Conghaileach
18th September 2002, 15:39
DEMOCRACY AND US - CUBA POLICY
by Tom Crumpacker
"Primo io, dopo io, sempre io, viva io...." -- Benito Mussolini
Our government has said for years that the purpose of its Cuba policy
is to bring democracy to Cuba's people who it says lack it but need
it. Unfortunately, one of the most important things we lack in this
mass community of 270 million people we're trying to create is a
common English language for our political discourse. It's not just
that conclusory words like "democracy," "socialism," "capitalism,"
"imperialism," "liberalism," "conservatism," "terrorism" have become
so vague as to be virtually useless (as time goes by the reality
underlying the concepts, being dynamic, changes). It's also that each
person develops his or her own understanding of these words based on
his or her learning, which often differs considerably from the
understandings of others. Our common language deteriorates and the
essential ingredient of community -- communication -- disappears,
leaving us like those who lived in the Tower of Babel.
Since the word democracy derives from the Greek word "demos" meaning
"the people," it would seem that to have an intelligent connection to
the past it must involve people participating somehow in the
important societal decisions which affect their lives, such as
"government by the people," an idea that the people can collectively
manage their societies. Because in mass society each individual
cannot meaningfully participate in decisions for the whole, it has
come to mean decision making by "representatives" (career politicians
in the United States) who are said to decide and act on behalf of the
people who elect them.
US political philosopher Cliff DuRand indicates that the core of the
idea of democracy is the possibility of collective decision making
about collective action for a common good. He says this is the
opposite of the concept of democracy found in US popular
consciousness today which defines democracy as the freedom of
individuals to decide on their own about actions to pursue their own
purposes. (1)
The question of freedom brings to mind the observation of the lawyer
Cicero at a time when the Roman republic was deteriorating into
empire: that freedom is the participation in power. (2) There seem to
be two interrelated types of freedom: "freedom from" (domination,
coercion), and "freedom of" (meaningful participation). History
indicates that the more participation we have the less necessary the
coercion, since we are more likely to accept and implement decisions
we joined in, or at least had an opportunity to be heard on
personally or by true representation. Significantly, the US has at
least double the number and percentage of people incarcerated in any
other nation, whereas Cuba is known for its relatively low incidence
of crime.
The men who set up the US government were not so dishonest as to call
it a democracy; rather its form was said to be that of a republic.
Our revolution was essentially an act of political decentralization
by propertied white males who wanted the power to run things here
rather than submit to a parliament in London. They sent their
delegates to Philadelphia in 1787 to frame our political institutions
so as to limit popular participation, protect their class, and
structure the government so that it could not interfere in their
private pursuits, which is precisely what they did. As DuRand points
out, this gave institutional backing to a turning away from
collective action toward a culture of individualism, where the state,
rather than the means for pursuing action for the common good,
becomes an instrument limited to ensuring the conditions for pursuit
of self interest, promoting a privatization of life. (3)
Today in the US the common interest is seldom the real basis of
political decision at the national or state levels. Although it's
often given lip service, it's usually by politicians and others
serving private interests. Rather than through public institutions,
individual and group interests are pursued in civil society where
they are not subject to any common good test until they reach the
national level. The victors in the self interest game are always the
business organizations because they are considered by the law to be
"persons" with all the rights and privileges of real persons and they
are able to amass and invest in politicians and the media much more
money than real persons can, or even unions or environmental or other
special interest groups no matter how large they are (such groups not
being involved in the business of making money).
Increasingly larger, more centralized, wealthier and therefore more
powerful, far beyond any control by owners or government, with common
values and aims, a relatively few businesses fund our politicians and
mass media (for most of us our only information source) and through
them gain our acquiescence in the key policy decisions they make for
us. Their ideology says there is no common
-- only private -- good, therefore our political institutions should
not be changed. Such a system can only accurately be described as a
commercial oligarchy because those who have the power are pursuing
private rather than public interests.
Although the dice are loaded against most of us, we Americans have
apparently chosen for ourselves to continue playing the self-interest
game. This does not mean, however, that we should accept or allow US
oligarchic interference in the political institutions of other
countries which have made different choices, particularly those whose
people face entirely different circumstances and are pursuing
different kinds of national projects. To impose our political
standards on them would be the ultimate travesty of the idea of
democracy.
The Cuban revolution, arising from an economic rather than political
crisis, defines the nation by a different project. Under conditions
of neocolonialism, the needs of property owners became secondary, and
after the initial period the revolution was able to widen the scope
of public affairs to include the human needs and social justice
demands of the workers and unpropertied people as its driving force,
with the government becoming the institutional structure for popular
participation in collective decisions about action for social change.
(4) This was embodied in the Cuban Constitution, adopted in 1976 with
76% voter approval out of over 90% of eligible voters participating,
and amended in 1992 by more than three-fourths of an elected National
Assembly as constitutionally required. In June of this year over
eight million Cubans, more than four-fifths of the adult population,
signed declarations in support of their constitution.
In the US and all other so-called liberal democracies the national
governments are essentially both oligarchic and authoritarian rather
than democratic, however democracy sometimes occurs at the local
government level or in private special interest groups. The
authoritarian character of our governments results from economic
centralization at the nation-state level and the size and complexity
of the resulting mass societies being created -- something peculiar
to our last two centuries when technological innovation has been
transforming our economies and our populations have been increasing
exponentially.
For the same demographic and economic centralization reasons it's
also true that the so-called socialist democracies have been to
differing extents authoritarian at the national level -- but not
oligarchic where, as in Cuba, their national projects have come to
operate collectively for the benefit of all. The class nature of
Cuban society has gradually disappeared, with the propertied people
either giving up most of their property or leaving. Under the 1992
changes to Articles 3 and 5 of the Cuban Constitution, the ultimate
sovereignty of the republic rests in the people, from which derives
the power of the state; and construction of socialism has become the
project of the whole nation with the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC)
its political guide.
I'm not suggesting that the collectivist approach is inherently
superior to the individualistic. Both are pursued by countries in a
proportion that suits their national project. Most societal functions
are better performed locally or by private groups, which can be
democratic. There will always be questions about which things the
government can perform efficiently and well for the common good and
which are better done when privatized.
For example our government seems to have taken for granted that one
of its primary functions is to help US businesses make profits in
foreign countries, even where it involves exploitation of people or
empowering oppressors or conducting "regime changes." Under the guise
of national security it has developed an enormous and expensive
weaponry system and established military bases and "intelligence"
networks all over world -- in reality to promote and protect
transnational business enterprise. It seems to have forgotten the
common need of Americans to have friendly relations with foreign
peoples. It's not in the interest of our families to have relatives
killed or injured in faraway places, or to be attacked by suicidal
terrorists at home, or to give up our liberty for security. A
democratic US government acting for the common good would consider
the obvious alternative: it could privatize its role in helping US
businesses operate in foreign lands, let them deal themselves with
foreign laws and governments, and allow any necessary coercive
functions to be performed by international organizations, perhaps a
more democratic United Nations.
Social change is structural -- it occurs by changing institutions
rather than personalities. Democracy at it's most basic level (the
individual) is a desperate human need, but democracy in modern mass
society is not a reality, rather it's oligarchic myth. The
contradiction between the individual and the community has been with
us from the beginning and as far as we know it always will be. The
larger the community, the more difficult it becomes to transcend. At
this stage in human development, the only kind of democracy that
exists or can exist is the grassroots variety. Mass democracy is
propaganda, one of the ways our national oligarchies have managed to
maintain the political status quo in the face of dramatic
technological and economic change.
In order to make progressive political change, we must first get back
to reality. If we start from fantasy, change leads us only to another
fantasy. The political institutions Cubans have developed over the
last forty years are based on their reality -- what has worked for
them in pursuing their socialist project, which has enjoyed enormous
and increasing popular support in the face of economic hardship and
struggle.
Last May 20 our President stated in Miami that he will end the
blockade and our other attempts to isolate Cuba if they will hold
free and fair elections with multiparty candidates and comply with
some additional political conditions he requires. Cubans have been
holding elections at the local, provincial and national levels for
many years, which are at least as free and fair as ours. Political
parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. In the early days of
our republic they were frowned on. George Washington especially
discouraged the idea. Nor are political parties referred to in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The US idea of the necessity
or advisability of multiple parties is another oligarchic myth. It
leads people to believe they have choice in political decisions and
thereby maintains the political status quo.
Parties are not involved in politics in Cuba. The PCC is not a
political party in our sense, rather it's an organization of
political activists (about 12% of the adult population are members)
which under Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution organizes and orients
common forces of the revolution. The PCC Congress, which meets every
5 years, is its highest decision making body. Delegates are elected
by its local and provincial branches. Implementation is by its
Central Committee (150 members) and its political bureau (24 members)
which operate on the principle of democratic centralism. People work
their way up through the PCC based on their ability and merit as
determined by peers. It encourages free expression of ideas and
respect for differences of opinion, within the ideals of the
revolution. (5)
Cuban government bodies at the municipal, provincial and national
levels are autonomous, positions are elective and neither PCC nor
parties are involved in elections. Candidates are elected for short
terms, and are accountable and subject to recall. They are not career
politicians; personal benefit or advancement do not influence their
decisions. All adult citizens are entitled to vote, the ballots are
secret and Cubans vote in much higher percentages than Americans do.
(6) Rather than a coercive or dominating force to be feared and
limited, Cubans view government as the primary structure for
participation by the people in collective decision-making. They
participate at the grassroots through elections and personal and
group appearance at local government meetings and as activists
through special interest organizations often but not always sponsored
or encouraged by the state under Article 7 of their Constitution.
In the so-called liberal democracies, the multiparty system is a
thing of the past if one is speaking of the value based political
party. All modern nations are ruled by elite's who are in agreement
as to the general nature of their project and the actions they take
on fundamental issues. In the US the so-called two party system
offers no real choice regarding basic values, approaches, ideology or
policy, particularly as concerns structural change in the political
economy. There are some differences in emphasis and rhetoric, which
are usually highlighted in the media. But in reality the two parties
function primarily as money raisers and accounting firms for the
candidates, who are elected on the basis of their celebrity,
incumbency, financial backing and capability (which permits exposure
in the media), administrative abilities, perceived personal
characteristics and other matters unrelated to party values. They
must think and talk within the narrowing "mainstream" in order to get
mass media attention and become serious candidates. Over 80% of our
Congressional races are either uncontested or not seriously
contested.
Correctly perceiving that our "representatives" are in reality acting
on behalf of powerful private interests -- which situation can't be
remedied by voting for major party candidates -- an increasing
majority of eligible Americans don't vote, despite all the urging
they get. Although in the past two centuries we have enfranchised new
groups, such as unpropertied people, racial minorities and women,
it's clear that voting every two or four years for national or state
candidates is not an accurate barometer the quality of our democracy.
If an unbiased observer from another planet were to try to make an
assessment of democracy in the US nation as compared to Cuban nation
he would probably conclude that the US is ruled by elite's on behalf
of commercial and business interests, whereas Cuba is ruled by
elite's on behalf of working and poor people - that is, the whole
nation, because everyone in Cuba is now in our sense poor
individually, most of the property being held in common. To compare
the quality of true democracy, he would focus his attention on the
grassroots, where some people of both countries can and do
participate meaningfully as activists, either before local government
boards, which have jurisdiction in limited areas, or in special
interest organizations, usually limited to one area.
The Cuban Organs of People's Power (OPP's) are responsible for
administration at the municipal and provincial levels and for
legislative and constitutional matters at the national. Locally
they're analogous to our town and county governing boards, but with
much broader authority. They deal with community issues such as
economic enterprise, construction, health, employment, social
services, environment, elections and many other matters. They meet
frequently and publicly and have substantial participation by
individuals and groups, which results from their broad authority.
Decentralization of political power, which permits and promotes
popular participation in decision-making, has been going on in Cuba
for more than twenty years. (7)
There are many thousands of Cuban special interest groups in which
most Cubans participate, seeking to improve their communities. Some
are national or provincial only, most of them are local and federated
at the provincial and national levels. The local PCC groups do
political work, advocating the needs and ideals of the revolution
before officials and the public. The more than 20,000 CDRs
(Committees for Defense of Revolution) are neighborhood associations
which do almost anything and everything, from locating emergency
medical care to improving local peace and tranquility. They are also
social and to some extent counteract the atomization and
depersonalization of life in modern mass society. Other well known
advocacy groupings, which formed naturally from the bottom up and
operate that way are the Women's Federation, the trade unions, the
small farmers' unions, the environmental groups, the student groups,
scientific groups, religious groups and charities, social service
groups, professional groups for teachers, nurses, doctors and
cultural groups.
These all have quick and easy access to official decision-making, and
often are the main players involved in such. Mechanisms exist so that
local groups can bring appropriate matters up for discussion and
decision even at the provincial and national levels. For the past
twenty years Cubans have been pursuing an anti-bureaucracy campaign
at all levels, which has had some success although it still has a
long way to go. The time-consuming formalities and contentious
advocacy peculiar to countries dedicated to serving private interests
are not seen much in Cuba. The distinction which counts is whether a
proposal or practice is within or without the ideals of the
revolution, which to most people, especially those who participate,
represents the common good. The system is geared to operate without
lawyers, and the few lawyers there practice mostly in areas involving
foreigners or foreign investment. Neighborhood courts usually involve
relatively quick decisions by a legally trained judge sitting with a
citizen chosen for the case. To Cubans formalities, legal
technicalities, jurisdictional infighting, distinctions such as
"private -- public" are irrelevant.
A foreigner has to adopt a broad perspective, not limited by his own
background in a country where the government functions to promote
private interests, to understand and appreciate how politics works in
Cuba. In a society where most of the property is part of the common
wealth, the people naturally become more concerned with and dedicated
to the common interest because it, rather than individual
accumulation of money or property, is what serves their self
interest. The focus is on people's responsibility as well as their
rights. Problem solving in Cuba usually occurs in a cooperative way,
and this happens internally in the local groups where people operate
and in their advocacy before local officials. Cuban non-governmental
groups have more power as participants than their counterparts in
privatized societies, because the amount of money they have or can
raise doesn't matter and everyone sees that they are acting in the
public interest as well as their own.
For example the women's groups pursue post-patriarchal ideals as in
other countries, but not in a self-interested way, rather to make
sure that women are equal participants and beneficiaries in the
revolution. The trade unions (over 90% of industrial and construction
workers belong) see themselves as having a dual role, to defend
workers rights before management, and also to act in favor of values
that enhance productivity and other enterprise needs. They accepted
a decrease of wages and increase in hours during the "special period"
of economic hardship during the 1990s. The environmental and
healthcare crises in Cuba, to a large extent resulting from a lack of
funds, have led the environmental, health and farmers' groups to find
solutions which don't require much money. They pursue things like
alternative and renewable energy, conservation, recycling, urban
agriculture, micro-brigades (volunteer work), community gardens,
bicycle transportation, organic farming, natural and alternative
medicine and treatments, and many other practices, some of which are
innovative and have contributed substantially to human development,
especially in poor countries.
In both Cuba and US the national leaders claim to be deciding and
acting for the common good. The main difference in how the political
systems work has to do with how and by whom the common good decisions
are made. In the US these decisions are made nationally by businesses
which recognize only private good. In Cuba they're made by
individuals and groups and officials at the grassroots, based on the
needs and goals of their revolution. Although their decisions can be
reviewed and changed at higher levels, they usually aren't.
Obviously there are serious economic problems in Cuba - but they
don't result as significantly from lack of political participation as
do the many severe problems existing in the US. Nevertheless, it's
clear that not all Cubans support the revolution and the key to its
success will be the people's confidence in each other -- their belief
that they can collectively make it happen. When people have to spend
most or all of their time individually struggling for the necessities
of life, the social bond weakens. Grassroots democracy is what makes
it strong.
Our government has embargoed Cuba, unsuccessfully invaded it, sent
agents to assassinate its leaders, and allowed US based terrorists to
go to Cuba to destroy its crops, its buildings, airplanes and
facilities. Under Helms-Burton it blockades Cuba by threatening and
punishing foreigners who dare to do business there. By complex and
unrealistic financing limitations it prevents medicine, medical
supplies and equipment and nutritional food from reaching Cubans. In
Latin America it threatens and punishes nations economically for
trading and having normal relations with Cuba, and it rewards nations
economically for harming or breaking relations with Cuba. It has lost
its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission for politicizing the
Commission on Cuba issues. It conducts a relentless propaganda
campaign against Cuba, and it unconstitutionally prohibits its own
citizens from traveling to Cuba to learn what is really happening
there.
In the unlikely event that our government ever succeeds in forcing
Cubans to adopt a political economy like ours, it will destroy the
very significant democracy that exists there at the grassroots. The
new system will likely have to be enforced by a long and severe
military occupation. Clearly, democracy for Cubans is not a motive
for our government's policy. It has close, friendly relations with
and supports economically many monarchies and other regimes which
have never held an election and would never think of holding one. Any
reasonable person must wonder what the underlying motive for US-Cuba
policy really is. Questions about this must be asked. After all,
we're talking about eleven million people living on an island in the
Caribbean. If we don't like their political system, why can't we just
leave them alone and let them find their own way?
Could it be that something is happening on the island that the
world's only superpower is afraid of? It seems so. Could our
oligarchy fear that if the Cuban revolution continues succeeding that
it's own drive for world empire will fail by regime change or perhaps
even system change here? It seems so.
Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution acknowledges that the political
system it creates is based partly on the thinking of its 19th century
writer, poet and independence leader Jose Marti. Wanting to learn
about the US version of democracy, Marti had lived in the US for
several years in the 1890s. Disgusted with elections bought with
money and the corruption of the system and resulting
commercialization of life he saw, he argued against this type of
arrangement for Cuba. (8) A couple of years ago I was given a poster
of Marti with one of his sayings on it: "Cuba - al salvarse,
salva..." It means: "Cuba - in saving itself, it saves others..."
Notes:
(1) Paper, "The Idea of Democracy and the Ideal of Socialism,"
presented by Cliff DuRand, Professor of Philosophy, Morgan State
University, Baltimore, MD, at Conference, "Socialism Toward the 21st
Century," Havana University, October 21-23, 1997.
(2) Marcus Tulius Cicero, "De re Publica," Scipio's thesis. Anthony
Everitt, "Cicero, the Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician,"
p. 181 (Random House 2001).
(3) DuRand, supra.
(4) DuRand, supra.
(5) Art. 5, Constitucion de la Republica de Cuba (Editorial de las
Sciencias Sociales, La Habana, 2001). Max Azrici, "Cuba Today and
Tomorrow, Reinventing Socialism," p. 104-108 (University Press of
Florida 2001).
(6) Azrici, supra. p. 121-125.
(7) Constitucion, supra. Articles 103-119. Azrici, supra. p. 121-125.
(8) John M. Kirk, "Jose Marti, Mentor of the Cuban Nation,"
(University Press of Florida 1980). Azrici, supra. Ch. 5, note 16, p.
338.
*
Tom Crumpacker
Miami Coalition to End US Embargo of Cuba
Miami FL 33138
by Tom Crumpacker
"Primo io, dopo io, sempre io, viva io...." -- Benito Mussolini
Our government has said for years that the purpose of its Cuba policy
is to bring democracy to Cuba's people who it says lack it but need
it. Unfortunately, one of the most important things we lack in this
mass community of 270 million people we're trying to create is a
common English language for our political discourse. It's not just
that conclusory words like "democracy," "socialism," "capitalism,"
"imperialism," "liberalism," "conservatism," "terrorism" have become
so vague as to be virtually useless (as time goes by the reality
underlying the concepts, being dynamic, changes). It's also that each
person develops his or her own understanding of these words based on
his or her learning, which often differs considerably from the
understandings of others. Our common language deteriorates and the
essential ingredient of community -- communication -- disappears,
leaving us like those who lived in the Tower of Babel.
Since the word democracy derives from the Greek word "demos" meaning
"the people," it would seem that to have an intelligent connection to
the past it must involve people participating somehow in the
important societal decisions which affect their lives, such as
"government by the people," an idea that the people can collectively
manage their societies. Because in mass society each individual
cannot meaningfully participate in decisions for the whole, it has
come to mean decision making by "representatives" (career politicians
in the United States) who are said to decide and act on behalf of the
people who elect them.
US political philosopher Cliff DuRand indicates that the core of the
idea of democracy is the possibility of collective decision making
about collective action for a common good. He says this is the
opposite of the concept of democracy found in US popular
consciousness today which defines democracy as the freedom of
individuals to decide on their own about actions to pursue their own
purposes. (1)
The question of freedom brings to mind the observation of the lawyer
Cicero at a time when the Roman republic was deteriorating into
empire: that freedom is the participation in power. (2) There seem to
be two interrelated types of freedom: "freedom from" (domination,
coercion), and "freedom of" (meaningful participation). History
indicates that the more participation we have the less necessary the
coercion, since we are more likely to accept and implement decisions
we joined in, or at least had an opportunity to be heard on
personally or by true representation. Significantly, the US has at
least double the number and percentage of people incarcerated in any
other nation, whereas Cuba is known for its relatively low incidence
of crime.
The men who set up the US government were not so dishonest as to call
it a democracy; rather its form was said to be that of a republic.
Our revolution was essentially an act of political decentralization
by propertied white males who wanted the power to run things here
rather than submit to a parliament in London. They sent their
delegates to Philadelphia in 1787 to frame our political institutions
so as to limit popular participation, protect their class, and
structure the government so that it could not interfere in their
private pursuits, which is precisely what they did. As DuRand points
out, this gave institutional backing to a turning away from
collective action toward a culture of individualism, where the state,
rather than the means for pursuing action for the common good,
becomes an instrument limited to ensuring the conditions for pursuit
of self interest, promoting a privatization of life. (3)
Today in the US the common interest is seldom the real basis of
political decision at the national or state levels. Although it's
often given lip service, it's usually by politicians and others
serving private interests. Rather than through public institutions,
individual and group interests are pursued in civil society where
they are not subject to any common good test until they reach the
national level. The victors in the self interest game are always the
business organizations because they are considered by the law to be
"persons" with all the rights and privileges of real persons and they
are able to amass and invest in politicians and the media much more
money than real persons can, or even unions or environmental or other
special interest groups no matter how large they are (such groups not
being involved in the business of making money).
Increasingly larger, more centralized, wealthier and therefore more
powerful, far beyond any control by owners or government, with common
values and aims, a relatively few businesses fund our politicians and
mass media (for most of us our only information source) and through
them gain our acquiescence in the key policy decisions they make for
us. Their ideology says there is no common
-- only private -- good, therefore our political institutions should
not be changed. Such a system can only accurately be described as a
commercial oligarchy because those who have the power are pursuing
private rather than public interests.
Although the dice are loaded against most of us, we Americans have
apparently chosen for ourselves to continue playing the self-interest
game. This does not mean, however, that we should accept or allow US
oligarchic interference in the political institutions of other
countries which have made different choices, particularly those whose
people face entirely different circumstances and are pursuing
different kinds of national projects. To impose our political
standards on them would be the ultimate travesty of the idea of
democracy.
The Cuban revolution, arising from an economic rather than political
crisis, defines the nation by a different project. Under conditions
of neocolonialism, the needs of property owners became secondary, and
after the initial period the revolution was able to widen the scope
of public affairs to include the human needs and social justice
demands of the workers and unpropertied people as its driving force,
with the government becoming the institutional structure for popular
participation in collective decisions about action for social change.
(4) This was embodied in the Cuban Constitution, adopted in 1976 with
76% voter approval out of over 90% of eligible voters participating,
and amended in 1992 by more than three-fourths of an elected National
Assembly as constitutionally required. In June of this year over
eight million Cubans, more than four-fifths of the adult population,
signed declarations in support of their constitution.
In the US and all other so-called liberal democracies the national
governments are essentially both oligarchic and authoritarian rather
than democratic, however democracy sometimes occurs at the local
government level or in private special interest groups. The
authoritarian character of our governments results from economic
centralization at the nation-state level and the size and complexity
of the resulting mass societies being created -- something peculiar
to our last two centuries when technological innovation has been
transforming our economies and our populations have been increasing
exponentially.
For the same demographic and economic centralization reasons it's
also true that the so-called socialist democracies have been to
differing extents authoritarian at the national level -- but not
oligarchic where, as in Cuba, their national projects have come to
operate collectively for the benefit of all. The class nature of
Cuban society has gradually disappeared, with the propertied people
either giving up most of their property or leaving. Under the 1992
changes to Articles 3 and 5 of the Cuban Constitution, the ultimate
sovereignty of the republic rests in the people, from which derives
the power of the state; and construction of socialism has become the
project of the whole nation with the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC)
its political guide.
I'm not suggesting that the collectivist approach is inherently
superior to the individualistic. Both are pursued by countries in a
proportion that suits their national project. Most societal functions
are better performed locally or by private groups, which can be
democratic. There will always be questions about which things the
government can perform efficiently and well for the common good and
which are better done when privatized.
For example our government seems to have taken for granted that one
of its primary functions is to help US businesses make profits in
foreign countries, even where it involves exploitation of people or
empowering oppressors or conducting "regime changes." Under the guise
of national security it has developed an enormous and expensive
weaponry system and established military bases and "intelligence"
networks all over world -- in reality to promote and protect
transnational business enterprise. It seems to have forgotten the
common need of Americans to have friendly relations with foreign
peoples. It's not in the interest of our families to have relatives
killed or injured in faraway places, or to be attacked by suicidal
terrorists at home, or to give up our liberty for security. A
democratic US government acting for the common good would consider
the obvious alternative: it could privatize its role in helping US
businesses operate in foreign lands, let them deal themselves with
foreign laws and governments, and allow any necessary coercive
functions to be performed by international organizations, perhaps a
more democratic United Nations.
Social change is structural -- it occurs by changing institutions
rather than personalities. Democracy at it's most basic level (the
individual) is a desperate human need, but democracy in modern mass
society is not a reality, rather it's oligarchic myth. The
contradiction between the individual and the community has been with
us from the beginning and as far as we know it always will be. The
larger the community, the more difficult it becomes to transcend. At
this stage in human development, the only kind of democracy that
exists or can exist is the grassroots variety. Mass democracy is
propaganda, one of the ways our national oligarchies have managed to
maintain the political status quo in the face of dramatic
technological and economic change.
In order to make progressive political change, we must first get back
to reality. If we start from fantasy, change leads us only to another
fantasy. The political institutions Cubans have developed over the
last forty years are based on their reality -- what has worked for
them in pursuing their socialist project, which has enjoyed enormous
and increasing popular support in the face of economic hardship and
struggle.
Last May 20 our President stated in Miami that he will end the
blockade and our other attempts to isolate Cuba if they will hold
free and fair elections with multiparty candidates and comply with
some additional political conditions he requires. Cubans have been
holding elections at the local, provincial and national levels for
many years, which are at least as free and fair as ours. Political
parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. In the early days of
our republic they were frowned on. George Washington especially
discouraged the idea. Nor are political parties referred to in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The US idea of the necessity
or advisability of multiple parties is another oligarchic myth. It
leads people to believe they have choice in political decisions and
thereby maintains the political status quo.
Parties are not involved in politics in Cuba. The PCC is not a
political party in our sense, rather it's an organization of
political activists (about 12% of the adult population are members)
which under Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution organizes and orients
common forces of the revolution. The PCC Congress, which meets every
5 years, is its highest decision making body. Delegates are elected
by its local and provincial branches. Implementation is by its
Central Committee (150 members) and its political bureau (24 members)
which operate on the principle of democratic centralism. People work
their way up through the PCC based on their ability and merit as
determined by peers. It encourages free expression of ideas and
respect for differences of opinion, within the ideals of the
revolution. (5)
Cuban government bodies at the municipal, provincial and national
levels are autonomous, positions are elective and neither PCC nor
parties are involved in elections. Candidates are elected for short
terms, and are accountable and subject to recall. They are not career
politicians; personal benefit or advancement do not influence their
decisions. All adult citizens are entitled to vote, the ballots are
secret and Cubans vote in much higher percentages than Americans do.
(6) Rather than a coercive or dominating force to be feared and
limited, Cubans view government as the primary structure for
participation by the people in collective decision-making. They
participate at the grassroots through elections and personal and
group appearance at local government meetings and as activists
through special interest organizations often but not always sponsored
or encouraged by the state under Article 7 of their Constitution.
In the so-called liberal democracies, the multiparty system is a
thing of the past if one is speaking of the value based political
party. All modern nations are ruled by elite's who are in agreement
as to the general nature of their project and the actions they take
on fundamental issues. In the US the so-called two party system
offers no real choice regarding basic values, approaches, ideology or
policy, particularly as concerns structural change in the political
economy. There are some differences in emphasis and rhetoric, which
are usually highlighted in the media. But in reality the two parties
function primarily as money raisers and accounting firms for the
candidates, who are elected on the basis of their celebrity,
incumbency, financial backing and capability (which permits exposure
in the media), administrative abilities, perceived personal
characteristics and other matters unrelated to party values. They
must think and talk within the narrowing "mainstream" in order to get
mass media attention and become serious candidates. Over 80% of our
Congressional races are either uncontested or not seriously
contested.
Correctly perceiving that our "representatives" are in reality acting
on behalf of powerful private interests -- which situation can't be
remedied by voting for major party candidates -- an increasing
majority of eligible Americans don't vote, despite all the urging
they get. Although in the past two centuries we have enfranchised new
groups, such as unpropertied people, racial minorities and women,
it's clear that voting every two or four years for national or state
candidates is not an accurate barometer the quality of our democracy.
If an unbiased observer from another planet were to try to make an
assessment of democracy in the US nation as compared to Cuban nation
he would probably conclude that the US is ruled by elite's on behalf
of commercial and business interests, whereas Cuba is ruled by
elite's on behalf of working and poor people - that is, the whole
nation, because everyone in Cuba is now in our sense poor
individually, most of the property being held in common. To compare
the quality of true democracy, he would focus his attention on the
grassroots, where some people of both countries can and do
participate meaningfully as activists, either before local government
boards, which have jurisdiction in limited areas, or in special
interest organizations, usually limited to one area.
The Cuban Organs of People's Power (OPP's) are responsible for
administration at the municipal and provincial levels and for
legislative and constitutional matters at the national. Locally
they're analogous to our town and county governing boards, but with
much broader authority. They deal with community issues such as
economic enterprise, construction, health, employment, social
services, environment, elections and many other matters. They meet
frequently and publicly and have substantial participation by
individuals and groups, which results from their broad authority.
Decentralization of political power, which permits and promotes
popular participation in decision-making, has been going on in Cuba
for more than twenty years. (7)
There are many thousands of Cuban special interest groups in which
most Cubans participate, seeking to improve their communities. Some
are national or provincial only, most of them are local and federated
at the provincial and national levels. The local PCC groups do
political work, advocating the needs and ideals of the revolution
before officials and the public. The more than 20,000 CDRs
(Committees for Defense of Revolution) are neighborhood associations
which do almost anything and everything, from locating emergency
medical care to improving local peace and tranquility. They are also
social and to some extent counteract the atomization and
depersonalization of life in modern mass society. Other well known
advocacy groupings, which formed naturally from the bottom up and
operate that way are the Women's Federation, the trade unions, the
small farmers' unions, the environmental groups, the student groups,
scientific groups, religious groups and charities, social service
groups, professional groups for teachers, nurses, doctors and
cultural groups.
These all have quick and easy access to official decision-making, and
often are the main players involved in such. Mechanisms exist so that
local groups can bring appropriate matters up for discussion and
decision even at the provincial and national levels. For the past
twenty years Cubans have been pursuing an anti-bureaucracy campaign
at all levels, which has had some success although it still has a
long way to go. The time-consuming formalities and contentious
advocacy peculiar to countries dedicated to serving private interests
are not seen much in Cuba. The distinction which counts is whether a
proposal or practice is within or without the ideals of the
revolution, which to most people, especially those who participate,
represents the common good. The system is geared to operate without
lawyers, and the few lawyers there practice mostly in areas involving
foreigners or foreign investment. Neighborhood courts usually involve
relatively quick decisions by a legally trained judge sitting with a
citizen chosen for the case. To Cubans formalities, legal
technicalities, jurisdictional infighting, distinctions such as
"private -- public" are irrelevant.
A foreigner has to adopt a broad perspective, not limited by his own
background in a country where the government functions to promote
private interests, to understand and appreciate how politics works in
Cuba. In a society where most of the property is part of the common
wealth, the people naturally become more concerned with and dedicated
to the common interest because it, rather than individual
accumulation of money or property, is what serves their self
interest. The focus is on people's responsibility as well as their
rights. Problem solving in Cuba usually occurs in a cooperative way,
and this happens internally in the local groups where people operate
and in their advocacy before local officials. Cuban non-governmental
groups have more power as participants than their counterparts in
privatized societies, because the amount of money they have or can
raise doesn't matter and everyone sees that they are acting in the
public interest as well as their own.
For example the women's groups pursue post-patriarchal ideals as in
other countries, but not in a self-interested way, rather to make
sure that women are equal participants and beneficiaries in the
revolution. The trade unions (over 90% of industrial and construction
workers belong) see themselves as having a dual role, to defend
workers rights before management, and also to act in favor of values
that enhance productivity and other enterprise needs. They accepted
a decrease of wages and increase in hours during the "special period"
of economic hardship during the 1990s. The environmental and
healthcare crises in Cuba, to a large extent resulting from a lack of
funds, have led the environmental, health and farmers' groups to find
solutions which don't require much money. They pursue things like
alternative and renewable energy, conservation, recycling, urban
agriculture, micro-brigades (volunteer work), community gardens,
bicycle transportation, organic farming, natural and alternative
medicine and treatments, and many other practices, some of which are
innovative and have contributed substantially to human development,
especially in poor countries.
In both Cuba and US the national leaders claim to be deciding and
acting for the common good. The main difference in how the political
systems work has to do with how and by whom the common good decisions
are made. In the US these decisions are made nationally by businesses
which recognize only private good. In Cuba they're made by
individuals and groups and officials at the grassroots, based on the
needs and goals of their revolution. Although their decisions can be
reviewed and changed at higher levels, they usually aren't.
Obviously there are serious economic problems in Cuba - but they
don't result as significantly from lack of political participation as
do the many severe problems existing in the US. Nevertheless, it's
clear that not all Cubans support the revolution and the key to its
success will be the people's confidence in each other -- their belief
that they can collectively make it happen. When people have to spend
most or all of their time individually struggling for the necessities
of life, the social bond weakens. Grassroots democracy is what makes
it strong.
Our government has embargoed Cuba, unsuccessfully invaded it, sent
agents to assassinate its leaders, and allowed US based terrorists to
go to Cuba to destroy its crops, its buildings, airplanes and
facilities. Under Helms-Burton it blockades Cuba by threatening and
punishing foreigners who dare to do business there. By complex and
unrealistic financing limitations it prevents medicine, medical
supplies and equipment and nutritional food from reaching Cubans. In
Latin America it threatens and punishes nations economically for
trading and having normal relations with Cuba, and it rewards nations
economically for harming or breaking relations with Cuba. It has lost
its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission for politicizing the
Commission on Cuba issues. It conducts a relentless propaganda
campaign against Cuba, and it unconstitutionally prohibits its own
citizens from traveling to Cuba to learn what is really happening
there.
In the unlikely event that our government ever succeeds in forcing
Cubans to adopt a political economy like ours, it will destroy the
very significant democracy that exists there at the grassroots. The
new system will likely have to be enforced by a long and severe
military occupation. Clearly, democracy for Cubans is not a motive
for our government's policy. It has close, friendly relations with
and supports economically many monarchies and other regimes which
have never held an election and would never think of holding one. Any
reasonable person must wonder what the underlying motive for US-Cuba
policy really is. Questions about this must be asked. After all,
we're talking about eleven million people living on an island in the
Caribbean. If we don't like their political system, why can't we just
leave them alone and let them find their own way?
Could it be that something is happening on the island that the
world's only superpower is afraid of? It seems so. Could our
oligarchy fear that if the Cuban revolution continues succeeding that
it's own drive for world empire will fail by regime change or perhaps
even system change here? It seems so.
Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution acknowledges that the political
system it creates is based partly on the thinking of its 19th century
writer, poet and independence leader Jose Marti. Wanting to learn
about the US version of democracy, Marti had lived in the US for
several years in the 1890s. Disgusted with elections bought with
money and the corruption of the system and resulting
commercialization of life he saw, he argued against this type of
arrangement for Cuba. (8) A couple of years ago I was given a poster
of Marti with one of his sayings on it: "Cuba - al salvarse,
salva..." It means: "Cuba - in saving itself, it saves others..."
Notes:
(1) Paper, "The Idea of Democracy and the Ideal of Socialism,"
presented by Cliff DuRand, Professor of Philosophy, Morgan State
University, Baltimore, MD, at Conference, "Socialism Toward the 21st
Century," Havana University, October 21-23, 1997.
(2) Marcus Tulius Cicero, "De re Publica," Scipio's thesis. Anthony
Everitt, "Cicero, the Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician,"
p. 181 (Random House 2001).
(3) DuRand, supra.
(4) DuRand, supra.
(5) Art. 5, Constitucion de la Republica de Cuba (Editorial de las
Sciencias Sociales, La Habana, 2001). Max Azrici, "Cuba Today and
Tomorrow, Reinventing Socialism," p. 104-108 (University Press of
Florida 2001).
(6) Azrici, supra. p. 121-125.
(7) Constitucion, supra. Articles 103-119. Azrici, supra. p. 121-125.
(8) John M. Kirk, "Jose Marti, Mentor of the Cuban Nation,"
(University Press of Florida 1980). Azrici, supra. Ch. 5, note 16, p.
338.
*
Tom Crumpacker
Miami Coalition to End US Embargo of Cuba
Miami FL 33138