Cuba’s Elections and Lessons from Abroad

Cuba's Elections and Lessons from Abroad
October 18, 2012
Yusimi Rodriguez

HAVANA TIMES — Four years ago I became interested in elections for the
first time. This year I followed the second electoral process in my
life. Yet on neither of those two occasions did these involve elections
in my country.

Unconsciously, I've convinced myself that elections abroad affect my
life more than those in Cuba.

In 2008, I watched the "Mesa Redonda" ("The Roundtable" news/commentary
TV program) on the elections in the United States and I read articles on
that topic in the Granma newspaper.

Obama's election could have meant the end to the embargo and the
normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States.

If life in this country didn't improve, at least I had the security that
the justification …I meant to say the reason… would not be the blockade
imposed by the US government.

But none of that happened.

Life showed that it would take more than a Black president in the White
House, despite him having proclaimed himself the president of change. We
learned that it takes more than reaching the presidency full of good
intentions and that there are countries where the president isn't lord
and master of the country.

We found out that it isn't enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize to
deserve one.

This year I kept up on the elections in Venezuela without having made up
my mind whether I feared or desired a Chavez victory. Two days before
the Venezuelan people went to the polls, a friend told me that it would
be good if Chavez lost so as to destabilize our government.

"If the country doesn't receive fuel, it won't be like the Special
Period crisis, when people endured alumbrones," (what we called the
brief intervals between blackouts) he said.

I don't know if I want things to change like that in my country. I fear
that if we are subjected to greater shortages than we already face,
people will take to streets — rightly so — and they'll likely be
suppressed in the name of national sovereignty.

Hugo Chavez won the Oct. 7 elections in Venezuela with 55% of the vote..
Photo:http://www.presidencia.gob.ve

I have to confess that by the Friday before the October 7th Venezuelan
elections I had stopped thinking about them.

On Sunday I got home around six o'clock with the intention of sitting
down and watching one of the few TV shows I follow. It was canceled
though because the Mesa Redonda was devoted to following the Venezuelan
elections, two hours before the polling stations closed.

Neither the moderator nor his guests on the Mesa even mentioned the
disastrous consequences that a Chavez loss would mean for us. They
discussed the benefits reaped by the Venezuelan people thanks to their
government, and they especially praised the existence of democracy in
that country.

They even quoted former US president Jimmy Carter, and that was what
made me start thinking; because, to be honest, I don't trust the
moderator or the guests of the Mesa Redonda that much when it comes to
discussing democracy.

That doesn't mean that I think Jimmy Carter has the last word on that
subject either, but at least he's an outside observer, someone less
compromised than the guests on the Mesa.

I don't know if the people on the show realized that perhaps they overly
praised Venezuelan democracy. If we look at things carefully, we'll see
that it's true that Chavez is in his third term, and some people think
he's trying to eternalize his grip on power (health permitting).

But what's wrong with the re-election of a president when people
consider them to be doing a good job, especially when people have the
political mechanisms at their disposal to remove such a person when they
desire?

In Venezuela the elections had the participation of more than one
political party. Each voter had the opportunity to decide and to make a
difference with their vote. According to the Union of South American
Nations (UNASUR), over 80 percent of the people voted. They even lined
up to exercise their right to vote and to decide the future of their
country.

This Sunday, Cubans will turn to the polls to vote for delegates to
represent them in their local municipalities. Then …we will sit and
watch. We won't have participation in the election of the City Council,
nor the provincial or national assemblies, or for the president of the
country. But we won't be surprized by the final result.

I'm sure that here in Cuba the voter turnout will be more than the 80
percent experienced in Venezuela. But how many people will cast their
ballots with the conviction that their votes will have any weight in the
country's life?

Voting in Cuba. photo: juventudrebelde.cu

How many of them will go to the polls only to avoid standing out, which
might look bad if they're ever applying for a job in tourism or some
other well-paid position?

But above all, what future will we be able to decide with our votes,
beyond a delegate who will attempt to solve our problems for a while or
give us comforting answers whenever they feel their hands are tied?

Once again the Venezuelan people went for Chavez, but they had other
alternatives. They could have voted for any other candidate. The
opposition was represented. Capriles had the opportunity to speak to the
people, to use the mass media to let people know what they could expect
from him if they elected him as president.

What is the mechanism for changing the leadership in Cuba? What
representation do those who oppose the government have, even if they are
a minority?

"Venezuela gave the world a lesson in democracy," said Carlos Alvarez,
the head of the UNASUR delegation, after Sunday's election.

Did Cuba receive a lesson as well?

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=80474