[R-G] Letter to Post 2 : Cuba Chose their own Destiny

[Anthony Fenton]

Letter to the Editor, National Post, May 31, 2008

Chose their own Destiny

       Arnold August

Montreal, Canada

Re: Thanks, comrade, May 31, 2008

On May 31st, the National Post published a letter dismissing in one  
sentence as a joke the claim by Cuban Ambassador Ernesto Senti Darias  
that “the Cuban people chose their own destiny”. In addition to  
insulting the accredited representative in Canada of a sovereign  
country, no facts or arguments were provided by the writer. Yet, the  
National Post decided to publish this while refusing to print the  
letters it had received from other Canadians. These letters, with  
facts, logic and argument, not to speak of personal experiences in  
Cuba, presented the views of the writers. In some cases the opinions  
regarding Cuba reflected their organizations which include hundreds of  
members and accumulate thousands of individual visits to Cuba.

Let us deal with the question of the Cuba people having chosen and  
still choosing their own destiny.

If some readers have pre-conceived notions of how to choose one’s  
destiny, here is one fact amongst others: Fidel Castro was about to  
win his elections in 1952 when Batista organized a coup d’état in  
1952. The latter cancelled the elections to be held and discarded the  
relatively progressive1940 Constitution that had been an outcome of  
the 1930s revolution in Cuba. Batista’s anti-democratic act was fully  
supported by the U.S. The political arena then shifted towards armed  
struggle in order to liberate the country from U.S. domination and  
create a new sovereign society based on equality and justice. There  
was no other alternative. This was accomplished on January 1, 1959  
with the full participation of the masses of Cuban people. How  
otherwise could a corrupt, fascist government supported and trained by  
the powerful U.S. military be toppled?

 From 1959 through the 1960s, the new revolutionary government relied  
on open direct mass meetings with millions participating. The program  
and goals, that is the destiny of the Cuban people, were actually  
discussed and approved by a show of hands vote or by applause. In  
researching my first book, Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 Elections  
(1999), I investigated these examples of direct democracy by reading  
every single account of these meetings (there were hundreds). What did  
I employ as a source? In order to provide a balanced account, I delved  
through the University of Texas Institute of Latin American Studies  
Fidel Castro Speech Data Base. This source is far from being an  
instrument of the Cuban state.  There are innumerable examples in this  
Data Base regarding public exchanges between Fidel Castro and the  
people as well as accounts of applause and voting on the destiny of  
the Cuban people. The new Cuban government also ruled through enabling  
laws to the resuscitated 1940 Constitution previously trashed by the  
Batista dictatorship.

In the 1970s, the Cuban leadership decided to involve the Cuba  
citizens even further and in a more institutionalized manner. A new  
draft constitution was presented to the people in 1975 which outlined  
in detail and in principle the destiny of the Cuban people in all  
fields that is political, social, cultural, health, culture, rights,  
etc. The proposed document reflected in juridical and constitutional  
terms the destiny of the Cuban people. Public debates took place in  
which 6 million people participated resulting in changes to 60 of the  
proposed articles. On February 15, 1976, the referendum approved the  
latest version of the Constitution by secret ballot universal  
suffrage. Over ninety-seven percent of the citizens voted in favour of  
the new Constitution.

In the same period, the Cuban government started to organize elections  
for the first time. The elections, in addition to choosing the  
electorate’s representatives also serve as a confirmation or rejection  
of the destiny mapped out by the Cuban people and their government.  
During my stay in Cuba during the 1997-98 elections, ten years ago,  
the government opponents, some of whom were supported by the U.S.  
Interest Section in Havana, attempted to discredit the political  
system. They called for a boycott or the spoiling of ballots. The goal  
was to give the impression that the Cuban people do not agree with the  
destiny as outlined in the Constitution and with the general  
orientation of the revolution. However, in the 1998 national elections  
for Parliament, 98.35% of the people voted. The number of spoiled  
ballots amounted to only 1.66%. My own observations in the Polling  
Stations at that time indicated that the proportion of spoiled ballots  
coincided in general with the nationally announced formal results.   
One of the leaders of the government opponents, or who some call  
“dissidents”, Elizardo Sánchez, is quoted as admitting in 1998 that  
the national elections “signified the renovation of the mandates and  
the legitimacy of the government” (Inter Press Service, February 23,  
1998).

More recently, during my stay in Cuba for the 2007-2008 elections it  
was revealed that the brother of Elizado Sánchez, Gerardo Sánchez, was  
presented for nomination to be elected to a Municipal Assembly in the  
October 21st 2007 municipal elections. According to the BBC Mundo (the  
Spanish online edition of BBC, October 23, 2007), Sánchez only “got 5  
votes in a meeting of about 100 voters, for a 5% of the total (my  
translation)”. During the national elections for Parliament on January  
20th, 2008, my observations once again confirmed that the very small  
amount of spoiled ballots officially announced at the national level  
(1.04%) was pretty much the same as was counted in the Polling  
Stations that I had visited that election day. It should also be noted  
that many of the votes counted as spoiled are inadvertently annulled  
by voter over-enthusiasm in favour of the system. For example when a  
voter filled in the ballot correctly but added a sketch of Che, it was  
considered to be a spoiled ballot by the Polling Board members. I have  
seen many other such examples. Despite the fact that voting is not  
mandatory in Cuba, in 2008, 96.89% of the voting age population 16  
years and older voted. My own observations this year once again  
dispelled the accusation that people are pressured into voting. And  
the act of voting itself is absolutely secret. No one knows how anyone  
else votes.

All of these facts indicate that the vast majority of Cuban people not  
only have chosen their own destiny, but still continue to ratify it in  
so many ways, whether though elections or other forms of participation  
in the political system.

Is the system perfect or serve as a model for others countries? No, I  
do not think so, and neither do the Cubans. They are the first ones to  
work towards perfecting and improving the political system as well as  
the socio/economic/cultural/juridical system.  But I firmly believe  
that it is up to the Cuban people to bring improvements to their own  
system. The U.S. or any other country does not have the right to  
interfere in the internal affairs of Cuba. This island, like any other  
country, has the right to self-determination. Within this  
internationally recognized right is included how a people choose and  
ratify its destiny and the type of destiny itself.

It would be very positive in my view if the National Post reproduces  
my letter. Perhaps we can engage together in discussion with the  
author of the May 31st letter through your blog or opinion pages.