Act of Repudiation
Recent Comments

    “The Cuban Regime Seeks A 2018 Generational Shift Without Democratization” – Rafael Rojas

    Rafael Rojas: “The Cuban Regime Seeks A 2018 Generational Shift Without
    Democratization” / 14ymedio, Yaiza Santos
    Posted on September 15, 2015

    14ymedio, Yaiza Santos, Mexico, 11 September 2015 — Rafael Rojas (b.
    Santa Clara, 1965) has published Historia mínima de la revolución
    cubana (A Brief History of the Cuban Revolution) in Mexico, where he has
    lived for the last twenty years. In fewer than 200 pages, the historian
    covers the events on the island between 1952, when Fulgencio Batista’s
    dictatorship was established, and 1976, the date of the Constitution
    adopted by the National Assembly of Peoples Power, which
    institutionalized the process of change initiated in 1959, plus a brief
    introduction about Cuba since its declaration of independence.

    Rojas spoke with 14ymedio, not only of Cuba’s past but also about the
    island’s present and possible future.

    Yaiza Santos. This book serves to demystify certain episodes magnified
    by Revolutionary propaganda and to recover other episodes that were
    buried. What “demystified” moments would you highlight?

    Rafael Rojas. I would start with the vision of the old regime, totally
    negative, which the official history has transmitted: that of a
    neocolonial nation that has no sovereignty, is poor, underdeveloped,
    backward, authoritarian… over a time covering almost half a century,
    without distinction of periods.

    The first chapter of the book is a reconstruction of Cuba prior to the
    Revolution, which speaks of the high rates of economic growth; of high
    social indicators, including the high rate of literacy compared with
    other Latin American countries; the great development of per capita
    consumption; and also the level of cultural and political
    development. And, also, the Cuban State’s elements of sovereignty.

    I think it is always important to emphasize the degree of autonomy it
    once had in international relations. For example, the Authentic Party
    government, subsequent to the Constitution of 1940, created an alliance
    with Latin American governments engaged in what is called “Revolutionary
    nationalism,” very much in the Mexican tradition. It was a foreign
    policy that was not subordinated to the politics of the United States.

    This contradicts Cuba’s current foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, when
    he said in Washington that “the United States and Cuban have never had
    normal relations.” He spoke there about the Platt Amendment, which he
    said was imposed by a military occupation, but that is not true: the
    Cuban Congress approved it in 1901. Nor did he mention, as Fidel Castro
    traditionally did in his speeches, that the amendment was repealed in
    1934 as a consequence of a nationalist revolution in 1933 that created a
    democracy quite advanced for Latin America. I detail that: the 1940
    Constitution, the 1943 Electoral Code, which is also very advanced, and
    the whole social policy of the Authentic Party government, including the
    first Batista government.

    Yaiza Santos. In addition to the plurality of parties and the press…

    Rafael Rojas. That of the media is fundamental. The Batista dictatorship
    wouldn’t have fallen without the decisive intervention of the media and
    public opinion. The most widely read magazine in Cuba was Bohemia, which
    also circulated in Latin America. They magazine undertook a tremendous
    defense of Fidel Castro when he was imprisoned on the Isle of Pines and

    Yaiza Santos. Another thing that has been forgotten: at the beginning of
    the Revolution there was still free opinion.

    Rafael Rojas. I would say for the first two years. At the end of the
    1960s the media was nationalized, although there are some that
    continued, such as EL Mundo or Revolución, until 1965, when Granma
    newspaper was created and the other newspapers were eliminated.

    Yaiza Santos. Something very powerful in the Cuban case is how it
    managed to put itself at the center of the world.

    Rafael Rojas. In the middle of the Cold War. A totally deliberate
    thing. The audacity of Cuba’s revolutionary leaders in placing an island
    of the Hispanic Caribbean a few miles from the United States in the
    middle of the Cold War through an alliance with the socialist camp… It
    was quite an operation! And it subjected Cuba to all the possible
    tensions of the Cold War, with all the disastrous consequences.

    Yaiza Santos. What would the whole continent have been had it not had
    that bastion there, which radiated and still radiates today?

    Rafael Rojas. I think that the history of Cuba would have been quite
    different. It would have moved toward a regime with authoritarian
    elements, like every revolution, but it would have been very difficult
    to create a single party. Certainly a hegemonic party, PRI-like, but not
    unique, and there would have been greater public freedoms. Not to
    mention that Cuban economic development would have continued the course
    that began in the 1940s.

    Yaiza Santos. You’re a big supporter of the resestablishment of
    relations between Cuba and the United States, and this has provoked
    opinions, especially in the exile in Miami. What do you think will
    happen now?

    Rafael Rojas. To start, from a point of view strictly of relations with
    the United States, normalization does not imply, to my way of thinking,
    a reinforcement or uncritical legitimization–without tensions, without
    conflicts–of the Cuban regime. I believe that what it will imply is that
    the traditional policy of the United States toward Cuba changes
    directions, methods, without losing certain basic premises, such as the
    defense of democracy, the rejection of violations of human rights or the
    rejection of repression.

    I don’t think that the United States will discard these premises of its
    foreign policy. That doesn’t mean that with the opening of embassies a
    transition to democracy will automatically be achieved. I think that is
    a slightly magnified view.

    With regards to the economic question, the reestablishment of relations
    with the United States reinforces the elements of state capitalism that
    have been created in Cuba and will consolidate a new economic class
    which, as we know, is very interwoven with the military sectors. Of that
    I have no doubt: this military corporate caste is strengthened with the
    reestablishment of relations.

    But there could also be an element that encourages the emergence of
    small and medium private business with national capital that is not
    totally subordinated to the military corporate caste. At the same time,
    I think that this reestablishment of relations and the integration of
    Cuba into the international community will greatly activate the civil
    society on the island.

    Yaiza Santos. And on the part of the Government? Will there be people in
    the Communist Party who are already thinking about what will happen next?

    Rafael Rojas. In fact the official political agenda already provides for
    the idea of a succession of powers in February 2018. Raul has said many
    times: he will leave the presidency then, and he has said that the
    succession would favor the new generations. That would mean a
    generational transfer of the Chief of State, without democratizing the
    political system. The regime will remain the same from the institutional
    point of view: a single party, control of the media, control of civil
    society, penalization of the opposition – it is this status of
    illegitimacy of the opposition that justifies, through the laws and the
    penal code, all the beatings, repudiations, abuses, short-term
    detentions… Everything we see on the weekends.

    But that’s where other actors get involved: there is a real opposition
    in Cuba, there is a civil society that can gain autonomy and there is an
    international community that does not ignore the violation of human
    rights. Starting with the US State Department itself: in its latest
    global report on human rights the criticisms of Cuba are harsh, and in
    the diplomatic notes that have been exchanged between the two
    governments throughout the negotiation, they have almost always
    mentioned the cases of repression, from the beating of Antonio Rodiles
    to the harassment of the Ladies in White, and the situation of El Sexto.
    This isn’t going to go away; the State Department will be in better
    shape to negotiate with its allies a more effective policy on human
    rights in Cuba.

    Yaiza Santos. Is there a figure within the Cuban government who can lead
    a transition to democracy?

    Rafael Rojas. Right now, I don’t see one, but it’s clear that there are
    sectors of the government, the State and the Party that have had
    relationships with reformist intellectuals in recent years and who have
    shown sympathy for some of the reform projects. For example, one reform
    that leads to a new law of associations, that permits greater
    development of non-governmental organizations or of autonomous
    organizations, which I believe would favor the opposition. Or a new
    electoral law that eliminates the candidate fees and that would allow
    truly independent candidates, outside State institutions, to present
    themselves for election and achieve a place in the National Assembly.

    Clearly, there are not figures who define themselves from an openly
    reformist position, because political reform continues to be largely
    taboo within the regime and it is something that we can say is
    deliberately delayed by Raul Castro’s government.

    Now, I think we will see a diversification of the ruling political
    class, especially after 2018.

    Yaiza Santos. How will the exile be integrated into this process of

    Rafael Rojas. It is very difficult to respond to that question. There is
    a sector of the exile, that which has been more integrated with the
    associations and political institutions of the United States, which
    feels betrayed by the Obama administration. While there are other
    sectors who don’t follow this line. Very probably we will also see a
    diversification within the exile.

    My main criticism is that in my judgment, unfortunately, a sector of the
    internal opposition is frequently subordinates itself to this agenda of
    resistance to the reestablishment of relations. And then I do think,
    unlike my colleagues in Miami, that the opposition is a minority.

    The vast majority of the Cuban people in effect has elements of
    disenchantment with the official positions of the Cuban government, and
    for the most part looks forward to a greater connection to the world.
    The Bendixen poll is impressive in this regard: 97% of Cubans support
    reestablishment of relations and Barack Obama got a 80% approval rating
    compared to 47% for Raul and 44% for Fidel. But I would also say that
    the Cuban government’s smear campaign against the opposition has been
    successful. We see it in the lack of solidarity with Tania Bruguera, in
    the constant support for acts of repudiation, and in the beatings. I
    think the stigmatization of the opposition permeates a part of the

    Source: Rafael Rojas: “The Cuban Regime Seeks A 2018 Generational Shift
    Without Democratization” / 14ymedio, Yaiza Santos | Translating Cuba –

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *