Cuba Parliament Elections

[Valkyrie]

Elian's Dad, Athletes in Cuba Elections
By ANDREA RODRIGUEZ

HAVANA (AP) - The father of Elian Gonzalez, President Fidel Castro, an Olympic track medalist and a popular folk singer are on the ballot for Cuba's parliament in Sunday elections.

Candidates for the 609 seats run unopposed, leading critics to complain elections on the communist Caribbean island are meaningless. A recent pro-democracy petition, signed by thousands of Cubans, requested election reforms but was ignored by the government.

Castro - a member of the unicameral National Assembly along with being president for 44 years - claims the country's vote is more democratic than those of other nations because voter turnout is high and campaigns do not involve large amounts of money and propaganda.

This year, the president called on Cuba's more than 8 million voters to go to the polls and vote ``united'' for all candidates listed on their ballots.

The ballots only contain names of candidates for that particular district. Voters can mark or leave blank the circle next to each candidate, but this year there is an additional circle for a united vote ballot, signifying support for all the district's candidates.

``An energetic and resounding victory is needed to show the enemy our force and unity,'' Castro said late Saturday on state television.

Internationally renowned dissident Oswaldo Paya, a leading organizer of the Varela Project petition, said during a visit to Mexico last week that the elections are ``neither constitutional nor legitimate.''

New electoral laws are among the reforms sought by Varela Project organizers, who in May gave the National Assembly a petition signed by 11,020 voters asking for a pro-democracy referendum. The National Assembly leadership never responded.

Among the parliament's duties are the approval of laws proposed by Cuba's ruling Council of State, headed by Castro. It also reconfirms Castro's presidency in the weeks after the general elections, which happen roughly every five years.

A first round of balloting in October elected members of Cuba's municipal assemblies. Fifty percent of the parliamentary candidates on the Sunday ballots were chosen from municipal assembly members.

The other half include many nationally known figures, such as Juan Miguel Gonzalez, father of Elian, the Cuban boy at the heart of the international child custody battle in 2000.

Other candidates include Cuba's hurricane expert Jose Rubiera, whom islanders watch on state television; track star Ana Fidelia Quirot, who won a bronze Olympic medal in 1992; Culture Minister Abel Prieto; Havana city historian Eusebio Leal; and world renowned folk singer Silvio Rodriguez.

Because half the candidates are chosen at the grass-roots level, Jose Luis Toledo, a lawmaker and dean of the University of Havana's Law School, characterized the elections as ``truly democratic.''

``Alongside a great scientist, there could be a sugar cane cutter or a baker'' among the candidates, Toledo said.



01

[antieverything]

It's good to see that I'm not alone in asserting that Cuba is not a democracy. Good article!

[antieverything]

Apparently my last reply didn't register on the reply count...oh well. BumP

[Valkyrie]

I was showing that Cuba does have elections, as some may think they don't.

I am not asserting anything on this board anymore, except that WAR is not the way to go.

[pastradamus]

Yeah it has elections,but it is not a truely democratic state.

[antieverything]

Confucious say: elections, even free elections, do not a democracy make.

These aren't even free elections...fuck, there aren't even multiple candidates...what a joke.

We have elections in America, does that mean you can't complain about the electoral system?

[redstar2000]

The crucial question, I think, is how the candidates were selected to run. Were they imposed by a party elite or were they picked in some democratic process from the bottom up?

:cool:

[WalterBennet]

And America is democracy?What's the diference between having one part or two parties that are the same (except that it gives the illusion of a democracy)?Bush got less votes,banned thousands of innocent people from voting and he is president now (I don't think that is democratic).

[Larissa]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:12 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
The crucial question, I think, is how the candidates were selected to run. Were they imposed by a party elite or were they picked in some democratic process from the bottom up?

:cool:
Yers, red, they are actually picked from the very very bottom.
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/enero03/dom19/3elec-i.html
Also, those who want to be political candidates have to post a brief summary about their background in public places, so people can see who they are and what they have done, and then vote for them or not.

(Edited by Larissa at 12:16 pm on Jan. 21, 2003)

[ruttager]

That particular article does seem slanted in a way to discredit the elections. I agree with Redstar in that the most important concern is how the candidates were selected and this is never mentioned in the article. What I think is the most humorous part of the article is that the main attack the author uses is the occupations of the candidates. I live in the United States and there used to be a commercial on the television here for some TIME/LIFE books about World War II. The opening for the commercial had a picture of Hitler and a narrator said, "A failed painter. Became leader of a country." Granted, it was Hitler, but if you take a faceless person and then make the same statement you have to ask yourself, "Why not? This is the United States. Isn't that what we are all about?"

[Man of the Cause]

The democracy of Cuba and other 20th century "Communist" countries are a joke. How can an election with as many candidates as there are seats be democratic? And why has one man ruled Cuba for over 40 years? The one who thinks that Cuba, China, Vietnam or North-Korea are even close to socialism are betraying themselves.

[antieverything]

Let's not get into that, MotC. I'm sure Castro has the mandate of the people...if there were an election he would recieve at least 85%.

I think all of you would benefit from a good long look at the Cuban constitution. You will see that it quite clearly gives the CP authority to disallow anyone from running for office.

Larissa, show me an example of how the candidates are selected from the bottom up.

[redstar2000]

There are many considerations all mixed up here.

1. Half the candidates were chosen by municipal assemblies. How were the members of the municipal assemblies chosen? Were there multiple candidates for each seat in those elections? How many are party members?

2. The other half were chosen by trade unions, women's groups, student groups, farmers' groups, etc. How was that done and how many are party members?

3. What exactly does Cuba's parliament do? Is it a largely ceremonial body or does it actively draft legislation, hold hearings, debate policy?

Aside from the "nuts and bolts" of the process, there are larger questions.

In a capitalist "democracy", we are treated to spectacular contests, not unlike the World Cup, the Super Bowl, the World Series. It is also rather like adding a bunch of exotic spices to a rather watery soup...not much nourishment there at all. For all the sound and fury of bourgeois elections...there's no more real choice than was the case in the old USSR or, for that matter, in Cuba now.

In the United States, even the appearance of choice is disappearing. Over 90% of U.S. congressional dustricts are now effectively one-party districts...the other party may run a candidate, but there is zero chance of being elected.

Still another consideration: I just read a few hours ago that the average cost of a seat in the United States Senate has reached $20,000,000--what is the meaning of "free elections" in that context?

Finally, I note that an apparently substantial number of the members of Cuba's new parliament are not lawyers but seemingly rather ordinary people. Can any bourgeois "democracy" make that claim without evoking scornful laughter?

Even if Cuba is not as democratic as we would like--certainly a possibility--it may well be that its democratic claims are actually more justified than those of its bourgeois critics.

And a sceptical note: for all the fury in the capitalist media about the "repression" of "human rights dissidents" in Cuba...I have never seen any indication of what these "dissidents" actually want except vague phrases about "democratic reforms". I suspect this is because the real aim is too disgraceful to publish: the restoration of capitalism and the renewal of Cuba's old colonial dependency on the United States. It's something to keep in mind when reading the capitalist media's reports "about" Cuba.

:cool:

[antieverything]

Yep. Good points all around.

[Man of the Cause]

Yup. Good points indeed, but why hasn't Fidel Castro issued the "free" elections, now that there is the limit of names (10 000) in the adress. Surely, he should do them, because it is (in my knowledge) in the Cuban Constitution. And I don't think that any of us want a USA style democracy in Cuba.

[ruttager]

There isn't a country in the world that will EVER have a truly free democracy. Period. Some sort of watchdog will always have to be there and then, of course, who watches the watchdog? To ask a country with a history of dictators and repression to go from a revolution and then to completely free elections when it is economically sanctioned and under threat by a very powerful neighbor in so short a time is a little much. I doubt the country would have survived without having had only one leader throughout its short history to this point. Cuba is not the colonial United States, isolated and with what at the time was nearly limitless potential for resources and expansion. Under almost ideal conditions the United States did not get 40 years into existence before its democracy had completely deviated from the ideals of its inception. A step forward is a step forward and leaps and bounds would kill a country struggling to survive, and this is a country under extremely hostile conditions. African and South American history have shown this. What relatively new country has survived to become a "free" democracy? And those that have tried, how long did they remain a democracy? I'm not claiming to be privy to what thoughts run through Castro's brain, but I cannot criticize the electoral process there simply because it is cautious.

[Weatherman]

Ruttager: your whole "not being able to survive leaps and bounds" argument, I've heard before. But its always very abstract, can you pinpoint why it wont work? All of these opinons you have are heavily influenced by your basic impressions of Cuba and Fidel. When someone ask, why has Fidel been president for 40 years? I would say that's because he's a good president. Why get rid of a good president. I disagree with the way America makes us switch presidents every 4 years because it can be good or bad; really its only there to keep the illusion of democracy. "Leadership by obeying", thats what Fidel is doing. That entire country was trying to revolt for decades before Fidel started, and now that Fidel is their leader there are no protest or anything. There not scared of him, they were the fighters in the revolution, Fidel is doing whats best for the people. Even though Cuba is not a wealthy nation, thats not anyones fault except the U.S. Sanctions, and the use of force destroy many nations, but Cuba has so far withstood these assualts. I know the people love Fidel because I have personally interviewed four people from Cuba. I agree with Larrisa the intial canidates are picked from the bottom up, and the leaders are obeying the people, so it is a very democratic nation.

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, this particular article is more than a bit slanted. Unfortunetely it was the only one of it I saw at the time.

[antieverything]

Again, I suggest that everyone read the Cuban constitution so you can see for yourselves what Cuban elections are like and how much authority the CP leadership has over the nation.

I'm not saying that Castro is really that bad...he is the leader of a transitional revolutionary government. I have faith in him to institute democratic reforms before he dies.

[ruttager]

Weatherman: It is abstract, yes. But the subject matter we are talking about is abstract and for the sake of brevity due to this medium I’ve resorted to a statement that I guess is a little vague. But what isn't abstract is the track record of new (speaking in the modern world) governments, especially revolutionary governments that have tried to rapidly move to completely open democratic elections. They do not last long. Each, I'm sure, has some unique factor as to why this happens, but I think some common reasons are foreign intervention (whether it is through economic sanctions, economic pressure to push forth the foreign investor's agendas, or outright acts of terrorism and support of armed opposition groups) and the initial tenuous position a new government is in to "right the ship" and more often than not the country is economically and civilly depressed and could not hope to correct this in any short amount of time, especially if, due to elections, leadership and policy changes do not allow for a stable plan to take affect. Anyone who has read any of Che or Fidel’s writings on the period after the revolution will be familiar with just how much of an experiment it really was (maybe still is) from learning how to produce soap to the structure of the ruling body. There is bound to be failures and in their case there were many. Democracy seems to create a short leash.

[redstar2000]

I'm not as pessimistic as ruttager about the long-term prospects for proletarian democracy...but I think he's got a point about the immediate post-revolutionary period.

Certainly that was the case in Nicaragua; as soon as the Sandinistas committed themselves to a "free" election, the money poured into the country from Miami.

If Chavez holds a "referendum" on his presidency in Venezuela, the same thing will surely happen.

This doesn't necessarily mean that defeat is "inevitable" for our side, but why take the chance?

Where is it written that we are "morally" obligated to "play fair" with those who have never played fair with us...or even each other?

:cool:

PS: antieverything, if you have a link to the most recent edition of the Cuban constitution--in English, por favor--why not post it so we can see for ourselves.