|
CounterPunch
September
14 / 15, 2002
"In
Saving Itself, Cuba Saves Others"
Democracy and US Policy on Cuba
by Tom Crumpacker
Primo io, dopo io, sempre io, viva io.
Benito Mussolini
Our government has said for years that the purpose
of its Cuba policy is to bring democracy to Cuba's people who
it says lack it but need it. Unfortunately, one of the most important
things we lack in this mass community of 270 million people we're
trying to create is a common English language for our political
discourse. It's not just that conclusory words like "democracy,"
"socialism," "capitalism," "imperialism,"
"liberalism," "conservatism," "terrorism"
have become so vague as to be virtually useless (as time goes
by the reality underlying the concepts, being dynamic, changes).
It's also that each person develops his or her own understanding
of these words based on his or her learning, which often differs
considerably from the understandings of others. Our common language
deteriorates and the essential ingredient of community -- communication
-- disappears, leaving us like those who lived in the Tower of
Babel.
Since the word democracy derives from
the Greek word "demos" meaning "the people,"
it would seem that to have an intelligent connection to the past
it must involve people participating somehow in the important
societal decisions which affect their lives, such as "government
by the people," an idea that the people can collectively
manage their societies. Because in mass society each individual
cannot meaningfully participate in decisions for the whole, it
has come to mean decision making by "representatives"
(career politicians in the United States) who are said to decide
and act on behalf of the people who elect them.
US political philosopher Cliff DuRand
indicates that the core of the idea of democracy is the possibility
of collective decision making about collective action for a common
good. He says this is the opposite of the concept of democracy
found in US popular consciousness today which defines democracy
as the freedom individuals to decide on their own about actions
to pursue their own purposes. (DuRand paper presented at U. of
Havana, June, 1997)
The question of freedom brings to mind
the observation of the lawyer Cicero at a time when the Roman
republic was deteriorating into empire: that freedom is the participation
in power. There seem to be two interrelated types of freedom:
"freedom from" (domination, coercion), and "freedom
of" (meaningful participation). History indicates that the
more participation we have, the less necessary the coercion,
since we are more likely to accept and implement decisions we
joined in, or at least had an opportunity to be heard on personally
or by true representation. Significantly, the US has at least
double the number and percentage of people incarcerated in any
other nation, whereas Cuba is known for its relatively low incidence
of crime.
The men who set up the US government
were not so dishonest as to call it a democracy, rather its form
was said to be that of a republic. Our revolution was essentially
an act of political decentralization by propertied white males
who wanted the power to run things here rather than submit to
a parliament in London. They sent their delegates to Philadelphia
in 1787 to frame our political institutions so as to limit popular
participation, protect their class, and structure the government
so that it could not interfere in their private pursuits, which
is precisely what they did. As DuRand points out, this gave institutional
backing to a turning away from collective action toward a culture
of individualism, where the state, rather than the means for
pursuing action for the common good, becomes an instrument limited
to ensuring the conditions for pursuit of self interest, promoting
a privatization of life.
Today in the US the common interest is
seldom the real basis of political decision at the national or
state levels. Although it's often given lip service, it's usually
by politicians and others serving private interests. Rather than
through public institutions, individual and group interests are
pursued in civil society where they are not subject to any common
good test until they reach the national level. The victors in
the self interest game are always the business organizations
because they are considered by the law to be "persons"
with all the rights and priveleges of real persons and they are
able to amass and invest in politicians and the media much more
money than real persons can, or even unions or environmental
or other special interest groups no matter how large they are
(such groups not being involved in the business of making money).
Increasingly larger, more centralized,
wealthier and therefore more powerful, far beyond any control
by owners or government, with common values and aims, a relatively
few businesses fund our politicians and mass media (for most
of us our only information source) and through them obtain our
support for the key policy decisions they make for us. Their
ideology says there is no common -- only private -- good, therefore
our political institutions should not be changed. Such a system
can only accurately be described as a commercial oligarchy because
those who have the power are pursuing private rather than public
interests.
Although the dice are loaded against
most of us, we Americans have apparently chosen for ourselves
to continue playing the self-interest game. This does not mean,
however, that we should accept or allow US oligarchic interference
in the political institutions of other countries which have made
different choices, particularly those whose people face entirely
different circumstances and are pursuing different kinds of national
projects. To impose our political standards on them would be
the ultimate travesty of the idea of democracy.
The Cuban revolution, arising from an
economic rather than political crisis, defines the nation by
a different project. Under conditions of neocolonialism, the
needs of property owners became secondary, and after the initial
period the revolution was able to widen the scope of public affairs
to include the human needs and social justice demands of the
workers and unpropertied people as its driving force, with the
government becoming the institutional structure for popular participation
in collective decisions about action for social change. This
was embodied in the Cuban Constitution, adopted in 1976 with
76% voter approval out of over 90% of eligible voters participating,
and amended in 1992 by more than three-fourths of an elected
National Assembly as constitutionally required. In June of this
year over eight million Cubans, more than four-fifths of the
adult population, signed declarations in support of their constitution.
In the US and all other so-called liberal
democracies the national governments are essentially both oligarchic
and authoritarian rather than democratic, however democracy sometimes
occurs at the local government level or in private special interest
groups. The authoritarian character of our governments results
from economic centralization at the nation-state level and the
size and complexity of the resulting mass societies being created
-- something peculiar to our last two centuries when technological
innovation has been transforming our economies and our populations
have been increasing exponentially.
For the same demographic and economic
centralization reasons it's also true that the so-called socialist
democracies have been to differing extents authoritarian at the
national level -- but not oligarchic where, as in Cuba, their
national projects have come to operate collectively for the benefit
of all. The class nature of Cuban society has gradually disappeared,
with the propertied people either giving up most of their property
or leaving. Under the 1992 changes to Articles 3 and 5 of the
Cuban Constitution, the ultimate sovereignty of the republic
rests in the people, from which derives the power of the state;
and construction of socialism has become the project of the whole
nation with the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) its political guide.
I'm not suggesting that the collectivist
approach is inherently superior to the individualistic. Both
are pursued by countries in a proportion that suits their national
projects. Most societal functions are better performed locally
or by private groups, which can be democratic. There will always
be questions about which things the government can perform efficiently
and well for the common good and which are better done when privatized.
For example our government seems to have
taken for granted that one of its primary functions is to help
US businesses make profits in foreign countries, even where it
involves exploitation of people or empowering oppressors or conducting
"regime changes." Under the guise of national security
it has developed an enormous and expensive weaponry system and
established military bases and "intelligence" networks
all over world -- in reality to promote and protect transnational
business enterprise. It seems to have forgotten the common need
of Americans to have friendly relations with foreign peoples.
It's not in the interest of our families to have relatives killed
or injured in faraway places, or to be attacked by suicidal terrorists
at home, or to give up our freedom for security. A democratic
US government acting for the common good would consider the obvious
alternative. It could privatize its role in helping US businesses
operate in foreign lands, let them deal themselves with foreign
laws and governments, and allow any necessary coercive functions
to be performed by international organizations, perhaps a more
democratic United Nations.
Social change is structural -- it occurs
by changing institutions rather than personalities. Democracy
at it's most basic level (the individual) is a desperate human
need, but democracy in modern mass society is not a reality,
rather it's oligarchic myth. The contradiction between the individual
and the community has been with us from the beginning and as
far as we know it always will be. The larger the community, the
more difficult it becomes to transcend. At this stage in human
development, the only kind of democracy that exists or can exist
is the grassroots variety. Mass democracy is propaganda, one
of the ways our national oligarchies have managed to maintain
the political status quo in the face of dramatic technological
and economic change.
In order to make progressive change,
we must first get back to reality. If we start from fantasy,
change leads us only to another fantasy. The political institutions
Cubans have developed over the last forty years are based on
their reality -- what has worked for them in pursuing their socialist
project, which has enjoyed enormous and increasing popular support
in the face of economic hardship and struggle.
Last May 20 our President stated in Miami
that he might end the blockade and our other attempts to isolate
Cuba if they will hold free and fair elections with multiparty
candidates and comply with some additional political conditions
he requires. Cubans have been holding elections at the local,
provincial and national levels for many years, which are at least
as free and fair as ours. Political parties are not mentioned
in our Constitution. In the early days of our republic they were
frowned on, George Washington especially discouraged the idea.
Nor are political parties referred to in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The US idea of the necessity or advisability
of multiple parties is another oligarchic myth. It leads people
to believe they have choice in political decisions and maintains
the political status quo.
Political parties are not involved in
Cuba. The PCC is not a political party in our sense, rather it's
an organization of political activists (about 12% of the adult
population are members) which under Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution
organizes and orients common forces of the revolution. The PCC
Congress, which meets every 5 years, is its highest decision
making body. Delegates are elected by its local and provincial
branches. Implementation is by its Central Committee (150 members)
and its political bureau (24 members) which operate on the principle
of democratic centralism. People work their way up through the
PCC based on their ability and merit as determined by peers.
It encourages free expression of ideas and respect for differences
of opinion, within the ideals of the revolution.
Cuban government bodies at the municipal,
provincial and national levels are autonomous, positions are
elective and neither parties or PCC are involved in elections.
Candidates are elected for short terms, and are accountable and
subject to recall. They are not career politicians: neither personal
benefit or advancement influence their decisions. All citizens
are entitled to vote, the ballots are secret and Cubans vote
in much higher percentages than Americans. Rather than a coercive
or dominating force to be feared and limited, Cubans view government
as the primary structure for participation by the people in collective
decision making. They participate at the grassroots through elections
and personal and group appearance at local government meetings
and as activists through special interest organizations often
but not always sponsored or encouraged by the state under Article
7 of their Constitution.
In the so-called liberal democracies,
the multiparty system is a thing of the past if one is speaking
of the value based political party. All modern nations are ruled
by elite's who are in agreement as to the general nature of their
project and the actions they take on fundamental issues. In the
US the so-called two party system offers no real choice regarding
basic values, approaches, ideology or policy, particularly as
concerns structural change in the political economy. There are
some differences in emphasis and rhetoric, which are usually
highlighted in the media. But in reality the two parties function
primarily as money raisers and accounting firms for the candidates,
who are elected on the basis of their celebrity, incumbency,
financial backing and capability (which permits exposure in the
media), administrative abilities, perceived personal characteristics
and other matters unrelated to party values. They must think
and talk within the narrowing "mainstream" in order
to get mass media attention and become serious candidates. Over
85% of our Congressional races are either uncontested or not
seriously contested.
Correctly perceiving that our "representatives"
are in reality acting on behalf of powerful private interests
-- which situation can't be remedied by voting for major party
candidates -- an increasing majority of eligible Americans don't
vote, despite all the urging they get. Although in the past two
centuries we have enfranchised new groups, such as unpropertied
people, racial minorities and women, it's clear that voting every
two or four years for national or state candidates is not an
accurate barometer the quality of our democracy.
If an unbiased observer from another
planet were to try to make an assessment of democracy in the
US nation as compared to Cuban nation he would probably conclude
that the US is ruled by elite's on behalf of commercial and business
interests, whereas Cuba is ruled by elite's on behalf of working
and poor people--that is, the whole nation, because everyone
in Cuba is now in our sense poor individually, most of the property
being held in common. To compare the quality of true democracy,
he would focus his attention on the grassroots, where some people
of both countries can and do participate meaningfully as activists,
either before local government boards, which have jurisdiction
in limited areas, or in special interest organizations, usually
limited to one area.
The Cuban Organs of People's Power (OPP's)
are responsible for administration at the municipal and provincial
levels and for legislative and constitutional matters at the
national. Locally they're analogous to our town and county governing
boards, but with much broader authority. They deal with community
issues such as economic enterprise, construction, health, employment,
social services, environment, elections and many other matters.
They meet frequently and publicly and have substantial participation
by individuals and groups, which results from their broad authority.
Decentralization of political power, which permits and promotes
popular participation in decision making, has been going on in
Cuba for more than twenty years.
There are many thousands of Cuban special
interest groups in which most Cubans participate, seeking to
improve their communities. Some are national or provincial only,
most of them are local and federated at the provincial and national
levels. The local PCC groups do political work, advocating the
needs and ideals of the revolution before officials and the public.
The more than 20,000 CDR's (Committees for Defense of Revolution)
are neighborhood associations which do almost anything and everything,
from locating emergency medical care to improving local peace
and tranquility. They are also social and to some extent counteract
the atomization and depersonalization of life in modern mass
society. Other well known advocacy groupings, which formed naturally
from the bottom up and operate that way, are the Women's Federation,
the trade unions, the small farmers' unions, the environmental
groups, the student groups, scientific groups, religious groups
and charities, social service groups, professional groups for
teachers, nurses, doctors and cultural groups.
These all have quick and easy access
to official decision-making, and often are the main players involved
in such. Mechanisms exist so that local groups can bring appropriate
matters up for discussion and decision even at the provincial
and national levels. For the past twenty years Cubans have been
pursuing an anti-bureaucracy campaign at all levels, which has
had some success although it still has a long way to go. The
time consuming formalities and contentious advocacy peculiar
to countries dedicated to serving private interests are not seen
much in Cuba. The distinction which counts is whether a practice
is within or without the needs and ideals of the revolution,
which to most people, especially those who participate, represents
the common good. The system is geared to operate without lawyers,
and the few lawyers there practice mostly in areas involving
foreigners or foreign investment. Neighborhood courts usually
involve relatively quick decisions by a legally trained judge
sitting with a citizen chosen for the case. To Cubans formalities,
legal technicalities, jurisdictional infighting, distinctions
such as "private -- public" are irrelevant.
A foreigner has to adopt a broad perspective,
not limited by his own background in a privatized country, to
understand and appreciate how politics works in Cuba. In a society
where most of the property is part of the common wealth, the
people naturally become more concerned with and dedicated to
the common interest because it, rather than individual accumulation
of money or property, is what serves their self interest. The
focus is on people's responsibility as well as their rights.
Problem solving in Cuba usually occurs in a cooperative way,
and this happens internally in the local groups where people
operate and in their advocacy before local officials. Cuban non-governmental
groups have more power as participants than their counterparts
in privatized societies, because the amount of money they have
or can raise doesn't matter and everyone sees that they are acting
in the public interest as well as their own.
For example the women's groups pursue
post-patriarchal ideals as in other countries, but not in a self
interested way, rather to make sure that women are equal participants
and beneficiaries in the revolution. The trade unions (over 90%
of industrial and construction workers belong) see themselves
as having a dual role, to defend workers rights before management,
and also to act in favor of values that enhance productivity
and other enterprise needs. They accepted a decrease of wages
and increase in hours during the "special period" of
economic hardship during the 1990s. The environmental and healthcare
crises in Cuba, to a large extent resulting from a lack of funds,
have led the environmental, health and farmers' groups to find
solutions which don't require much money. They pursue things
like alternative and renewable energy, conservation, recycling,
urban agriculture, micro-brigades (volunteer work), community
gardens, bicycle transportation, organic farming, natural and
alternative medicine and treatments, and many other practices,
some of which are innovative and have contributed substantially
to human development, especially in poor countries.
In both US and Cuba the national leaders
claim to be deciding and acting for the common good. The main
difference in how the political systems work has to do with how
and by whom the common good decisions are made. In the US these
decisions are made nationally by businesses which recognize only
private good. In Cuba they're made by individuals and groups
and officials at the grassroots, based on the ideals of their
revolution. Although their decisions can be reviewed and changed
at higher levels, they usually aren't.
Obviously there are serious economic
problems in Cuba--but they don't result as significantly from
lack of political participation as do the many severe problems
existing in the US. Nevertheless, it's clear that not all Cubans
support the revolution and the key to its success will be the
people's confidence in each other -- their belief that they can
collectively make it happen. When people have to spend most or
all of their time individually struggling for the necessities
of life, the social bond weakens. Grassroots democracy is what
makes it strong.
Our government has embargoed Cuba, unsuccessfully
invaded it, sent agents to assassinate its leaders, and allowed
US based terrorists to go to Cuba to destroy its crops, its buildings,
airplanes and facilities. Under Helms-Burton it blockades Cuba
by threatening and punishing foreigners who dare to do business
there. By complex and unrealistic financing limitations it prevents
medicine, medical supplies and equipment and nutritional food
from reaching Cubans. In Latin America it threatens and punishes
nations economically for trading and having normal relations
with Cuba, and it rewards nations economically for harming or
breaking relations with Cuba. It has lost its seat on the UN
Human Rights Commission for politicizing the Commission on Cuba
issues. It conducts a relentless propaganda campaign against
Cuba, and it unconstitutionally prohibits its own citizens from
traveling to Cuba to learn what is really happening there.
In the unlikely event that our government
ever succeeds in forcing Cubans to adopt a political economy
like ours, it will destroy the very significant democracy that
exists there at the grassroots. The new and system will likely
have to be enforced by a long and severe military occupation.
Clearly, democracy for Cubans is not a motive for our government's
policy. It has close, friendly relations with and supports economically
many monarchies and other regimes which have never held an election
and would never think of holding one. Any reasonable person must
wonder what the underlying motive for US-Cuba policy really is.
Questions about this must be asked. After all, we're talking
about eleven million people living on an island in the Caribbean.
If we don't like their political system, why can't we just leave
them alone and let them find there own way?
Could it be that something is happening
on the island that the world's only superpower is afraid of?
It seems so. Could our oligarchy fear that if the Cuban revolutionary
experiment continues succeeding that it's own drive for world
empire will fail by regime change or perhaps even system change
here? It seems so.
Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution acknowledges
that the political system it creates is based partly on the thinking
of its 19th century writer, poet and independence leader Jose
Marti. Wanting to learn about the US version of democracy, Marti
had lived in the US for several years in the 1890s. Disgusted
with elections bought with money and the corruption of the system
and resulting commercialization of life he saw, he argued against
this type of arrangement for Cuba. A couple of years ago I was
given a poster of Marti with one of his sayings on it: "Cuba--al
salvarse, salva..." It means: "Cuba--in saving itself,
it saves others..."
Tom Crumpacker
works with the Miami Coalition to End US Embargo of Cuba He can
be reached at: Crump8@aol.com
Today's Features
Paul de Rooij
A Glossary
of Occupation
James C. Faris
Riefenstahl
at 100:
The Fascist Aesthetic
Gary Leupp
Presidential
Honesty on Iraq
Tarif Abboushi
A Conversation
with My Arab-American Self
Ron Jacobs
Shelter
from the Storm
Rick Giombetti
Paxil
and Addiction
Krystal Kyer
From NAFTA
to CAFTA
Another Rotten Trade Deal
John Jonik
Overcome
in Philly
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- War Talk As White Noise:
Anything to Get Harken and Halliburton
Out of the Headlines;
- First Hilliard, Then
McKinney: Jewish
Groups Target Blacks Brave Enough to Talk About Justice in the
Middle East; Intimidation
is the Name of the Game; Smearing
"Insane" McKinney As Muslims' Pawn;
- The Missing Terrorist?
Calling Scotland
Yard: "Where's Atif?"
- They Never Booed Dylan!:
Tape Transcript Shows
Famed Newport Folkfest Dissing of Electric Dylan Not True. The Catcalls were for Peter
Yarrow!
- New Shame from the Liffey
Shrike
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
September
12, 2002
Paul de Rooij
A Glossary
of Occupation
James C.
Faris
Riefenstahl
at 100:
The Fascist Aesthetic
Gary Leupp
Presidential
Honesty on Iraq
Tarif Abboushi
A Conversation
with My Arab-American Self
Ron Jacobs
Shelter
from the Storm
Rick Giombetti
Paxil
and Addiction
Krystal Kyer
From NAFTA
to CAFTA
Another Rotten Trade Deal
John Jonik
Overcome
in Philly
September
11, 2002
Anis Shivani
How to
Survive in Ashcroft's America
Pierre Tristam
Abusing
the Sorrows of 9/11
David Krieger
Resisting
Bush's
"Relentless War"
Jerre Skog
9/11 One
Year Later:
Remember the Others, Too
Dave Marsh
Illegal
Music?
A Sampler's Delight
Norm Dixon
How the
Warmongers Have Exploited 9/11
September
7 / 8, 2002
Bill Christison
A
Year Later: It's Happening Here
Alexander
Cockburn
The
Tenth Crusade
Susan Davis
Mr. Ashcroft's
Neighborhood
Bruce Jackson
When
War Came Home
David Krieger
Looking
Back on September 11
Mike Leon
Bush and War
Peter Linebaugh
Levellers
and 9/11
William McDougal
September 11 One Year On:
That's Entertainment!
Riad Z. Abdelkarim
and Jason Erb
How American Muslims Really Responded
to 9/11
Jeffrey St.
Clair
The Trouble
with Normal
Tom Stephens
Rise Up...Dump Bush
September
6, 2002
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Stolen
Trust
Gale Norton, Indians and the Case of the Missing $10 Billion
September
5, 2002
Ben Tripp
Jesus vs.
George the Second
William Hughes
McKinney's
Defeat:
Undue Meddling
Gavin Keeney
Beaux
Reves, Citoyens!
Wayne Saunders
War
Begins; Nobody Notices
Irit Katriel
Drunk
with Power:
Israeli Chief of Staff Calls Palestinians a "Cancerous Demographic
Threat"
Gary Leupp
Who's Afraid
of Iraq?
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|