Miguel Díaz-Canel has just played a role in a political paradox that is hard to ignore.
The same leader who has downplayed multi-partyism, 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 criticized the administration's policy of Donald Trump towards the island.
Waters held that policy accountable for exacerbating the difficulties faced by Cubans, asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, why he was being "so cruel," labeled Trump as "cruel" as well, and even questioned the Secretary on whether he had to behave like a "puppet" of the president. She also warned that history would not judge the administration favorably for its actions towards Cuba.
Díaz-Canel was delighted.
"With the dignity that sets her apart, Democratic representative Maxine Waters has challenged the Secretary of the Treasury over the criminal policy of #Blockade," she wrote on her social media.
And he added, "Thank you, Maxine. As you rightly said, history will not forgive them. It will recognize the honorable Americans who denounce the crime."
Beyond Waters' position on sanctions, the episode raises a question that Díaz-Canel's message avoids: the political conditions that made that intervention possible.
An opposition leader against the Government
Waters belongs to the Democratic Party; Trump, to the Republican Party. 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 vehemently oppose 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 call into question her legitimacy as a representative, nor does it make her an opponent of the United States.
Behind that scene 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 multiparty systems are not 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 us to shift 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 demands a congressperson from an opposition party who can publicly question a minister, hold the government accountable for a crisis, challenge Díaz-Canel's policies, and present an alternative to replace the ruling party to the citizens.
That figure does not exist in the Cuban political structure.
The Constitution establishes that the Communist Party is the only party and constitutes the "leading political force of society and the state". Disagreement may exist among citizens, but it cannot transform 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 seek 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. This discussion is separate from the matter revealed by Díaz-Canel's gratitude.
What is significant is the position from which he was able to utter those words.
Díaz-Canel did not merely praise a supportive American citizen towards Havana. He praised a member of the opposition acting from a state institution and using her parliamentary authority to confront the Executive.
That's why the episode is uncomfortable for the official Cuban rhetoric. While the Havana government usually presents party pluralism as an expendable element to measure democracy, here one of its international adversaries is questioned precisely through that pluralism.
The comparison does not require idealizing the American system either. Its defects, inequalities, and political conflicts can be analyzed separately. The point is much more concrete: Waters has an institutional space to confront the Government because organized political dissent is part of the system.
The question that gratitude leaves behind
The message of gratitude from Miguel Díaz-Canel aimed to reinforce his denunciation against Washington's policies, but additionally provided a curious practical demonstration of the value of institutions that his political discourse often tends to downplay.
You can use Waters' words against Trump. It is more difficult to explain why Cubans do not have a parliamentary opposition capable of performing a similar function against their government.
That is the point that his gratitude leaves open: if political pluralism and organized opposition are dispensable for democracy, why are they so valuable when they produce a favorable critique of Havana from Washington?
Filed under: