The Cuban scientist and activist Ariel Ruiz Urquiola questioned one of the most sensitive points of the recent report from the Harvard Working Group on the Future of Cuba: the possibility that the authorities currently upholding the political system might act as facilitators in a democratic transition.
In an extensive reflection published on Facebook under the title A New Zanjón: Power, Victims, and the Limits of a Transition Pact with ‘Cuba’, Ruiz Urquiola argues that any democratization project must begin by addressing an essential question: «who truly holds the power and what reasons would they have to relinquish it?».
Her critique directly targets one of the premises outlined in the document prepared by the group of scholars and experts convened by the Cuba Studies Program and the Afro-Latin American Research Institute at Harvard.
The report states that Cuba needs immediate political changes that lead to a legitimate transitional government and asserts: "The Cuban authorities must take the initiative in this process and become facilitators".
Its authors acknowledge that this premise is not shared by all actors inside and outside the island, but they believe that a peaceful solution will require the participation of the current authorities alongside the opposition, civil society, the diaspora, the United States, and the international community.
What would force the regime to cede power?
For Ruiz Urquiola, the main issue is not negotiation. He acknowledges that some historical transitions have involved negotiations, but he warns that these do not lead to democratization on their own if the balance of power does not change beforehand.
The activist cites as an example the Polish transition of 1989 and recalls that the negotiation came after years of resistance from Solidarność, a deep internal crisis, and a geopolitical shift that weakened Soviet support for the communist governments of Eastern Europe.
Drawing on the ideas of nonviolent action by Gene Sharp, Ruiz Urquiola argues that a dictatorship maintains its ability to impose itself as long as it controls its main sources of power: institutions, administration, economic resources, coercive forces, and obedience.
A table can be round and yet the power dynamics surrounding it can be profoundly hierarchical, summarizes.
The objection becomes particularly relevant because the Harvard report itself describes a system in which the Communist Party constitutionally maintains a dominant position, denounces the subordination of fundamental rights to authoritarian structures, and presents GAESA as a kind of “State within the State,” with significant influence over strategic sectors of the Cuban economy.
Political prisoners cannot be "political capital."
Another point of friction is the proposal to initiate the process with a general amnesty and the unconditional release of political prisoners.
Harvard presents this measure as a demand from the Cuban citizenry and not as an imposition from Washington. It suggests that the United States should respond positively to this initiative, starting by lifting the sanctions that impact fuel supply and subsequently providing resources to stabilize the economy and support the reforms.
Ruiz Urquiola warns, however, against any dynamic that could turn releases into a bargaining chip.
"Political prisoners do not represent political capital for the State that imprisoned them", he asserts. In his opinion, releasing a person who has been arbitrarily imprisoned for exercising fundamental rights is not a concession from those in power, but rather "simply the end of an injustice".
From prisoner of conscience to critic of the proposed transition
Ruiz Urquiola's position is also shaped by his own experience with the Cuban repressive apparatus.
The biologist was expelled from the Marine Research Center of the University of Havana, and in 2018
During his imprisonment, he went on a hunger and thirst strike and Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience and called for his release.
Her sister, the art historian and activist Omara Ruiz Urquiola, has also reported arrests, harassment, and political reprisals. After traveling to the United States to continue cancer treatment, Cuban authorities prevented her from returning to the island.
The Harvard report specifically mentions the cases of Omara and Anamely Ramos as examples of the arbitrary restrictions on the right of Cubans to enter their own country, a practice it recommends eliminating.
Reconciliation without impunity
Ruiz Urquiola also identifies a problem he considers insufficiently addressed in any transition: what role victims will have and how responsibilities for human rights violations will be determined.
The activist rejects the notion that justice equates to revenge and argues that even those who have served the regime should have procedural guarantees. He maintains that criminal responsibility must be individual and proven according to the law, rather than simply deriving from political affiliation.
But he warns that avoiding reprisals cannot equate to impunity: «Reconciliation and transitional justice can coexist; reconciliation and the imposition of forgetfulness are fundamentally different concepts».
The Warning of Zanjón and Baraguá
Ruiz Urquiola ultimately uses two episodes from Cuban history to explain his rejection of a negotiation that does not first change the fundamental structures of power: the Pact of Zanjón of 1878 and the subsequent Protest of Baraguá led by Antonio Maceo.
It clarifies that a contemporary negotiation and the Zanjón are not equivalent events, but it finds a similarity: ending a conflict through an agreement does not guarantee that the underlying causes will disappear.
For the activist, a future transition can negotiate timelines, electoral procedures, administrative mechanisms, and institutional guarantees. What should not become a bargaining chip are popular sovereignty, pluralism, freedoms of expression and association, judicial independence, or the subordination of armed bodies to civil authority.
The Harvard report proposes, as the final destination of the process, precisely a new Constituent Assembly, a democratic and plural system, the rule of law, and a social market economy with various forms of ownership, including private ownership.
The discrepancy from Ruiz Urquiola fundamentally lies in how to get there: what would prevent those who currently control the arms, the institutions, and a significant portion of the economic resources from taking advantage of a negotiated transition to retain a substantial portion of their power under a new structure.
«A transition is not synonymous with democratization. A regime can also transform itself to survive», he warns.
His critique ultimately condenses the dilemma into a single phrase: «Cuba needs dialogue, but not the illusion of equality between the oppressor and the oppressed; reconciliation, but not amnesia; guarantees, but not impunity».
Related videos:
Filed under: