Jeovany J. Vega, Translator: Hank Hardisty
The First National Conference of the Communist Party of Cuba, recently
held on January 28th and 29th, left a permanent bittersweet taste. First
Secretary Raul Castro said that one of its objectives was to, "promote
greater democracy in our society, starting with an example within the
ranks of the Party." In this light, any person outside of the harsh
reality that we Cubans live — not the virtual mysticism preached by the
ruling party — could sigh hopefully. But millions on the island,
hardened by the repetition of phrases like these, we claim the benefit
of the doubt.
In my capacity as an ex-militant of that party, of which I was a member
for 10 years until I was expelled in 2005 – without ever having
committed any act of corruption, crime or treason, but only by this
story that ended in the creation of this blog "Ciudadano Cero" (Citizen
Zero) in Voces Cubanas — I ask to speak.
I think that if the Communist Party wants to be minimally tolerant in
relation to society, it should begin to be so in relation to its own
members. An anecdote to illustrate it will suffice: In mid 1999, I had
the silly idea to ask, in my heart, how the recently issued Resolution
54, of the Ministry of Public Health, would be implemented in light of
the Cuba-US migration agreements in place since 1994, after the Rafter
Crisis, to prevent a worker who received a U.S. visa from leaving the
country, perhaps for years, would not that contradict the letter of
these agreements?
Well, this "mischief" cost this Cuban boy a year of tense meetings with
officials of the Municipal Committees and Provincial Party to penalize
me for trying "….to question the decisions made at the central level." I
did not back off, but such fuss over a simple little question – not even
made public, but kept within the party – and eventually I opened my eyes
to a reality: someone who uses his own judgement and he leaves, with his
music, headed elsewhere, in the Communist Party of Cuba they do not join
to think, but to obey orders without restrictions, without questions,
but rather obey orders unrestricted, divine, unquestionable, dictates
from the higher-ups who only listen when people applaud and never when
they ask questions.
Then he concludes, if this mechanical operation of party members
persists, in the face of such a psychology, would one expect a different
attitude toward the rest of the people?
When reading in Raul Castro's closing speech in the newspaper Granma,
from the headlines and leads it is obviously an antagonistic
contradiction: The party states the need to "…promote greater
democracy…" yet refuses so resoundingly to officially recognise
differing political positions.
"Ending the principle of a single party would be….to legalise the party
or parties of imperialism on our native land…". Most clearly,
impossible: the question remains are you with me or against me!
Such an approach still admits the possibility that Cubans have different
opinions, genuine patriots willing to safeguard the independence of
their country. Thus the emphasis is on Fidel's classic syllogism of
leader-Revolution-nation, in which there is only one way to be a
consistent patriot: by being an ardent admirer of the Revolutionary
leader and obeying even his most absurd decisions.
In a discourse that emphasizes analogies historically used by the Cuban
government to demonise various political schemes (plurality =
demagoguery = commercial exploitation of politics = appeasement to the
U.S.), our President criticizes "…the validity and usefulness of
so-called representative democracy…" because "…has become invariably the
concentration of power in the class that holds the economic hegemony…"
and he says it as if in Cuba, even with specific nuances, the same thing
didn't happen.
Too often our people witness that the most notorious corrupt – Raul
recognizes it – are the ardent activists who for decades maintained
their status of stratospheric life before the impassive gaze of the
Party and government authorities. If this is known, despite a press
censorship comparable only, perhaps, to the one that governs North
Korea, it is easy to imagine what would happen if in our own in a fit of
ethics, difficult to conceive, unwrapped Pandora's box. For all this we
were married to the lie and they forced us to live with her.
I remain stunned by Raul Castro when he asked the party "…to foster a
climate of maximum trust and the conditions….for the most comprehensive
and frank exchange of views, both within the organization, its links
with the workers and the population, encouraging disagreements to be
taken with ease and respect, including the mass media… to be involved
with the strictest accountability and accuracy in this endeavour… with
proven objectively and without unnecessary secrecy."
It turns out that over the last year and a half, I myself have gotten to
Raul Castro four letters which clearly expounds our case, Raul himself
here speaking completely ignores them and likewise it did reach the main
Cuban periodicals without their ever having the courage to publish them.
Although my astonishment increased when I hear the President ensure:
"You have to get used to telling us all the truths from the front,
looking into his eyes, disagree and argue…when we consider that we are
in the right…" however, finally awakened when displayed in fact, stating
that everything will be "…of course, in the right place at the right
time and in the right way…"
This blog is run by someone who dared to disagree and that is why he was
expelled from the party, lost his specialty, Medicine, and was then
barred from practicing his profession. It is a curious way of
understanding the right to dissent and of "naturally and respectfully
accepting differences"! In fact, I would advise the First Secretary a
little "caution" when talking, for example, about the danger the corrupt
assume, that it not end with he himself expelled from the Party for
challenging them, as recently happened to Professor Esteban Morales.
But where this speech is worthy of "coven" award for the great Creole
humor it distills, it is the point at which the First Secretary assures
us "...that in the Party there must be a definitive end to the top down
control — the 'boss-ism' — its force is moral, not legal… it is the
moral force!"
To listen to this in a country where the Communist Party arranges and
controls everything – even the prosecution, forgive the repetition – is
hilarious. It is no secret that while the Party says in public that it
does not govern, not manage, and that its function is to "guide" that
"…it demands all those responsible fulfill their, without interfering in
the administration…" – I do not see how it is possible to do one thing
without the other – however, the reality is that nothing of political or
administrative importance is approved without the consent of the
Communist Party, its leaders have unlimited powers, the Party gives and
takes, according to its interest, officials from all levels of
government, appointed and replaced at leisure managers, company
directors, provincial directors, ministers, generals, trade union
leaders and mass organizations, and it arranges which "NGOs" will be
approved and which will have his profile.
It promotes and fires deputies of all levels, presidents of municipal
and provincial assemblies of the Popular Power, in the end, it is the
manager of the totality of life of this country without any type of
limitation, with an attentive eye on these civil servants to be thrown
out the window for minor slides.
In this way, the Cuban government – of which all the high officials are,
incidentally, communist militants – reaches the audacity to proclaim to
the four winds, when you want to question the Cuban electoral system,
that it is not the Communist Party that postulates, that what happens
"in theory"is for one simple reason: it doesn't need it, because it is
the lord and master of this country. If the party frowns; ministers,
deputy ministers, colonels and generals grow pale. But if the party
raises its voice and gives them a swipe, they defecate their pants.
So why shouldn't we recognize that the party actually nominates them all?
In the end, this speech holds in abeyance some basic questions: Would
the Cuban government dare to officially recognize the political
opposition now that the Party says it is willing to "promote democracy"?
Deciding to limit the stay in government positions to two terms of five
years – after spending more than 50 years in it themselves – are they
finally convinced that power intoxicates when exercised for too long?
Also in this speech – like those Fidel Castro used to make – starting
from the atrocities perpetrated by the imperialist blocs, he tries to
legitimize atrocities committed by our government against its own
people, as if the one justifies the other. Yes, the world is screwed up,
but in this little rock that suffers under the Caribbean sky, the civil
rights of 11 million Cubans are finally slaughtered with the permission
of the Communist Party.
Translated by: Hank Hardisty
February 26 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment