By José Azel
August 24, 2008
For over half a century, the history of Cuba has been the history of the
Castro brothers and their ideas. As this era comes to an end a new
battle of ideas for the future of Cuba is taking place. The combatants
are Cubans in exile and in Cuba, the American public, and the
international community.
The first order of battle is Cuba's transition from totalitarianism and
a centrally-planned economy to a different polity and economic system.
But unlike classical warfare, the combatants are not aligned by
nationality, geography, or ideology. The main ideological campaign is
over transitional tactics.
The overall strategic objective of a free, democratic, and
market-oriented Cuba is seldom questioned. However, for some, the
appropriate tactics are anchored on policies of engagement with Cuba's
nomenklatura that they believe will lead to evolutionary changes. For
others, profound changes in personnel and policy are prerequisite
conditions for a genuine transition.
The engagement approach reflects an instinctive preference for
conversation over confrontation. Moreover, as it is often argued, 50
years of confrontational U. S. policies have failed to bring about
changes in Cuba's government and a new approach is required. If we do
business with China and Vietnam, "Why not with Cuba?" is a popular retort.
However, as satisfying as this approach may be, it is flawed.
First, it is based on an unfounded belief that engagement in general and
economic engagement, in particular, will lead ultimately to democratic
changes. But, this is an unsubstantiated belief.
The often cited cases of China and Vietnam, in fact, make the opposite
case. After decades of engagement and significant economic reforms,
these countries have failed to advance a political agenda in the
direction of democracy. Independent rankings by international
organizations show that, in terms of political rights and civil
liberties, China and Vietnam still rank today at the bottom of the scale.
An additional flaw derives from a failure to appreciate the
indispensable role of freedom and its democratic institutions. Democracy
is viewed as a good that can be postponed until a later date in a reform
process. The unspoken premise is that it is more important to improve
the economic well being of a society than to secure its freedoms. But
this represents a false choice. Postponing democratic reforms belittles
the innumerable practical ways in which freedoms make possible our
pursuit of happiness.
Democratic experience has shown that democracy is much more than a
constitutional form of government. Political rights and civil liberties
are not superfluous luxuries.
Cuba's nomenklatura does not believe that there is an inherent human
right to political liberty and self-government. Raúl Castro and his
inner circle are not closet democrats waiting for an opportune moment to
express their Jeffersonian ideals. Their governing modality is
inseparable from Cuba's current state of affairs. Democratic nations
require a relationship model between the state and its citizens.
Perhaps new tactics for change in Cuba are needed, but their centerpiece
should be the establishment of a democratic society in which individuals
are free to pursue the spiritual and physical goods that enrich human life.
José Azel is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for
Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/cuba/sfl-forum24cubasbaug24,0,2902333.story
No comments:
Post a Comment