The ruler Miguel Díaz-Canel defended the current one-party system in Cuba and rejected the notion that political pluralism is a prerequisite for considering a country democratic.
His statements were made in an interview with journalist Mónica Bergamo published this weekend by the Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo.
"Don't be fooled by the idea that multipartyism is the expression of democracy," the leader asserted while trying to justify the Cuban political model, in which the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) has held power for more than six decades and there is no electoral competition.
The discussion arose when Bergamo questioned the system by which the president is elected on the island. Díaz-Canel responded that Cuba is not the only country where the head of state is elected by Parliament and tried to compare the Cuban mechanism with existing systems in Europe.
"Cuba is not the only country where a president is elected by the vote of Parliament. This happens in France and in other European countries. Why are they so concerned about Cuba?" he questioned.
The journalist then pointed out a fundamental difference: the existence of a diversity of political parties.
"Do you really believe that story in Brazil that having many parties means more democracy?" Díaz-Canel replied.
The ruler then went on to defend a definition of democracy based on social rights.
"There is democracy when the majority has the right to life, when there is equality, equity, the right to health and education, regardless of whether there is one party or twenty," he stated.
According to Díaz-Canel, associating democracy with political pluralism would be "another construct" imposed on the world by "capitalist thought" and "neoliberal thought."
Its argument bypasses a central issue in the Cuban political system. On the island, citizens cannot choose between organized political projects competing to govern the country. The PCC constitutionally maintains its status as the leading political force in society and the State.
"There is only one party here, but it seeks to represent all the interests of the Cuban people," Díaz-Canel stated. He also justified the party monopoly by citing "historical reasons" and asserted that Cuba would not accept an organization that, in his opinion, represented the interests of the United States.
"We, for historical reasons, would not accept a party that represents the interests of the United States in Cuba," he said.
The approach reduces the debate on political pluralism to the possibility that a potential opposition force may represent foreign interests, without addressing the possibility that Cubans critical of the socialist system could organize independent parties to advocate for their own political proposals and submit them to a citizen vote.
Díaz-Canel asserts that the president is indeed elected by the people
During the interview, Díaz-Canel insisted that international criticisms of the Cuban electoral system are "distorted." He explained that to become President, one must first become a deputy in the National Assembly and subsequently receive the backing of Parliament.
"Not all of Cuba votes for you as president, but a part of Cuba in your electoral district does vote for you to be a deputy," he stated. He also asserted that the candidates are proposed by "the people" and by "Cuban civil society organizations," not by political parties.
However, the Cuban presidential election does not allow voters to choose directly among multiple candidates for the head of state or to decide between rival political programs.
Díaz-Canel also attacked the U.S. system and stated that the Republican and Democratic candidacies are determined by "elites" and conditioned by electoral funding. "It is a lie. It is not an election of representation based on merit before the population," he asserted.
He later recalled that in the United States, the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide does not necessarily win the Presidency due to the Electoral College system.
The ruler used those criticisms to challenge the notion that the American model can be presented as superior to the Cuban one.
«Where is there more democracy? In the United States or in Cuba?», asked Díaz-Canel.
The statements coincide with a rise in strong international criticism regarding the lack of pluralism and political representation, as well as the limited transparency in the management of the Communist Party, which retains control over all state institutions.
Díaz-Canel himself clearly defined that relationship: "The PCC is a party to lead the Revolution, but it is not an electoral party."
Filed under: