Sunday, February 8, 2015

Cuban authoritarianism cannot survive the country’s liberalization

Cuban authoritarianism cannot survive the country's liberalization
February 6, 2015
Why is Cuesta Morua Right?
Haroldo Dilla Alfonso

HAVANA TIMES – A few days ago, a group of five Cuban opposition
activists appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations to express their points of view regarding the normalization of
relations between Cuba and the United States.

Three of them criticized the reestablishment of diplomatic relations,
maintaining that it makes life easier for the Cuban government and that
the United States should have forced the government to make political
concessions and talked with the opposition before taking this step. Two
of them, on the other hand, considered it a positive step that creates a
better atmosphere for the only effective means of demanding changes from
the government: by mobilizing Cuban public opinion.

This difference of opinions is not surprising. In fact, one could have
easily anticipated it the moment the issue of bilateral relations began
to be addressed by the Obama administration and activists and
intellectuals began to assume a position regarding that. I fear,
however, that most activists from the opposition, both in Cuba and
abroad, coincide in their condemnation of the move – and I believe this
is so because of two, persistent mistakes.

The first is the idea that the opposition is a decisive factor in Cuban
reality, an idea that has been encouraged by the way in which the
significance of some opposition figures has been blown completely out of
proportion. This exaggerated sense of self-importance has led the
opposition to conclude that the US government should have consulted with
them and made them part of the process, and that such an omission
constitutes a weak-point of the negotiations which some have gone as far
as to call a betrayal.

This is a political illusion that deserves no more attention than that
which we devote the "tolerated critical companions" of the system
(Cuba's Temas, Cuba Posible and Progreso Semanal journals, some
Cuban-American activist groups, and others) when they portray themselves
as a "loyal opposition." No one can deny the moral courage that some may
show when confronting an authoritarian power with their words or deeds.
That, however, does not make them necessary as interlocutors, for
failing to consult them does not involve paying a prohibitive price, and
consulting them does not garner anyone any substantial benefits. And
real politics is all about prices and costs.

The second mistake is the idea (curiously shared by the opposition and
Cuban technocrats, academics and officials) that Cuba can set up a
capitalist model a la China, where authoritarianism and market freedoms
can go hand in hand without meeting considerable obstacles. This, to
mention one example, is the idea traced by Mario Vargas Llosa in an
article for El Pais, where he again made a show of his unparalleled
skills as a writer and his blinkered liberal dogmatism. It was also what
Manuel Cuesta Morua critically addressed in Washington when he affirmed
that "(…) Cuban authoritarianism cannot survive the country's
liberalization, as Chinese authoritarianism has demonstrated it can."

Cuesta Morua is not only a tireless activist and a highly respectable
intellectual figure; he is also a historian who knows that capitalism is
not a trans-historical abstraction but a series of socio-historical
constructions. He certainly knows (hence his sound warning) that there
are different types of capitalism (Rheinland, Manchester, Scandinavian,
etc.) that are sustained by specific social and cultural arrangements.


Photo: Juan Suarez
The so-called "Chinese model" isn't simply an economic configuration –
it is a political and cultural one as well. It doesn't mainly convey a
means of organizing productive forces (the aspect our technocrats are
always highlighting), but rather how to array relations of production
based on the extreme exploitation of an obedient workforce. Such a
cultural perception of authority does not exist in Cuba, a Western,
Latin American country whose anti-liberalism does not stem from
Confucian thought, but from populist barricades.

It is true that the normalization of relations with the United States
(and the erosion of the blockade/embargo in particular) will create
conditions that favor an improvement in Cuba's disastrous economic
situation. But it will not do away with the island's many pressing
problems, to the extent that these problems do not arise from the
blockade/embargo. Overcoming the country's current economic situation
invariably demands a degree of social restructuring that entails the
elimination of many of the populist and paternalist contention
mechanisms now in place, and making the true nature of the exploitation
that underpins the system more transparent.

In the political arena – where the Cuban leadership refuses to bring
about any changes – the normalization of relations will create a context
different from the one in which the suppression of differences could be
justified. The government will have to moderate the use of its last
rhetorical device – intransigent nationalism before a supposed
imperialist threat – and, as the restrictions of the blockade are
relaxed, it will also have to look elsewhere for the anti-imperialist
excuses for Cuba's economic catastrophes. Cuban society will invariably
have more access to information and contacts, and the spectrum of the
system's opposition and critics could gain in opportunities to express
opinions and act without being portrayed as enemy agents.

It is a serious mistake to perceive Cuba's generalized poverty as the
antechamber of longed-for change. The most significant political changes
we've seen have not stemmed from hunger. In a tasteful study, Crane
Brinton said that revolutions aren't born of despair but of hope.

When hope runs into the government's mistakes, that is when people begin
to see that something is missing and something is in excess. Tocqueville
explained it in this fashion: "The most dangerous moment for a bad
government is when it begins to reform (…). Evils which were suffered
patiently as being inevitable appear insupportable if the notion of
being rid of them is conceived."

Source: Cuban authoritarianism cannot survive the country's
liberalization - Havana Times.org - http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=109174

No comments:

Post a Comment