Citizens and Government

To speak of democracy in the economically strapped Cuba of today, one must inevitably face the reality that the country's material problems are depriving its citizens of their legitimate right to full satisfaction of basic needs, a precept enshrined and practiced by the Cuban socialist project since 1959. But Cuba's parliamentary president, Ricardo Alarcon, tackles the questions posed by Bohemia magazine head on.

Do we live in a democracy?

Interview with Ricardo Alarcon, President of the Cuban Parliament (taken from the Cuban magazine Bohemia-Translation from Spanish by Amigos de Cuba)

Alarcon recalled the origins of the Greek term democracy - which translates as government by the people - in the ancient Greek city-state, long before it became contaminated by the political chicanery of our times. The Greeks were the first culture in Western civilization to approach the problem from the perspective of a need for all citizens to participate in government. We must remember, however, that their "all" did not include the slaves and serfs, and democracy was thus flawed from its very inception.

"If we follow the debate to the present day, the problem of equality has always been central. The classical philosophers such as Plato saw the problem as one of the relationship between democracy - or the people's authority - and equality. How can people govern themselves if there are profound inequalities among them?"

Without departing from the roots of this important concept, Ricardo Alarcon referred to another stumbling block encountered in the process of governing democratically: the impossibility of having everyone constantly assembled in one place. This predicament gave rise to the notion of representation and what some refer to as representative democracy. "The political structure is then founded on a representative system whereby the people elect someone to act in their name, but if the society remains divided by inequalities between its people, representativeness will logically suffer. Rousseau asked: how is it possible, if a few have too much and others have nothing, to find among them somebody who can represent everyone? We can conclude then that representative democracy, as such, is fiction, given that the problem of representativeness under conditions of human inequality cannot be resolved."

The president of Cuba's parliament then introduced a new element in his in-depth examination of this topic: the relationship between the representative and those represented. "There is a bourgeois conception of democracy which holds that the representative acts on behalf of those represented; in other words, the former assumes the people's sovereignty, because sovereignty is not of the sovereign, it isn't inherited from God. But as the people can't exercise this sovereignty on a daily basis, they elect a few people and vest it in them. This doesn't work in practice if solutions have not been found to the problems of inequality and of the relationship between representative and represented." "Although the representatives need to be able to make decisions among themselves, I believe that a key factor - above and beyond the ideology of any particular democratic system - is the ability to establish linking mechanisms between the electorate and their elected representatives; a far cry from that comical definition which says you have placed your sovereignty in me so I am sovereign from now on."

Elections: a narrow definition

The Greeks, genuinely concerned with finding an equitable and workable form of government among equals, set about the task of creating democracy. Centuries later, it appears that Western politicians have dismembered or at best oversimplified the concept of democracy, mounting their campaigns on certain aspects of the problem without attempting to find durable solutions. According to Alarcon, under the systems of so-called representative democracy, the degree of participation by the everyday citizen is limited to the electoral act itself, which explains why there is such low voter turnout in the West, as the individual doesn't see his problems being solved at the ballot box. Alarcon makes the necessary comparison with Cuba: "Our democracy includes elections that provide for and must inevitably establish a system of representatives, but the primary emphasis is on participation of the people. I would be very concerned if the level of involvement were to subside, if the public were to grow indifferent toward their government."

"The philosophy behind our system promotes the development of the uncorrupted elements inherent in the original conceptions of democracy, of a political system in which the people participate in government, which does not mean simply voting in periodic elections. The other way is a reductionist approach focusing on one aspect of the problem, and condemned to fail; those who prescribe to it find that people simply lose interest. Putting government by the people into practice - which implies their real involvement in the political system - is, in my view, the essence of democracy and I'm not talking about socialism or capitalism. Although only true socialism can create real popular participation." "I prescribe to what Plato, Rousseau and others who have delved into this whole problem had to say - that a solution to the issue of inequality is paramount. When a political project is based on unheard of levels of equality, then the possibility exists of establishing truly democratic forms within an institutional and political framework; in other words, there is a possibility of realizing what the thinkers saw as a utopia." "Putting into practice a system of government by the people is not easy. Apart from resolving the basic problems of equality and building a system which allows participation to be channeled, much work still remains in terms of creating awareness in people as to the citizen's role in a democratic system, given the prevailing belief that another governs for you, that the citizen is an object rather than a subject and main player in the system of government; that the government is one thing and the people are another."

Cuba's contribution to democracy

Alarcon doesn't idealize Cuba's democratic system: he considers its principles to be just while readily admitting its deficiencies. His words do suggest, however, that the Cubans have made a real contribution toward materializing the originating principles of that true form of democracy which man has dreamt about through history. "To really achieve a system in which the citizen becomes a full participant exercising his authority among all others is easier said than done." Alarcon cites the recent debates held at places of employment throughout Cuba - the workers' parliaments - the major proposals of which were assembled in a paper and then analyzed by the deputies, "because it is physically impossible to hold a discussion with eleven million Cubans at the same time". Alarcon sees the promotion of parliamentary concepts and practices within Cuban society as a way of resolving the problem of collective participation in government.

Is Cuba's electoral system unique?

Cuba is not the only country, for example, which elects Deputies and then has the parliament elect the government; in this respect Cuba is the same as Britain. The system of circumscriptions is also prevalent in some countries, including England.

"With respect to candidates being nominated by the people themselves, I don't know of any place where it is similar because in other countries the candidates are chosen by the parties and the bottom line of the democratic game is competition among various candidates. Which almost always translates into multi-million dollar campaigns, the commercialization of the vote and other undesirable effects."

Why is the president not elected directly by the Cuban people?

"This is not only the case in Cuba; the same is true of Spain or England. Personally I think it is more democratic not to elect the president directly; if parliament elects the government, that government is accountable to that parliament. But if the people elect the president, who can hold accountable a president elected by five or six million citizens? This is an inherent contradiction in the presidential system." "Apparently, direct presidential elections have a certain attraction, but if you analyze them carefully in practice, it's a sure way to lose control; in a parliamentary system of government, a change of government is less traumatic than in a presidential system and this has been borne out by recent examples in our Americas." "In those countries in which democracy is mainly concerned with the electoral contest, the policy of disallowing reelection has a certain logic. But there is inefficiency in terms of lost experience - the mandated terms of office are too short for anyone to properly develop government programs." "In Cuba we have the case of Fidel Castro, an exceptional figure who has played a tremendous role in the history of Cuba. I don't think this is a problem of principle; if we have a system of authentic participatory democracy, we shouldn't be particularly concerned about keeping in a post the most qualified and best-suited individual to assume the responsibility."

Aren't the proponents of Cuba's "democratization" along U.S. lines really concealing an agenda of outright annexation?

"Annexation is a uniquely Cuban phenomenon, it hasn't been present in other Latin American nations; in fact even Puerto Rico has the strength to continue struggling [for independence] after the U.S. occupation, but in the nineteenth century there was an annexationist movement in Cuba prior to independence." "I recall this because I am not surprised that there are demonstrations of this nature in Miami against Cuba, being organized by Cubans who despite being born in Cuba are now full U.S. citizens." "In reality, the United States cares about as much for the democratic system as they would for a soccer game in which they aren't playing. They maintain excellent relations with states in which there are absolutely no democratic rights; a few autocratic monarchies come to mind, and wouldn't it be a rude shock to the Americans if some of those oil-rich nations were to become a state with a party that could question the oil contracts. If we had a government willing to hand over our country's economy to them, you'd see how magnificently they would get along with us.

Journalists: Susana Tesoro and Osvaldo Rodríguez