Economist warns that Cuba is facing the "end of the illusion" amidst its worst economic crisis

Cuban economist Mauricio de Miranda Parrondo stated that the political and economic model of the island is at a critical point that could signal “the end of the illusion” of the regime's permanence, in an article published in The New York Times.

The core ideas of the text were shared on Facebook by economist Pedro Monreal, who recommended reading the analysis in the context of severe economic deterioration in the country.

"The economy was already on the brink of collapse."

De Miranda argues that the current situation is not solely the result of external factors, but rather "decades of structural economic failure under a rigid political system that has consistently resisted any reform."

According to the academic, although the recent measures by the Trump administration to restrict oil shipments to Cuba have increased pressure, the economy was "already on the brink of collapse."

Cuba is experiencing one of the most severe crises in decades, marked by prolonged blackouts, chronic shortages of food and medication, uncontrolled inflation, and massive emigration that has significantly reduced the workforce.

Political rigidity as an obstacle

The article emphasizes that the 2019 Constitution declares the socialist system to be "irrevocable," but it warns that "no system is permanent."

"The Cuban regime has confused its survival with eternity. Now the game may be over," the text points out.

De Miranda argues that the fear that an economic openness might lead to political changes has led the State to maintain a strict control over the economy, preventing deep reforms and allowing the crisis to worsen “beyond the point of no return.”

"The extreme rigidity of the country's totalitarian political system has become the main obstacle to the urgent reforms needed in the economy. Without a political transformation, economic recovery will remain an illusion," he concludes.

Growing debate

The economist's reflections contribute to a growing debate among academics and analysts regarding the viability of the current model, as the population faces increasingly precarious material conditions.

While the government attributes the crisis mainly to the U.S. embargo and external factors, critical voices argue that the problem is structural and stems from a lack of deep reforms in the economic and political system.