Month: October 2012

Ever since I was little, I’ve paid attention to politics. I enjoyed, for example, the attention generated around the world by the election campaigns in the United States. I remember my elementary school teacher who was always waiting for who would be elected and told us things like, “If so-and-so wins, we’ll have to see. But if the other one wins, he’ll let us have it.”

I didn’t understand what that meant, but surely he was referring to starting a war against us or something of that sort. On one occasion, though I wasn’t even in the sixth grade yet, I asked my father when there would be elections here. By then he was in the army and also in the Communist Party. I remember he told me, “Soon, you’ll see that when you’re grown up you’ll be able to vote.”

I immediately fired off the second compulsory question: “And will Fidel always win?” To this he responded with a tirade that lasted over an hour which I didn’t understand, not then and not later. Honestly, I waited anxiously for the day, the one when I would be able to exercise my vote. What I could never imagine then is that things here would be very different, and now I understand why Cubans pay more attention to the elections in some other country than they do to their own.

But I won’t try to explain here the joke about elections in Cuba. A great deal has already been written about this, and whoever isn’t aware of the inability of the people to change their current political landscape with an real election system is too lazy to think. I prefer to focus on the figure and the strange administration of the president.

Notice that I say the president, not Raul. Because it isn’t the person who interests me, the person I don’t know. I’m sure I’m not the only one who asks what the president of this country does, what his commitment is to Puerto Padre or to El Yarey de Vazquez, my country birthplace. What does he do every day that we don’t see on television or anywhere else? What is his opinion on the issues we Cub discuss about the present and future of the country? When does the president talk to people? How does he listen to their problems?

If anyone has seem him out these days I apologize, but I have never been that lucky, nor do I know anyone who has. This gentleman doesn’t behave like a president and even worse, we admitted it once, nor do we behave like a people.

A people vibrates, protests, demands, compels, grants and takes away powers and faculties, rewards and penalizes those who help or hinder their development and well-being. We do none of this. On the contrary, we allow an evident and painful degree of isolation in our “public figures.”

These gentlemen run the country from the impunity of anonymity. Sometime’s I’m convinced that the president of this country does not like being president, does not enjoy like the previous one did, is not a leader of anything nor does he have ideas of his own to implement, much less a new vision of the future to share with his people. At best he is an “official,” perhaps respected among his inner circle, but he is never president, and would not be in any country with real elections. On the rare occasions when we can see him he’s constantly reading a prepared paper, I cannot imagine what he would do in a debate in front of the people with a serious and prepared opponent.

These days they are going around everywhere inviting people to participate in the “elections.” I already told you that as long as I can’t vote for president I won’t vote, I won’t be part of something so counterrevolutionary as helping to maintain the same thing infinitely.

Even when the day comes when I can vote for the president and for the top leaders of all the powers, I will not be complacent, I will not confide in anyone, nor vote for a puppet of the capital or of other things, I will not vote for an eternal Communist-schmoozer-leftist-unproductive-applicant. In short, I will not vote for many people, but I will vote, I know there are Cuban men and women who know how to earn my vote, and I will give it gladly, because I’m still waiting for the day to exercise my right, although I am also convinced that this day will not come on its own two feet, we are going to have to carry it on our shoulders, with intelligence and determination.

From DiariodeCuba.com

19 October 2012

He was an old graffiti artist, in the best tradition of Kilroy — and also “he was here” — one of thosehardly seen anymore. But over the years he was introduced to the syndrome of centralization. He took to accumulating spray paints of all colors. He cornered and amassed them in a storeroom pending the big day. Nevertheless, after some years he began to use a single color. Many thought that it was not a strange symptom, but a strategy of artistic survival. Others said that it was to save the other colors, but no one knew for sure. The case is that he painted everything green; not to allude to theological virtue or to sustain himself in the illusion of a chimera, but in the uniform of everlasting hope. Nevertheless, as much as he liked green, it exhausted him. But he loved his space and home country so muchthat he began to groom the wind with his graffiti, phrases and drawings, like a colored shield against alienation “from outside.”

After some years I saw him and sadly realized how he had neglected his personal appearance. Under his fingernails, the undefined blackish color of abandon,lost and confused in scratching the beard on his face. He barely stopped to talk with me. He looked around uneasily, excused himself because he was in a hurry and told me had a lot of work to do, because he was tocover with oceans and jars — without using green — all the walls of the city. He drew near to give me a kiss goodbye and whispered in my ear that he was going to make his own multicolor aurora borealis so that the satellites will not spy on him.

October 21 2012

In the Friday edition of the Granma newspaper, editorial letters are printed. Despite the filter through which they are submitted, (my friend Fernando has submitted letters since the editorial section started, but his letters have never been published, probably for not having the “correct” focus: the way Fidel taught us…, in accordance with the actualization model…,to comply with the rules…) nevertheless, there are still some interesting letters that get published.

Today it is a letter that alludes to two letters from last week. One is about the responsibility of bosses, and the other is about disagreeing with the boss. In today’s letter, the sender H. León Báez asks himself when the right to disagree with the boss’s opinion was lost. Very good for León Báez for bringing attention to a forgotten right. I invite readers to remember when between your peers, or on your own, you tested the boundaries with your boss. Right away I remember famous cases such as Borrego, who was the Minister of the Sugar Industry during the seventies, and more recently Doctor Terry, Vice Minister of Public Health, and Marcos Portal, Minister of General Industry.

In another part of his letter, León Báez refers to the popular practice of anonymous criticism, and agrees that this practice is free of reprisal, which tacitly acknowledges that disagreement is commonly met with punishment.

The day that Cubans are able to express our ideas without fear, our country will turn into the Babel of opinions. Until then we will continue with agreement and silence.

October 19 2012

This Sunday, September 30th, the newspaperTribuna de la Habana, the “official publication of the provincial party committee,” printed a small notice on the second page that got me thinking. I took a photo with my cell phone and, due to the poor quality of the image, have transcribed this senseless article as follows:

Mass Sterilization of Stray Cats

The Veterinary Institute convenes for the mass sterilization campaign to control stray cat populations, from October 19th-26th.

Appointments can be scheduled by calling 878-1546, or in person at the Veterinary Clinic itself, located on Salvador Allende Avenue (Carlos III Avenue). Twenty to twenty-five cats is [sic] treated every day from 9:00 AM until 12:00 noon.

Clara Luz

If the felines they are thinking of sterilizing are strays, why announce a campaign? Do they think the cats will cometo be operated onof their own accord in order to enjoy the surgical benefits of family planning?

The kitties without a doubt are grateful with the telephone number to call in an organized way and ask for appointments, but surely they rather leave those mental hygiene test to the humans — already accustomed to waiting in lines — while they scale to more elevated and traditional ways of lovely expression and preservation of the species. Perhaps — as the male chauvinist they are — they are thinking in leaving that “little matter” to the females of their kind, as they probably fear that since the article’s author was a woman, there is a gender problem and also there is some female bureaucrat pointing with a scalpel pointing this operation straight to their gonads.

What delusional person imagined that “pussycats” would go in animal or in person to the clinic on Carlos III to undergo this trauma. If we are in fact talking about stray cats, it is logical to assume that citizens would have to round them up, as a voluntary effort, to take them to be sterilized. Or is that the intention?

“Twenty to twenty-five cats is treated” or “are treated?”

In conclusion I have this final concern: I ask myself if they have taken into account the already visible diminished population of the “rabbits of the roofs” due to the scarcity of red meat since the beginning of the Special Period. What will become of rats whose numbers and activity have increased in the urban communities when the reproduction of cats is reduced? Since the battle against the rodents has thus far failed, perhaps the objective now is that humans, greater in numbers than cats, will be the ones expected to catch the rodents who transmit disease, as the only alternative to meat. This will then, for sure, reduce the rodent population.

October 3 2012

Tiles on the walls, a screen covered in green fabric and a metal table where they usually place syringes and cotton. This was the cubicle where I voted this morning to elect a delegate to the Municipal Assembly of People’s Power. Located inside a doctor’s office that was turned into a polling place this Sunday for the residents of the area. “Prescient” I thought of nothing but being alone with my ballot next to the large sink where they wash hospital implements. “Prescient” because my country is in a “coma” of indifference and apathy, and is going to need a profound revival – almost a defibrillation – for citizens to have real decision making power. Thirty-six years since its creation the current electoral system has not convinced us, not even once, that it represents the people against the power, rather we have become accustomed to the exact opposite.

So between the smell of formaldehyde and the hint of a stretcher, I annulled my ballot. After years of abstaining I decided to participate this time in an election that will change absolutely nothing. None of the delegates ratified at the polls could influence even the most pressing issues of our reality. Nor do we know how they think about our huge everyday problems, because the election law only allows them to submit their biography and their photo. So today in my neighborhood we were invited to choose between two faces, between two names, between two resumes… For this reason several neighbors and friends – knowing the futility of filling out a ballot – chose to abstain. But I wanted to satisfy my curiosity, to re-experience the senselessness of a paper that decides nothing, nothing changes, nothing moves forward.

First I wrote the letter “D.” Enormous, like a voiceless scream, I sketched that initial of a long-sought concept: “democracy.” And I did it in the midst of a clinical setting that fit metaphorically with my gesture of annulment, with the urgent intervention that the ranks of the People’s Power demand in this country. A deep surgery, an extensive extirpation of the meekness of the National Assembly, an electroshock of freedom to stop the parliamentarians from unanimously approving and applauding all the time. We will need to resurrect, to be reborn as a society, and to begin to behave like one

22 October 2012

The recently announced and often proposed travel/emigration reform act finally appeared in the Official Gazette and, as you might guess, simply amounts to a reshuffling of the same restrictions along with some new ones. Its additional procedures are designed to “make changes so that everything stays the same” and to keep extracting hard currency from Cubans both inside and outside the country.

The “white card,” or exit permit, has been eliminated and its restrictions will now be applied to the passport, which will only be issued to those citizens who fulfill a long list of requirements or whom the state deems worthy. Its price will increase from 55 CUC to 100 CUC. It will extend to twenty-four months the time one can remain outside the country without being considered an emigrant. Cubans living in other countries and with other nationalities are still required to have a Cuban passport to visit Cuba, and it does not recognize dual citizenship, as is common in other democratic countries in the world. It also introduces a 150 CUC emigration processing fee for people living overseas and 100 CUC fee for those who decide to reside in Cuba.

As you might imagine, although there are still no guidelines or regulations regarding the practical application of the law, it is a bit like the saying, “You can flip the omelet over, but it’s the same on the other side.” Or to put it another way, “It’s the same dog but with a different collar.” It is now understandable why they needed so much time to craft this travel/emigration straitjacket.

Those who expected real change, and serious travel/emigration reform as a result, were left still wishing, and also, with the frustration of feeling tricked. It seems that the majority of Cubans still do not understand it is only possible to expect more of the same from the current authorities and never anything really new or different. Dogmatism, schematicism, and conservatism seem to be their guidelines and they never deviate from them: they have yielded powerful results for half a century, and they will not finally change now. The approved emigration reform constitutes a mockery of the wishes of the citizens, who every day demand real changes. May it serve as a lesson to so many naive ones!

October 20 2012

In another of the many meetings of recent days, the XI International Criminal Sciences Meeting 2012, the General Controller of the Republic, Gladys Bejarano Portela, urged, from ethics and professionalism, the confrontation of economic crimes and illegalities.  Again the obligatory topic of corruption, focuses the interest of the participants on a legal event.

The fact is that, during so many years the sweeping of these systemic phenomena of Cuban socialism were swept under the rug, that now its effusion covers all spheres of society.  Now the General-President had called attention again, during the last extended Cabinet meeting, ending September, to work with rigor and discipline in order to eliminate the disorganization that drives the waste, theft and negligence.

He referred to delinquency in the collections and payments between enterprises and agencies and the increase in the string of defaults.  The fact is that there is no custom of respecting contracts or budgets or schedules, because for many years  they directed the country by command, by means of government directives.  And those rains brought this mud.

The Attorney General of the Cuban Republic spoke in the Meeting about the respectful vocation of the law and the legality of the revolution during its historical evolution.  This contrasts with the aphorism that the revolution is the source of law because it was the revolutionary power that upset even the country’s judicial symbols.

They appropriated from the designated buildings those which impart justice, like the building that today is occupied by the State Counsel and the Central Party Committee: the current Palace of the Revolution.  This building, which they inherited from the past regime, was intended for the Palace of Justice.  The headquarters of the Pines Island Tribunal in Nueva Gerona, for example, was converted to an ice cream shop in the second half of the 1960’s and so, through all the national territory, the semiotics of what is legal suffered inherently with respect to the law.

Enemies of the old law and obedient to the new, they headlined themselves the powerful debut.  But they have been the first violators of their own laws.  A recent example:  article 57 of the Constitution of the Cuban Republic expresses that correspondence is inviolable.  It can only be used, opened and examined in cases previewed by the law.  Matters irrelevant to the purpose of the examination will be kept secret.  The same principle will be observed with respect to cable, telegraph and telephone communications.

On a television program last month, they made public a telephone conversation of an opponent who was on hunger strike in her home in the capital. The arbitrary detention of dissidents; the deportations to their provinces of all who are where it does not suit the authorities; the known acts of repudiation against opponents and dissidents, organized by the same authorities that supposedly should prevent them, finally, the stigma that we are all guilty before the law, until we prove otherwise.

Also talked about at the event was the comprehensive analysis of the country’s Criminal Justice System that is being carried out, which will generate, according to the Attorney General, important modifications to the Penal code, the Law of Criminal Procedure and other legal norms.  By now, the Lady of Justice, with eyes blindfolded and scales in hand, gives a suspicious wink to  Cubans, observing everything, hiding behind the dark glasses of totalitarian power.

October 16 2012

Yesterday, October 16, the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cuba finally published Decree/Law No. 302, which modifies the previous “Law on Immigration,” No. 1312, from September, 1976. A text of the law appeared in the same edition. As a good friend of mine would say, “More of the same with the same.” Nevertheless, the fact that it approaches the subject of emigration with the obvious intention of unlocking structures designed thirty-six years ago makes it somewhat different. What seems more important at this point is that Cuban authorities are introducing into the geopolitical and electoral landscape of Florida an expectation of how they will deal with the subject of Cubans in the diaspora. Not coincidentally, the official press — which, as we all know, is the only press — stated that these modifications are part of “irreversible” process of normalization of emigration from the homeland.

For the casual Cuban observer, what is most significant are the advantages, principally the elimination of the letter of invitation, a document necessary before any ordinary overseas trip can begin, and the despised exit permit, issued by the Ministry of the Interior. Like the documents one receives after completing a prison sentence, they confirmed, or confirm, that as citizens we are all hostages to the dictatorship. Now the passport will become the means of police control. We will see in ninety days, when the law is scheduled to take effect, and after the the election results in the United States are final, who can request and receive a passport in Cuba and who cannot.

The really timid measures applied to the emigration law are useless if they are not backed up by the guarantees provided by a national democratic state, as we all know. The modified article itself leads us to consider the obstacles that are still present, and how our rights as citizens continue to be violated, and not just in issues related to emigration. This unites us once again in continuing to work for the ratification of the United Nation’s Conventions on Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as the real point of departure for recovering all our liberties as citizens.

October 18 2012

The rapidly evolving subject of the “pilfering of brains and talent” is once again the order of the day here after the announcement that certain absurd regulations governing travel overseas will be overturned starting January 1 of next year, leaving it quite clear that restrictive measures will still be applied to prevent this so-called pilfering.

In reality no one is stealing either brains or talent, which simply go where they are properly valued and where those with them can realize their full potential. In the Cuban republic’s fifty-six years such theft did not exist because talented professionals such as artists, athletes, or anyone with something original to contribute to society could be successful at home without having to emigrate. When they did travel, they did so to gain knowledge or skills and returned to apply them in Cuba, as history amply demonstrates.

This defection of brains and talent and a defection in general began after January 1, 1959 when the country was incapable of providing even minimal opportunities for those with brains and talent to develop or to live comfortably alongside their family members. And so began the flight of professionals, artists and athletes, looking for new and more promising horizons, which continues to this day.

I do not believe that new restrictions on certain sectors of the population will resolve the problem. They will infringe on the rights of citizens affected by them, creating differences between those who can travel and those who cannot. It has been clearly shown that restrictions are simply there to be violated. They make defection difficult, but they do not prevent it. The intelligent thing to do would be to provide better economic, political and social conditions so that no one has to emigrate, and people could realize their personal as well as professional goals in their own country. The decision to reside in one country or another belongs to the individual citizen and not to any government. If this were not the case, then people with brains and talent who decide to emigrate because their countries lack the conditions necessary for them to fully develop, allowing them to advance and contribute to human achievement, would lose out.

October 17 2012