiatives that give managers
more leeway, as expected from the corporate improvement process launched
in the industrial-military sector, whose only goal is to encourage
production and develop the productive forces. It’s also a matter of
fueling individual can-do, a process already started in the mid-1990s
when a number of reforms were made to get Cuba out of the special
period. These demands have been expressed in various recent meetings of
Cuban economists. [14]
Cuba is faced with the dilemma of having to make changes within the
framework of continuity –some of which are already under way, as
evidenced by measures and statements made by Raúl Castro’s new
government– and dealing with the political and economic transformation
that is sure to ensue.
As a rule, young people, and particularly the students, have played
a central part in Cuban politics. Most top leaders of the country have
been members of, and made their debut in public life in, the Federation
of University Students. [15] Together with the Young Communist League (UJC),
the FEU has spearheaded the main social programs promoted by Fidel
Castro. However, despite their growing demands for a more prominent role
in the current period of change, their mission will be contingent on the
policies designed by other levels of leadership. All social subjects are
aware of the difficulties in carrying out this process, as former FEU
president Carlos Lage Codorníu warned in a symposium published by Temas
magazine: “It’s not that our new ideas won’t get through, but many of
them are yet to be heard.” [16]
In general, the workers and farmers organizations will try to climb
several places up the ladder and are likely to succeed under Raúl Castro
precisely because of the need to put together a new national consensus.
Such is the case of the process that has just begun, headed by the
National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP), to grant people idle land
in usufruct with a view to boosting food production. On the other hand,
the nationwide debate about the new Social Security Act that took place
for most of 2008 before it was approved by the National Assembly is a
sure sign that the Cuban Trade Unions (CTC) are having far more social
leverage. [17] But useful as this process may have been to give
discussion a chance, the truth is that the Parliament’s unanimous yea
was not a faithful reflection of the differing views among the
population.
Finally, the Cuban intelligentsia, recently shaken by sad memories
of the “gray quinquennium” of the early 1970s –when we copied the USSR’s
cultural policies– will aim for more autonomy and freedom without
neglecting their commitment to the key goals of the Cuban society, which
became manifest in the latest Congress of the Cuban Union of Writers and
Artists (UNEAC), a momentous offer to open the door to deliberative
democracy and more spaces for public debate.
Economic challenges
Raúl Castro’s greatest internal challenge will be the Cuban people’s
increasing demand that their salaries and legal income be sufficiently
valuable to meet their day-to-day needs, a request often made through
criticism of the dual currency system. Two major government-promoted
achievements have lost their balance since 1989: first, the one between
people’s income and the price of essential items, some of which are
covered by the “ration book” and others by state subsidies; and second,
the harmony that until the Special Period existed among the various
social groups. Although Cuba gave up its egalitarian policies in the
late 1970s and early 1980s, a healthy tendency remained in place to
prevent excessive inequality, but the 1993-1994 reforms gave rise to
some disparities, all the more annoying as they widened the gap between
salary and purchasing power and, on top of that, because in most cases
they were the result of unlawful and corrupt behavior.
Most Cubans aspire to keep their present levels of social security,
but they would like to see Marx’s formula –“from each according to his
capacity, to each according to his work”– really applied in daily life.
Yet, this rule is not observed. Hard as it is to make an accurate
measurement of the national consensus in this regard, it’s safe to say
that the Cubans would like to have a better shot at thriving by giving
more sectors away to private initiative and expanding the existing ones
while keeping a basically socialist economic system in place.
Incidentally, this is nothing new by a long shot, since as early as in 1973, in
his speech for the 20th anniversary of the 26th of July, Fidel Castro
pointed out the need to “valiantly rectify” the “idealistic errors we
may have made in handling the economy” and went on to underscore that
communism “can only be attained with a communist education of the new
generations and the development of our productive forces”, and then said
in emphatic words: “This is the socialist stage of the Revolution, where
the lack of resources and the cultural level and political awareness of
a society freshly out of capitalism compel us to implement the form of
distribution stated by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program: from
each according to their ability, to each according to their work!" [18]
In his own 26th of July speech in 2008, President Raúl Castro,
referring to Fidel’s words as “fundamental”, said: “That speech offers
not only a sound analysis of the past and of those days specifically,
but also an accurate and precise appraisal of the harsh realities the
future had in store and the way to tackle them.” [19]
Today’s state of affairs has forced many Cubans to turn to the
so-called “informal sector” in order to make ends meet and engage
themselves in activities of a more or less illegal nature, a condition
very often decided by ludicrous prohibitions and bureaucratic
regulations, which have led Cuban leaders to understand, and rightly
so, that the current situation has become the most dangerous obstacle to
their idea of a sustainable project. Fidel Castro himself
acknowledged this in his speech at the University [of Havana, November
17, 2005]. However, despite some pay
raises and other measures, conventional wisdom has it that the
government’s response has been inadequate.
Several recent developments have only made things worse. Between
2006 and 2008, the state announced GDP growth rates exceeding 10% and
created an atmosphere of great expectation, as yet unsatisfied, about
personal prosperity. [20] Cuba’s main strategic allies at this point,
namely China, Venezuela and Vietnam, have set in motion –in different
ways and conditions– economic policies that give private enterprise more
possibilities for the benefit of individual well-being. Then we were hit
by natural disasters and the world economic crisis of the late 2008,
which aggravated people’s discontent.
On balance, in order to understand the need to deal successfully
with corruption and unlawfulness and in general to preserve the
Revolution, it would be advisable to recall one of José Martí’s many
premonitory phrases: “Being good is the only way to be happy. Being
cultured is the only way to be free. With human nature in general,
however, to be good, one has to be prosperous.” [21]
What has happened in the years which have elapsed between Fidel Castro’s
illness and his period of convalescence proves that important changes
are taking place in the way to do politics and seek solutions to
the above-mentioned challenges. Not only has Raúl Castro shown a
preference for collective leadership and a dislike of Fidel’s long
speeches and high profile in national life; he has also defined and
fostered a number of policies aimed at the very heart of the problems
facing Cuba.
Judging by the facts after his delegation of powers –with Raúl
setting his own standards and priorities– Fidel and his brother seem to
have an identity of interests within the context of diversity. Making an
educated guess, we could say that they agree with and recognize each
other’s mission. To be sure, Fidel was the visionary who thought up and
plotted the route to be followed by an independent, sovereign Cuba,
whereas Raúl has been the keeper who has faithfully discharged his duty
as “protector of the rearguard”, to use his own words. At the same time,
by knowing when to move over and let his successor do his job in his own
style and as he sees fit, Fidel Castro has guaranteed two things: the
continuity of the project under the new circumstances, and his brother’s
success in being what he must: the figure that will smooth the path for
a change in the way Cuba is governed.
In light of the impossibility of holding the VI Party Congress, a
PCC conference is to be arranged in the near future which should be
directed toward the definition and realization of the economic and
political changes that will ensure transition without detriment to
continuity as well as a better and more successful organization of our
society –subject to the discussion process encouraged by the government–
in line with Raúl Castro’s main statements since he took office. The
President himself has spoken about the need to “collectively reflect on
the experiences of these years of the Revolution in power” and “shape,
with future projections, the Party’s policy in different aspects of our
society.” [22]
Perfectly noticeable in Raúl Castro’s speeches and interventions is
the importance he attaches to our main economic, if not essentially
political, challenge: improving people’s living standards by increasing
food production and service quality.
In 2008, right after being elected President of the Councils of
State and Ministers, he reaffirmed the following in two key statements
delivered in his inauguration speech on February 24 and then at the 1st
Session of the 7th Legislation of the Cuban Parliament on July 11:
"I repeat that the country’s priority will be to meet the basic
needs of the population, both material and spiritual, based on the
sustained strengthening of the national economy and its productive basis
without which, I’ll say it again, development would be impossible. [...]
It is our strategic objective today to advance in a sound, articulate
and well-thought manner until the wages recover their role and everyone
enjoys living standards that corresponds directly with their legally
earned income, that is, with the significance and quantity of their
contribution to society." [23]
"That the workers feel that they own the means of production depends
not only on theoretical explanations –we have been giving them for
around 48 years– or how much we appreciate their opinions. It is
paramount that their income square with their personal contribution and
the fulfillment by their workplace of the social object it was
established for in the first place, that is, to reach the production
targets or service standards laid down in their development plan. [...]
Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of
opportunities, not of income. Equality is not egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is in itself the ultimate form of exploitation of the
good workers by those who are not or, worse yet, by the lazy." [24]
Reaching these cardinal goals involves the challenge of holding
crucial debates about the future of the Cuban socialist model. On
December 28, 2007, Raúl said about the need to increase agricultural
production:
"There have been advances in the studies and we will continue to
act, with all the speed that circumstances permit, so that land and
resources are in the hands of those who are capable of producing with
efficiency, so that they feel supported, socially recognized, and
receive the material retribution that they deserve." [25]
Before that, in his first great speech in 2007 –in Camagüey province
on July 26– he stressed in reference to the said indispensable need: “To
reach these goals, we will have to make as many structural and
conceptual changes as necessary.” The focal point of his speech was: “We
must work with a critical and creative spirit, avoiding stagnation and
oversimplification” and, to this end, “We are duty-bound to question
everything we do as we strive to materialize our will more and more
perfectly, to change concepts and methods which were appropriate at one
point but have been surpassed by life itself.” [26] These ideas have
born fruit mainly in the agricultural sector, but hopefully they will be
extended to other fields of production and service.
More importantly, the Government, like it or not, is faced with the
question of whether the economic model adopted by the leaders of the
Communist Party of China has any bearing on the future of the Cuban
process, taking into account that it’s frowned upon by the left in spite
of its undeniable results and the improvement on the Chinese people’s
overall living conditions. On November 17, 2008, Granma published an
article titled “China keeps proving the validity of socialism” where the
People’s Republic’s economic achievements were praised and Fidel Castro
was quoted as saying that “China has objectively become the most
promising hope for and the best example to all Third World countries.”
[27]
In terms of extension, population, socioeconomic magnitude, historic
tradition and cultural identity, the difference between Cuba and China
are, far and away, too big to think of embracing the Asian giant’s model
of development. However, if we want to reach our targets, a number of
aspects in the process of reforms that China set in motion could be
useful to Cuba. First, that they gave priority to the development of
their productive forces in order to achieve their socialist purpose.
Second, their adoption of the principle that socialism is built on the
basis of each nation’s specific features. Third, their emphasis on the
output as a yardstick of economic planning, using Deng Xiaoping’s famous
Confucian maxim: Black cat or white cat: if it can catch mice, it’s a
good cat”. Fourth, their recognition and adoption of financial and
commercial relations on the basis of a “socialist market economy”, and
finally, the permanent revision of their ways and formulas to make the
necessary adjustments taking into consideration their social impact and
fixing the undesirable problems that a new course of action always
causes. [28]
By applying these practical principles, the Chinese government has
managed to release around 200-300 million people from poverty and rise
an estimated 180-200 million citizens to middle-class level in a fairly
short time, thus ensuring a high degree of social stability in China.
It’s true that their success has not been exactly spotless, but we have
to admit that, one, there’s no such thing as a perfect society, and two,
that the Chinese Communist Party leaders are the first to admit that
they have these problems. Since they start from the premise that
everything has to be reviewed over and over again, as stated by Raúl
Castro, the Chinese government is always ready to come up with as many
corrective policies as necessary.
Another important factor in the tentative economic policies that the
Cuban leaders have considered on the basis of Raúl Castro’s statements
is the U.S. economic, trade and financial blockade against Cuba.
Denouncing the goals of such policy and its destructively aggressive
nature, the President said in July 2007:
"We need to bring everyone to the daily battle against the very errors
which aggravate objective difficulties derived from external causes,
especially those induced by the U.S. economic blockade, which really
constitutes a relentless war against our people, as the current
Aministration of that country is particularly bent on finding even the
slightest of ways to harm us." [29]
In February 2008 he outlined this idea in the following terms:
"We are aware of the huge efforts needed to strengthen our economy,
which is an unavoidable premise to advance in any other area of society,
given the real war waged by the U.S. Administration on our country.
Their intention has not changed since the triumph of the Revolution: to
make our people suffer as much as possible in order to force them to
give up their decision to be free. Far from intimidating us, this fact
should continue making us stronger. Instead of using it as an excuse for
our mistakes, it should spur all of us on to produce more and to provide
better services, to strive to find ways and means to remove any
obstacles to the development of our productive forces, and to make the
most of the significant potential of any money-saving measures and a
proper organization of labor". [30]
Not only did he cover a key point regarding Cuba’s economic
development, his assertion that progress is possible despite the harsh
U.S. blockade is in itself the seed of what could be called the
achievement of economic self-sufficiency. This is all the more important
if we take a look at the changes occurred in that neighboring country,
weakened by a crisis at once economic, diplomatic, political and
military, and the election of Barack Obama. Being able to say that,
damaging as it may be, the blockade will not stand in the way of
prosperity for Cuba as a whole and its citizens in particular, deprives
any U.S. government from what Washington has always considered as either
a key arm-twister or a major bargaining chip.
Political challenges
On the political front, President Raúl Castro’s statements have
always conveyed an appeal to improve democracy and the use of discussion
and dialogue as a crucial instrument to reach consensus.
"There is no reason to fear discrepancy in a society such as ours,
whose very nature precludes the existence of antagonistic
contradictions, since the social classes that make it up are not
antagonistic themselves. The best solutions can come from a profound
exchange of differing opinions, if such an exchange is guided by
sensible purposes and the views are stated in a responsible way." [31]
In his opinion, no claim from the citizens should go unheeded even
if it turns out to have been manipulated by Imperialism’s propaganda
apparatus:
"We shall not disregard any honest opinion, which proves so useful
and necessary on account of the fuss they make, at times pretty
ridiculous, whenever a Cuban citizen says something that the very
troublemakers would paid no attention to if they heard it anywhere else
on the planet." [32]
Thus he invited all Cubans to discuss even the topic of socialism
and how to build it. In February 2008, he recalled Fidel’s self-critical
remarks in the University: “Here is a conclusion I’ve come to after many
years: among the many mistakes we have all made, the greatest one was to
believe that someone really knew something about socialism, or that
someone actually knew how to build socialism”. [33] Later on, in
December, he revisited the issue before the Parliament as follows:
"Are we building socialism? Because to be honest I must also say
that in addition to these problems about the new Social Security Act
that we are discussing, the truth is that we are working very little, we
are working less. That is a fact that you can see for yourselves
anywhere in the country. Forgive the rawness of my language, and you are
under no obligation to agree with me. I am conveying these ideas to you
first of all to encourage not only your thoughts, comrades, but also
those of all Cubans throughout the country. Some are just my personal
views and should not therefore be deemed binding on you. These are
matters that we are duty-bound to study and debate in depth and
objectively, which is the only way to get closer to the most convenient
formulas to carry on with the Revolution and socialism." [34]
He repeated this invitation to disagree with, and dissent from, any
statement –even his own– when he mentioned the controversy caused by our
Social Security Bill:
"The process of study and consultation with all of the workers that
will begin next September before the Bill is approved by the National
Assembly in December will be useful to clarify every doubt and provide a
framework to volunteer any opinion. Everybody will be attentively
listened to, whether or not they agree with the views of the majority,
exactly as we have been doing with the statements made during the
process of reflection about the 26th of July speech. We do not aspire to
unanimity, which is usually fictitious, on this or any other subject."
[35]
In his inauguration speech he referred to the need to have
increasingly democratic processes without overlooking the Party’s role:
"I also said that if the people are firmly united behind a single
party, this must be more democratic than any other, and so must be our
entire society. This society, of course, can be improved, as any other
human work, but it is undoubtedly a just society where everyone has the
opportunity to express their views and, better still, to work for the
materialization of whatever we agree." [36]
Not long before, in December, when he summarized the conclusions of
the national debate about his 26 th of July speech that year, he had
stressed that every Party or Government leader needed to fuel as much
discussion as possible among their subordinates:
"This process confirms a fundamental fact; whoever holds a
leadership position must know how to listen and create a proper
atmosphere for others to speak out. Together with a readiness to guide,
criticize or take an appropriate disciplinary measure, this is something
that every leader must incorporate into their style of work. (…) Our
people receive information from many sources and efforts are under way
to improve them and eliminate the harmful tendency to triumphalism and
indulgence so as to make sure that every comrade who has a given
political or managerial responsibility is able to report on a regular
basis about anything within their field of action in a realistic,
impeccable, critical and self-critical manner." [37]
Institutionalization is another very common topic in Raúl Castro’s
speeches today, a particularly important issue given the prevailing
malaise caused by bureaucracy, incompetence and corruption. As evidenced
by the dismissal of some top leaders in March 2009, the excessive
elbowroom enjoyed by officials and leaders in the context of their
weakened institutions is a breeding ground for influence peddling and
two-facedness. Any effort to make institutionalization stronger must
have right of way in the present circumstances.
In this connection, when he took up his post, the President
requested and received from the Parliament the permission to modify the
Government’s existing structure:
"A more compact and operational structure is needed nowadays, one
with less State central administration bodies and a better distribution
of their functions. (…) In short, our Government’s work must be more
efficient. (…) Institutionalization, and I repeat, institutionalization
is an important support of that vital purpose and one of the pillars of
the Revolution’s invulnerability in the political arena; therefore, we
must work on its continual improvement." [38]
These statements about the importance, effectiveness and legitimate
character of the institutions come as a challenge to the rather
widespread opinion that replacing the institutions with informal
decision-making and operational mechanisms is the best way to harness
bureaucracy. Truth is, the legitimate nature of our system as a whole
would be inevitably impaired should our institutions be undermined.
That’s why holding the institutional leaders and officials accountable
for their performance and forcing them to take on a responsibly
democratic stance subject to the social control by subordinates and
citizens alike. No top-down supervision system can beat popular control.
An element barely addressed in public, albeit discussed in private
and semi-public forums, is the role of social sciences these days. The
appeal for dialogue so often found in the Cuban President’s discourse
reveals the pressing need to carry out more and better empiric studies
of our social situation and urge our social scientists –whose commitment
and prestige is beyond question– to participate in the popular
consultation. Two initiatives outstand as pivotal: hold a national
conference on social sciences and give our sociologists and political
scientists the go-ahead to set up national associations, as our
economists, historians and experts from other fields have already done.
Besides, a social science of the “commited autonomy” kind is required
whose organic development we can facilitate.
The press and all media in general should be given an important
role, considering that their faults have been repeatedly criticized but
mostly to no avail. For instance, Cuba is one of the few countries where
the newspapers hardly ever include op-ed pages. We live in a world
increasingly sustained by digital networks, computerized systems and
other garden-variety media where a prosperous, flourishing society is
unthinkable without the necessary role of these means as sources of
information and forums for dialogue and discussion. The right to have an
Internet connection is little by little becoming commonplace, but it’s
still poorly acknowledged in Cuba. Technical difficulty notwithstanding,
the fact is that there’s no policy to encourage the use of such a
necessary technology in our social life. For all the Joven Clubs and the
University of Information Science, there’s still a great deal of
unseasonal and damaging control over the access to the Internet.
By way of conclusion
Cuba is at a crossroads that imposes the introduction of changes
–already started– within the context of continuity. We find them in the
steps taken and statements made by the new government headed by Raúl
Castro. These changes will lead unavoidably to the economic and
political transformation of our society. The Party Conference will have
to respond to all of the abovementioned problems and many others not
mentioned herein. It’s not about denying the success achieved under
Fidel Castro, but a matter of making much-needed adjustments and
corrections, which compels to use what spaces we have –and create the
necessary ones– to answer the following questions:
1. What is needed to build a fair society as a function of the
socialist ideal? We will have to resolve the existing contradictions
among the various forms of ownership and between centralization and
decentralization; moral and material incentives; the development of
productive forces and our revolutionary conscientiousness. What the
history of the Cuban and other models has proven is that by
hypercentralizing and misjudging the market forces, mismanaging the
relationship among the various forms of motivation, and underestimating
the efficiency and extent of our productive forces, we are making a
beeline for a blind alley and failing in our attempt to create a new
human being. We should abide without restriction by the market rules no
more than we should thumb our nose at the Cuban people’s longing for
collective and individual prosperity and progress. Like Martí said,
“With human nature in general, however, to be good, one has to be
prosperous”.
2. How to strengthen and perfect democracy? The Cuban society needs
to tone up and develop the democratic model it has created. Fidel’s
absence calls for new ways to reach consensus. The concept of
deliberative democracy, together with an improved approach to overall
participation that forces our leaders and officials not only to answer
to their subjects but also explain the reason behind their decisions,
will help our citizens play a more real, effective, well-founded,
well-reasoned and effective role in decision-making. That’s how we’ll
manage to sort out some of the current difficulties of our system, but
our success will depend on how well informed our people are and how much
room we can make for public dialogue and debate.
NOTES
1.
Julio Carranza, “El compromiso de la ciencia y la ciencia del compromiso”,
Temas, n. 53, La Habana, enero-marzo de 2008, p. 147.
2. Michel Dobry, “Las vías inciertas de la transitología”, Temas, n.
50-51, La Habana, abril-septiembre de 2007, p. 23.
3. Atilio Borón, “Tras el búho de Minerva: mercado contra democracia
en el capitalismo de fin de siglo”, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México,
DF, 2000, pp. 135-211.
4. Atilio Borón, “Socialismo del Siglo XXI: ¿hay vida después del
neoliberalismo?” - Ediciones Luxemburg, Buenos Aires, 2008, p. 117.
5. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Socialismo significa justicia social e igualdad,
pero igualdad no es igualitarismo”, Discurso pronunciado en la primera
sesión ordinaria de la VII Legislatura de la Asamblea Nacional del Poder
Popular, La Habana, 11 de julio de 2008, disponible en
www.cuba.cu/gobierno/rauldiscursos/index2.html
6. Jorge I. Domínguez, “El comienzo de un fin”, Foreign Affairs en
Español, v. 6, n. 4, México, DF, octubre-diciembre de 2006, pp. 129-135.
7. Fidel Castro Ruz, “Discurso en acto por el LX aniversario de su
ingreso a la Universidad de La Habana”, en Julio César Guanche, comp.,
“En el borde de todo: el hoy y el mañana de la Revolución en Cuba”,
Ocean Sur, Bogotá, 2007
8. Aurelio Alonso, “Continuidad y transición: Cuba en el 2007”, Le
Monde Diplomatique, Bogotá, abril de 2007
9. I owe this phrase to Julio Fernández. It’s taken from a
reflection now in preparation for a debate promoted by Julio César
Guanche in the seminar “For a revolutionary culture of politics”,
Havana, November 2007
10. Jesús Arencibia Lorenzo, “Debates en la beca: el ensueño y los
ladrillos”, Alma Mater, n. 453, La Habana, agosto de 2007
11. Mayra Espina, “Mirar a Cuba hoy: cuatro supuestos para la
observación y seis problemas-nudos”, Temas, n. 56, La Habana,
octubre-diciembre de 2008, p. 136
12. Raúl Roa García, “Retorno a la alborada”, T. 2, Universidad
Central de las Villas, Santa Clara, 1964, p. 590
13. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson: “Why Deliberative Democracy?” –
Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2004, p. 3
14. Pedro Monreal, “El problema económico de Cuba”, Espacio Laical,
n. 28, La Habana, abril de 2008; Jorge Mario Sánchez Egozcue and Juan
Triana Cordoví, “Un panorama actual de la economía cubana, las
transformaciones en curso y sus retos perspectivos”, Documento de
trabajo n. 31, 26 de junio de 2008, Real Instituto Elcano de Estudios
Estratégicos e Internacionales, Madrid, 2008; and Omar Everleny Pérez
Villanueva, “La economía en Cuba: un balance necesario y algunas
propuestas de cambio”, Nueva Sociedad, n. 216, Caracas, julio-agosto de
2008
15. Unfortunately, in many cases top leaders of the FEU have been
promoted to major Party and Government positions and turned into what
Raúl Castro himself has called creating “test-tube leaders”.
16. Rafael Hernández and Daybel Pañellas, “Sobre la transición
socialista en Cuba: un simposio”, Temas, n. 50-51, La Habana,
abril-septiembre de 2007, p. 160.
17. Salvador Valdés Mesa, “Las asambleas mostraron, una vez más, el
apoyo de la clase obrera a la Revolución y a su dirección”, Intervención
del Secretario general de la CTC en la Asamblea Nacional, 27 de
diciembre de 2008, Granma, La Habana, December 29, 2008
18. Fidel Castro Ruz, “Discurso en el acto central por el XX
aniversario del asalto al cuartel Moncada”, Santiago de Cuba, July 26,
1973, available at
www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos
19. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Nuestra batalla de hoy es la misma iniciada el
26 de julio de 1953”, Discurso en el acto central por el LV aniversario
del asalto al cuartel Moncada, Santiago de Cuba, July 26, 2008,
available at
www.cuba.cu/gobierno/rauldiscursos/index2.html
20. By 2009, the Cuban economy had been shaken by hurricanes,
sky-high food prices, decreasing exports, and the world economic crisis,
among other factors that render life extremely difficult, as described
from various perspectives by two recent articles: Pavel Vidal
Alejandro’s “El PIB cubano en 2009 y la crisis global” (IPS-Economics
Press Service, n. 9, La Habana, May 15, 2009) and Carmelo Mesa-Lago’s
“La paradoja económica cubana” (El País Digital, Madrid, July 12, 2009).
21. José Martí, “Wandering Teachers” (La América, Nueva York, mayo
de 1884), “Complete Works” (V. 8, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La
Habana, 1991, p. 289).
22. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Intervención en el VI Pleno del PCC”, La
Habana, 28 de abril de 2008, available at
www.cuba.cu/gobierno/rauldiscursos/index2.html
23. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Discurso en la sesión constitutiva de la VII
Legislatura de la ANPP”, La Habana, February 24, 2008, available at
www.cuba.cu/gobierno/rauldiscursos/index2.html
24. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Socialismo significa...”, ibid.
25. Raúl Castro Ruz, “¡Y a trabajar duro!”, Intervención ante la
ANPP, 28 de diciembre de 2007, Granma, La Habana, 29 de diciembre de
2007
26. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Trabajar con sentido crítico, creador, sin
anquilosamientos ni esquematismos”, Discurso en el acto central por el
LIV aniversario del asalto al Cuartel Moncada, Camagüey, 26 de julio de
2007, Granma, La Habana, 27 de julio de 2007
27. Oscar Sánchez Serra, “China sigue demostrando la validez del
socialismo”, Granma, La Habana, 17 de noviembre de 2008
28. See Julio A. Díaz Vázquez and Eduardo Regalado Florido, “China:
el despertar del dragon”, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana,
2007
29. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Trabajar con sentido crítico...”, ibid.
30. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Discurso en la sesión constitutiva...”, ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Raúl Castro Ruz, “¡Y a trabajar duro!”, ibid.
33. Quoted by Raúl Castro Ruz, “Discurso en la sesión constitutiva...”,
ibid.
34. Raúl Castro Ruz, “¡Y a trabajar duro!”, ibid.
35. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Trabajar con sentido crítico...”, ibid.
36. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Discurso en la sesión constitutiva...”, ibid.
37. Raúl Castro Ruz, “¡Y a trabajar duro!”, ibid.
38. Raúl Castro Ruz, “Discurso en la sesión constitutiva...”, ibid.
---ooOoo---
* Honorable Mention in the Temas de Ensayo 2008 prize-giving
ceremony in the field of Social Sciences.
Source: TEMAS magazine, October-December 2009, p. 37-47
(reproduced by permission of the magazine and the author).