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 supposed “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 population transformed into militias ready to defend its self-determination, 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 the Cubans have never been able to decide at the ballot box whether they prefer him to govern or another opposing candidate, nor to choose between the continuity of the socialist system and a different political alternative.
Therefore, 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 ruling political force of the State? When were they able to vote between socialism and an alternative model? At what point could they directly choose Díaz-Canel over opposition candidates?
The sovereignty of a country should not be confused with the permanence of a government or with the survival of a specific political system or project for decades.
And self-determination cannot be restricted to the right of the Cuban state to reject foreign pressures while within the island citizens are prevented from freely determining through political pluralism who governs them.
Resisting blackouts, inflation, and queues
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 overwhelmed by blackouts, the lack of water, inflation, and long lines, he admitted.
But those deprivations reappeared in his speech not as reasons to question the exercise of power, but as a backdrop for another demonstration of resilience.
"No material deprivation 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 firm and creative resistance, unity, and the defense of their achievements [...] never renouncing the principles of socialism and not yielding to pressures or blackmail, he said, before also speaking of the “heroic Cuban people.”
The pattern is repetitive: the regime acknowledges the hardships and then transforms them into resistance; recognizes sacrifice and turns it into heroism; speaks of sovereignty and equates it with the defense of the system; talks about self-determination while denying the possibility of that self-determination being expressed through an open political competition.
And what if a part of the people no longer wants to keep "resisting"?
Cuba is not a politically uniform society, despite the official discourse insisting on referring to "the people" as a single voice.
The protests of July 11, 2021 left a difficult-to-erase evidence: thousands of citizens took to the streets to express discontent that included political demands and cries for "freedom." The state's response included arrests and subsequent prison sentences for many protesters.
There are also Cubans who have emigrated, opposition members, political prisoners, activists, independent journalists, and those who simply do not share the socialist project.
Do they form part of the "people" when Díaz-Canel speaks on their 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 that differs from what the regime attributes to them?
Díaz-Canel has the right to defend socialism and to ask those who share his ideas to uphold it. What is much more questionable is to appropriate the will of an entire nation and to present something that citizens have never been able to resolve through free, competitive, and multiparty elections as a collective decision.
Because if the government is so sure 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 this than by repeating it from a podium: allowing Cubans to speak for themselves and decide freely at the polls.
Filed under: