New Fidel column
Read the latest Fidel Castro column.
--He makes fun of voter turnout in the U.S. when in Cuba there are no free elections
--He confuses high voter turnout in Venezuela with support for the government
--He praises press freedom in Venezuelan when in Cuba there is none
--He mocks the "gross material cravings" of the Venezuelan opposition right after his own brother announced that 500,000 Cubans would have to find work in the private sector to satisfy their cravings, gross or otherwise
--He says the U.S. wants Venezuelan oil. Well, that one's true
17 comments:
He makes fun of voter turnout in the U.S. when in Cuba there are no free elections
Voter turnout in the US should be embarassing to anyone who claims to care about democracy. Cuba, meanwhile, gets more than 90% of people voting valid ballots. If Cuba's elections were such a sham, why do the people keep valididating it? Why not stay home or cast a blank or ruined ballot?
Let's also not forget that US candidates need to be millionaires (44% of Congress) or funded by large corporations. The only freedom in our system is the freedom of money. Meanwhile, in Cuba, neighborhood meetings are held to determine who will represent them. No political parties or money are allowed to sully the process and therefore everyday Cubans are represented by people who look like them (but good liberals see this as a lack of freedom apparently).
He confuses high voter turnout in Venezuela with support for the government
Not at all. All Fidel does is note that the record turnout (66.5%) is a positive thing by itself. He doesn't "confuse it with support for the Government." though he could be forgiven if he did. The fact that voter turnout has consistently been much higher than before under this "autocratic Government" is certainly a credit to the Government. As Greg should know, Venezuelans have consistently given their democracy the highest marks in the region. Does Chavez deserve no credit for making politics relevant to the people - particularly those who traditionally never cared about politics?
He praises press freedom in Venezuelan when in Cuba there is none
Not really. He merely notes that some "ignoble individuals" have tried to pretend there is no press freedom in Venezuela. That is a lie of course. Cuba's media environment was shaped in much different circumstances - that of CIA backed subversion - and is much more complicated and its history is much more nuanced than most think. And I don't think it is unfair to say that when many speak of "press freedom" they are talking about the right of a private business to own the press. Cuba simply does not believe that business and journalism ought to mix. I think the behaviour of the US corporate media shows us why this is the correct approach. In the US, does anyone disagree that PBS and NPR are the best outlets around?
He mocks the "gross material cravings" of the Venezuelan opposition right after his own brother announced that 500,000 Cubans would have to find work in the private sector to satisfy their cravings, gross or otherwise
This is even more of a stretch. Fidel speaks of the materialism and greed that provides the fuel for much of the opposition to Chavez and socialism. This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the reforms taking place in Cuba.
Voter turnout in the US should be embarassing to anyone who claims to care about democracy.
I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, Greg has a marked tendency to try to deflect attention from his own country's democratic deficits by pointing to other countries' democratic deficits. Perhaps a more principled position would be to recognize both.
All Fidel does is note that the record turnout (66.5%) is a positive thing by itself. He doesn't "confuse it with support for the Government."
I don't think that's really true, though. Viewed in context, Fidel is clearly implying that voter turnout reflects popular support for the Bolivarian Revolution. Fidel's article glosses over the fact that the PSUV only barely edged out the opposition in the popular vote. I think the Chavistas need to address their own political weaknesses instead of just putting a political spin on them.
Wow, there are really people so deluded they think there is political or electoral freedom in Cuba?
I don't think that's really true, though. Viewed in context, Fidel is clearly implying that voter turnout reflects popular support for the Bolivarian Revolution.
I disagree. Referring to the turnout and # of seats won by the PSUV, Fidel says the results of the election "represent a victory for the Bolivarian Revolution and its leader...." He follows that by saying: "The most important thing is the high number of young people, women and other combative and proven activists who have entered this institution."
So he says the turnout, the results and (most of all) the composition of those elected are a victory. Again, I think you have to agree that record turnout numbers ARE a victory - especially against those who argue Venezuela is not a democracy.
But Fidel does not say anywhere that high turnout, in and of itself, proves "support for the Government." That makes no sense. Proving support for the Government is quite different that asserting that the results "represent a victory for the Government." Or am I missing something?
Anon, to make my position clear, there is certainly room for improvement with regards to Cuba's electoral and political freedom. But there are many positives compared to the US system and it is not at all what most critics think (for example, so-called 55 "prisoners of conscience" (now being released) "in Cuba had all worked closely with the US Government). We also have to recognize that Cuba is a nation under constant attack. As soon as the US stops funding subversion on the island, I will be the first to call for more political freedom. But we can not be naive and think that any opening in the current environment would not be exploited by the US Government - who continues to spend tens of millions every year on organizing and financing dissent.
Proving support for the Government is quite different that asserting that the results "represent a victory for the Government."
It sorta sounds like you're splitting hairs here. High turnout is generally good for democracy, but I think Fidel is in spin mode when he emphasizes that it "represents a victory for the Governent."
Venezuela's high turnout is a victory for all parties to the election, not just the governing party.
Voter turnout in the US should be embarassing to anyone who claims to care about democracy. Cuba, meanwhile, gets more than 90% of people voting valid ballots.
That's assuming one believes that many actually turned out. The former Soviet Union routinely claimed more than 99 percent of citizens voted in its one-candidate (like Cuba) elections. Even if turnout is high, it is because there is a penalty for not voting.
While the law allows citizens not to vote, CDRs often pressured neighborhood residents to cast ballots. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights, the government blacklisted those who did not vote.
Also, leftside, I asked you on another thread if anyone was every punished for releasing the list of voters who signed the recall petition in Venezuela.
Regarding concept of voter turnout, here in Ecuador, voting is obligatory for all citizens under the Constitution, down to the age of 16. That mandate is enforced via the issuance of a voter's certificate which you must present later on in any dealings with the government, such as getting a driver's license, vehicle registration, etc.
I am no fan of Castro or his government, but Leftside has several points when he mentions higher levels of participation at all economic levels, vs. the fact that only wealthy people - or people backed by wealth - really have a chance of getting elected. I believe that our (the U.S.) system needs major overhauls to make it more, not to say, truly representative...
Finally, and not to leave Leftside off the hook on this, while I think that the Venezuelan system has become more democratic, Chavez and the PSUV have always gamed the system (within the barrio rep structure and in proportionate representation) to give themselves more influence and political power, and that's evident right down to last Sunday.
Even, so there's still enough apertura (openess?) within the political and communications systems that's allowed Venezuelans to begin changing and moving away from Chavez, as we just saw. The question is, will Chavez seek, once again, to obviate election results with which he disagrees, as he did with the election of the Alcalde de Caracas, or will he finally recognize the fact that there authentic and valid voices of dissent that should be heard and respected in the new Asamblea Nacional?
High turnout is generally good for democracy, but I think Fidel is in spin mode when he emphasizes that it "represents a victory for the Governent."
I was trying to be precise Justin. Greg's attempt to make silly comparisions between Castro's words and deeds stretched the actual record much too far and deserved to be challenged. Not only on this point...
And again, Fidel said the turnout was one of 3 ways the vote represented a victory for the Government. And I think he explained what he meant with regards to turnout by emphasizing the terrible turnouts in the US and the way that Venezuelan elections and democracy are falsely portrayed by anti-Chavez forces. A high rate of democratic participation and high rate of belief in their country's democratic institutions are positive things Chavez's Government has a right to claim as an answer to critics.
That's assuming one believes that many actually turned out.
I have never seen the turnout tallies seriously challenged by anyone. Media reports always note the high participation. And the State Department report you cite tacitly acknowledges the high turnout - by suggesting there must be some coercion involved. But this is rubbish.
According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights, the government blacklisted those who did not vote.
The "blacklisting" for not voting has never been shown to have actually taken place. Given the high profile ANY supposedly persecuted person in Cuba gets in the US, the lack of any individual who can claim to have been blacklisted exposes this lie. But even if this were true, it does not explain why more people don't spoil their secret ballots, or submit null ballots if indeed, the elections are viewed as a sham in Cuba.
Also, leftside, I asked you on another thread if anyone was every punished for releasing the list of voters who signed the recall petition in Venezuela
I said that if anyone was discriminated against by the use of this list, they had the right to go to the courts. Luis Tascon claimed it was just published to verify that the signatures were accurate. Nonetheless, he was scolded by Chavez, forced to retract the list and announce that it should not be used by anyone. Tascon was later expelled from the PSUV, and is now dead.
the State Department report you cite tacitly acknowledges the high turnout
Actually, the State Department merely notes the Cuban government claimed the turnout was 96.6 percent, it did not opine on its veracity.
But even if this were true, it does not explain why more people don't spoil their secret ballots, or submit null ballots if indeed, the elections are viewed as a sham in Cuba.
Elections are a sham if the governing political party has to approve candidates and those candidates all run unopposed. As for the turnout #s, it also depends on how the count votes, if merely casting a ballot, or showing up an open air assembly which one is required to attend as part of their workday qualifies, the measure of “turnout” may have an exceedingly low standard.
The "blacklisting" for not voting has never been shown to have actually taken place. Given the high profile ANY supposedly persecuted person in Cuba gets in the US, the lack of any individual who can claim to have been blacklisted exposes this lie.
People don’t have ready access to lodge grievances in totalitarian societies. However, I suspect most conclude there is nothing to gained from failing to participate in a meaningless ritual, so they do.
As for Venezuela...
Your original quote in the other thread : “One person released this list [of people who signed a petition to have a recall referendum of Chavez in 2004] and it was condemned by the President and party in power. Anyone who used the list to punish someone was told they would be sanctioned.”
Your quote in this thread: “I said that if anyone was discriminated against by the use of this list, they had the right to go to the courts. Luis Tascon claimed it was just published to verify that the signatures were accurate. Nonetheless, he was scolded by Chavez, forced to retract the list and announce that it should not be used by anyone. Tascon was later expelled from the PSUV, and is now dead.”
Once again, you seem to be ignorant of the actual set of events. Use of the publication of the list of voters who signed the petition was hardly condemned by the government. Quite the opposite: Róger Capella confirma despidos en la administración pública por razones políticas "Firmar contra Chávez es un acto de terrorismo" for those who don’t read Spanish, [Minister of Health and Social Development] Roger Capella confirms firings in public administration for political reasons. The article goes on to note this same minister said “signing [the petition] against Chavez is an act of terrorism.”
Chavez hardly condemned the list’s publication either. Rather, six months after its publication he said the list served an important purpose it its time, but its old news." [actual quote “famosa lista seguramente cumplió un papel importante en un momento determinado, pero eso pasó.”] I guess that’s what qualifies as magnanimity in the world of Chavismo.
Finally, Tascon was booted out the PSUV, but not for publishing the list.
So, in short, the publication of list was hardly condemned or rejected. Its the reason Chavez now taunts the opposition into launching another recall campaign, because he knows many people won't sign for fear that their names would released and they would face retribution.
I said that if anyone was discriminated against by the use of this list, they had the right to go to the courts.
Yeah, like they are really going to go to court and expect justice from a Chavez hack.
As for events in Ecuador:
Presumably Greg will blog about this but its quite fascinating that Correa is facing protests for curtailing benefits for the police. I assume he is doing this for budgetary reasons. Usually populist/leftist governments go for currency devaluation [which would mean going off the dollar] or tolerate inflation if the alternative is a cut in public spending, especially if that spending goes to a key constituency. Heck, Correa might be acting downright "neoliberal"!
Many good comments here. I think Greg caracitures Cuba and Castro--which is the norm here in the US. Yes, Cuba has many flaws, but the fact of US subversion and attack forces the government into a reactionary posture. This is the major context that is missing in so much of the discussion.
More, Cuba is on a path of a much more mixed economy simply to survive and progress.
Interestingly, the US will have to incorporate more socialistic policies in order to safe-guard stability in the long-term. Healthcare problems epitomize the failure and flaws of the US system.
On the broader topic of voter participation, I agree with Tampoxi about the flaws in the US system. Money as a major determinant undermines the will of the population, and cynicism will paralyze a nation.
There are real problems that humankind need to deal with--or we will, as a specie, become extinct through pathological
thought, organization, and behavior.
The well-worn binaries and mass herding mechanisms are breaking down. Passive consumerism doesn't make for a healthy population.
What is paramount is honesty and genuine good will. Might doesn't make right, and people with wealth and power need to be challenged.
But I will reiterate, propagating crass, cold war caricatures of Castro and Cuba, without putting in context the constant attacks on the part of the US is simply dishonest.
The US will need to learn from Cuba and other people and cultures if it is to survive over the long-haul. Many root assumtions need to be questioned and it's system needs to evolve.
Actually, the State Department merely notes the Cuban government claimed the turnout was 96.6 percent, it did not opine on its veracity.
No one seriously denies the turnout figures. The only criticism I've heard in this regard is that Cuba is pretty liberal in terms of letting people vote for you, if you are sick or unavailable. But this is a good thing. Expressing one's will ought to be made as easy as possible. So as you say often, your denial of the turnout is simply an assertion, support by exactly no facts.
Elections are a sham if the governing political party has to approve candidates and those candidates all run unopposed.
The Communist Party has NO role in Cuban elections. And while it's true that the National Assembly vote is probably more honestly thought of as a ratification than an election (delegates must obtain 50% approval by the people), it is wrong to think that the Delegates are selected by a small clique, or the Party. In fact, the system is merely a higher level replication of the neighborhood level meetings and nominations that characterize the municipal elections. Because it is not feasible for the people to collectively decide on the candidate, the area's mass organizations (labor, women's, students, neighborhood groups, etc.) do so collectively. If the candidate does not get 50% of the people's vote, a different candidate is proposed until they do. Some elections have 3 or 4 rounds.
People don’t have ready access to lodge grievances in totalitarian societies. However, I suspect most conclude there is nothing to gained from failing to participate in a meaningless ritual, so they do.
You obviously don't know Cuba. People lodge grievances in every corner of Cuba every day. What is different, is that most get resolved humanely and with complete transparency.
And I guess you are arguing that people hate their system but just go along with it for the heck of it.
Chavez hardly condemned the list’s publication either.
He called for the list to be buried. He did say that it was his pinion it had not been released with the intention of promoting blacklisting, but that it ought to be buried and not be used.
So, in short, the publication of list was hardly condemned or rejected.
I'll concede that Chavez did not exactly condemn the publication of the list. But to do so, in the absence of a full investigation, would have been to call an important ally a liar. I would have liked an investigation, to be honest. Publication of the list was wrong. But in the end, anyone who was unfairly treated had recourse to the Courts. The fact that we saw only a handful of lawsuits tells me that the story of mass-firing was actually manufactured (the Judges are not all Chavistas).
Chavez does not taunt the opposition to get their names again. He does so because he remains, BY FAR, the most popular politician in Venezuela.
Post a Comment