The Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel once again passionately defended the island's political system, denying that Cuba is a dictatorship and asserting that the Cuban socialist model is more democratic than the political system of the United States.
In an interview granted to Brazilian journalist Breno Altman, broadcasted from the so-called "Palace of the Revolution" on the YouTube channel of the Presidency of Cuba, the leader stated that "the Cuban electoral and political system is more democratic than the touted system that the U.S. wants to impose on the whole world."
“Our electoral system and our political system is more democratic than that of the United States. Just because we are a single party does not mean we are less democratic or less participatory,” he asserted, in an attempt to justify the absence of political pluralism on the island.
In the same delirious discourse, Díaz-Canel referred to what he considers a political hypocrisy of the liberal model, questioning how the American country can act as a "champion of democracy" while, according to him, it suppresses protests and maintains an exclusionary system of representation.
“Who is the dictator and who is the dictatorship?”, asked the ruler who on July 11, 2021, issued the notorious “combat order” to the “revolutionaries” to go out and violently repress the first peaceful and spontaneous demonstrations led on a national scale by the people of Cuba in over 60 years of communist totalitarianism.
Structural crisis and official discourse
The statements from the leader appointed by the dictator Raúl Castro come amid a deep economic and social crisis on the island, characterized by prolonged blackouts, rampant inflation, shortages of basic products, deterioration of health and education services, and an unprecedented migratory exodus.
During the interview, Díaz-Canel also addressed the students' rejection of the recent increase in internet tariffs by ETECSA, noting that the discontent was "amplified by platforms of haters" who, according to him, tried to politically capitalize on the unrest.
"The enemy saw that there was discontent and sought to capitalize on it. They started with lies and fake news,” he declared without providing concrete evidence."
In a farce cloaked in "self-criticism," the leader acknowledged that the national crisis cannot be explained solely by the U.S. embargo. “It would be dishonest to say that mistakes have not been made. There have been inconsistencies and failures in the implementation of economic measures that have not had the full impact possible,” he admitted.
Among the internal problems, he mentioned the failure of the Ordering Task, inefficiency in state management, corruption, the low investment in strategic sectors such as agriculture and renewable energy, and the constant brain drain of professionals from the country. Furthermore, he acknowledged the worsening of indicators such as infant mortality and the shortage of medicines.
Political Philosophy of a Closed Regime
Díaz-Canel's words not only defend the statu quo of the Cuban system but also reveal a political philosophy deeply rooted in the denial of pluralism. According to his vision, true democracy does not require political alternation or division of powers, but rather unity under a legitimate “revolutionary” leadership.
This idea has been reiterated in other remarks by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC).
In 2021, Díaz-Canel openly asserted that there is no separation of powers in Cuba, but rather a "unity of powers," justifying that all state functions stem from the people and, therefore, can be concentrated under a single structure. In that same logic, the PCC —the only legal party— is presented as the sole guarantor of popular sovereignty.
From a political theory perspective, these ideas refer to concepts inherent in authoritarianism and totalitarianism, where the State does not acknowledge legitimate opposition, suppresses dissent, and establishes itself as the sole interpreter of the collective will.
Citizen participation is limited to consensus, and elections do not serve as mechanisms of competition but rather as symbolic ratifications of the already established power.
The claim that the Cuban system is more democratic than the American one does not hold up under an analysis based on fundamental criteria of representative democracy: political pluralism, judicial independence, freedom of expression and the press, alternation in power, and citizen oversight of public management.
In Cuba, as tragically supported by empirical evidence—along with reports and studies from international and non-governmental organizations—none of these conditions are met.
An assembly without debate
In the interview, Díaz-Canel reiterated that the National Assembly of People's Power is “the most representative in the world”, as it includes individuals from diverse social, racial, and professional backgrounds.
However, the leader overlooked the fact that all its members are pre-approved by commissions controlled by the PCC, with no possibility for open competition or opposition representation.
In recent years, this parliament has unanimously approved all proposals from the Executive, without a single vote against, which reinforces the perception that it functions more as a ceremonial body than a legislative one, similar to those in North Korea, Russia, China, and Belarus.
Formal diversity (by age, gender, or occupation) loses all democratic significance if it is not accompanied by freedom of thought, expression, and critique. Without these conditions, representation is merely decorative and serves the interests of the dominant power.
Reality versus narrative
Although Díaz-Canel attempts to project an image of resistance, unity, and sovereignty, the reality perceived by a significant portion of Cuban society is different.
Living conditions deteriorate each day, the official discourse becomes increasingly discredited, and the political model continues to fail to provide real spaces for debate or effective participation.
In the face of a collapsed economic system and an institutionality lacking democratic control mechanisms, the occupant of the Palace's call to "respond with talent, creativity, and innovation" sounds hollow to millions of Cubans who barely survive amid blackouts, shortages, and repression.
By denying that Cuba is a dictatorship and insisting on the moral superiority of his model, Díaz-Canel not only disregards the experiences of his people but also shuts the door to any substantive political reform.
Her stance does not represent a defense of democracy, but rather a discursive legitimization of a closed, vertical, and exclusionary regime.
Filed under:
