"At stake, a new model of socialism" in Cuba

Interview with political scientist and academic Rafael Hernández

"A new model of socialism is at stake" in Cuba

"All changes should be placed under popular control"

"We are facing new tasks, objectives, strategies, means, resources, needs and demands, not because they would never have become manifest, but rather because at this moment answers are more urgently required than ever," the director of the magazine Temas ("Themes") emphasised.

Gerardo Arreola (Correspondent)
La Jornada
Havana, November 29. In the discussion opened by Raúl Castro on July 26 of this year, "a new model of socialism is at stake", and such a debate, at the most complex moment for this country in almost half a century, reveals "the urgency" of introducing change, said political scientist and academic Rafael Hernández to La Jornada.

A "structural" change such as Raúl has suggested is not only an economic one, but above all a political one: it includes property and the market under socialism, the method of doing politics, the decentralisation of power and a consensus which assumes disagreements and might face resistance from sectors of bureaucracy and technocracy, pointed out Hernández, Director of the magazine Temas, one of the Cuban publications enjoying the greatest intellectual standing in decades.

The Cuban Communist Party (PCC), and the broader population, addressed – in massive meetings held in the past few months - a very wide array of social and economic problems, using as a starting point the address delivered by the acting President. According to the official message, this stream of voices will lead to changes within the system.

Hernández pointed out that this discussion had already taken place in various forms over the last few years, although now it is more organised and has collected "over two million proposals". In his view, all this would give rise to the Sixth PCC Congress, which should have been held in 2002 "and is not something than can be postponed for a long time".

It is necessary – said the researcher - to think of socialism without "the mental blinkers of our own historical experience, which we cannot renounce, but which must not become a shackle. Will we continue to resemble ourselves forever? We must finally take off the theoretical and conceptual goggles through which we continue to envisage socialism."

These are some extracts from the conversation:

LJ – In the last issue of Temas you speak of transition in Cuba as a continuous process begun in 1959 but with various phases, or as a succession of transitions. How do you relate the present-day situation to this concept?

RH – In this issue of Temas (…) everyone agrees with the fact that we are undergoing a transition, not because it was initiated now, but because this is necessarily a new stage. I believe that it is a phase of transition: I do not think that the foundations of the system should be essentially altered and, consequently, I do not think that we are undergoing a new transition. We are facing new tasks, objectives, strategies, means, resources, needs and demands, not because they would not have been manifest before, but because at the present moment answers are more urgently required than ever.

LJ – What is the cause of this urgency?

RH – There are deep problems that are nothing to do with buses in Havana, nor with tomatoes at the marketplace, nor – even more importantly - the fact that people lack the means to build or repair their home. They are problems that touch on what Raúl calls structural questions. None of the above are structural questions. These have to do with the Cuban model of socialism (conceptions about social property, the role of the market under socialism, citizens' participation in decision-making and policy control, consensus building). All of this is, right now, at the centre of Cuba's problems, and there can be no structural solutions, as Raúl demands, if these topics are not addressed. What is at stake, under debate, is a new model of socialism, and I believe that this is quite urgent.

LJ – In other words, Raúl was not only speaking of "structural" issues in agriculture or the economy...?

RH – Raúl's address has a profundity that has allowed many people to reflect over the course of these debates. The example he brought up concerning the distribution of milk is a parable about hyper-centralisation. The old model has been "maimed" by the remnants of actually existing socialism. In his book El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba ("Socialism and Man in Cuba"), Ché spoke of the defects of capitalism. And recently, in the course of a survey about that text written by Ché, university students were asked their views about the "defects" of the past. And the students said: bureaucracy, hyper-centralisation, the lack of attention to social problems, the lack of participation. Because, for most Cubans who did not live under capitalism, the "defects" of the past are the remnants of the old socialism that we continue to drag along with us.

LJ – There has been a great deal of discussion prior to each of the last congresses ("the rectification of errors" in the 1980s, 1992, 1997), so what are the differences or similarities with the present time?

RH – The main difference is that the course of history now progresses much faster, while politics can count on less credit before it produces changes that can be felt. That is why I speak of urgency. We seemed to be in a more critical situation in 1993 or 1994; nevertheless, the political consensus at that time was much more favorable to our resistance. Nowadays, when we do not suffer the great blackouts that we experienced then, nor find ourselves with our heads barely above water, consensus requires a much faster tempo. Now, the issue is the method of making politics, from the Party and the organs of People's Power to the mass organizations. These conceptions have to change. It has nothing to do with material resources, but with the famous "subjective problems".

LJ – In other words, consensus-building is not only more urgent now, but a more complex task...

RH – Exactly. When we speak of consensus we never speak – except when we confuse the terms - of unanimity. Consensus assumes a contradictory support, a non-opposition that is mediated because the individual has a group of things that leads them to extend their support, but keep a – however large - amount of reservations and disagreements. Consensus is criss-crossed with disagreement. Disagreement is not strange, but is an organic thing. It is a part of consensus to include the fruitless, negative, rejecting elements. In Cuba this consensus is, of course, much more complex now than it was in the 1980s, because this society is a much more heterogeneous one.

LJ – Should some resistance within bureaucracy be expected?

RH – Inside the bureaucracy you can find people more or less inclined to change, but among the bureaucracy placed in positions of power there is a resilient sector that would not want to yield an ounce of power, de-centralise, give people more participation in decision-making. This is something that seems quite logical to me. But I would differentiate between the bureaucracy, the administration in general, and the technocracy, which is a distinct social group that may be very much in favor of changes, only we have to ask ourselves which changes, and that scares me: economic growth, with market mechanisms, through liberalisation and reforms that might serve the purpose of a growing economy, but affecting the majority of the population, with the lowest incomes. This sector of technocracy is as dangerous as the other, that of the bureaucracy. This technocracy has power and has the potential to influence changes and debate. This is why I believe that it is so important not to consider the economy as a separate sector. Every change, including economic ones, and particularly those, must be placed under popular control. The director of a firm will always have more power than a representative of the people, and this is very serious in a socialist system, because it amounts to its negation.