Category: Translator: Norma Whiting

An article by a foreign news agency recently reported on the Internet, “Cuban Dissidents at a Crossroads”by Paul Haven and Andrea Rodríguez of the Associated Press, suffers from, at least, two of the most common and serious limitations of accredited journalism in Cuba: contempt for the nationals of this Island and an almost total disregard for the history and idiosyncrasies of the country about which they aim to “inform”.

Without a doubt, politically-connected jobs and those who hold those jobs enjoy fertile ground in certain press agencies, which explains how Cuba has become a haven for some who, without much effort and without risk of getting a mild slap on the wrist when they get too close to tolerance limits set by the authorities, rush to “analyze” a stage that they have barely glimpsed. It seems that, to be a reporter for “the Cuban reality,” all a foreign journalist needs is a good camera, a bag with a corresponding water bottle, a couple of pairs of shorts and some cotton shirts to better withstand the heat, a dirty pair of sandals for smudging their heels while walking on the smelly and dusty streets of our battered Havana — because, in addition, they don’t usually venture out to explore the deep and provincial Cuba, the one that suffers even more than this oblivion capital — and, finally, to report to their agencies, through Internet connections. I imagine that Cuban journalistic assignments must be comparable to winning the lottery for such press professionals. After all, they will always have an opportunity to later publish a quite different Cuban reality to the one they reported while on assignment here, thus they can reap additional financial benefits while cleaning up their journalistic dignity with this exercise of retroactive ethics.

Only thus could the following statement be explained: “When ‘Ladies in White’ were established as a protest for the imprisonment of activists and journalists in Cuba in 2003, the mission of this group of women was simple: to attain freedom for their loved ones”. And the subtlety lies is in the details and the way in which ideas are placed, because the mission of the Ladies in the beginning was, indeed, the release of their relatives, but because it is a struggle waged almost single-handedly and in a dictatorship, such a task could not be as “simple” as all that. In fact, the evolution of seven years’ experience led to a deepening in the awareness of that civic movement and expanded its horizons, raising the levels of its demands.

Another trendy suggestion points to the march of the Ladies in White as a kind of Sunday entertainment, since they move “in a quiet suburb of Havana”, as if they levitate over the city without going through Centro Habana neighborhoods or others in the capital or in the provinces, which may not be as mild as the patrician Miramar neighborhoods. In such marches, they are not attacked by ordinary people, but it is a rare occasion when they are not harassed by the pack of hounds recruited by the political police (“pro-official” groups, the referenced journalists call them, instead of defining them as what they are: government employees). In fact, the attacks against the Ladies are taking place more and more often, and the violence of the henchmen’s harassment is becoming more pronounced.

Another element that the Ladies in White and their cause base their rationale on is the persistence of the well-known “gag law” that put 75 independent journalists and many other dissidents behind bars. The mere existence of this provision in the country’s legal body legitimizes repression, abolishes freedom of expression, and allows for possible future arrests for the same or similar causes, that is, expressing ideas not in line or contrary to the stipulations of the regime. The coherence of the Ladies in White lies precisely in understanding that fixing the effect is not enough, but eliminating the causes that precipitate it is essential in order to prevent its recurrence.

Some other inaccuracies, if we must call them that, emerge in the oblique analysis of reference, as inferred from a sentence as naive as it is harmful, considering the release of prisoners a fact that “left the Ladies in White without a cause” and placed “the dissident community” at “a crossroads and challenged with redefining itself and gaining the support of a society that has never seemed particularly receptive or even aware of its message”. It would seem that these blundering journalists overlook the fact that this society’s only source of information about dissidents and opposition proposals is what’s offered by the media, an absolute state monopoly dedicated to systematically demonizing and slandering any alternative proposal, that the government employs all available resources — in particular the repressive forces — to maintain a fence that prevents communication between the dissidents and society, and that civil society which was just beginning to gain strength in the Republic was demolished starting in the early years of the 1959 revolution, and five decades of mute terror has sown in ordinary Cubans either silence or the sham of phony loyalty to the government as elemental survival strategies.

In fact, the “informal poll” conducted by the AP on 30 Cubans “consulted at random”, resulting in five (16.6%) being able to identify Laura Pollan, nine (30%) Guillermo Fariñas, three (10%) the blogger Yoani Sánchez could, in fact, be considered an achievement. These results are quite flattering for the dissidence, taking into account conditions in Cuba. Just two years ago, the corollaries of such a survey would have yielded much lower figures, virtually nil.

Cuban dissidence is truly small and fragmented, as befits a country in which, conversely, the dictatorship is huge and monolithic. But again, the mistake of making woeful comparisons is made, because civic resistance here is not comparable in any way, nor does it have any intention to “emulate” the upheavals that took place in the Arab world. Comparing Cuban social reality, not just with the Arab world, but irrationally — for its addition — with those of countries like Great Britain, Spain or Greece, can only be classified as a childish fantasy or a perversion. The aberration is further strengthened when seasoned journalists dab the olive-green autocracy with rosewater.

“And though political freedom may be lacking in a country that was ruled by one or another of the Castro brothers for over 50 years, the government left the (dissident) movement partially without argument when it allowed for greater economic opportunities in recent months, and when it promised more reforms soon”. (Parenthesis added by this author). Viewed in this way, the growing discontent, the many expressions of protest, and the demands for rights that are taking place across the Island in increasing waves, and despite beatings, rallies and arrests suffered by protesters, would seem the mere nonsense of occasional rioters and that this country should have enough with a handful of kiosk-type, pint-sized reforms.

What these foreign reporters don’t explain how to justify that the resistance has been gaining strength precisely in recent months, when we Cubans have “greater economic opportunities” thanks to the called-for and misnamed “reforms” of General R. Castro, which, rather than transforming the country’s socioeconomic plight, have become the latest government defense parapet against public opinion, and a kind of safety valve, despite their shortcomings, in the presence of raising pressure in Cuba and the irreversibility of the general crisis, barely a precarious rein to brake the inevitable end of “the model”.

And here is more evidence of a trick of the subconscious of those who, without knowing us, often look at us with condescension and qualify us disdainfully, because, while European grumblers are known as “outraged” and can afford the luxury of marching in the thousands, despite all the imperfections of democracy, they have the rights that even foreign journalists don’t question, and the opportunity to elect who their leaders will be; there isn’t much for us, the Cuban outraged, to do. But, in perspective and adapting each situation, the Cuban dissident movement would be comparable and even superior to the protests that are taking place in the free world, for theirs is a universe that has access to information and social networks, with unions, civic organizations, rights and freedoms, all the choices that are denied to us.

It is true that the “traditional” Cuban opposition has lacked in consistency, sound strategies and connection to society as a whole. The root of the evil lies in, among many other causes, civic orphanhood of a nation that was never known for being responsible and where politics is always a subject “for others” to see to. But, at their inception, European transitions have never been characterized by having brandished great political plans that hailed multitudes, or by the abundance of leaders who were of great importance or of large-scale social impact, and none of this ever deterred the changes that took place.

Obviously, some observers hope in vain for an impossible miracle to happen in Cuba, while certain accredited journalists seem to be expecting that nothing really takes place that would threaten the tropical affair of a journalism that is bland, irresponsible and without ethical commitments.

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 30 2011

My dear friend Marta Cortiza, married to my other friend, the blogger Eugenio Leal, often used the phrase in the title of this brief posting whenever she called me: “Hello Miriam!, How are you? I’m calling just to make an appearance”. And after the usual introduction we would often get entangled in long conversations that covered topics as varied and contradictory as the sociopolitical situation in Cuba and the world, the minutiae of our families, or the exchange of recipes. I found speaking with Martha as easily natural and spontaneous as if we had been born and raised together, and as if we could read each other’s thoughts.

Just a few years were enough to enhance our extraordinary friendship, forged in the toils and blows that being part of the demonized group of dissidents implies in Cuba, running the same risks and having common interests and shared hopes. Marta’s rare personality combines both a strong will and permanent appeal. She is one of those people who, almost without being noticed, with unmatched candor, becomes essential and close in her affections.

Almost a year ago Little Martha, as I call her in jest, left Cuba. She reunited with her children and grandchildren in Miami and left her many friends here part of her cheerful spirit that still accompanies us in our bustle and blogger meetings. She is cofounder of the blogosphere but never started her own blog. She encouraged our work and supported us from its very inception, and I know that she is linked with our destinies so all the alternative Cuban blogs are thus a little bit hers too.

For this reason and because this is the first time that I cannot congratulate her personally on her birthday this September 26th, I wanted to dedicate this small note as a poor present. If any readers walking the streets of Miami recognize this lady with her warm smile, her honest eyes and her white hair, let it be known that she is a friend of the Cuban free bloggers, that she is a part of us, and that we love her dearly. Here’s to your health, Little Martha! May you have many more, and that I will soon be able to hear your voice on the phone often, uttering that phrase, so nice and familiar: “hello, Miriam, just making an appearance!”

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 26 2011

The independent Cuban blogosphere has had an impressive growth in its few years of existence despite low Internet connectivity on the Island. Most blogs that have been set up and kept open during this time are autonomous spaces arising by the spontaneous free will of their respective administrators and, although the authorities insist on including almost all under the generic label of “dissidents,” (in Cuba the slightest sign of independence automatically implies “subversion”) the truth is that at least some of them are not particularly concerned with political issues, with accusations or with the social criticism of the Cuban reality.

In spite of that and without denying that inspirations for criticism abound in a reality such as ours, the continuing growth and diversification of the blogosphere into themes and interests that have nothing to do with the ideological over-saturation we have endured for over half a century is something to celebrate. For that reason, among more powerful ones, I wanted to dedicate a brief overview of the recent birth of a peculiar blog. As far as I know, Cuba did not have a personal blog devoted to culinary and gastronomic topics, irrespective of some, like the blog “Through the Eye of the Needle“, where my friend Rebecca Monzo sometimes inserts one or another recipe. The new space (Voy Caliente), with strong interests in fusion-kitchen; with dietary proposals in line with current world trends and also the bearer of a refreshing ideas segment of young Cuban restaurateurs, brings a little spice to a blogosphere that continues to grow. Each new blog is a sign of the health of the spirit of a consolidated online community.

And if some of my readers find it surprising that a blogger so stubborn and free thinking would pay special attention to a blog seemingly far removed from her everyday comings and goings and her strong voice, I must say that I have reasonable grounds for this, not only because Jorge Ortega Celaya, principal of the new blog, is a great young chef who aspires to someday have his own restaurant with the personal seal of his talent, and whose creations I have often enjoyed, but because this blogger is my oldest son. So the adage “the testimonial is up close and personal” is fulfilled to a T.

Thus, just like I welcomed my son to the world in January 1980, today I want to welcome the blogger, born to the same virtual space I have dwelled in for a few years; a place where – just like he did in real life — he must carve a course for himself. I wish him, of course, all the luck in the world.

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 23 2011

Though my regular readers know I don’t usually publish work that I have not written myself, I decided to publish, as an exception, an article from attorney Wilfredo Vallín Almeida, president of the Cuban Law Association (AJC), my friend and traveling companion. The decision reflects the importance of this partnership for its work in support of the rights of Cubans and the unique and valuable efforts of such a meaningful undertaking in a country lacking in freedom and civic-mindedness. The work of this group of lawyers is as necessary to Cubans as it is dangerous to authorities, hence the official interest in sabotaging its work and trying to distort the nature of the organization and the morale of its members.

Readers can get more information about these events in the forums of the Association, where a series of six works by attorney Mr. Vallín will be published starting today.

I urge readers to follow the posts, since the organization is currently awaiting an answer regarding its application for legalization, and it is the only organization that has filed a legal complaint against the ministration of justice in Cuba for that cause, creating a precedent hitherto unheard of in the history of civic resistance in Cuba in half a century of dictatorship.

Thanks and a big hug,
Miriam Celaya

Disrespect and Right of Reply

Wilfredo Vallín Almeida

This past September 12th, two lawyers from the Cuban Law Association (AJC) in the province of Artemisa got a subpoena signed by sub-Lieutenant Javier Rebozo Pérez to appear before him at the Alquízar State Security Department the next day.

The lawyers of the AJC decided to attend though the first violation was already included in said citation, -this is something we’re used to about the political police- and because neither complied with Article 86 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act (they don’t specify the subpoena’s subject), and were, therefore, null and void.

Although they were each “interviewed” separately, the points addressed by the officers in attendance at the meeting can be summarized as follows:

1. Reasons for the presence of such persons in the Cuban Law Association.
2. Ambiguity regarding the aims pursued by the AJC.
3. Counterrevolutionary character of the President of the Organization.
4. Attorney Wilfredo Vallín’s relationship with known figures of the opposition to the current Cuban government.
5. Source of the economic resources that the AJC seems to have access to.
6. Discredit which the Organization will shortly be subjected to through the national media of mass communication.

With the right to reply that any human being should have anywhere and against anything deemed insulting to his dignity, we will answer, one by one, the above points, but in our own way, that is, without hiding our identity behind assumed names, without hiding anything (since there is nothing to hide), and for anyone who wants to know, especially when it comes to our fellow citizens.

We will start with something that was not listed above, but one we consider essential to address. We will respond because, in the face of slander, one cannot remain silent, but –this must be made clear- the Law Association does not recognize that the Cuban State Security Department has any jurisdiction in this matter.

And we don’t recognize its jurisdiction here because:

1. From the beginning of its establishment, the AJC took on the task, UNDER THE LAWS THAT DO EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY, THOUGH SOME DON’T LIKE IT, to be respectful observers of the tenets of those laws, and to conduct ourselves ethically before the Registry of Associations, The Ministry of Justice, and the national courts that have to do with the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS that, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, we have followed to date.
2. Up to the time I am writing this, we have not received from any of those involved as counterparties, (those we do recognize as bearing the title of AUTHORITIES, and not the mere agents of the same), any expression, in any form, disqualifying of our actions.
3. The decision of the highest organ imparting justice in the country, the Supreme Court, which acts in our power, recognizes the right of citizens (and therefore ours) to peaceful association, provided that the legally required formalities are followed. We find it hard to admit that the State Security Department is ignorant of this.
4. In our view, the intervention of the political police in a completely legal process that develops under the laws established by the institutions authorized to do so, in the hands of authorities competent to decide, is, first and foremost, a lack of respect for the nation’s judiciary powers, and the denial of basic citizenship rights we supposedly enjoy.

The shortage of space will result in us having to replicate the rest of the points made at the beginning in the few next AJC blog posts and in those friendly publications that have offered to publish this.

Just one last thing for now: The AJC has a president with a well-known name by those who do not seem to even trust their courts. There is no need to call lesser members. You can call him, and he will be sure to respond without the need for a subpoena.

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 19 2011

For Cubans, accustomed to living at such a slow pace that time seems to pass only through sheer inertia, as if we belonged to the dizzying world beyond our borders, that other dimension of this universe, recent weeks have begun to make a difference. The Cuban reality has become less apathetic and linear – the obstinate legacy of CAME-style socialism that artificially changed the natural dynamics of a western country — and, suddenly, multiple simultaneous events begin to occur, apparently unconnected, but, when viewed together, respond to the system’s failure and the long accumulation of errors in the sociopolitical and economic life, inevitably pointing to the advent of an era in which accelerated changes can occur in any direction and in an unpredictable manner.

Almost on a daily basis, incidents have been springing up, such as arrests, threats, house confinements, repudiation rallies in various parts of the island by the repression forces and other supporters of the regime, and there have even been raids against presumably prostitute homosexuals these past few days, in the middle of Parque Central, before the vacant eyes of a marble apostle, which ended with the death of a 34-year-old young man in circumstances not clearly established. The common denominator of the victims of the official repression is their claim to universally recognized rights and peaceful methods of struggle, in sharp contrast to the brutality that has been applied in most cases to try to suppress the growing public unrest.

Each day, apparent fear of the authorities is becoming more evident and dissident sectors more visible in the country. Each situation seems favorable to break the false calm that hides behind a slight, though sustained, increase in the contained nonconformity: the parks around the National Capitol, the Mercado Único, the Our Lady of Charity procession on September 8th, the free and spontaneous meetings of citizens’ debates in private homes – whether in Miramar, Nuevo Vedado, or in any other neighborhood in the capital or throughout the country — the growth in independent journalism and in the number of bloggers and even a Christian church in one of the busiest boulevards in Havana that has caused an unusual interruption in the traffic flow and a spectacular deployment of police and Interior Ministry special forces.

Suddenly, without warning, events that just a couple of years ago were unthinkable are taking place. Coincidence? I think not. And there are reasons to believe that the situation may become ever more complex. There is evidence that the repressive actions only serve to stoke the fire of insubordination. More than five decades of totalitarian control have been able to slow the process, but not to prevent it. The accumulation of frustration, lack of perspective and, above all, the despair, don’t provide an environment conducive to the application of repressive measures. The government, whether it likes it or not, should be walking on eggshells.

If this rare situation in the country were not enough, the regime finds itself nearing a complex international juncture that will influence, perhaps decisively, the course of events. Among them are: the elections in Venezuela that could decisively change the current circumstances and force the Cuban government to take urgent steps for changes, the US elections, which could favor the sectors most prone to toughening the sanctions against the regime and thus directly affect revenues to the Cuban economy from several sectors, with an immediate effect on society as a whole; the continuance of the Common Position of the European Union, which tends to isolate the dictatorship, and the global economic crisis, among other things.

While this horizon, full of storm clouds, looms over our near future, the Cuban government continues to further damage its already ruined reputation by supporting dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East, in solidarity with the most repudiated global satrapies; removing the credentials of foreign media representatives; developing its partnerships with new regional leaders, and acting heavy-handedly towards the growing protests inside the country.

Today, when dictatorships are being annihilated, when citizen protests and governmental intolerance converge dangerously, just when the new rhythm that marks the era may affect despotic powers more so than those lesser individuals deprived of freedom, the Cuban reality is wiping out the old adage “the devil knows more because he is old than because he is the devil”. So, our extremely old rulers are, without a doubt, devils, but they are absolutely not showing us any proof of their wisdom.

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 12 2011

Some signs are so “timely” that they cannot be by chance. A few days ago (Tuesday September 13th, 2011, p. 5.) the newspaper Granma published a full page article that justifies that in 1956 the then young revolutionary F. Castro accepted financial assistance — $50,000 US Dollars! — from former Cuban President Carlos Prío to organize the expedition that would bring together the aspiring guerrillas and the yacht Granma.

The writing, which at times seems taken from a comic strip where the exaltation of the hero is what matters the most — the bold main character swimming across the Rio Grande, an incognito voyage, to elude the vigilance of the evil ones, conspiracy, danger — is only a fragment of a book published by the Publications Office of the State Council, which makes me suppose that the whole book would make Tarzan himself turn pale with envy.

However, what is curious is that the largest newspaper in Cuba, the official organ of the PCC, up to now had devoted several lengthy articles accusing the opposition and civil society groups (Damas de Blanco, independent journalists and bloggers, among others) of having received financial support from abroad, but had not felt compelled to remind its readers of the moral purity of the olive green pedigree … despite the dubious origin of its funding. To this day, as far as I can remember, it had not devoted the same dissident-burning space to argue the tremendous sacrifice of the Venerated one, as he felt so forced to bow before those monies at the time, without its donor suspecting that he was helping to make possible the establishment in Cuba of the longest dictatorship in this hemisphere. Never before was it acknowledged that those “ill-gotten” $50,000 were well worth the humiliation of the leader of the Cuban Revolution!

So the official lampoon shows that what determines the morality of money is the cause it supports, not its source. Since it’s so, I don’t see any moral conflict in which dissidents, whether they are opponents, journalists or any other representatives of the broad front of dissatisfied Cubans, receive some monetary support, especially considering that the government does not seem too concerned about the origin of the capital of many foreign investors in Cuba, nor has it shown any squeamishness in appropriating a not-so-insignificant part of family remittances from the enemy empire, without us knowing for sure what these honorable revenues are used for.

Consequently, if what is dignifying about money is the principle underlying the support, and if that principle is endorsed by groups and individuals who advocate democracy, plurality, inclusion, freedom of expression and, finally, the aspiration by Cubans to exercise all their rights and to bring an end a dictatorship, I cannot think, right now, of a better destiny for the highly demonized funding.

Translated by: Norma Whiting

September 16 2011

The Archbishopric of Havana has issued a press release dated September 5th, 2011 which is, at the very least, surprising. I am not referring to the somewhat sallow terms describing the wave of repression unleashed with renewed vigor by government forces against various civil society groups. We know that this is the usual discourse of the Church in Cuba, which explains why it avoids referring to the Ladies in White by that name, by which they are known throughout the world, and, in addition, the statement is limited to detailing the abuses, beatings, arrests and repudiation rallies as “incidents in which the wives of some former prisoners, who were released recently, had been abused, according to their own statements”. We already know that one must be gentle as doves…

In fact, the surprise that the note brings us lies in the government’s unusual revelation to the Church, assuring that “the order to attack these people has not come from any national decision-making center”. No matter how often the kid gloves of the high clergy towards the Cuban authorities might get irksome at times, we must admit that it is not in character for the Church to issue such inaccurate statements, and it must, therefore, be assumed that the Cuban government, in fact, stated what the note from the Havana Archbishopric claims. We should now attempt to analyze its implications, because if we were so naïve as to rely on any government communication, we would now have ample motives for alarm, since it could only lead us to several hypothetical deductions, none of them promising. They would be, for instance, as follows:

• The government has lost control over the police and the internal order of the country.
• The strategy of the police force is to act with impunity by their own choice, without our knowing if repressive forces autonomy was declared, or if they are now insubordinate against a central power, which would leave us totally defenseless (more defenseless even than could be possible).
• In view of this, we are on the edge of another cliff that the General-President did not mention at the close of the VI Congress of the PCC: National chaos. A Cuba without order or control, where police acts of its own accord and the government is not even in condition to open an investigation to establish responsibilities against those who are trampling on defenseless citizens.

The note from the Archbishopric does not clarify — perhaps it is not its duty to do so — if the Church authorities were satisfied with the edict from the government. I say this because, at this moment, there is not only an alarming increase in repression, but it is reinforced and spurred by the media, which is wholly owned by the government, as evidenced by the story that aired on the well-known late TV news show on September 7th, and re-ran on the newscast at noon the next day, demonizing the Ladies in White and, before that, on Monday, September 5th, against well-known blogger Yoani Sanchez. Has the country’s central power also lost control over the media, or does the civilized world no longer classify as repression the public slandering of a country’s citizens, without even acknowledging their right to reply in the same media?

If it were not because we know that this government’s proclamation of innocence is nothing but a mockery, it would seem that we are witnessing a process of anarchy in a society already sufficiently burdened by egregious sociopolitical and economic ills. The good intentions of the Church would not be enough then to avoid violence or “any other way of dealing with the Cuban reality that could affect the peaceful coexistence and disrupt the well-being of the nation”, as the Archbishopric press release states. The “attitudes and gestures that encourage the peaceful development that Cuba needs at this changing stage we live in and that the Cuban people expect and demand” would not be enough either; the aspirations of almost all Cubans, except of the oppressors. If honesty is sought, from any side, we will have to start by recognizing that the “peaceful coexistence” in Cuba has, for some time now being shattered by violence, corruption, loss of values and other moral and material epidemics, and the government has not only taken the most active side, but has enjoyed total impunity.

Who is responsible, then, for the abuses committed against Cuban citizens? What will protect us from the escalation of violence that may occur as a result of irresponsible government? What moral authority does the government have to accuse the dissidents of instigating rebellion, while the forces of repression and official media stir some Cubans’ hatred and violence against other Cubans? Are peaceful dissidents who really are leading a social explosion in Cuba?

The Church, of course, has the answers we need, though it shares with the majority of Cubans the hope to attain a peaceful solution to Cuba’s ills. Church, civil society and dissidence have been demonstrating their rejection to violence. Nevertheless, government statements point dangerously in the opposite direction to peace. Without any doubt, the Cuban dictatorship is clearly moving more and more towards the exact middle point, as distant from God and men as from the nation’s interests.

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 9 2011

If Mr. F had not been slowly but surely morphing in his living flesh for the past five years, it could be argued that he is now going through another of his many deaths. The first, accompanied by a Proclamation signed by the pre-deceased himself, was the most shocking, because it had the effect of making public and palpable the mortal condition of the, up to then, undefeated commander. At that time, there was quite a stir not lacking in the most dissimilar feelings, from euphoria seasoned with drinking binges in wait for the anticipated celebration to some or other occasional sincere mourner, those always present in the human geography of this Island. Most people were saying “it was time, though I don’t like to wish anybody dead…” linked to the general belief we have been taught since childhood that to wish others dead means to precipitate our own death. There was not, thus, true interest in the salvation of the Messiah-come-lately, but the care to keep ourselves safe from bad omens. It is well known that in this country superstition has always exceeded worship.

Then, ever more sporadically, Mr. F has been shown to the media (or he has shown himself, we’ll never know) as proof that he is still alive. They have not been very convincing images, but we can see that, in fact, there was still a babbling old man with known features, though visibly deteriorated each time, now dressed in civilian clothes, in shirtsleeves or sports clothes, without the good looks of old, embarrassingly struggling in the mysterious webs of an accelerated decrepitude. Behind a broadcasted “improvement” in his convalescence, we common Cubans would be given only two signals as evidence of his life and questionable lucidity: “Reflections …” and the festive comments of that other lesser carnavalist, Hugo Chávez, the unofficial spokesman for [Cuban] Ground Zero.

Thus began F’s spiritual death before his physical one. His vibrant, fiery speeches, his impeccable uniform with its unique and un-reproducible epaulets, the eternally omnipresent, scraggly beard, his nails slightly projecting from their somewhat crooked fingers that clung tightly to the podium or menacingly shook to the whims of their unrepentant speaker have faded from people’s fancy. Unaware of it or not, Cubans continued to survive in their daily shakes, scratching the day every day, oblivious to their dithering failing genius. Nothing in our lives was significantly better or worse, and, in the presence of those scarce media presentations or other spectral and rare public appearances, a sense of morbid curiosity about the decline of the alpha senior predator, away from the fanfare he loved, has prevailed over a real interest in learning the word of the “leader of the people”. In fact, his words were becoming almost unintelligible, if not incoherent.

About a week ago, some media and informal groups circulated rumors about F’s supposed demise (“now final”). Others say he is in a coma, or is “very critical”, or that he has suffered a relapse (this time without the possibility of another “re-raise”), that he suffers from advanced Alzheimer’s, that he has had cardiorespiratory arrest events, that he recently suffered a stroke, etc., etc. They even say that “Yayabo” won’t come out again. The palace of the olive green caste has not confirmed nor denied these rumors.

Presumably, at this stage of the game and with the complicated picture of the nation’s reality in check mate, the complete disappearance of the patriarch might stir certain more-or-less hidden large interests, but for the average Cuban it won’t mean much. At least for the purposes of our little lives, in the short or medium term, nothing would move too much.

Perhaps the most convincing importance of what — nevertheless — will be a great event, after such a long wait, is that it would serve to finally illustrate, at the national level, once and for all, the supposed reformist vocation of the General-President, coauthor and heir of our national ruin. Because some intangible optimists (as a close friend of mine describes them) insist that F’s physical permanence in this world is the only obstacle to free his younger brother’s magical renewing measures and actions of that project they continue calling socialism; bold reforms that will in turn will save this unreality which they continue calling “revolution” despite its stagnation. There are stubborn believers who insist that F’s censure, and not the lack of political eagerness of the General, is actually responsible for the failure of the Sixth Congress of the CCP. Each defends his own illusions.

Let’s not forget that in this life, accounts are settled with those who are alive and not with the dead. This time, or some other time, one of F’s many deaths will turn out to be real and irrefutable. If we are finally on the eve of the biggest show of public mourning this Island has ever experienced, we will see what blame will be attributed then to the very likely failure of the vaunted National Conference next January. Perhaps the “political epitaph” genre will become the next bestseller in Cuban literature.

Translated by Norma Whiting

September 5 2011

They say some things never change. This assertion, which at first may seem too pessimistic, could perfectly serve to illustrate the attitude of a Cuban immigrant sector living in Miami, who insist in mimicking in their own way the same proceedings of the Caribbean dictatorship they so disapprove of. I am referring, of course, to boycotts organized by some groups against the Pablo Milanés concert in that city, including direct threats to those who dared to participate in it.

Somewhere between incredulous and amazed, I commented to a close friend — a long-time dissident — about this case, expressing my confusion. A community that has escaped the Island’s totalitarianism, the rallies of repudiation and exclusions, applies fascist methodology of coercion and threats, the same way, including, in some cases, certain versions of rallies of repudiation in which sometimes the burning of music discs has taken place (this time, a steamroller grinding Paul’s discs was something new). My friend, undaunted and with a slight shrug, said, with the ease of someone who knows the story: “Miami is Cuba up north, only it’s Fidel-less Cuba”. I don’t know if this is his quote or if it belongs to someone else, but I can’t think of a more correct definition.

It is well known that the Cuban system of exclusions reaches every sphere of creation or of social life: writers, artists, scientists… All of them, at some stage, must declare their allegiance to the government, and there are truly few exceptions of those who have decided to avoid the morsel of political commitment and have sailed through the test. Even athletes who have won in any contest have had to face the well-worn question: “Who do you dedicate this award to?” This has as its objective to prompt a nearly compulsory: “to our comandante Fidel Castro and the Revolution”.

It would appear that a system based on the elemental ideological principle of establishing parameters* that apply a blank slate, taking into account the antagonism of revolutionary/counter-revolutionary, could only take place in Cuba. However, this is not a genuine product of the Castro regime, but goes beyond our limited geographical boundaries and persists where communities of Cubans settle. It is neither more nor less than a curious process of cultural diffusion that has established in other locations not only our virtues (which we also have), but also historical distortions of our own nature and idiosyncrasies. In many ways, we have always been people who are intolerant and prone to violence, where the bravest and the one who screams the loudest is the one who wins out… while others retreat; lessons in civility that we are still publicly broadcasting, here and around the world. Fortunately there is a large sector that makes a difference.

It is far from my intention to limit the right of any Cuban to sympathize or not with an artist, writer, intellectual or any other public figure. What I don’t think honorable is legitimizing establishing parameters in reverse, and to require that an artist from Cuba pronounce himself politically, or that he renounce his prior tendencies or positions as a condition to not to be subjected to a repudiation rally in Miami. You can choose between appreciating or not the music creation of Pablo Milanés, questioning his positions or criteria around a theme of the Cuban reality in general, sharing or not his opinions and political leanings attending or not his concert, or placing him or not among our favorite singer-songwriters, but I think it totally unfortunate to employ on him the same methods that the dictatorship applies on its opposition and to declare war on a stage whose audience is mostly Cuban, including a high percentage of whom sympathized or was part of the revolutionary process in the Island at some time, without having to suffer any pressure or threats for it today.

In short, if we look at it objectively, a sector of émigrés (we can call them exiles if they so prefer) wanted to punish Pablo Milanés for not being a fundamentalist because, as a public figure, his positions have not enjoyed the protection of anonymity that do envelop others. He does not enjoy impunity because he has been visible. Worse yet, he is denied the credit of having openly rectified certain positions, plus some deliberately forget that he was one of the few who had the courage not to commune with the murders of three young Cubans in 2003 in Cuba. As for me, I prefer to judge people by their good works, Paul included, especially knowing that none of us — from “here” or from “there” — can afford to claim political or civic purity. In any case, Paul chose to improve himself as a human being, which is better than the choice of postmodern Torquemadas** that some of his inquisitors in Cuba to the north have opted for.  And if this post is going to cost me a parametración and some other virtual repudiation rally, so be it: it would not be the first one… or the last one I will survive.

Translator’s notes:
*1971 policy requiring citizens to pass specific parameters or guidelines to gain access to certain jobs, directed specifically at homosexuals.
**Tomás de Torquemada was the leader of the Spanish Inquisition.

Translated by Norma Whiting

31 August 2011

While this Sunday in Libya the final hours of the Gaddafi dictatorship transpired, the official newspaper Juventud Rebelde, in an article published on page 7, affirmed, citing a Telesur report, “The Libyan government denied the alleged departure of Muammar al-Gaddafi.” According to this newspaper, echoing a Gaddafi’s spokesman, Ibrahim Mussa, such fabrications were part of NATO’s “psychological warfare and media campaign to spread panic among the population”. The spokesman added that the Libyan population responded to these slurs “with loud laughter because they do not believe that the Libyan leader will leave the country.”

Just two days before (on August 19th), page 7 of Granma stated, also citing Telesur, that “Despite constant bombardment that has killed more than 1,200 civilians, Libyans gathered in the Green Plaza confirmed their willingness to defend the nation while listening to a new audio statement from the leader Muammar al-Gaddafi”. On Thursday the 18th even Granma had omitted any reference to the situation in Libya, while a headline on page 4 on Wednesday the 17th read: “NATO admitted that the conflict in Libya ‘is far from over’.”

Over the past five months, the official Cuban press has supported the amazing audio exhortations of the Libyan satrap – vain with the arrogance that befits a dictator, but well-protected in some unknown bunker — calling on his people to sacrifice themselves for the dictatorship, and he has also presented his words as credible when he claimed “There will be an end to this, to the opposition, and end to the defeated NATO.” Judging by the “news” and official media analysts, the Libyan Government had (has) the unconditional and massive backing of the people, and the defeat of the rebels and of NATO would just amount to a few negotiations. In all cases, the “information” for Cubans has been so biased that the numerous media reports of foreign agencies that have followed step-by-step the conflict in that country in North Africa have been deliberately ignored. The unequivocal source of the official Cuban newspaper has always been Telesur, which is no accident, given the wave of friendship that flows between the owner of that TV station, the apprentice of totalitarianism, Hugo Chavez, the Libyan despot and the Cuban regime. Birds of a feather.

The truth is that wires regularly consulted on our Internet connections, and our training to interpret the official press in reverse, have been telling us that events in Libya were developing differently. It was evident that the rebels (the contemptuous Castro media calls them “mercenaries and traitors led by the self-proclaimed National Transitional Council”), supported by NATO, were closing the net around Gaddafi. Contrary to the false triumphalism of Gaddafi’s friends, it was obvious that the days of the “socialist” Libyan regime were already numbered.

This past Sunday August 21, 2011 I was getting several messages on my mobile phone and other information confirming the departure of the rebels from Tripoli, the arrest of Gaddafi’s sons and a group of his closest collaborators and the surrender of his security guards, so I tuned in to the stellar broadcasting of the TV news program, awaiting the official confirmation of the imminent fall of the Libyan regime, and I had the time of my life watching the stuttering and baffled newscasters who didn’t seem to understand the nature of the dis-information they were reading. In the first report, they presented a speech by Gaddafi’s son stating that “he wouldn’t raise the white flag”, alluding to his refusal to give up (the same son who, it’s rumored, was captured), and immediately afterwards they showed pictures of agitated crowds in Green Square, the same plaza in which a short time before, according to Telesur and the Cuban press, “The Libyan people were meeting in mass” vowing to defend Gaddafi’s government to their death.

The astonished expression of the poor Cuban media professionals, while reading reports that were inconsistent and contradictory to what was happening in Libya, were the epitome of the ridiculous: “NATO is responsible for the deaths that occurred in Libya. Gaddafi’s security guards have given up. It is confusing what is happening at the Green Plaza. Angola and Zimbabwe have offered the Libyan leader political asylum”, the newscasters stated. On screen, the people’s cheer belied any possibility of “confusion”; it was all very clear: Gaddafi had been defeated and the people were happy about it. However, at no time during the program did they acknowledge the true situation in Libya.

At the same time, many old and new images circulated through my memory, including Gaddafi still young, arrogant and proud, many years ago, receiving the highest distinction awarded by the Cuban government: the Order of José Martí, perhaps as a reward for the many crimes he committed against his people and, more recently, just in recent days, the image of the General-President Raúl Castro in a friendly embrace with a senior representative of the Libyan government, though we were never told what he was doing in Cuba. I also thought of the General’s own indication to develop a new brave, honest and transparent journalism during the Sixth Congress of the CCP, just four months ago. If the coverage of what happened in Libya is an example of what our reformist General considers information transparency, we can clearly intuit how little faith we should place in the “renewal” of the press, and similarly, in the sincerity of larger undertakings.

August 22, 2011

Just as expected, the article I published in number 9 of the magazine Voces which I reposted in this blog caused stinging and irritation in more than one website, which always makes me feel good. Among those affected by the stings, blogger Elaine Díaz seems to honor me with her attention in a particular way. “Strange Attractor,” published in her blog La Polémica Digital (Digital Controversy), is the writing that flatters me. Some friends and readers informed me about her reference to my work, because — and here, following the example of our leaders, I must self-criticize — I’m not a regular reader of Elaine’s blog. This distinction piqued my interest and almost my liking for this young woman, who, I am told, is a professor at the School of Communication. Maybe that’s why she writes well, which, I’m sad to admit, is not always a quality that comes with our journalists and other communicators.
Elaine, I repeat, writes well, but does not always say it well. It could be because she may not read as well as she writes, or because my article made her nauseous, which she admits. Or maybe because, in her anxiety and haste to disqualify me, she neglected some odd little detail, such as the fact that the pioneer blog she uses as a reference (Murciegraphos), which I must confess I was not acquainted with, had not been updated since 2007, that is, before the blogger explosion in Cuba. Nor does it seem odd to me that some isolated blog might constitute a blogosphere, which is what my article is about. However, she shouldn’t deny that the increase of blogs, especially those that have remained on the Internet, which are updated regularly and which are among the ones that have provoked a virulent reaction from the authorities, is a phenomenon that took place after 2007. I propose historic examples that may illustrate my assumption: It is known that Christopher Columbus “discovered” the New World in 1492. However, archaeological finds attribute the Vikings’ presence in North America prior to the discovery date. Nevertheless, for all purposes, October 12, 1492 is the date that marks the discovery of America because Columbus was able to return to Europe and testify to the existence of land on this side of the Atlantic, and the Vikings were not, to my knowledge. Or maybe the Nordic Scandinavians were not very interested in the matter of discovering something, who knows. But, like it or not, Elaine, pioneer Karel’s “inconvenient” blog did not mark the beginning of the blogosphere, if not, I, just having found out about its existence, would advocate the right of giving it due recognition, and I would flagellate myself for not having known about it until today. Even Voces Cubanas came after the Desdecuba.com platform (early 2007), or even Consensus (December 2004), a collective platform.
Elaine conveniently omitted a piece of my post where I state that, at the time of the birth of the alternative blogosphere, “different people drew near, some of whom had long since been dabbling in online journalism or had taken their first steps in isolated blogs”. That is, the emergence of a blogger platform in itself did not negate, at any time, the prior existence of other blogs, although it’s true that, because there were doubts, I did not mention any particular one. 

I add that I could be mistaken in other facts, and I am willing to rectify those errors, if that’s the case. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough Internet connectivity to verify and correct them all soon. It would be great to have help from informed people such as Elaine… and also from others even better informed, because her investigations are a bit skewed. For example –using a funny and biblical parable – she assumes that Eve was born with the blog Sin EVAsion (January 2008), as inferred from this quote from her post: “The Cuban blogosphere began with Adam, just as the beginning of time. Eve was not yet born, Miriam. Too bad. It would take three years”. Yes, sorry Elaine, because Eve was actually born in 2005 for the daily Encuentro en la Red, probably a few months after your paradigm Karel. Under the pseudonym Eva I began to collaborate in the publication that year. Eva was born before Eva’s blog, unrelated to Adam’s rib. I think that, if Elaine wishes to correct my chronology, she should at least adjust her own, since she has such ample opportunities to do research. She should have prevented that error by just having been careful to read my blog’s profile before pouncing so zealously on me. I did not have (nor do I have) the intention of writing the history of the blogosphere, but to move some information around to complement the map that the U.S. academician Ted Henken put together, with facts and dates that the public was not aware of. That does not prevent the contributions of others, nor do I think that I’m worth such a waste of “revolutionary” energy in order to attack me. It might be indispensable now, and could be put to better use in the interest of “renewing the model”.
Then Elaine complains about my proposal, when she even classifies herself within the taxonomy: “I’m touched by the blogger who was born under protection, who has posts dictated to her over the phone, the a-critical, a-neuronal blogger who is an imbecile and is in favor of the regime for a few hours of free internet and a salary that fluctuates between the ridiculous to the inadmissible”. The truth is that I never said all that, though I admit that her assessment does not wander far from my evaluation. But, in this respect, it provides more details than I did, is delightfully explicit, although, considering her youth, she shows an inexplicable amnesia. Because I remember (how can I forget!) as part of a select cast of the TV show “The reasons for Cuba,” in which a number of alternative bloggers, including me, are accused of being cyber-terrorists, mercenaries and traitors, although, as usual and as it turns out, impossible, evidence of such charges was not provided. Elaine cannot ignore that putting the powerful machinery of the media, the government monopoly that she defends so much as a function of fabricating a false case against other Cubans is usually a preamble for a history of long jail sentences and constitutes a criminal act of which I declare her an accomplice. Did someone, beyond conjectures, perhaps show her concrete evidence of our “payments” at the service of a foreign government? Perhaps it’s enough for a journalism professor that the authorities summon her to offer herself to do their dirty work? And she still denies she is “official”? In Cuba, under a dictatorship, this is a rhetorical question. Moreover, after this, I don’t know if she has the right to be included in the category of official blogger “light”.
However, I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt: there are some that say that Elaine was used by the political police, that her statements were conveniently edited, and that she had no idea that they would appear in the program of reference. For my part, when I want to enjoy a mix of talent and naïveté, I prefer attending a performance of The Little Beehive (no sarcasm, those kids are great performers), provided that it is not a work of tribute to the five spies or other similar atrocity. But if Elaine had really been manipulated, shame and journalistic ethics should have compelled her then to publicly denounce the media maneuver. So far, she has not done that, so there are only two options left: either she shares the “reasons” for the mentioned TV show, or she might have her own private “reasons” to not contradict her obligations. Mystery surrounds Elaine, perhaps until everyone is able to enjoy better times. Isn’t that right, Elaine?
A few months later, she was discretely invited to a twitter encounter that was held on July 1st, 2011 at 23rd and 12th Streets in Havana, enthusiastically embraced by some alternative twitters (Orlando Luis, Yoani Sánchez and Claudia Cadelo among them) who were quickly rejected from the original show. A dividing, clearly defining line should be drawn between her (them) and us. It all became official, rigid and exclusive, demonstrating that ideological barriers are imposed by official bloggers-subordinated to the government, not the independent bloggers and twitters, who answer to no one. What are we talking about then, Elaine? Along the same line, I remember the first blogger contest “Una Isla Virtual”, Elaine Díaz was awarded a prize she rejected, a mere certificate recognizing her work in a blog. It was a “contaminated” acknowledgement, not because she said so, but because her benefactors did. More than once, a hand has been extended from the alternative blogosphere, and she has refused to take it without providing reasons beyond the same old official rhetoric. Free? You, Elaine?
And this makes me land on another of her “arguments”. Elaine states: “There is little time left for those who believe in Socialism (the capital “s” is hers, of course) in a sublime act of honesty or ideological suicide or simply because they democratically and sovereignly feel like it”. Actually, she completely lost her muse in this respect, because the same statement can be applied to her in reverse. Why can’t I selflessly be against socialism and against the Cuban government (which, incidentally, are not the same thing), for an honest act of choice, without being paid for it by a foreign government? I am neither socialist nor Marxist, but that does not make me a mercenary or an annexationist (my apologies to those who choose to be). At any rate, I have friends who are avowedly socialist and they are dear friends. Other friends of mine, as dear as these, have liberal, demo-Christian, and even anarchist leanings. I do not subscribe to any ideological bias or base my friendship on ideology. Others don’t find it easy to define me politically either (anti dictatorial is the name that comes to mind to define me in some manner); but just the same, I allow myself the right to have political opinions and to criticize whatever I “democratically feel like” I declare that I am interested in politics, though it is not the axis around which my life revolves, because I prefer to choose the political program that closest to my own interests than to tamely permit that others make policy and decisions for me. The Cuba that I dream of would not exclude anyone because of her political ideology, and that includes socialists, Marxists or whatever it’s called in the fictional theoretical literature. Is that clear to you, Elaine? Or will you need many more spoonfuls of this aloe tonic?
I too, like many other Cubans, am self-taught on many issues, but that does not make me reluctant to take training courses and skills from someone who masters certain disciplines. In fact, taking free training is part of self-learning and depends, among other things, on the student’s interest. Did Professor Elaine know this? Hence, I decided to take the free course offered by the Yoani of Elaine’s sorrows, and I will always be grateful to that friend’s generosity for sharing her knowledge with me (and with so many others!) And I am grateful to everyone who ever provided me with some sense. I cannot mention all of them, there are too many. This is a group almost as large as my own ignorance, of which I become more aware the more I learn.
Let me re-emphasize the idea that a blogger is the highest example of freedom of expression. Elaine’s theoretical gloating when referring to emerging personal maps from 1995 to today and her impressive Jorn Barger and Justin Hall quotes, as well as the fact that users use blogs “for journalism, the compartmentalization of recipes, writing romance novels or for whatever they fancy” does not deny the principle of freedom of expression, but quite the opposite. Since when should free speech be limited to merely the political? Why wouldn’t it be freedom of expression for a cook to exchange recipes with other colleagues throughout the world or a novelist to publish his literary works in his own blog? This girl has such a narrow concept of freedom of expression! But I’m not surprised by her mental parochialism: she has been conditioned to political compromise. Not me. I believe that freedom of expression is a wide and universal human right, not a political exercise.
The “truth about Cuba” is not, in fact, what Elaine or I say. Indeed, one cannot capture our reality in a few paragraphs, which seems to be my only point of convergence with the intellectual barricades. As a Cuban, I merely present my own experiences and perspectives. I have no masters, whether native or foreign. All my readers know I am not a complacent scribbler (I add that I’m also not “complacent” because every post I write I consider to be imperfect and incomplete). But Elaine cannot deny that, in my condition as a free, dissident and rebellious citizen, I must face demons that she does not. Others consider that a disadvantage. I feel it is an advantage and a privilege: I do not commune with dictatorships. The truth about Cuba, as she proposes, is not yours or mine. For now, I say the truth about Cuba is more about the number of exiles and dissidents, the meager pockets of ordinary people and the rampant corruption, the official statistics about the banana or fresh milk production or the eternal promise of renewal of the same government for almost 53 years. I remind Elaine that I’m almost 52.What is new for her is ancient history for me, though I have never felt I am “retro” like other people of my generation. I don’t pretend to have the ability to guide young people. I’d rather feel like I’m always “on the go” learning, sharing and creating, which is the best way to stay alive. I accept, unlike the generation of olive green octogenarian tycoons, that my half-century does not grant me any generational privilege. It would be like admitting that I have more rights than my own children, which I refute. Ultimately, my key word is “family”, not “revolution.”
I does not seem that those in the lead were not too far ahead when Voces Cubanas arrived, if indeed they were there at all, which, in addition, is not all that important. We and Club Cuba Blogs or Cuba Bloggers are also not “peaceful neighbors” of the same tenement slum, as claimed by Elaine. Although, if truth be told, the alternative blogosphere has been able to learn how to receive as a compliment the not-so-peaceful stonings from such neighbors, so we do not consider ourselves as victims, which does not negate that they constantly throw stones at us.
I can truly thank Elaine for her oblique but undeniable reference to my never-humble person. Maybe if she had been less bilious she would have seemed more authentic to me. What can we do! But, without a doubt, Elaine writes well, and a well-written piece is always appreciated. Hopefully, with time and experience, she might become better. Ah! I almost forgot a little detail: I don’t like humility. It reminds me of Isaura the slave, Uncle Tom, Liborio and many other characters whom I would never, under any circumstances, wish to be. I’ll gladly leave the monopoly on humility to Elaine, since she considers it a virtue. I hope she enjoys it.

(Work originally published in number 9, Voices magazine)

Several weeks ago an interview appeared in the virtual space cubaencuentro.com. The two-part interview was conducted by Luis Manuel García Méndez, and the person interviewed was the young American scholar Ted Henken. Titled “Mapping Blogolandia” (May 2011), Henken traces, with remarkable objectivity, his map of the Cuban blogosphere and its different trends, and offers his personal views about the blogger phenomenon in the Island. As expected, after this professor had been warned by the Cuban authorities that he would not be allowed to reenter Cuba, some official bloggers have reacted with special virulence towards the analysis Henken conducted and, as usual, they have unleashed the well-established smear campaign.

But beyond the irritation that the interview may have awakened, his observations place the sights on a phenomenon which — perhaps for being new or controversial, since it was born within the dissident faction of the island — is quite unknown to Cubans. Possibly because it is “new” in a country that since the last five decades has been characterized by late access to technological advances, or the whiff of suspicion that emerges from the unknown, the Cuban blogosphere is permeated by somewhat confusing classifications, labeled with adjectives that do not clearly reflect the reality of the phenomenon.

Thus, bloggers emerged spontaneously and free through our own personal spirit and resources within the dissidence or the alternative civil society (which in Cuba are almost the same thing), we do not have statutes or programs and are not grouped under any direction, association or institution or directed by any leader. We are the so-called alternative or independent blogosphere. It’s basically people who do not associate with each other, with complete autonomy; we each assume full responsibility for managing our blogs and what we publish, while deciding everything about our blogging activities. So we are a rebellious sectors of Cuban society, alternative voices to that official aging press tainted by triumphalism, the manipulation of information, secrecy, conspiracy and flattery to the system.

On the other hand, sometime after, the official blogosphere was created (and the semi-official, its lighter variant), comprised of official journalists, who have received the express direction of the Cuban government through the Communist Party to create their own personal blogs to attack the independent bloggers and counteract their potential “adverse effects” on Cuban youth, and also represented by other pseudo-official spaces, controlled or supervised by the government or encouraged by leftist foreign sympathizers, i.e., blogs with relative autonomy from the government.

As a variation between the two, the second has more critical views –though moderated and tolerated by the authorities- and as their common denominator, they enjoy the protective impunity that the status of “revolutionary” allows them, and they have better possibilities to free access to the Internet. However, one obvious glaring contradiction in this concept (official blogosphere) jumps out, because the notion of “blogger” in its most pristine sense is incompatible with the word “official.” “Blogger” is the essence of freedom of expression. Thus, by its very nature, the official blogosphere can only be a phenomenon of totalitarian regimes, as is a normal response directed against those in power in sharp contrast to the freshness, freedom and spontaneity of citizen journalism endorsed by the alternative blogosphere, devoid of guardians, controls and fixtures.

At the same time, in 2008 a weekly meeting space for independent bloggers also began, where they exchanged knowledge, information and expectations, strengthening the links between participants and consolidating at the same time in real space and in personal contact, the blogger spirit born in the networks. This experience of regular meetings, called “Blogger Itinerary”, also had its virtual space and was the direct forerunner of the Blogger Academy that between October 2009 and April 2010 provided free knowledge on the use of information technologies and other topics of general interest, such as writing, ethics and law, Cuban culture, photography, to help the formation of bloggers, an experience which resulted in graduating thirty students, adding new voices to the Cuban virtual independent spectrum.

Viewed this way, an approach to the Cuban blogger landscape would seem like a kind of chaotic war between good and evil, repeating and moving to the virtual venues the old, outdated and simplistic Manichean scheme, established decades ago by the leader of the Cuban revolution, when he decreed fascist statement “within the revolution everything, against the revolution nothing”, still absurdly applauded by one or another Coryphaeus of power.

However, every social phenomenon reflects the nature of processes that have specific causes, and the Cuban blogosphere is no exception to that rule. This phenomenon is the child of circumstances and it evolves with them; a free blogosphere could not exist in conditions of dictatorship without its counterpart, the official blogosphere. And it is also because of that that the official blogs, much to their annoyance, constitute the consecration of our existence in Cuba. It is, in a certain perverse way, the government’s acknowledgement of our labors.

Short Review of a Brief History

The Cuban blogosphere is a recent phenomenon. It started around April, 2007, when the blog “Generation Y” was born on the website desdecuba.com. By then, both the owner of this blog, Yoani Sánchez, and the small group of graphic artists who worked on the page, which also housed the magazine Contodos and also contained a section known then as Portfolio, with different independent personal projects, took some time in experimenting with the editorial work. Some of us were volunteers of the magazine Contodos and also wrote for different sites, such as Encuentro on the Web and other publications overseas. So the necessary conditions existed for the occurrence of the blogger explosion subjectively, a feeling of freedom of expression as an inevitable individual personal right, and the individual willpower to put this right into practice; in the objective field, the existence of the Internet as a vehicle designed to overtake the government’s monopoly on the media, and the possibilities offered by computer information and communication technology for the people to practice freedom of speech. The introduction of the “blog” variant, an option that for many of us was completely unknown until then, was fertile ground for the most authentic manifestation of citizen journalism in Cuba to take-off.

Within months, what began as a spontaneous alternative among a group of individual Cubans started to interest others, many of them young, with some knowledge of the use of technology, who were experiencing in finding a place for self-expression. A small number of people got together, some of whom had already dabbled in online journalism or had taken their first steps in isolated blogs. Blogger enthusiasm quickly spread like an epidemic, giving rise to the platform Voces Cubanas, which houses in the same web dozens of Cubans of diverse occupations, interests and ages, who have found in the virtual network possibilities to express themselves not possible, or extremely limited, in social reality.

In 2009 the first blogger competition, “A Virtual Island” was held, convened by the independent blogosphere and directed to bloggers in Cuba. By then, the international awards received by Yoani Sánchez had put the focus of international public opinion on the blog Generación Y, and, by extension, the alternative Cuban blogger phenomenon. This raised the alarm in Cuba, so the government felt compelled to call on their media Yeomen to “the Party’s task” to start up their blogs, designed to neutralize the voices of independent thought that were proliferating on the Internet, offering the world a version of Cuba that differed substantially from the idyllic image released by the official press. The people’s journalism belied the happy society that the official window was displaying and it was damaging the perfect effigy of the tropical version of Castro-style socialism. The Cuba that was reflected in the alternative blogs had nothing in common with the victory speech of the traditional press, controlled by the government; and what was worse, the alternative blogosphere, free of controls, was a growing phenomenon. Cuban authorities had delayed too long to understand the power of technologies at the service of individual freedoms. Behold just a small number of emancipated individuals with a bit of technology, minimal access to the Net and a good dose of audacity, were putting the powerful half a century monolith press in check, and, full of pride and arrogance, the disinformation apparatus and computer intelligence agents were summoned to face the new “threat.” Thus began a new era of repression in which the struggles and reactionary tendencies of the ideology in power would move to the virtual space.

The Official Blogosphere

It is known that in the manual of the official Cuban repression the first basic principle adheres to the policy statement “within the revolution everything …” therefore, everyone who does not abide by the designs of the government or who deviates from the limits or ordinances established by it, is considered “the enemy” and must be fought to the death. In turn, the first step to fight the enemy is to demonize him. It is thus no coincidence that, after having been conveniently ignored by the mainstream media -up to where it was possible or prudent to the regime- we alternative bloggers are being presented under the generic label of “mercenaries working for the U.S. government” or, to become more in tune with the times and technology, “cyber-terrorists.” Once they have coined the term, almost everything boils down to mashing the same refrain, in which an individual morphs from one day to the next from a peaceful neighbor who is unhappy with the system into a dangerous agent of the CIA, US Treasury Department employee, with all the shady attributes that it implies… albeit without the benefit$$$.

The configuration of the official blogosphere and that of the pseudo-official is also quite varied. It is composed of both vocal and vitriolic journalists and “intellectuals” officers of long standing, who have proved their obedience as a group of young “revolutionaries” who have assumed moderately “critic” ideas inside the system. This last trend includes some that point out the deficiencies produced “by the bureaucracy” and the “corruption of the images of those who have not known how to interpret the historic leaders” and other dubious novelties of the “revolutionary” process. Neo-guevarism is a standard that seems to focus Cuba’s hopes in a sinister creed, with Holy Saint Ché and his ideas as the main object of worship. There’s even a group by the name of La Joven Cuba (Young Cuba) as an organization run by Guiteras, a revolutionary of the first half of the last century, known for his adherence to terrorist methods of struggle. As for me, I distrust a lot of those who declare themselves as followers of militant and violent subjects. However, the repertoire of these hardened guys (reluctantly acknowledged) results in various Trotskyists, Stalinists and revisionists of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even of a Martí, conveniently decontextualized, setting a style that fills your hands with strong ideological components.

Under the traditional militaristic discourse that so pleases the revolutionaries, today the Internet is for them a “trench”, a “new battlefield” where a “cyber war” is developing in which “it is necessary to eliminate the opponent”. That is, in the government’s mentality and in that of its followers, the Net stops being a peaceful means of communication between individuals and groups that shed and exchange standards, knowledge, information and ideas to become a dangerous war theater where it is necessary for some ideas to have to triumph over others. I prefer to opt for peaceful proposals, in the style of Gandhi or Mandela, to achieve freedom and rights for everyone, and I also hope to continue to find, in the company of my readers, a civic venue of debate and of the democratic application of opinions.

Another common element of combating blogs is that, without exception, they shy away from contact or exchange with alternative bloggers and refuse to direct and open public debate, either from their own digital spaces or in a public venue to which they themselves might convene. In any case, the official blogosphere and its variants, as the effect of alternative response to the blogosphere, lack the freshness and spontaneity of the alternative bloggers, and do not have the ability to take independent personal or group proposals, therefore, they are condemned to get exhausted by their own logic. The limitations of a closed system cannot be overcome if an open, direct, and inclusive debate cannot be established.

Internet: a Democracy Challenge

Nevertheless, I feel that the existence of such proposals within the virtual spectrum of the Island is healthy. An essential component of democracy is, certainly, plurality. The mere presence of places for opinions, the practice of communication and the management of technologies, however limited or controlled, will lead to the emergence of large sectors that will gain in independence. A discussion forum cannot escape the scrutiny of public opinion, and just as it spreads free speech or a dogma, it also exposes your weaknesses and flaws, thereby circulating ideas, whether related or contradictory to their original intent. It is a big breakthrough in a society marked by decades of stagnation, conspiracies and secrets.

On the other hand, to have raised a formal response of so great a magnitude signals that the alternative blogosphere is not as insignificant and innocuous as the government pretends. You do not fight with such viciousness what is inconsequential, especially in a country where the minimum accessibility of the Internet dramatically decreases the effect of blogs of any stripe or affiliation. Contrary to what the authorities intend, far from removing what they consider the blogger threat, they are strengthening it. Somehow, when their own cyber-servers read us, they are being exposed to a world of diverse opinions, the exercise of freedom of expression and the debate among Cubans so long proscribed. The more they glimpse at free venues, the more aware they will be of their status as slaves and perhaps it is true that they will be closer to the emancipation of granted and not conquered freedoms, but freedoms nevertheless.

Today, when thanks to world technology many voices that have been silenced for too long are earning their place, the Cuban government is not willing to face the huge challenge of placing communication in the hands of all Cubans. It is a silent admission of weakness. How is it that people so revolutionary and educated do not have free access to information and global communications? What is the justification that the first illiteracy-free country in this hemisphere is now technologically illiterate? Internet is peace and democracy, so, to assume it is a battlefield can only mean a guaranty of defeat.

Translated by Norma Whiting

August 8 2011

(Originally published in the Diario de Cuba dated August 3rd, 2011)

Picture taken from Diario de Cuba

The last five years in Cuba have been fruitful in the theoretical development of solutions to the country’s severe problems, mainly those related to the ills of the economy and other endemic viruses, an endless list including bureaucracy and corruption. Generally, these social atrophies are usually addressed by analysts sympathetic to the government as if they were temporary or recent conditions, or as if they were due to an accident not caused by the internal politics of the country –- the so-called “Special Period”, which has become almost as helpful as the “blockade” — or as if they were deficiencies of such a subtle and invisible nature as to have gone unnoticed for decades, even by the seasoned eyes of our highly experienced government leaders.

Theorists attempting to rediscover a kind of socialism “a la Cuban” that would be viable “just now” are not exactly members of the nomenklatura, much more reluctant to change, but certain individuals and groups of reformers who may sincerely opt to improve Cuban reality after the introduction of “changes in the model.” In an exercise in good faith, I am inclined to believe that these are mostly well-intentioned proposals, but I trust that they and the scribes know that good intentions, though necessary, will never be enough to reverse the serious national disaster.

Among the most active theoretical reformists is Pedro Campos, host of a trend called Participatory and Democratic Socialism, who has been presenting some projects of socialist worker-managed cooperative enterprises, among other proposals. His ideas are what could be called a trend critical of that of the official line, which I consider important to point out, since his position with respect to the government does not exactly represent a conflict between different schools of thought, but different positions to sustain the same thought, which can be summarized essentially in two words: revolution and socialism. However, I think it appropriate to acknowledge that within the “revolutionary dissent” Campos finally begins to recognize, at least de jure, the legitimacy of the rights of those substantially different, that is, of the non-revolutionary and non-Marxist dissidents.

“Democracy, to control the bureaucracy”, a Pedro Campos Offering, published on July 6th in the digital site Kaos en la Red, is a piece too long to review it in its entirety. However, because it contains opinions arising from an ideological position that I do not agree with, I should dwell on some specific considerations that could lead to a debate between adversaries who respect and recognize each other’s rights to their opinion and dissent, but unfortunately I never had the opportunity of a face-to-face discussion with the author on our respective points of view. This could be a form of inquiry that allows me an approach to the thinking and transformation strategies with which those who are “not my equals” imagine their projects in a future Cuba, and a glimpse of how such a project can encourage a possible exchange that will eventually contribute a small measure to strengthen the essential civic foundations of that future.

In principle, I find suspect any writings that begin with a Martí header, especially as in the case of trying to defend socialism against bureaucracy, using for effect a phrase from a speech in which the Apostle [Martí] vigorously denied it for that very reason, defining socialism as a system in which man would go from “being a slave of the capitalists, (…) to becoming the slave of servants”. Such trickery, in addition to misrepresenting Martí’s ideas, would eventually become silly due to so much overuse. On the other hand, too frequent references to “what Fidel said,” or “what Raúl says,” as ultimate sources of legitimacy, are a widespread habit among those who analyze the Cuban reality from the perspective of “revolutionary”, and suggests a poorly disguised intent to evade the consequences that critics of any denomination tend to suffer. This practice also tends to diminish the potential value of the arguments. A proposal should not be validated according to its connection to the speech of a leader. However, it is fair to say that the article referenced in Pedro Campos is gaining in audacity as he gets into the analysis, all the way to his making truly bold statements within the Cuban context.

According to Campos, “Since coming to the Presidency, the current first secretary of the CCP tries to pull the country out of stagnation and has rightly spoken of eliminating secretive and absurd regulations, of involving workers, creating venues for differences and contradictions, of decentralization, national unity, of creating a critical press, and he never tires of saying that we must change the mindset, methods, styles and structures”. Such a statement would be relatively true if it were possible, in practice, to verify the performance of such intentions. However, since F. Castro’s famous Proclamation on July 31, 2006, which allowed him to continue to “govern” the country symbolically in effigy for another two years before actual power was transferred to the General-President, five whole years have transpired without substantial changes being apparent as far as the “inertia”, the “secrecy”, and the long list of “absurd regulations” which Campos criticizes.

On the other hand, Campos indicates other issues of particular importance when attacking not only the persistence of cumbersome bans and the sluggishness in implementing processes that should promote so-called “non-state forms of ownership” — a euphemism that avoids the heretical phrase ” private property” — but also that it is unjustifiable not to abolish regulations and legal obstacles that impede the progress of the changes proposed during the Sixth Congress of the PCC, primarily with regard to housing, food and transportation. “The urgency of the crisis that Raúl has referred to would require immediate and ongoing meetings of the Cuban parliament, the legal procedure for changing everything that must be changed, but no one thinks of that”, complains Campos. And this is so true, I would add, that not even the General of the Reforms himself thinks of it.

The double standard of the “state-centered economy” is severely chastised by Campos in some statements, when he challenges the validity of the application of market laws in hard currency only for the State, while the vulnerable national currency economy continues to suffocate; the accelerated suppression of free services, the elimination of subsidies and budget cuts in contrast to the persistence of low wages, the one and official media –- which, he declares, “remains fully controlled by the ideological apparatus” — reflecting the problems of the state economy, but keeping the old proposals in the old schemes that exclude the participation of the workers; the advances in the decentralization process is not realized, but the market monopoly continues, the recourses, business and policy decisions, and he notes that “the military sector accounts for the most productive firms in hard currency, the internal hard currency market and the main projects shared with foreign currency”. He even mentions that other dependency that stifles us today: Venezuelan oil.

His questions are not confined to economic circles, but extend to the minefields of politics and he even claims some murky and sensitive spots, such as the internal repression and the topic of relations with the U.S. Here he states that “State Security should not interfere in ideological or political issues”, and he adds “dissidents are continually being harassed in different ways (…) and also harassed are whomever, for whatever reason, differ from government policies or disagree with officials whom the Council of State determined should be at the helm of the country’s direction”.

In his list of ailments he includes the harassment of blacks and mestizos through the principle of “pestering tourists,” stating that “… the hounds of neo-Stalinism can charge as counterrevolutionaries or agents of the imperialism any citizen exchanging ideas with an American diplomat or with a political dissident, respectively. And whoever dares to receive a penny of assistance from any international entity suspected of having any link with the U.S. government can be accused as a ‘traitor and agent of the CIA’ and can be sentenced to several years in prison”. He also refers to targeted TV attacks and “independent bloggers, religious laity who criticize undemocratic aspects of the political system or anyone visiting the U.S. embassy”, qualifying such programs as a “true factory of adversaries”.

Existing emigration regulations are another target at which Campos throws his darts, noting that “they seem more like a lucrative business for the bureaucracy and a kind of punishment or penalty for Cubans wishing to travel for personal reasons than mechanisms that make people’s lives easier.”

Perhaps most remarkable is not that Pedro Campo’s criticisms coincide with the allegations that individuals and opposition and independent journalist sectors have been making for years, having paid a high price for doing so. Campos additionally offers an unexpected revelation from a socialist: “the problem in depth is systemic”, and further: “it has been recognized that the old model does not function, but instead of changing all that should be changed, the government/party tries to ‘update’ it, which equates to maintaining intact its support bases: the bureaucratic state, state concentration of property and decisions, wage labor, and other schemes of neo-Stalinism for the control of individual freedoms and democracy”. Without doubt, a commendable audacity.

Nevertheless, Campos cannot avoid succumbing to the trite contradiction of condemning the model system and the party/government in the same package, and trying to dilute the power cupola’s responsibility in a collective guilt, as if the makers of the country and the rest of us Cubans were at the same level. Indeed, the balance for the debacle of a nation cannot rest solely on a small group of individuals. Today, only a handful of ailing elderly still control the destiny of 11 million souls, but if the responsibility were shared, we would have to share equally in the participation of reforms and decisions, this time giving advantages to those of us who have been held back for more than half a century when they were being made. Because what Campos should not forget is that 70% of the Cuban population was born after 1959, bereft of democracy, and not directly involved in the construction of this Frankenstein monster.

For Campos, the Castro brothers are the “most responsible”, but he stirs them in with other criminals, creating a brew into which “all Cubans with some political culture” fall equally (only a tiny fraction of the Cuban people could actually be listed in that category), “those who chose to leave the country rather than getting in trouble”, “those who chose wrong violent methods to address democratic deficits” (he mercifully omits that the historical leaders of the revolution came to power and seized the nation using these methods from July 1953 to date). And, in a whimsical parable, Campos has most of the blame landing on… “American Imperialism that established and maintains the blockade…” And thus, like in B movies, in which the villain we took for dead grabs the heroine’s ankle as she is trying to make her escape, the Imperialist claw appears once more to establish itself as evil incarnate. Without denying the stupidity of the policies of successive U.S. administrations, countless times I’ve wondered what would become of the Castro revolution without this inexhaustible resource, Yankee Imperialism.

To sum it up, Campos’s article, despite its values, maintains the spirit of a catharsis in which the author seems to try to rid the demons of their own fears. This is a good thing, because, after all, it is always a first step requiring a great deal of courage. I suggest that this assumption of his inclusive mood is another positive step which a colleague and friend coined as the indispensable “decriminalization of discrepancies.” As for me, I thank Pedro Campos for his kindness in publicly acknowledging the right of those who think differently than he does, and I also I offer him my respect and consideration together with my full willingness to keep the debate going.

Translated by Norma Whiting

August 5 2011

Editorial # 3-2011 of the magazine Espacio Laical (“The Challenge of Being Bold”; www.espaciolaical.net) is one of those essays to which one is grateful because of its timeliness, relevance, balance and respectfulness, but above all, because it contains within itself the quality–rare in our context–to overcome the temptation of the catharsis and the truths of Pero Grullo and target possible perfectly feasible ways to generate the pending national dialogue. A proposal to find solutions from the inclusion, tracing the wicked verticality that only serves “to contribute to the clarity of the political elite and to the consensus among them (…), but not to bring forward a great national consensus, capable to wholly present the wishes beating in the soul of the Island, thus actively involving the people in general.”

“The Challenge to be Bold” avoids the tired accusations aimed at those responsible for the national crisis, a debt that we all know too well, but that instead puts the magnifying glass on the immediate reality of our daily lives, with its load of dissatisfactions, frustrations and despair, though it does not constitute a lament in vain. On the contrary, it is a piece that stands out for its objectivity, calling attention to an essential term of this dilemma: the gradual adjustments demanded by the change in the socio-economic-political-legal model, and the urgency of implementing these changes because of “the insecurity that afflicts the lives of the Cuban people in general.”

A blatant contradiction of the reforms and official speeches is obvious in this editorial, when he argues: “We are progressing more rapidly (…) on measures that strip the State of responsibilities that it had wrongly assumed towards its citizens, but we are not thriving equally fast in the liberation of productive forces …. “, a proven fact that, in turn, leads some sectors to consider the “ongoing process of updates as an act of reaffirmation of the old political and ideological mechanisms” rather than a true transformation capable of reversing the crisis.

As can be inferred by the referenced text, the absence of true dialogue has been one of the “deficiencies” that have prevented “a more harmonious and speedy current process” (changes) in order to “minimize the dichotomy” between the gradual implementation of reforms and the urgency of their implementation, as well as between the process of dismantling government subsidies and the actual release of the productive forces.

All this leads to presenting a problem of capital importance, given the actual circumstances, which is still being delayed by the power elites–though it may not appear to be spelled out just so in the editorial–and that is “the need to also rethink the political role, and to seek the best way for the people to effectively participate in the community’s and the nation’s design”, which would involve outlining new venues and guaranties for anyone to express any criteria, and for the same to be debated in very diverse forums…. so that “the consensus reached in these debates are the projects carried out by the country’s authorities”; without a doubt, a proposal that exacts to break with the traditional government scheme of developing unilateral strategies from the ceding of power in order to impose them through a supposed process of popular opinion that invariably ends up “approving” the guidelines for whose establishment we are never called upon.

Finally, I must comment on the final paragraph of the Editorial, a real challenge to the Cuban authorities, when he proposes to openly discuss these issues at the National Conference of the Communist Party of Cuba (CPC) announced for next year. “We advocate for the CPC to assume such a debate and, in order to carry it out, to call once more on the people’s opinion, now through a bolder method of participation. Only thus will it be possible to answer to the people’s aspirations and to successfully achieve the process of changes inaugurated by the current President of the Republic”.

This time I think appropriate to acknowledge the authors of an editorial which, making optimum use of its title, constitutes a challenge summoning not only the government, but all of us; a lesson in respect and civility that should be found in all our media more often, an example that criticism and demands for our rights can be exercised from acknowledged and tolerated venues without having to resort to aggressive face-to-face antagonism and without falling into flattery or into accomplice complacency. Cuba’s plight requires that we all do what is necessary from and to whatever extent possible, considering each circumstance and from whatever position each of us occupies. Obviously, the “challenge of being bold” is one way to do it.

Translated by Norma Whiting

August 1 2011

(Article originally published in the digital magazine Convivencia, Issue No. 21)

In just five years, Cubans have been witnessing an extremely aggravating process in the socioeconomic and political crisis, steeped in what constitutes an exceedingly complex national and international juncture. Though just a few years ago it would have been possible to alleviate the hardship and mitigate potential conflicts by the reasonable application of some economic measures, with strategies to achieve positive outcomes in the medium term, the current situation requires a much deeper intervention than the few reforms enacted from the halls of power and consecrated during the celebration — similarly late — of the Sixth Congress of the only legal party. Those reforms, in addition, fall shy and insufficient of the effects of said economy.

The Cuban structural crisis today encompasses as much of our economy — in a true bankrupt state — as society as a whole and politics, this last category including both the policies of the government — demonstrably unable to meet current demands or to propose a viable model — such as the opposition’s alternative proposals, given the lack of coordination by the latter; of comprehensive and inclusive coherent programs, able to move decisively a sufficient number of stakeholders. It is fair to say at this point that the opposition action sprung from the early 90’s of the last century had the responsibility (and credit) to break the myth of “unanimity” politics in Cuba and forced the government to admit the existence of dissident sectors. Their modest gains are not negligible in terms of totalitarianism, in an extremely hostile frame against an opponent that, even in the absence of arguments, owns all the media and repressive instruments needed to prevent the strengthening of demonstrations by the internal dissent.

The problem of unity

One of the most recurring themes about the limitations that have threatened the progress of the opposition in Cuba in the last ten years focuses on what many have called a “lack of unity”, meaning the inability of opposition parties to create common projects with sufficient convoking power to denote a political wager of any importance against the government. The government, meanwhile, points to “the absence of social roots” of the movements and opposition parties as a clear sign of popular support for the revolution, as if the existence of a totalitarian regime — with all its concentration of power and its implications — and not, by itself, as a solid obstacle to building bridges of communication between Cuban with alternatives proposals to the system.

The Island’s reality, however, after the experience of a half century of failures by a demonstrably ineffective system, and after many years of the existence of opposition groups, which, though they have offered an example of civic resistance and have survived in adverse conditions, have not been established as an option to be taken into account by the government or society, has come to a climax that imposes challenges to all Cubans equally. Change today is not an option but an imperative that contains within itself the key to the survival of the nation and not just the permanence of a system, or the success of a party or ideological proposals or policies of any trend.

At the current juncture, the analysis of various factors specific to an eventual process of change for Cuba is absolutely necessary. Without intending to be “the solution” to our circumstances, this analysis could contribute in building a consensus that might lead to the inclusion of interests of all social sectors and not just a portion thereof; i.e., the thrust of the action is to develop through the unification of Cubans around proposals essentially civic, without ideological or purely political overtones, taking into account that ideologies constitute breakpoints of the basic consensus, essential for offering the government a solid social alternative.

It is obvious that a reality as complex and critical as that of Cuba forces us to part from a from an appreciation point as objective as possible, ignoring both the sectarian passions and troublesome exclusions that, sooner or later, tend to cause strife and extreme radicalism of unpredictable consequences. The “Cuban problem”, if we might call it that, is systemic, multiple-component and cumulative, due to causes of various kinds, and although the roots of our current ills are secured in the essence of a totalitarian regime, that regime alone could not constitute the only element responsible for the cause of the general crisis now choking us. Unlike enjoying the “benefits” in a country divided and distributed as booty among the small but powerful ruling caste, the responsibility for the current situation is ours to a certain extent, and we should all answer the call to reverse it.

Then there is the lack of properly organized social forces, even within the ranks of the opposition. Successive attempts at “unity” from various opposition parties have resulted in resounding failures, proving that comprehensive and effective alliances cannot be achieved based on ideology. Cases of pacts or collective projects have had a fleeting and precarious existence to collapsing in the end without achieving consistency. It is axiomatic that Cuban society is not ready to assume the challenge of choosing ideology, but may instead join in the general interest of building a democracy with the limited space of freedom we have, that might, gradually and naturally, lead to the emergence of political parties and other associations. Only after this initial metamorphosis from slaves to citizens will Cubans be ready to devote ourselves to politics by defining our ideological preferences.

It is appropriate in this regard to remember how much individual and social responsibility corresponds to the people, to attain a stable and lasting political equilibrium, economic welfare and a climate of social peace, such issues as, at the moment, neither the government is able to guarantee us — with the final crisis provoked by the failure of the system — nor by the opposition parties, with the with the wear and tear of two decades of damaged existence, the insufficiency of alliances or agreements, and the numerous and sustained emigration of many of its members due to political persecution and other causes.

The problem of leadership

Complications of the general collapse of the system, in turn, require systemic and also complex solutions. Our historical tradition of leader worship — whose tendency to leave important decisions in the hands of a leader maintains a dogged persistence to date — has planted in the collective mind the idea of the exaltation of figures above the relevance and quality of thought and even the law. This is one of the features that has made possible not only unhealthy political egotism, extreme voluntarism and a whole saga of violence, coups and other violations of constitutional order, but also the existence and the actual survival of a dictatorship that has lasted for more than half a century against the grain of the advances of regional democracies in the whole of the XXI century.

The Cuban experience should have made us understand, at least, than when there are no corresponding civic parties in a society, the leader becomes dictator. However, amid the overall worst general crisis of the last century, those called to “unite” around new ideological or group leaders, in what appears to be a sort of political tribalism where individuals — like attachments to a regional sports team — seem to group motivated by the personal devotion that the “leader” awakens in them and not by a clear awareness of the programs and interests that they represent and the commitments they are undertaking. Moreover, the members of parties (including the official PCC) that dominate the theoretical and philosophical ideologies that support them are in the minority. Faith in the leader seems to be enough support at the time of taking sides and cheering decisions, often without consultation or without subscribing documents.

The government’s ideological entrenchment is also repeated in the essential features of leaders of not a few opposition groups, each one of whom, at times, has believed himself to be able to offer the best solution, the philosopher’s stone or the most appropriate and sufficient Midas touch to overcome the national crisis, thus establishing the impossibility of alliances and consensus, even among groups of same or similar trends.

Another danger amid opposition alternatives with respect to leadership is the marked propensity for the establishment of “permanent positions”, so much so that some groups or parties are identified more by the figure who heads it than by the proposals they offer. Generally, they a referred to as “whose” group rather than as “which” group, suggesting a lack of maturity and of political consolidation, in addition to reflecting a lack of democratic practices within them.

What has been discussed here does not aim to deny the importance of the emergence of leaders, quite the contrary. Leaders with social recognition, prestige, with a high sense of ethics, public service-minded and innovative ideas are always key players in mobilizing goodwill. Any process of social transformation has brought the presence of leaders who have often had decisive influence on events. History is full of examples. The agglutinating capacity of the leaders, then, could be an essential component for promoting a transition in Cuba, as long as they combine the necessary set of virtues necessary to overcome the vices of the current society and, in turn, be able to put national civic interests above pettiness and personal ambitions; leaders, after all, who give preference to the rights and the development of this essential component of democracy which in Cuba is a true rarity: the people.

The problem of the single party

What would be ideal, in the Cuban case, would be the growth of opinion leaders that would help prepare for tomorrow’s citizens today, a task that must renounce the temptations of immediacy and improvisation — specific characteristics of the Cuban identity — and cannot concentrate in the hands of a leader with messianic tendencies in the narrow machinations of a party. Without neglecting or excluding any element in the dissidence spectrum that has developed its work up to the present, from political parties to independent civic groups and alternative journalism in all its forms, citizenship education is a previous, unavoidable step if we wish to succeed in a process of change and democratic transition. This does not suggest proposing a “wait” involving delaying the process, but to simultaneously shape the people with positive actions to encourage the expansion of independent civic spaces and social interest in alternative programs, whether or not they are policy proposals. Assuming democracy in a broader sense, the concept of “citizen” is not only its essential foundation, but greatly exceeds the narrow ideological framework.

It is known that a political party, whether the official one or any in opposition, cannot represent, by itself, the wide diversity of interests and nuances of society as a whole. Ergo, any political party which is deemed elected representative of Cubans or synthesis of the national democracy is guilty of committing a flagrant violation of civil and political rights of those who, in principal, he meant to represent.

In fact, in the face of a process of change, the presumption of ownership by any party would be so crazy as the fraudulent and unreasonable assumption that the communist party is the ideal heir and follower of the ideals of Martí or follower of the unifying task of the Cuban Revolutionary Party, a lie with which the government seeks to justify the absurd one-party rule. The ideological scam has been so magnified and repeated that almost all Cubans ignore that the party founded by the Apostle to organize and conduct the final War of Independence was not based on or contain in its objectives any ideological element beyond the separatist aspirations of its leaders, much less did it assume the intention to become a “single party” for Cubans once independence was achieved.

The recent Sixth Congress of the Communist Party did not offer solutions expected by the most optimistic, however, it clearly demonstrated the government’s interest in retaining power at all cost and at whatever price the nation will have to pay. This government has nothing to offer towards our future, except to pay off its non-ending debt of frustrations contracted against Cubans. Its time has finally come and gone; it is the people’s hour. The real challenge in today’s Cuba, then, is to forge strategic connections based not on purely political or ideological programs, leaders or figures, but on general interests capable of mobilizing the opinions and actions of broad social sectors. Common sense dictates that the solution to our problems today is not about replacing one leader or one party with another, but in finding a broad, common, inclusive, and comprehensive consensus without ideology, and complete, capable of gradually overcoming the acute and irreversible systemic crisis. To do this, we must foster partnerships based on essential civic principles, with a deep ethical commitment and public service as their essential premises. This is a truly daunting task in a society so divided and morally bankrupt, but the surest way for an effective transition and permanent social peace.

Translated by: Norma Whiting

July 18 2011