José Antonio Saco in front of today's Cuba: How to regain the dignity of a nation?

There are men who belong to their time and others who, many years after their death, return to ask us questions. José Antonio Saco is one of them. Not because his answers can be mechanically transferred to the 21st century. That would be to turn history into a catechism. Saco lived in a different Cuba, in another era and faced other conflicts. But he had a concern that resonates with us today with extraordinary strength: what should Cuba do to avoid ceasing to be Cuba.

Saco did not begin his political journey as the man we know for his opposition to annexation. His thoughts evolved. He was a reformist, an advocate for education, and a critic of the colonial regime. For years, he believed that an autonomous solution within the Spanish monarchy was possible. But another possibility emerged before him: the annexation of Cuba to the United States. Saco studied it and fought against it.

In 1848, he published "Ideas on the Incorporation of Cuba into the United States," where he expressed his fundamental fear: that incorporation would ultimately lead to absorption, and that Cuba would lose its national identity. This concern deserves to be taken seriously. Because Saco was not just defending a territory; he was defending the dignity of a nation.

The problem is that we live in another century 

In the 19th century, many Cubans looked towards the United States in search of a solution for the Island. Annexionism was part of the major political debates in Cuba at that time. This should not surprise us. Cuba was living under a colonial regime that denied political rights and kept society oppressed. For some, annexation offered republican institutions, prosperity, and a break from Spanish rule.

Saco saw those arguments, but he feared the price. He feared that Cuba would cease to be Cuba. We, however, have lived an experience that Saco could never have imagined. We have verified that a nation can preserve its territory, its flag, and its symbols while simultaneously losing a significant part of its freedoms.

For decades, we were taught that independence was an automatic synonym for freedom. History shows that this is not necessarily the case. An independent country can be a dictatorship. It may have sovereignty over foreign affairs while lacking sovereignty against its own state. It can have a flag, an anthem, and borders, and yet have citizens who are not free to think, express themselves, associate, or choose. And that is the great tragedy of Cuba.

Saco feared the absorption of Cuba by a foreign power. We have experienced another form of absorption: the absorption of the individual by the State.

We don't need another catechism

This is where Saco becomes relevant again. Not to tell us what we should choose, but to remind us that Cuba's destiny must be discussed with Cuba in mind, and, above all, with Cubans in mind.

We must not turn Saco into a statue to repeat his words. We must regain his capacity for thought. He examined the annexation, rejected it, and defended Cuban national identity. But he was also a man of his time, with contradictions and limitations characteristic of that century. That does not diminish his greatness; it enhances it. Because history does not need saints. It needs men capable of thinking. And Saco thought.

That is why today we can pose a question that he could not answer: what path can restore to Cuba the freedom it lost? We should not respond to it with an inherited "never" or an imposed "always."

If Cubans wanted to build an independent Republic based on freedoms, the rule of law, property, free elections, and prosperity, that would be their right. But if one day, freely and without coercion, they deemed it appropriate to consider a formula for political association with the United States, why should even the discussion be prohibited?

The decision should belong to the Cubans. Not to Madrid. Not to Washington. Not to Moscow. Not to any government. To the Cubans.

Recovering dignity

Perhaps we have spent too much time discussing symbols and too little on citizens. What is the point of proclaiming absolute independence if the citizen cannot speak freely? What is the value of sovereignty that does not guarantee prosperity? What is the use of a flag if under it a people live in fear?

National dignity cannot be reduced to a single word. It must exist in concrete life: in those who can express their thoughts, choose their destiny, work, thrive, vote without fear, and criticize the government without becoming an enemy of the homeland for it.

That is also independence. Perhaps it is the independence we have lacked the most. That’s why I don’t want to use José Antonio Saco to conclude a discussion. I want to use him to open one. He asked how to prevent Cuba from ceasing to be Cuba. We, after more than six decades of communism, must ask ourselves an even more urgent question: how can we ensure that Cuba returns to being for the Cubans?

I don't know what the definitive political formula for that Cuba will be. But I do know what I don't want for her: another Cuba without freedom. That’s why my position starts from something prior to any political formula: human dignity. And from there, we must discuss without fear.

Annexation or independent republic: both, if freely chosen by the Cubans and ensuring freedom, rights, prosperity, and dignity, would represent a higher link than the system that today has condemned Cuba to failure.

The discussion should not be about which word sounds more patriotic. The real question is a different one: what path returns to Cubans the possibility of once again being masters of their own destiny? Perhaps that is where the recovery of our lost dignity truly begins.