Related videos:
The post from CiberCuba regarding the statements made by Miguel Díaz-Canel —who stated that “Washington does not decide whether I go or stay”— triggered a significant wave of reactions on Facebook in less than 24 hours.
The comments once again revealed the strong discontent of many Cubans and users connected to the reality of the island, in a debate dominated by criticisms of the ruler, demands for free elections, and questioning the legitimacy of the Cuban political system.
One of the most repeated ideas among readers was that, beyond what the "appointed by hand" says, in Cuba, neither Washington nor the people truly decide, but rather the power elite.
Several comments emphasized this point: “Raúl decides,” “That's decided by the Castros,” “You don't have authority, they put you there,” or “Neither Washington nor the people: it's decided by whoever appointed you.”
That perception emerged consistently throughout the thread and displayed a deep skepticism towards the official narrative that the continuity of the appointed ruler depends on the citizens and their representatives.
Another highly visible block of reactions revolved around a specific demand: free, plural, and supervised elections.
Numerous users questioned Díaz-Canel's appeal to the "people" when, as they pointed out, Cubans cannot freely choose their leaders.
"Cubans should decide it in free elections," wrote one person. Another expressed the sentiment of many with a straightforward phrase: "Let the people decide, but through voting, like in all countries."
Messages such as “Hold free elections and we will see”, “Let there be a referendum with neutral observers”, “Introduce an opposition party and we will see what the people say”, and “If it depends on the people, then you can leave now” were also repeated.
The idea that the Cuban people have not been able to truly decide about their leaders was another widely discussed point. “The people have never decided about them,” stated a user. Another wrote: “No one elected you.”
In similar terms, several readers pointed out that the National Assembly of People's Power does not represent an authentic popular will, but rather a closed structure subordinate to the Communist Party.
"The Assembly where everyone claps for the same thing", "They are not representatives of the people," and "That is not decided by the people, it is decided by a biased assembly" were some of the repeated statements in the debate.
Alongside political claims, the comments were also permeated by frustration over the material crisis that the country is experiencing.
Many users directly linked Díaz-Canel's tenure with the daily decline of life in Cuba. “While you remain, the country is falling apart,” said one person in one of the messages most shared by other readers.
In another comment, it read: “The people are still hungry and you refuse to relinquish power.” Others spoke of “blackouts,” “misery,” “poverty,” “absent electricity,” “lack of food,” and “desperation.”
That contrast between the official discourse and the daily experience of Cubans was one of the most sensitive points of the thread. "Don't speak for the people," one user demanded.
Another person wrote that "the life of the working people is a misery," while a resident of Havana noted that they spend entire days "without electricity and without connection." Several interventions agreed that social discontent can no longer be separated from the political fatigue of the regime.
In addition to the substantive criticisms, the publication generated a huge amount of mocking comments. Many compared Díaz-Canel to Nicolás Maduro and suggested that his speech resembles that of other leaders who, according to those users, also considered themselves untouchable.
"This is what Maduro said", "Maduro Season 2", "Remember your brother Madurito" and "Ask Maduro" were phrases that were repeated time and again.
There were also many ironic remarks about a possible fall or departure of the ruler. Some comments stated: “He won't leave, they'll force him out,” “That's already been decided, it's just that you don't know it,” “It's better for you to leave before they kick you out,” or “Just as you arrived, you will leave.”
Others chose a more sarcastic tone: “Stay and see how it goes for you,” “Your reservation is already made,” or “Maduro asked about his cellmate.”
Even among those who rejected any potential foreign interference, the idea was echoed that the legitimate mechanism for addressing the continuity of Díaz-Canel should be an authentic popular consultation. “It shouldn’t be decided by Washington, it should be decided by the Cuban people,” summarized one of those messages, marking a significant difference from the official position of the regime.
Another striking element was the number of readers who interpreted the ruler's words as a sign of nervousness or weakness. "He is provoking to see who really decides," read one comment.
Another wrote: “When a dog barks a lot, it is nervous.” Several messages suggested that the ruler is trying to project strength, but that his statements reflect pressure and fear during an especially delicate moment.
Overall, the conversation sparked by the note from CiberCuba (over 3,000 comments in less than 24 hours) revealed a clear pattern: there was a prevailing rejection of Díaz-Canel, distrust towards Cuban institutions, and a demand for the people to determine the political future of the country through free elections.
The impact of the economic crisis on public perception of the first secretary of the Communist Party was also evident, with many blaming him for the worsening conditions of life on the island.
The avalanche of comments confirmed that any statement from the ruler regarding his stay in power strikes a particularly sensitive chord among Cubans.
It is not just a rhetorical dispute with the United States, but a much deeper discussion about legitimacy, representation, and the exhaustion of a model that, in the eyes of many readers who reacted on Facebook, no longer provides answers to the national crisis.
Filed under: