Apartheid en Cuba
We run various sites in defense of human rights and need support in paying for servers. Thank you.
Recent Comments

    57 Years Later – Towards A New Contract For Cuba (Pt. 1)

    57 Years Later: Towards A New Contract For Cuba (Pt. 1) / 14ymedio,
    Manuel Cuesta Morua

    14ymedio, Manuel Cuesta Morua, Havana, 7 May 2016 — I am offering, for
    critical discussion, a viewpoint discussed in more than one place about
    what I consider the progressive and punctilious deconstruction of our
    national project. Cuba is no longer one nation, but rather an unfinished
    project. I will offer this in two parts, not only in line with the needs
    of newspaper publishers, but also so as to not overly exhaust my readers
    with a piece of writing that could become tedious. I insist, however,
    because like many Cubans, I feel the dynamic drive of my country, as
    described by Manuel Manolín González Hernández, “the Salsa doctor” as he
    is called, in his cogent letter to Fidel Castro.

    It is always necessary to think of one nation, but after the fiasco of
    the recently concluded pedagogic 7th Party Congress, in which the
    substantive content of the words were the words themselves, to think of
    the nation plurally, I believe, is an imperative for survival.

    Where is the Cuban nation headed? Almost everyone agrees, as commonly
    expressed, we are all in the same boat. And as the boat must sail in a
    reasonable and civilized way, I believe it is necessary to think and
    discuss, to read and reread, and above all, to imagine.

    As we have been trapped in very harsh political processes, people get
    used to it and are no longer impressed or intimidated by the idea that
    Cuba belongs to a “very special” group of people who are given to
    calling themselves revolutionaries. Cubans and foreigners both, we have
    accepted this classification, which could have great weight and
    standing, but which does not coincide with Cuban culture and
    nationality, which are the two main conditions of belonging to Cuba or
    to any other nation and, above all, the two that can experience
    collateral damage or benefit, according to the angle of position.

    Still today, after the almost grotesque exhaustion of all the most
    respectable meanings of revolution—that of Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela is
    dreadful—many people are put on the defensive for desiring changes for
    Cuba. They must explain that they are not counterrevolutionaries and do
    not want to work in support of “imperialism” without considering that
    the term counterrevolution in Cuba can now acquire the same—exceedingly
    positive—connotation as mambí, the term pejoratively applied by the
    Spanish in the nineteenth century to refer to Cuban insurrectionists,
    that is those who were fighting for Cuba’s independence. And that is not
    right. At least in the arena of words and ideas. The debate of ideas in
    Latin America has lacked mental strength. On the side of the democrats.

    For me, any case, beyond this discussion, the fundamental question that
    must be asked so as not to let oneself be impressed by the psychological
    violence of power is, who defines what? And the Cuban nation is not
    defined by a self-selected group, but by its citizenry: the only
    legitimate body for such an enterprise. Revolution as a source of law is
    a reactionary concept. What is overlooked, perhaps in an opportunistic
    way, is that there comes a time in which the revolutionaries make
    themselves the power, and thus, unfortunately, they have not differed
    either in form or in justifications from more traditional political models.

    In any case—that of Cuba is special in this sense—they have revived
    modes and rationales that were supposedly buried by modernity. A simple
    irony is that, once in power, the revolutionaries openly and profusely
    use the concepts of subversion and stability to defend themselves
    against their adversaries. The least revolutionary concepts that could
    exist, and ones that would be applauded by Prince Metternich, the
    Austrian Chancellor who led the most thunderous conspiracy against the
    French Revolution.

    The second essential thing is the realization that the citizen is the
    legitimator par excellence, if we want to avoid regressing to states of
    more or less divine origin.

    In Cuba we need to define a new country from history, from politics and
    from culture, and from the mentality of subjects and actors in and for
    an inclusive national project. This definition, after all, must include
    a consideration of the international context to explain to ourselves our
    options and possibilities as a nation, something that in Cuba is
    fundamental, because it has historically been defined in negative terms.
    We who should not belong, rather than we who own the nation, is an old
    and unresolved dilemma.

    At the end of the ‘90s and in the early 2000s, Cuba let the beginning of
    the new era pass it by, an era which, from my perspective, began with
    the end of apartheid in South Africa.

    The end of apartheid in South Africa was the stark political expression
    of this cultural movement, and demonstrated the ethical unviability of
    cultural hegemony in territories with diverse populations. Nelson
    Mandela’s reconciliatory solution captured the message that the new
    South African contract could not be based on a new hegemony that
    marginalizes diverse traditions within a single nationality.

    In the Western Hemisphere, this new contract begins in Bolivia, with the
    ascent to power of Evo Morales as a representative of America’s
    forgotten and exploited ancestry. And even though he has been repeating
    the same pattern of hegemony he fought against, his importance is there:
    the Western Hemisphere is open to this cultural movement that defines
    the new legitimacy of future social and political contracts: cultural
    diversity conveyed through the political citizen.

    The latest and most vigorous expression of this movement was the ascent
    to power of Barack Obama in the United States. His arrival brought a
    nuance that confirms the irreversibility of this cultural movement: the
    ascent of cultural minorities, given their capacity to build majorities,
    to the legitimate field of political decisionmaking.

    The new era begins with two connected powers: the power of diversity for
    the civil reconstruction of states and the power of the imagination
    which this diversity provides for solving the problems that the world
    has inherited from the excess of hegemonies based on criteria of
    superiority. It is the clear triumph of the new anthropology and of its
    associated aesthetic, which has few global precedents.

    Cuba, which needed to sign this new contract in order to structure a new
    country, dangerously distanced itself from this global current, 57 years
    after the failure of its own scheme of hegemonies.

    In July of 2006 [ed. note: when Fidel Castro, seriously ill, transferred
    the duties of president to his brother Raul] it seemed that the Cuban
    authorities approached society in order to enter this new era, and in
    order to take the initial steps toward this new contract. Ten years
    later, they irresponsibly wasted the opportunity, only to behold how the
    United States took the initiative within this cultural movement, even
    within Cuba.

    Beyond the contrast or the comparison between the two societies, the
    issue is capital from the strategic point of view, due to the political
    and cultural dispute with which the American political class confronts
    the Cuban government, and the importance of the political decisions in
    Washington for the kinds of defensive responses from the Cuban government.

    The paralysis in the project—which does not proceed—of “structural and
    conceptual changes” that demand the country to reflect, in any case,
    both on the lack of imagination in the current political hegemony of
    Cuba as well as on its inability to absorb the force, the elements and
    the civil consequences of our own cultural diversity, is endangering
    Cuba’s continuity as a viable nation in the medium and long term.

    The danger is also immediate, although its consequences are strategic.
    The accelerated loss of confidence in the government accelerated the
    loss of time-confidence in society and, most importantly, of
    nation-confidence. The fact that an ever increasing number of citizens
    are willing to leave behind revolutionary citizenship in favor of dual
    citizenship is a sign of lack of confidence in Cuba’s possibilities as a
    nation. A message that in Cuba one can live as a Spaniard, as French,
    American or Italian, that is, as a global citizen, but not as a Cuban.

    We have here a first foundational rupture that now confronts two other
    dangers: first, the lack of leadership and vision within the Government
    to address the country’s challenges in a global era; and, second, its
    metaphysical perseverance in the idea of a Revolution that is rapidly
    losing its social registers to strengthen its punitive registers. That
    Revolution is supported more by the police force than by its philosophy.
    First hand out bread, to later offer punishment.

    Source: 57 Years Later: Towards A New Contract For Cuba (Pt. 1) /
    14ymedio, Manuel Cuesta Morua – Translating Cuba –

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *