The dialogue between the government of General Raúl Castro and the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church continues to generate discussions between different opposition groups and the independent civil society sectors. It was expected that half a century of stagnation would bring, as its first consequence, the creaking of rusty hinges when trying to turn on any mechanism of this old obsolete machinery, as it also seems logical that, since it’s been going in reverse, now it’s really hard to move forward.
It is not easy to search and find consensus in a country orphaned of civility and freedoms for such a long time. Most Cubans today have never participated in genuine elections, we have not been activists in a real political party, we have no unofficial places for public debate, we have no free access to information and communications, nor have we enjoyed any the benefits of democracy, but the worst part of all of that is that we haven’t been free. Just like fearful and ignorant slaves, there are those who would not even know what they would make of their lives when the day comes when they have the freedom to fully put their lives in order. That is Cuba’s sad reality, inherited in great measure from 50 years of dictatorship, but also because of 400 years of history that show what costly results triviality and irresponsibility can have on a country.
The moment Cuba is living through has peculiar elements that mark a before and an after. Each analysis can take what it considers a landmark as a guideline, whether the accumulation of elements in the overall socioeconomic and political crisis, the struggle of dissent within the country, the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, the hunger and thirst strike of Guillermo Fariñas, the sustained and courageous action of the Ladies in White, and the increased activity of alternative journalism in all its forms, among other factors, and others that may be unintentionally omitted here. This “before and after” could assume any of these factors, seemingly isolated, as a reference point; however, the pulley that has come to unite some pieces and has helped initiate the rotation of the mechanism has been the Catholic Church. That is a fact.
Just as circumstances present themselves -or how they are broached from all the factors that have had an influence on them- I think that now it is more realistic to weigh the indisputable: changes are taking place and the mediation of the Catholic Church is an important factor in this. Thus, far from taking note of idealistic solutions intended to satisfy the vanity of one or the other opposition leader or overestimating the importance of sectors of the emerging civil society (in which in my own activity as a blogger is included) and, at the same time, without denying the validity of all elements in their own performance, I prefer to take into consideration how positive the Church’s role in this process can be, and how much it could contribute
Some people criticize the mediation in the figure of Cardinal Jaime Ortega, alleging he has never supported the opposition, never visited the prisoners or delivered against the excesses of the dictatorship, which is not fully consistent with reality (let’s recall, for example, the famous pastoral letter “The Motherland Belongs to All”, a document that had great resonance in 1992). As for me, I am not –nor anything of the sort- a fan or even an admirer of His Eminence, but such disqualification could also be applied to the vast majority of the Cuban people, accustomed to fearfully look the other way in the presence of an act of civic courage or in the actions of repressive forces against defenseless citizens; the list of those who can attest to this experience would be endless, both inside and outside Cuba
On the other hand, those who disqualify the Church as a mediator today seem to forget how, throughout all these years, even though most Cubans applauded (we applauded) in the presence of speeches and stages, while religious belief was an unforgivable taboo, while the religious of any tendency were excluded and condemned, and while all of society galloped towards the loss of moral and human values, the Catholic Church was a bastion of solidarity among Cubans of sincere faith, a space for the conservation of the best values, a veritable hive where the work in support of families, Cuban culture, and in upholding its principles under very adverse conditions never stopped. The Cuban Catholic Church was a hotbed of resistance against the communist totalitarianism of this dictatorship from the very beginning, before any of the opposition parties we know today, and it was tolerant and inclusive, while in Cuban society intolerance and exclusion were being imposed.
Many parishes have been carrying the discourse of resistance that few dared to listen to, and much less to speak of, and they have established themselves as promoters of many areas of education, social and academic exchanges and of formation of values. The Catholic Church has been working quietly and patiently for the reconciliation of the Cuban people, while the regime -and others- have dedicated themselves to turn us one against the other. To deny this would be not only an injustice, but also a fallacy.
It is clear that the Church is not a perfect institution and that it does not represent all of us in everything, it has also committed errors and even injustices, but it has also offered its space as a refuge amid the storms. If not, let the Ladies in White, who go to the church of Santa Rita every Sunday say it, let the Cubans who have found the support, charity and solidarity they were missing say it, let the thousands who are gathering spontaneously in the Churches in Cuba to receive, in her pilgrimage throughout the Island, the Patron Saint of Cuba, Our Lady of El Cobre, able to gather, because of their unique status as Cubans, believers and non-believers in the simple avocation of their love for Cuba say it. What other institution in this country would be capable of that? I’m not a believer in the least, I am barely an agnostic, forged in the strictest atheism, who has overcome the denial and pretends to be fair. In addition, since I wish the best for Cuba and Cubans, I support anything that helps to break down the wall.
That’s why I ask those who now oppose the mediation of the Church (I speak of the institution, not its leaders) and who, in addition, accuse her of being “a traitor to the people,” “opportunistic” and other similar epithets, to mention the reasons and accusations to expose to public opinion objectively, who they consider to be the stakeholders they feel might be sufficiently consolidated in Cuba, with the prestige and permanence needed to represent a large portion of the Cuban population, what programs these actors are proposing for change and the phases for transition.
Let those who oppose the Catholic Church-Government dialogue state if they believe that the people can delegate, right now, with full knowledge of cause, in any of the opposition parties and independent civil society groups beyond the sympathy that our struggle for democracy might stir. But above all, let’s be realistic: the Cuban crisis is not going to be resolved in the short term, a transition is a long and complex process to which actors are incorporated as they gain influence and prestige in national public life. Rather than struggle for a position or a prize, it’s time to take advantage of venues that are opening up, and to support actions that promote positive changes in order to be able to enhance the discourse of the current opinion leaders and the emergence of new ones, the birth of new ideas, civic forces and of comprehensive proposals in which we all may participate (including those who, until now, have not participated). Let nobody think that it will be easy, but let’s not make it any more difficult.
Translator: Norma Whiting
August 31, 2010