HAVANA TIMES — This is a brief and concrete analysis of a decisive aspect of Cuba’s current situation.
The opinion that the economic, social and political model still in place is the chief cause behind the country’s current situation and the serious social problems we are facing is almost unanimous in Cuban society.
In one way or another, all schools of political thought in Cuba today, within or outside government circles, concur that we must work to bring about changes to this model.
The differences have to do with the scope and direction of these changes. Looking at the different proposals carefully and in depth, however, we can catch sight of a number of common elements. Let us see what they are.
The government’s traditional opposition – at first through violent actions and, in more recent decades, through peaceful approaches – has long been calling for democratic changes. It has paid a high price for its actions.
The broad democratic and socialist Left coalition, which gathers Trotskyites, anarchists, followers of Gramsci, libertarians, proponents of council democracies, social democrats, democratic communists, self-management proponents, supporters of cooperativism and other tendencies, has also been the victim of different degrees of repression since 1959. For a long time many in this group (myself included) believed that changes that favored their positions could be brought about within the existing system.
I believe very few people this side of the spectrum still believe that it is possible to move towards true, revolutionary socialism without a previous democratization of society, and many of us have put this goal at the top of our list.
In the meantime, Raul Castro’s government, convinced that the State-controlled wage system cannot of itself solve the serious economic problems faced by Cuban society, has introduced a number of minor reforms to offer some limited and tightly controlled elbow room to self-employment, small national private companies, government designed cooperatives and, more recently, large scale foreign investment.
The measures are of the same nature as those essayed by Fidel Castro in the 1990s following the loss of the enormous financial support afforded by the Soviet Union and the “socialist bloc” – “reforms” that began to be restricted when the government sensed that it could rely on Venezuelan oil, offered by the Chavez government.
It has been demonstrated that Cuba’s economic model cannot stay afloat without significant foreign aid. Today, Raul Castro and his military subordinates are laying their bets on a new foreign investment law that will draw fresh capital to the country, and, on the lifting of the US blockade/embargo.
However, everything seems to indicate that, if Cuba does not take any significant steps towards the democratization of society, towards full respect for human rights and, most importantly, for freedom of expression, association and election, this inflow of capital that the State economy longs for will be difficult to secure.
Therefore, and considering the crisis in Venezuela, Raul Castro’s government will have to begin considering what it can do in terms of human rights if it wishes to erode the foundations of the embargo and Europe’s common position, and to win the trust of foreign capital, as a step beyond the limited economic measures implemented thus far.
Many of the steps that the traditional opposition and the socialist and democratic Left has been demanding, such as the ratification of human rights conventions, an end to the persecution of the opposition, the drafting of a new constitution, changes to the electoral law that will make it truly democratic, full respect towards freedom of expression, association and election, could therefore constitute steps towards untying the knots that hold back the foreign investment the State needs.
It seems naive to expect a democratic liberalization from the present government, as its more recalcitrant members believe that this could entail a loss of political power for them – hence many of the limitations of Raul Castro’s measures.
The less conservative and more pragmatic members of Cuba’s political, military and State bureaucratic apparatus could, however, come to the realization that, without democratizing measures, there will be no lifting of the embargo, nor the foreign investment and development they aspire to.
Whichever way one looks at it, the fact of the matter is that, in order to advance their interests, the country’s traditional opposition, the broad socialist and democratic Left and the government require steps towards the democratization of society – even though the more conservative officials in the high echelons of power do not see it this way and oppose such measures. We are talking about an objective need.
Isn’t it time for the nation to come together in a peaceful and inclusive manner, so as to open the doors to progress for everyone?
True: we need tolerance from all sides, moderation in the way we express ourselves and, above all, an end to the repressive actions against dissidents and dissenting thought from the State apparatus.
Let us put Cuba and its people above our individual interests and work for peace, harmony, consensus, integration and the future we long for, “with everyone and for everyone’s benefit,” without coercion, hegemony or violence.
Could we Cubans really be so blind as to not see the historical moment we are in and let the opportunity offered by this coincidence of interests pass us by?
I hope this call for understanding, tolerance, peace and harmony will achieve something at this concrete point in time.
Some may not like it and find it a heavy burden, but democratization is an objective priority for all of Cuban society.