It turns out that “dialogue” is the latest banner raised by the counterrevolution in Cuba which, under the name of a Plebeian Articulation, despite its lack of support on the streets, is moving to the Internet to maintain the business of discrediting Cuban institutions, under the guise of a “panel discussion.” Time passes quickly, especially in the ephemeral world of digital social networks, and before this latest attempt joins the list of failures orchestrated from the North to change Cuba, perhaps it would be useful to leave some clarifications in print:
The Articulation arose within the context of an attempt to produce a soft coup in our country based on a fake hunger strike, allegedly protesting the imprisonment of a representative, a self-proclaimed Trump supporter, for contempt of police authority. Among its signatories are individuals with known records as U.S. employees promoting subversion in Cuba, among them, journalists for media financed by right-wing organizations that have historically served as cover for interference in countries of geopolitical interest to this country.
They do not seek dialogue; they seek to legitimize themselves as the “democratic” alternative promoting a change of system in Cuba, which is, politically speaking, another agenda altogether. In this sense, many of the signatories of the group’s statement speak of political plurality, not only in terms of recognizing that this exists, which is undeniable, but to advocate a multiparty system, which would provide access to the Cuban National Assembly and state administration bodies to economic and political interests of the center and the right, which, in effect, are nothing more than class interests associated with the United States, as happens in most of the region, and as occurred in Cuba before 1959. After gaining this foothold, the plan would be to push for the restoration of capitalism. This, above all, is an unconstitutional demand that is contrary to the consensus expressed by the majority of the Cuban people when we voted to approve our new Magna Carta.
The concept of democracy in the group’s narrative is void of meaning. There is no genuine concern for a deepening of democracy in Cuban society, given that the Articulation is clearing the way for the reactionary right, the main threat to democracy in the region and the world.
The building of a sovereign nation is not guaranteed, when playing a leading role are individuals who work for the media and organizations of a foreign government, and demand mediation for the resolution of our internal disagreements. It is no coincidence that one of the participants in the discussion in question prepared a letter addressed to the U.S. government requesting that conditions be placed on the lifting of the blockade of our country. This is not only an open act of surrender, but also sabotages the work of our diplomats, in genuine representation of our people, to end the blockade and move toward resuming normalized relations with this country.
They do not represent the voice of Cuban civil society, as they pretend. This presumptuous posture leaves out more than 86% of Cubans, including all who, while maintaining criticism of our reality and anxious for a more prosperous country, do not intend to abandon socialism or national sovereignty.
They declare themselves democratic socialists intending, in concrete terms, to avoid distinguishing themselves from the liberal narrative that has been used by the international right wing to implement neoliberalism around the world. Abstractions and nonsense such as “Democracy without surnames,” or “The opposite of capitalism is not socialism but democracy” have been touted, clearly demonstrating the ideological foundation of the “dialogue” advocated by the Articulation.
I believe that dialogue and debate must continue to be essential components of our political system. And I say continue, because dialogue in Cuba is obviously not just beginning now that the Articulation has called for it. I think we can agree on that, although the mechanisms our institutions and organizations have to promote participation, and make discussion more effective in improving their work as public servants, must be perfected and adjusted to the dynamics of a society that has changed.
The unmasking of the farce proposed, disguised as dialogue by those earning millions of dollars allocated for subversion in Cuba, through sponsorships, events and publications on the Internet, which for the first time have managed to manufacture opinion leaders who have attracted minority sectors of the Cuban intelligentsia, not only requires denunciation, but also demands that we renovate our ways of communicating, mobilizing and doing politics, building consensus, promoting dialogue that is authentic and deeply connected to the people, and participation in resolving the fundamental problems of the country. This is the only way to eliminate any opening that could be exploited by the regime change operation, which, far from diminishing in the coming months and years, will increase.
Those of us who have lived in other societies have noticed that Cuba is perhaps the country in the region where the people most deliberate and discuss political issues whenever and wherever they may be, during the everyday course of their lives.
The Constitution was recently discussed as the Policy Guidelines were discussed previously, in an unprecedented exercise of popular participation, unseen in any contemporary liberal democracy, although this does not count as dialogue according to the promoters of imported politics. It would seem that dialogue is only that which is conducted through channels alien to Cuban institutionality and in open hostility to the Revolution, no matter how much they try to pass it off as something else.
Dialogue yes, but as Hero of the Republic of Cuba Fernando Gonzalez would say, no dialogue should mask an attempt to destroy the Revolution and socialism.
(Taken for Granma)