Category: Karel J. Leyva

‘Revolutionary’ Opportunists, the Main Obstacle to Achieving Freedom in Cuba

A Rapid Response Brigade performs an act of repudiation against the Ladies in White. (Cubasindical)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Karel J. Leyva, Montreal (Canada), 18 February 2024 — In the context of a totalitarian regime, an opportunist is that individual or group that seeks to benefit personally, socially, economically or politically by aligning themselves with the established system of power. They are characterized by prioritizing personal interests over ethical principles, showing remarkable flexibility in their loyalties, which they adapt according to what best serves their own advantages. The opportunists are distinguished by their indifference to the suffering of others and their total apathy to the negative implications of their support for the regime for society as a whole.

Throughout history, totalitarian regimes have repeatedly used opportunists. Citizens who denounce colleagues and neighbors, hoping to win the political favor of the regime; companies that collaborate enthusiastically with dictatorships taking advantage of the forced labor of concentration camps or prisons; members of the economic elites who do everything necessary to preserve their status; and a long etcetera. As these systems begin to show signs of weakness, opportunists show an amazing speed in changing sides, demonstrating the volatile nature of their ideologies.

This behavior not only reinforces the existing power structure but also perpetuates the division within Cuban society

The Cuban totalitarian regime is no exception. Here opportunism is manifested in an exemplary way in the attitude of government officials, members of the Armed Forces, businessmen, academics, artists and intellectuals, who receive privileges and recognition in exchange for their support or at least their silence, in the face of human rights violations, the repression of dissent and even forced exile. This behavior not only reinforces the existing power structure but also perpetuates the division within Cuban society, by contributing to the stability and legitimization of the regime through active or passive complicity. continue reading

Opportunists play a central role in the perpetuation of the misery of the Cuban people not only thanks to their macabre complicity but also to the extent that they contribute to projecting the illusion of “revolutionary” consensus. They call the dictatorship “revolutionary”; regression “progress”;  helplessness “social justice; totalitarianism “democracy”; indoctrination “education”; exploitation “solidarity”; and the despotic whim of a tyrant “popular will”.

Such a mirage hinders the possibility of an organized opposition and weakens international pressure, presenting the world with a facade of stability and acceptance. The opportunists present themselves as the legitimate face of civil society while promoting a culture of conformism that directly undermines the consolidation of dissident voices. Their tolerance and support for the repressive practices of the Cuban communist regime against those who dare to disagree legitimizes the use of force and coercion as tools of social control while revealing a deep ethical and moral crisis within Cuban society.

The opportunists present themselves as the legitimate face of civil society while promoting a culture of conformism that directly undermines the consolidation of dissident voices

In this way, opportunism erodes social trust, weakens bonds of solidarity and undermines the ability to organize collective efforts for change. The opportunist encourages distrust and skepticism. In the process, he not only degrades his own (a)moral values but also facilitates the acceptance of corrupt practices and the abuse of power, with degrading consequences for the culture and societal values.

To prove the weight that opportunism has in the maintenance of totalitarianism, it is enough to imagine what would happen if, betraying their own vile nature, the opportunists decided to withdraw support for the regime. Such a change of loyalties would trigger a cascade of effects with vast implications for the legitimacy, stability and political future of Cuba.

The loss of legitimacy would be the first and most immediate repercussion, marking the regime as weakened before national and international opinion. This questioning of its viability could accelerate doubts about government authority, eroding its power base. Simultaneously, the emptiness left by the opportunists could energize and give new life to the opposition forces, giving them an unprecedented opportunity to galvanize popular discontent and articulate the pro-democratic struggle with a stronger and more unified voice.

Such a change of loyalty would trigger a cascade of effects with vast implications for the legitimacy, stability and political future of Cuba

At the socioeconomic level, the withdrawal of support could precipitate an unprecedented crisis, exacerbating the already unbearable difficulties that exist. The interruption in the management of resources and services, caused by the departure of key actors, would further highlight the deficiencies of the economic model controlled by the State. This situation of instability could generate unsustainable pressure on the regime to implement any emergency reform.

The political landscape of Cuba could immediately undergo a significant reconfiguration, with the emergence of new alliances and leaderships that reflect a diversity of perspectives and aspirations. The withdrawal of opportunists’ support for the Cuban regime would have the potential to initiate a profound transformation on the Island, marking the way for possible democratic advances and social improvements.

But let’s not kid ourselves. The possibility of opportunists in Cuba withdrawing their support for the regime is quite limited. This statement is based on the very essence of opportunism and how it is intertwined with the peculiarities of the Cuban totalitarian system. The decision of opportunists to maintain their support for the Government is deeply rooted in a calculation of risks and benefits, where the balance tilts in favor of the regime as long as the personal and group benefits perceived outweigh the risks associated with a withdrawal of support. To do so at a time when they perceive that the Government, however weak it is, can still control destinies is antithetical to the nature of opportunists.

Opportunists need to glimpse an alternative scenario in which their interests are equally or better safeguarded than under the current regime. Without a movement of opposition with the strength and promise to offer such guarantees, the probability of a significant change in support is minimal. In a word, the anticipation of possible negative consequences – from the loss of privileges to more severe repressive actions – ensures the loyalty of opportunists to the regime. This fear, combined with moral connivance and inertia in the face of a known system, reinforces its reluctance to change.

The decision of opportunists to maintain their support for the Government is deeply rooted in a calculation of risks and benefits

In addition, as long as the regime continues to enjoy a certain degree of support or tolerance at the international level and external pressures do not increase significantly, opportunists will not find reasons to rethink their position. This reality suggests that, when these opportunistic elements finally choose to leave the dark side, their contribution to the democratic cause will be not only superfluous but also undesirable.

Their support would be due to the fact that they will only contemplate a desertion when the structures of the regime begin to falter irretrievably. That is, they would join the fight against the dictatorship when they no longer need it. The undesirability of this change of loyalty lies in the fact that it results not from an authentic awareness or a sudden moral awakening but from a calculated maneuver to perpetuate their personal interests and survival, even if it implies continuing to shamefully reject the ethical principles that must support Cuba’s freedom.

Translated by Regina Anavy

____________

COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma in Cuban Society

If the majority of Cubans remain inert while a few are persecuted and tortured for defying the regime, the result will be none other than the perpetuation of moral poverty. (14ymedio)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Karel J. Leyva, Montreal, 6 May 2023 — The Cuban people are facing a difficult dilemma: to continue to be subjected to an oppressive regime that limits their rights and freedoms, or to risk being punished mercilessly for fighting for a democratic future. The theory of the prisoner’s dilemma, developed by mathematicians and social scientists, allows us to understand this dynamic, which reflects the tension between immediate personal interests and the mutual benefits that could be obtained by Cuban society. What is the cost of silence in an authoritarian regime?

The basic hypothesis of the prisoner’s dilemma is that two people are arrested for a crime and are interrogated separately. Each one has two options: admit the crime and betray the other, or remain in solidarity, refusing to betray. If they do not admit the crime, both will be released with a light penalty. If both admit the crime, they will be sentenced to a more serious penalty. However, if one person admits and the other does not, the first will be released while the one who did not give in to pressure from the police will be sentenced to a very serious penalty.

The ideal, clearly, is that both refuse to admit or betray, in which case the optimal solution is reached, and the police are left empty-handed while they escape punishment. However, the dilemma is precisely that both individuals have a strong motivation to betray, since, if one remains supportive and the other betrays, the second will be acquitted. The prisoner’s dilemma shows how, in certain situations, the individual search for benefits can lead to negative results, while cooperation, solidarity and trust can lead to much more favorable results for all parties involved.

This is precisely the dilemma faced by Cuban society, which is finds itself with the choice of cooperating to overthrow a dictatorship that represses, manipulates and subjugates, or to betray, thereby renouncing a desire to live in a prosperous, just and democratic society. Although in a metaphorical sense, I use the word “betrayal” with all intention, because the lack of citizen action, solidarity and cooperation can be interpreted as a form of betrayal of their own interests, those of their children and fellow citizens, those of the nation. continue reading

When a dissident is allowed to suffer the injustices to which he is subjected by tyranny, a compatriot is somehow betrayed. When it is accepted that the system condemns a child to experience hunger and material need, in some way the moral commitment that one has to him is deceived. When one remains inert before the tyranny that oppresses and mistreats, the dignity that constitutes us is betrayed, and with it the very essence of the human is ceded, which is the search for freedom and wellbeing.

It is true that political abstinence does not imply direct action against the interests of society. Nor is it comparable to the desolate and shameful betrayal of those who violently impose misery and those who support them, whether applauding hypocritically, betraying their compatriots or repressing in one way or another those who have the courage to face the muscular totalitarianism that governs in Cuba.

There is an abyss between the metaphorical betrayal of a people who suffer in silence and the literal betrayal of the sinister accomplices of oppression, who crawl bogged down in a dark dynamic of betrayal and submission. It is not comparable to betraying one’s own interests, for fear of being thrown into prison after a summary trial, to the vile betrayal committed by those abject lackeys who diligently serve dictatorial designs, surrendering their compatriots to the jaws of the oppressive regime.

Despicable executioners of the people, they are the personification of betrayal, cowardice and disloyalty. What I suggest is that the cost of the apathy of the people is the indefinite perpetuation of the dictatorship and the misery that comes with it. Such inaction has devastating consequences for the quality of life of today and tomorrow and contributes to keeping the nation in a state of subjugation and poverty.

There is no doubt that the risk of reprisals is substantial. No one is unaware that repressors are capable of everything. This is precisely the nature of the dilemma. Because there is also no doubt that if the majority of Cubans remain inert while a few are persecuted and tortured for defying the regime, the result will be none other than the perpetuation of the moral and economic poverty that suffocates Cuba.

The prisoner’s dilemma does not suggest that there are only two alternatives in reality or that the latter is dichotomous and simple. Between fighting and not fighting, there are a range of possibilities, from leaving the country to being loyal to tyranny and defending it, even if everything collapses and the soul is lost along with it.

Nor does it establish a moral judgment on individual decisions. It is morally legitimate to flee from communism, protect physical integrity and seek a life that gives us everything that tyranny has forcibly denied us. Similarly, it is understandable to avoid exposing yourself to the danger of facing a repressive apparatus that knows no ethical limits.

What this model shows is, simply, that the best options for a nation depend on a complex network of individual decisions. The Cuban people can remain powerless, abandoning to their fate those who prefer not to betray the ideals of freedom, democracy and prosperity. It can also rediscover the cohesion and citizen confidence that the regime has undermined for decades, and choose to think as a nation to exorcise misery, helplessness and ruin once and for all.

Translated by Regina Anavy

____________

COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.

Second Class Citizens in Cuba

A government supported Rapid Response Group carries out an act of repudiation of the Ladies in White. (Cubasindical)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Karel J. Leyva, Montreal, 1 August 2021 — Citizenship is a condition of civic equality. It is a status of belonging to a political community in which all citizens have the possibility of establishing jointly and under equal conditions both the terms of social cooperation and the collective goods that derive from political association.

Citizenship requires a political framework in which all citizens are treated impartially, regardless of their ideological conceptions, economic situation or degree of social influence. To do this, citizens must be able to conceive themselves not only as equals to each other, but as belonging to the same State. They must also be treated as rationally autonomous beings, that is, endowed with a rational agency that enables them to publicly deliberate on their concerns and interests.

These conditions of citizenship are weakened from the moment a government defends a specific political doctrine and divides the population, giving preference to sectors that adhere to this doctrine. This is precisely what the Cuban government has been continue reading

doing for far too long now.

There is no civic equality when calling those who reject the demand to adhere unconditionally to the political ideology preferred by the State mercenaries. By treating its detractors as influenced, manipulated, confused or oriented from the outside, the Cuban Government not only delegitimizes the demands of freedom and democracy from broad sectors of the population, denying the very essence and the exercise of citizenship, but also denies the ability of the Cuban people to think for themselves.

The Government of Cuba has a moral duty to facilitate citizen participation in the political and social processes that determine the present and the future of the Cuban nation. Such participation would make it possible for citizens, without distinction of ideology, beliefs and interests, to shape the political and economic framework capable of defining the quality of life of the Cuban people.

Citizens, to understand themselves as such, must be able to openly debate the problems that affect them directly or indirectly on equitable terms. Instead of using dichotomous categories that establish artificial divisions between the revolutionary people and the counterrevolutionary ’little groups’, between patriots and traitors, between decent and vulgar people, between people who love and people who hate, the Government of Cuba has a moral obligation to respond to the concerns and interests of all Cubans.

The State does not belong to a specific group, nor should it be identified with a particular ideology or political conception that alienates a part of the population.

The way in which a state treats its people determines not only the perception that individuals have of themselves, but the perception that such individuals have of others. the very principle of citizenship will be seriously compromised as long as some citizens feel supported by the Government to publicly repudiate others; as long as a part of the citizenship considers that the ideology they defend authorizes them to exclude dissidents from political processes; and as long as some are socially stigmatized for dissenting and others applauded for agreeing.

Being citizens implies the right to have rights as members of a political community. Such rights — understood as legitimate claims that individuals can make both to others and to their Governments, with the purpose of being treated in accordance with certain standards of decency — must be inscribed in the very nature of social relations on a basis of respect and equality.

A government that puts wooden clubs in the hands of its supporters to repress those who defend their rights not only violates the latter; it violates the very nature of citizenship.

By legitimizing two categories of citizens established according to the degree of affiliation to the political ideology preferred by the State, the Cuban Government sends a message of exclusion and unequal treatment to the Cuban people.

This message clearly states that some people are not full members of the political community, that they cannot speak out publicly on an equal footing with others, and that their interests are not adequately represented by the political institutions of the nation.

In this way, the Cuban political regime treats a part of the population, those who disagree, as second-class citizens.

____________

COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.