Miguel Díaz-Canel once again spoke on behalf of millions of Cubans to attribute to them a collective political will: to resist, defend socialism, and, if necessary, mobilize to protect the alleged "self-determination" of the country.
“Cuba has not capitulated,” he stated during a recent speech before assuring that among the country’s responses is “the defense of the entire territory with a people transformed into militias and ready to defend their self-determination, their independence, and sovereignty.”
But who gave Díaz-Canel the right to decide what all Cubans are willing to defend?
The question is particularly relevant in a country where the leader did not come to power through free, direct, and multi-party presidential elections in which citizens could choose between rival candidates and political projects.
Díaz-Canel was elected president by the National Assembly within the Cuban institutional system, but Cubans have never been able to decide at the polls whether they prefer him to govern or another opposition candidate, nor to choose between the continuity of the socialist system and a different political alternative.
That’s why, when the ruler speaks of "self-determination," another question arises: what self-determination?
In which competitive election were Cubans able to freely decide that the Communist Party should continue as the sole political force leading the State? When were they able to vote between socialism and another model? At what point were they able to directly choose Díaz-Canel over opposition candidates?
The sovereignty of a country should not be confused with the permanence of a government nor with the survival of a particular political system or project for decades.
And self-determination cannot be limited to the right of the Cuban state to reject foreign pressures while within the island citizens are prohibited from freely determining, through political pluralism, who governs them.
Resisting blackouts, inflation, and long lines
The contradiction becomes even more evident because Díaz-Canel immediately acknowledged some of the conditions that the population endures.
Yes, we have many shortcomings. We are burdened by power outages, water shortages, inflation, and long lines, he admitted.
But those deprivations returned to his discourse not as reasons to question the management of power, but as a backdrop for another demonstration of resistance.
"None of the material shortages has extinguished the flame of solidarity," he stated.
Later, he became even more explicit by attributing to the people a political will in favor of the continuity of the system.
"The response of the people, under the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba, has been steadfast and creative resistance, unity, and the defense of their achievements [...] never renouncing the principles of socialism and never yielding to pressure or blackmail," he said, before also speaking about the "heroic Cuban people."
The pattern repeats: the regime recognizes the hardships and then transforms them into resistance; it acknowledges sacrifice and turns it into heroism; it speaks of sovereignty and equates it with the defense of the system; it discusses self-determination while denying the possibility for that self-determination to be expressed through open political competition.
And what if a part of the people no longer wants to continue "resisting"?
Cuba is not a politically uniform society, despite the official discourse's insistence on referring to "the people" as a single voice.
The protests of July 11, 2021 left behind a hard-to-erase evidence: thousands of citizens took to the streets to express discontent that included political demands and cries of "freedom." The state’s response included arrests and subsequent prison sentences for numerous protesters.
There are also Cubans who have emigrated, opponents, political prisoners, activists, independent journalists, and those who simply do not share the socialist project.
Do they belong to the "people"?When does Díaz-Canel speak on his behalf?
Are they also "willing" to defend the system that persecutes, censors, or politically excludes them? Or does the category of "people" stop including them precisely when they express a will different from the one the regime attributes to them?
Díaz-Canel has the right to defend socialism and to ask those who share his views to defend it as well. What is much more questionable is claiming to represent the will of an entire nation and presenting something that citizens have never been able to decide through free, competitive, and multiparty elections as a collective decision.
Because if the government is so certain that the Cuban people want to resist, sacrifice, and defend the "achievements of the revolution" and socialism, there is a much more convincing way to demonstrate it than repeating it from a podium: allowing Cubans to speak for themselves and decide freely at the polls.
Filed under: