I second the appreciation for Charles McKelvey's detailed post on Cuba,
much needed in the face of simplistic, and by definition uncritical,
anti-communist postings which misrepresent or completely ignore the very
real achievements made since the popular overthrow of Batista.
I lived in La Habana for 16 months over 1994 / 95, researching a history
of secondary school education since 1959 (still in preparation). I can
confirm Charles McKelvey's observations about the democratic functioning
of local government (Poder Popular). Family and friends in Cuba
consistently cited this tier of government as being the most effective,
receptive to genuine popular participation, democratic etc. Candidates
nominated by the local community are well known and respected people in
that community. They are obliged to give regular account of their work
in public meetings and can realistically be recalled by the community if
they lose confidence in their delegate.
With respect to the role of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) in the
Municipal and National election processes, I feel Charles McKelvey
accepts the official rhetoric a little to uncritically. The electoral
commissions which develop the list of candidates for the Provincial (and
National) Assemblies do have some members elected by the Municipal
Assemblies. Charles acknowledges that most delegates to Municipal
Assemblies are Party members (I will check the exact percentages). We
should add that representatives of the Mass Organisations (CDR, FMC, UJC
etc) are also allocated a place on these committees, these
representatives being Party members. True the PCC does not directly and
solely prepare candidate lists, and quantifying their influence in the
process is problematic to say the least, but I think we must acknowledge
a decisive influence for the PCC in this process.
My experience in Cuba was that certain informal practices are
acknowledged amongst both militants of the Party & Young Communist
League, and the broader community that Charles McKelvey correctly
characterises as being supportive of the system and well informed about
the structure and functioning of the world economy (and, I would add,
well informed about the consequences of a capitalist "alternative" for a
country struggling in the periphery of that economy). These practices
include the top down 'endorsement' of Party members for elected
positions in all sorts of organisations and institutions, and the
expectation that such suggestions, and prepared slates of candidates, be
accepted.
The president of the 'Felix Varela Centre' in Havana, Juan Antonio
Blanco, has addressed many of these less than democratic tendencies of
the "european - soviet model of socialism" in his book "Tercer Milenio:
Una Vision Alternative de la Posmodernidad". Blanco makes the critique
in the context of searching for a non-capitalist solution to the current
social and economic crisis in Cuba.
Thus while the PCC is not an electoral party as such, membership is
accepted as a requirement for many positions of responsibility, ranging
from nomination as a Parliamentary delegate to promotion for a school
teacher. I don't think this can simply be overlooked, or dismissed with
the observation that most elected / nominated people just happen to be
Party members. By way of a personal anecdote, I watched delegates less
than enthusiastic applause for the re-election of Vilma Espin as
President of the Federation of Cuban Women at their Congress in 1995
(she has been president since its creation), in stark contrast to their
enthusiasm for the new (grass-roots) vice-president elected. It was
explained to me by an active supporter of Cuba's system that it was
expected that Vilma be re-elected. No conspiracy, no repression, and no
formal role for the PCC, just an established practice.
I will agree partially with Charles McKelvey's description of Party
members, but again due to experience many Cubans note that generally
Party membership no longer carries anything like the community respect
it once did. Many militants have seen too many "descarados" manage to
move through the party not out of revolutionary or moral commitment but
as a means of personal advancement. Processes of challenging such
individuals from the base are inadequate. Still, the intention of
promoting the most ethical, hard working, revolutionary, rather than
those that can best campaign for support, remains superior from in my
opinion.
The issue of party membership aside, it cannot be denied that Cuba's
parliaments are more truly representative of their constituent
populations, in terms of the composition of delegates, than any
so-called 'liberal democracy'. This fact is a great achievement of
Cuba's alternative model of democracy, as is the absence of bourgeois
electioneering and campaigns and extravagant rewards for professional
politicians on which it rests.
Finally, while I agree with the critique of the so-called free press in
capitalist countries - Chomsky's propaganda model (Necessary Illusions)
is confirmed every day - there has been little space in the Cuban press
for criticism of any public policy (again this has been recognised by
pro-systemic Cuban academics and militants in recent years in articles
in the *new* journals "Acuario"; "Temas" and "Contracorriente"). The
ending of the "great debate" in the 1960s has been well documented,
effectively limiting through similar informal processes what was
acceptable for publication.
I finish by stressing the need to reject anti-communist propaganda AND
maintain a critical perspective. Identifying any criticism of Cuban
policy and practice as anti-revolutionary does not achieve much in terms
of contributing to constructive debate. At the same time, to deny the
achievements in Cuba under the leadership of the Communist Party led by
Fidel is to deny fact. As has been recently (and still not fully)
demonstrated on this list, any number of statistical measures of quality
of life have significantly improved since 1959. A lot more ought to be
said of the way in which the economic disaster of the Cuba losing 85% of
its trade overnight has been endured without losing majority support for
the system. If the sort of massive unrest that US administrations have
been promising for almost 40 years did not occur in the summer of 1994,
it is hard to conceive of situation in which this support would be
broken. Hardships have been extreme. Without the political commitment of
the PCC to maintaining a minimum level of all social services for all
citizens, a true disaster would have undoubtedly occurred.
I agree, the Cuban Project deserves our active support. All of its
shortcomings and contradictions are, of course, problems to be addressed
by the Cuban people as the process of their Revolution continues, and
they are being put on the public agenda with the work of people like
Blanco and Fernando Martinez Heredia. I also note that Cuba is
currently, more than ever, fully participating and actively seeking an
improved place within the capitalist world-economy. I often wondered
when in Cuba whether the solidarity movement back home would be
promoting Cuba as a site for investment with big capital like "Western
Mining" now exploiting Cuban labour in copper mines - in line with the
official policy. In my appreciation for the Cuban project I hope I
don't lose sight of the larger and more pressing anti-systmeic goal:
The creation of the world party / socialist world government / socialist
world-system.
Thomas Griffiths.
Newcastle,
Australia.