Miguel Díaz-Canel has just starred in a political paradox that is hard to overlook.
The same leader who has downplayed multipartyism, defended the one-party system, and championed the so-called "unity of powers" in Cuba enthusiastically celebrated a scene that is only possible within a pluralistic democracy.
The protagonist was the Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a veteran opponent of the sanctions policy against Cuba, who during a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee lashed out at the administration's policy of Donald Trump toward the island.
Waters blamed that policy for worsening the difficulties faced by Cubans, asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, why he was being “so cruel,” also described Trump as “cruel,” and even inquired whether the Secretary had to behave like a “puppet” of the President. She also warned that history would not look favorably upon the administration for its actions towards Cuba.
Díaz-Canel was delighted.
"With the dignity that distinguishes her, Democratic Representative Maxine Waters has challenged the Secretary of the Treasury for the criminal policy of #Blockade," she wrote on her social media.
And she added, "Thank you, Maxine, as you rightly say, history will not forgive them. And it will recognize the honorable Americans who denounce the crime."
Beyond Waters' stance on sanctions, the episode raises a question that Díaz-Canel's message sidesteps: the political conditions that enabled that intervention.
An opposition member against the Government
Waters belongs to the Democratic Party; Trump to the Republican. She is part of the opposition and can use her institutional position to oversee the Executive.
Bessent, despite being the Secretary of the Treasury for the president, must appear before a Congress where those who openly reject the administration's policies also have a voice.
That is why Waters can accuse the Government of cruelty, directly question the president, and continue to serve as a congresswoman. Her disagreement with the Executive does not undermine her legitimacy as a representative, nor does it position her as an adversary of the United States.
Behind that scene there are parties competing for power, institutional opposition, parliamentary oversight, and the freedom to publicly confront the Government.
Where is the Cuban Maxine Waters?
Díaz-Canel has insisted that multipartyism does not constitute a measure of democracy. He has also defended the "unity of powers" and presented the usual unanimity of the National Assembly as an expression of Cuban political consensus.
His praise for Waters allows for shifting that discussion from theory to a concrete example: where is its institutional equivalent in Cuba?
It's not about finding someone who thinks like her. The comparison calls for a deputy from an opposition party who can publicly question a minister, hold the government accountable for a crisis, criticize Díaz-Canel's policies, and present citizens with an alternative to replace the ruling party.
That figure does not exist in the Cuban political structure.
The Constitution establishes that the Communist Party is the only one and constitutes the "highest leading political force of society and the State". Discrepancies may exist among citizens, but they must not turn into competition between parties for control of the government.
There lies an essential difference. Waters can be against Trump without being against the United States, and her party can openly aspire to defeat the president’s party.
In Cuba, there is no equivalent mechanism through which a political opposition can attempt to replace the PCC.
The problem is not what Waters said
Waters may be right, wrong, or partially correct in her assessment of the sanctions. That discussion is separate from the issue revealed by Díaz-Canel's gratitude.
What is significant is the position from which he/she was able to utter those words.
Díaz-Canel did not merely praise a supportive American citizen of Havana. He praised a member of the opposition acting from a state institution and using her parliamentary authority to confront the Executive.
For this reason, the episode is uncomfortable for the official Cuban rhetoric. While the Havana government typically presents party pluralism as an unnecessary element for measuring democracy, here one of its international adversaries is challenged precisely through that pluralism.
The comparison also does not require idealizing the American system. Its flaws, inequalities, and political conflicts can be analyzed independently. The point is much more concrete: Waters has an institutional platform to confront the Government because organized political dissent is part of the system.
The question left by gratitude
The message of gratitude from Miguel Díaz-Canel aimed to reinforce his criticism of Washington's policy, but ended up also providing a curious practical demonstration of the value of institutions that his political discourse often downplays.
You can use Waters' words against Trump. It is much more difficult to explain why Cubans do not have a parliamentary opposition capable of performing a similar role against their government.
That is the point that your gratitude leaves open: if political pluralism and organized opposition are expendable for democracy, why are they so valuable when they produce a favorable critique of Havana from Washington?
Related videos:
Filed under: