The Cuban economist Pedro Monreal published a lengthy article this Sunday in which he steps away from his usual technical style to make an explicit defense of the democratic rule of law in Cuba, rejecting the arguments that disqualify it by comparing the Island to the imperfect democracies of Latin America.
The text, titled "The democratic rule of law in Cuba and the pessimism of comparison with the imperfect," appeared on his X account (@pmmonreal) and on his Substack. Those who follow Monreal know that his posts typically focus on inflation, wages, monetary policy, and state enterprise —technical analyses, not political proclamations— which makes this text a significant shift within his public trajectory.
The starting argument is straightforward: "I once again hear the criticism directed at those of us who propose economic transformations aimed at establishing a democratic rule of law in Cuba, and once more the criticism is that promoting it makes no sense because democratic governments in Latin America fail. This is a mistake in analysis and prioritization."
Monreal clearly distinguishes between Latin American issues—corruption, populism, inequality—and those of Cuba: «the constitutional monopoly of a single party, the complete absence of electoral competition, and the systematic sustained repression of peaceful political dissent for more than six decades».
Invoking the first to evade the debate about the second is, in your words, "indulging in the pessimism of comparison with the imperfect."
The economist also dismantles the official concept of "socialist rule of law," which the 2019 Constitution enshrines by defining the Communist Party of Cuba as "the superior political leading force of society and the State." According to Monreal, this formulation is "a rhetorical construction because it serves as a tool for preserving power, not as a limit."
From that structural basis, the text raises the criticism that Monreal has maintained for months against the package of 176 measures approved by the National Assembly in June 2026.
What was previously described as a "monster" or "deformed hybrid" for incorporating market elements without fully recognizing private property, is now categorized within a deeper pattern: "there is a very high likelihood that it fits into a recurring pattern of large plans—ordering, model updates, correction of distortions—that are designed from the political-party center, and when their diagnoses and plans fail, there are no substantial consequences for those in power.
The conclusion is that no economic reform can succeed while the political design remains unchanged: «Without institutional opposition or judicial independence, there is no pressure to reevaluate the very principle of placing oneself above all. The result is a succession of ambitious plans that exacerbate poverty and failure, without the responsible political subject losing the ability to continue making decisions».
The article is situated within Monreal's trajectory as one of the five authors of the project “Cuba Transformation,” a 120-page proposal developed alongside Mauricio de Miranda Parrondo, Omar Everleny Pérez Villanueva, Ricardo Torres Pérez, and Pavel Vidal Alejandro, with the support of the Cuba Study Group and the Observatory on the Cuban Economy.
That roadmap proposes to replace the centralized model with a social market economy linked to a democratic rule of law, and explicitly rejects the Chinese or Vietnamese model of economic reforms without equivalent political democratization.
What is exactly negative, in terms of democratic principles and institutional effectiveness —the economist asks— in having sovereignty reside in the people and not in the PCC?
The same question applies to other issues: What is wrong "with political parties representing the citizens without holding power or being able to appropriate the State?"
What is wrong "with power being exercised through temporary mandates obtained in free and multiparty elections?" Or in "that no decision made by a majority can suppress dignity, equality before the law, or the guarantees that protect minorities?"
And finally, what is wrong "with the idea that inalienable freedoms are not concessions from the government, but rights that the power cannot abolish (although it can regulate their exercise), including the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the freedom of opinion and expression, the freedom to seek, receive, and disseminate information, academic and creative freedom, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of association (including parties, unions, and civil organizations), and the right to due process, to defense, and to an independent and impartial judge?"
Monreal concludes the article with a direct challenge to those who oppose democratization:
Cuba systematically fails to meet these criteria. It would be beneficial to clearly state whether any of the items listed above are detrimental to citizen welfare, national sovereignty, and development. Let’s examine that first, and then we can discuss historical experiences in Latin America and elsewhere.
Related videos:
Filed under: