​     In accordance with the project of a constitution approved the National Assembly of Popular Power on July 22, 2018, and on the basis of an analysis initiated in 2013 by the Communist Party of Cuba, the National Assembly on December 22, 2018 approved a new Constitution, subject to ratification by the people in referendum on February 24, 2019.  For discussion of the constitutional process in Cuba, see previous posts on the theme (“Constitutional Democracy in Cuba” 1/9/2019; “People’s Constitutional Assembly in Cuba” 1/11/2019; “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019; “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019; “The Cuban National Assembly debates” 1/24/2018).  In this post, I focus on the elements of continuity, that is, the ways in which the new Constitution continues with principles and structures that have been hallmarks of Cuban society since the revolutionary triumph of 1959.
 
      The Preamble of the new Constitution declares that Cuban citizens, in adopting a new Constitution, are inspired by the heroism, patriotism, and sacrifice of those that struggled against slavery, colonialism, and imperialism for a free, independent, sovereign, democratic, and just nation.  It declares that Cuban citizens are determined to carry forward the Revolution that triumphed in 1959, guided by the ideals and the examples of Martí and Fidel as well as the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
 
     The Constitution affirms the socialist character of the Revolution and the nation.  It proclaims that Cuba is a socialist, democratic, and sovereign state.  It proclaims that its socialism and its revolutionary social and political system are irrevocable (Articles 1, 4, 229).
 
      As in the Constitution of 1976, the proposed new constitution names the Communist Party of Cuba as the Martían, Fidelist, Marxist, and Leninist vanguard party that organizes, educates, and leads the people toward the construction of socialism (Article 5). 
 
       The new constitution conserves the structures of Popular Power that were established by the Constitution of 1976.  The new constitution names the National Assembly of Popular Power as “the supreme organ of the power of the State;” it is “the only organ in the Republic with constitutional and legislative power” (Articles 102-3).   The National Assembly makes laws and interprets the Constitution, elects the highest offices in the executive and judicial branches of the government, and approves the state budget (Articles 107-9).
 
       The National Assembly of Popular Power is elected by the people.  “The National Assembly of Popular Power is composed of deputies elected by the voters in a free, equal, direct, and secret vote, in accordance with procedures established by law” (Articles 104).  Inasmuch as the National Assembly is the highest authority in the state, and the National Assembly is elected by the people, the State is the expression of the sovereign will of the people. “In the Republic of Cuba, sovereignty resides untransferably in the people” (Article 3).
 
     The new Constitution affirms the right of Cuba to sovereignty in international relations: “The economic, diplomatic, and political relations with any other State can never be negotiated under aggression, threat, or coercion.”  It affirms Cuba’s foreign policy principles of sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and self-determination.  It recognizes the need for the unity of the Third World in opposition to colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism.  It reaffirms its commitment to integration and solidarity among the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.  It condemns interference in the internal affairs of states.  It describes wars of aggression and conquest as international crimes.  It recognizes “the legitimacy of struggles of national liberation and of armed resistance to aggression.”  It rejects the existence, proliferation, or use of nuclear arms and arms of mass destruction as well as the employment of new arms, including cyber arms.  It repudiates terrorism in all of its manifestation, especially terrorism carried out by states (Article 16).  A similar anti-imperialist approach to Cuban foreign policy was formulated in Article 12 of the 1976 Constitution, with minor differences reflecting a changed international situation.
 
      Like the 1976 Constitution, the new constitution protects civil rights.  It affirms due process rights, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a lawyer, and the right to a fair trial (Articles 94-95); and no arbitrary search and seizure (Article 49).  It guarantees freedom of thought and expression (Article 54), freedom of assembly (Article 56), and freedom of religion (Article 57).  It affirms freedom of the press, in the context of a system with state ownership of the fundamental means of communication (Articles 54-55).  It asserts the right to leave and enter national territory (Article 52).  These rights were guaranteed in Articles 52 through 58 in the 1976 Constitution.
 
     Like the Constitution of 1976, the new constitution affirms social and economic rights.  All persons have the right to dignified work, to equal salary for work of equal value, to workers’ safety and workers’ compensation, and to a limit to the working day.  All citizens have the right to adequate housing; free, quality health services; free and accessible public education from the pre-school to university post-graduate level; to physical education, sport, and recreation; to art and culture; to potable water; to a healthy and adequate diet; and to social security.  Persons of low income and the unemployed have the right social assistance (Articles 64-79; Articles 44-51 in the 1976 Constitution).
 
     The Cuban Revolution has a commitment to science, in two senses.  First, there is recognition of the need for scientific and technological development in order to promote economic development.  Accordingly, the Revolution always has funded a form of scientific research that is integral to production for the enhancement of human needs, particularly as they pertain to the Third World.  Secondly, the political education of the people is rooted in knowledge in all its fields, including philosophy, history, social science, and natural science.  Indeed, well-educated petit bourgeois intellectuals played a central role in the formulation of the revolutionary project, since its origins in the second half of the nineteenth century.  Accordingly, the new Constitution affirms that the state supports the development of science and culture.

  However, the commitment to scientifically based economic development is seen as a dimension of what today is called sustainable development, that is, a form of development that does not undermine production in the long term by exhausting natural resources and overreaching environmental limits.  Therefore, the new constitution, like the Constitution of 1976, declares the duty of the state to protection the environment and confront climate change (Article 16).  “All persons have the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment.  The state protects the environment and the natural resources of the country.  It recognizes its close connection with sustainable economic and social development in order to make human life more reasonable and to assure the survival and wellbeing and security of present and future generations” (Article 86; see Article 27 in the 1976 Constitution).

   Like the Constitution of 1976, the new constitution affirms the principle of gender equality.

    The same affirmation is found in Articles 35 and 43 of the 1976 Constitution, although it did not include affirmation of sexual and reproductive rights and protection from gender violence.  However, these rights were being developed in practice under the 1976 Constitution, as a result of the political presence and educational role of the Federation of Cuban Women, a mass organization in which 85% of Cuban women with 16 or more years of age are inscribed.
 
     In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 26, 2018, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel declared that the arrival to political power of a new generation of Cubans is characterized by continuity, not rupture.  He maintained that the leadership today continues with the development of the revolutionary project forged with intelligence and courage by the generation of the Revolution (see “Cuba is still Cuba: Continuity, not rupture” 10/4/2018).  The constitutional process unfolding in Cuba today confirms the Cuban President’s proclamation.
 
    However, all revolutions and societies evolve, and thus some changes will occur.  In my next post, I will focus on the changes that have been evolving in Cuban society and in the Cuban Revolution, and that are legitimated in the new Constitution, signaling an even more inclusive and more pragmatic revolution.

     This the fifth in a series of posts on the development of a new constitution in Cuba (see “Constitutional Democracy in Cuba” 1/9/2019; “People’s Constitutional Assembly in Cuba” 1/11/2019; “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019; “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019).
 
       The debate on the new constitution by the deputies of the Cuban National Assembly of Popular Power was had three parts.  First, on December 20, the assembly divided into three work commissions.  None of the commissions had authority to make changes in the text; it was a question of discussion and clarification.  Secondly, a report by the Constitutional Commission to a plenary session of the National Assembly, held on December 21.  Thirdly, debate in plenary session of the proposed constitution, held on December 22.
 
      (1)  The three December 20 commissions were held simultaneously.  They were broadcast on national television that evening in a special six-hour program as edited versions of each of the three sessions.  Some of the highlights of the sessions follows.
 
    A deputy of the National Assembly addressed the article that declares the duty to work of all persons with the conditions for working (that is, not too old or too young, or not incapacitated in some way).  Observing that persons who do not work receive all the same social benefits as those who do, the delegate expressed concern that there is not a mechanism to enforce this duty.  Another delegate expressed that some people who do not work live better that those who do, and that this was a major concern of the people in the popular consultation.  Members of the Commission responded, saying that the State cannot obligate people to work, or pass a law to the effect.  This would create numerous legal problems, including with respect to international agreements.  The best way is to do it indirectly, by establishing greater rewards for working.
 
       Deputy Eusebeo Leal, Historian of the municipality of Old Havana and a public figure in Cuba, expressed the view that the Preamble ought to include mention of the first Constitution of Guáimaro, which was the constitution of the Republic in Arms from 1868 to 1878.  The amendment was supported by the members of the Commission present, and it was included in the draft approved by the National Assembly on December 22.
 
      A delegate asked, with reference to the article referring to the sovereignty of the State and its jurisdiction, why is cyberspace sovereignty not included?  A Commission member responded that, since cyberspace is international, it is not possible to speak of sovereignty with respect to cyberspace, in the same sense as nations having the right to exercise sovereign control of their territory and natural resources.
 
      A delegate expressed support for the article guaranteeing religious freedom, especially its declaration that the Cuban State is a lay state, meaning that the state does not interfere in religion, and religion does not interfere in political affairs.  He noted that the separation of the state and religious institutions is a modern principle dating from the French Revolution.  The Constitution of 1976 did not proclaim the state atheistic.  Rather, it established is non-confessional state, not favoring any religion.  It established in effect a lay state.  Now, this is explicit.
 
       Deputy Fernando González Llort, one of five Cuban heroes who endured years of imprisonment in the United States as a political prisoner, addressed the article affirming that the state guarantees the just distribution of wealth.  In recognition of the fact that the state must work toward this goal in accordance with the capacities of the nation, he proposed changing the language to “an increasing more just” distribution of wealth. 
 
     One of the members of the Commission explained the modifications in the definition of marriage following the popular consultation (see “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019; and “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019).  The member noted that the modified language avoids mention of the subjects that enter a marriage, that is, whether marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman or between two persons.  Rather, the question is turned over to the National Assembly, which ought to formulate a family code following a popular consultation, with the new code being subject to approval by the people in referendum.  A delegate who presented himself as a representative of the LGBT community accepts the modification, but he is not agreement referendum; the National Assembly ought to decide, as it does with other laws, and which it has the constitutional authority to do.  Another delegate declared that she considered the modified language, in abandoning “union between two persons,” to be a reversal for the cause of the rights of all, regardless of sexual orientation.  Members of the Constitutional Committee defended the modified language and approach.  Although not declaring that marriage is a union between two persons, the new Constitution affirms diversity in marriage.  In conjunction with another article that affirms the rights of all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, the new constitution represents an important advance.  No other country in the world has brought the issue to the level of constitutional change.  The articles on the family in the modified constitutional project point to the need for a change of popular attitudes, and the popular consultation led to much popular education on the theme.  The Commission appears to be taking the position that it supports constitutional and legal sanctioning of gay marriage, but it does not want to impose it on the people; the Commission is in effect assigning to the defenders of gay rights the duty of educating the people, so that a majority would confirm support for the change.
 
      A delegate referred to the fact that some in the popular consultation had asked, why not have direct election of the president?  A member of the Commission responded that the Cuban system has a highly democratic political process in which the people have control, much more democratic than multi-party systems.  Many systems with parliamentary multi-party democracies do not have direct elections of president.  The Cuban political experience demonstrates that its system is highly democratic and participatory process, with power in the hands of the people.  The people participate in the nominations and elect the national assembly in elections of the second degree, in which power is concentrated.  We have to defend our model, he asserted, which is different from other countries. 
 
     (2)  The report by the Constitutional Commission to a plenary session of the National Assembly was held on December 21.  For a summary of this session, see “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019. 
 
      (3)  The debate in plenary session of the National Assembly was held on December 22.  Prior to the beginning of the plenary session, fifty-eight delegates had solicited the opportunity to speak, but some, when their name was called, indicated that subsequent conversations had satisfied their questions or concerns, and they would not be making a declaration or raising a question.  Some indicated the same satisfaction with the addressing of their concerns, but still took the floor, giving a brief expression of support for the process.  Among them were declarations that the popular consultation has been a success for the Revolution and the people, and that the new Constitution is yet another victory of the people.
     
     A deputy proposed amplifying the references to the activists in the revolutionary movements of the colonial and neocolonial epochs.  Members of the Commission spoke against the proposal for stylistic reasons, saying that the Preamble has to be succinct.  The delegate indicated that she understood, and she withdrew the proposal. 
 
      A delegate who identified himself as religious expressed his contentment that the Constitution declares, for the first time, that Cuba has a lay state.  Another delegate later spoke extensively and enthusiastically of the article referring to religious beliefs and the general orientation toward inclusion of religious persons in the revolutionary process; the deputies of the Assembly warmly applauded his intervention.
 
     A delegate proposed that the article referring to the right to sell property include the requirement that the seller inform the state.  A Commission member spoke against the proposal, saying that the right of the State to be informed is protected in other articles and in the law.  The matter was put to a vote of the assembly, and only one delegate voted in in favor of the proposal.
 
      A deputy proposed a change in the language concerning the socialist property of the people.  It was approved by a strong majority of the deputies of the National Assembly.
 
     Fernando González Llort presented his proposal concerning an “increasingly more just” distribution of wealth.  The proposal was approved unanimously by the Assembly.
 
     Delegate Jorge Gomez proposed a change in the article on creative artists.  It was accepted by the members of the Commission, and approved unanimously by the Assembly.
 
     A delegate expressed the view that egalitarians, an extremism that emerged in Cuba in the 1960s, is not revolutionary, because absolute equality is not possible.  He proposed a change in the article declaring that all persons are equal before the law.  In addition to declaring that all persons have the same rights, “without any discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic origin, skin color, religious belief, disability, national origin, or any other distinction detrimental to human dignity,” he proposed including “persons with less material resources or social condition.”  A member of the Commission expressed agreement with the principle, but argued that including it would complicate the article.  Such protection already is included in various articles of the Constitution.  The delegate decided not to submit to matter to the vote of the Assembly, because of agreement concerning the principle.
 
     A delegate spoke concerning the articles on freedom of the press and freedom of speech, noting that the theme very much manipulated internationally.  He maintained that the goal of socialism is an autonomous press with commitment only to the people, and therefore, it rejects private ownership of media.  He noted that the text asserts that the fundamental media of communication are the socialist property of the people, but it ought to say that the media cannot have any form of property other than the socialist property of the people.  A member of the
Commission responded that the language in the text follows the historical constitutions of 1940 and 1976, and it is consistent with the formulation of Martí and Fidel that the press is obligated to seek the truth.  The Revolution recognizes freedom of the press and the rights of a person to express free though and expression, he maintained.  It would be a step backward for the constitution to confine the media to socialist property of the people; it is a right for the people to express themselves, with limits and regulated.  Socialism does not take this right away, although it does not interpret the right in a liberal bourgeois sense, which seeks to legitimate that the major media of communication are in private hands.
     
     Three representatives of the LGBT community expresses satisfaction with the modifications made by the Commission with respect to families and the definition of marriage.  They called for all to vote for the Constitution, for it endorses the rights of all.  Among the three was Mariela Castro Espín, the most visible defender of LGBT rights and director the Center for Sexual Education and Teaching; as well as the daughter of Raul Castro, General Secretary of the Party, and the late Wilma Espín, founder of the Federation of Cuban Women.  She maintained that the reformulation is an advance in the cause of inclusion and anti-discrimination, contrary to what is disseminated in the international media of information, which has taken out of context the decision of the Commission to not define the subject that enter a marriage union.  The reformulation, she notes, is different from the 1976 Constitution, in that it does not refer to gender in the marriage union, and thus it does not preclude gay marriage.  Moreover, the new Constitution recognizes diverse forms of families, which can include the formation of couples, regardless of sexual orientation.  She announced that after the passage of the new Constitution, we will concentrate on the development of a new family code; we will make reference to scientific developments on the theme, as well as international tendencies, in our efforts to educate the people.  We will combat the international campaign of disinformation concerning the theme.  We congratulate the Commission for its work in developing a democratic constitutional process, and we call upon the people to adopt the constitution on February 24.  She concluded her intervention by paying tribute to her mother and father, who encouraged her in the defense of this cause, but counseled her to do so within the Revolution.
 
     Deputy Susely Morfa, General Secretary of the Union of the Young Communists, expressed support for a new article that focuses on youth.  He declared that “our youth affirm the spirit of the Constitution.”
 
     A deputy applauded inclusion of the protection of flora and fauna.  He notes that this was one of the expressions of the people in the popular consultation.
 
     A deputy supported legal guarantees that are affirmed in the modifications.  She proposed a change concerning when the right to legal counsel begins, indicating that the Constitution should make clear that the right is protected from the beginning of the process.  A member of the Commission maintained that this matter should be attended the laws of the penal code, rather than the Constitution, because when the process begins is complicated by various factors.  The deputy accepted the explanation and withdrew the proposal.
 
     A proposal was put forth by a deputy who is President of the Supreme Court.  It was approved unanimously.
 
     On December 23, 2018, the National Assembly of Popular Power of Cuba, elected directly and indirectly by the people and in accordance with the authority granted to it by the 1976 Constitution, approved the new constitution for submission to the people in referendum.  There were 583 votes in favor, none against, and nineteen absences. 
 
      During breaks in the session, a constitutional specialist, who is president of an organization of Cuban civil society, offered extended commentaries for the television audience.  He noted that a constitution ought to reflect the society.  The Cuban Constitution of 1976, he maintained, reflected Cuban society of that time, and the proposed constitution reflects Cuban society today.  He also noted that few countries in the world have had a popular consultation with respect to a constitution.  In the great majority of countries, a Constitutional Assembly debates and decides, followed in some cases by a popular referendum., but there is not a popular consultation, in which the people are converted into a constitutional assembly (see “People’s Constitutional Assembly in Cuba” 1/11/2019).
 
     In my next post, I will discuss the content of the proposed Constitution that will be voted by the people in referendum on February 24.  I will note the similarities and differences between this new constitution and that of 1976.

      We have seen in three previous posts that Cuba is developing a new Constitution.  The Constitutional Commission, taking into account the opinions and proposals of the people expressed during the popular consultation of August 13 to November 15, 2018, made substantial modifications of the proposed text.  The Commission presented the modified document to the National Assembly for further debate and modification.  A popular referendum on the proposed constitution will be held on February 24, 2019.  (See “Constitutional Democracy in Cuba” 1/9/2019; “People’s Constitutional Assembly in Cuba” 1/11/2019; “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019).
 
      On December 21, 2018, at a Plenary Session of the National Assembly, Homero Acosta, speaking on behalf of the Constitutional Commission, made an excellent four-hour presentation of the revisions in the document made by the Commission, based on the popular consultation.  Beyond his duties as a Commission member, Acosta is Secretary of the Council of State, which is the executive branch of the Cuban government, elected by the National Assembly.
 
      Acosta described the principal changes in the text.  Concerning the Preamble, the phrases “clandestine struggle” and “proletarian internationalism” were added, even though very few proposed it, because they were good suggestions.  The word “communism” was included to eliminate confusion over its not being included, which only had to do with the fact that communism pertains to a future stage. 
 
     The few proposals rejecting the socialist character of the revolution and the constitutional definition of the role of the Party were rejected by the Commission, because of the few number of people proposing it, and because of the ample popular support for these principles.  In addition, the Commission rejected the proposal of 4,802 citizens to change name of the country to “Socialist Republic of Cuba,” for historic reasons and because of tradition.
 
     There were some changes made with respect to the section on Economic Fundamentals, specifically the article that defines the various forms of property in the context of a socialist economy.  The description of private property was amplified, such that its complementary role in the socialist economy is affirmed.    There were more than 400 proposals for the elimination of private property, and a few proposals to eliminate the market.  Acosta maintained that these proposals “do not know our reality.”  Some compañeros are prejudiced against self-employment, but workers that are not part of the state sector are part of our revolutionary process, Acosta argued.  “This is a reality that we have to accept; this is the reality of socialism in our circumstances.”  Foreign investment, also, is necessary for our development, Acosta affirmed.  The Constitutional Reform of 1992 recognized this.  Even the Constitution of 1976, when there was no foreign investment, suggested possibilities of cooperation of this kind.  We have to abandon prejudice against foreign investment and recognize its place, as well as that of self-employment, in the socialist economy, he maintained.  The article now makes more explicit that the state regulates and controls the manner in which all the forms of property contribute to economic and social development.  And the new constitution continues with the affirmation of the 1992 reform, that the socialist property of all the people, in which the state acts in representation of the people as proprietor, is the principal form of property. 
 
      An article was added with respect to science: “The state promotes the advance of science, technology, and innovation as necessary elements for economic and social development.”
 
      One article affirms that “the State creates conditions for guaranteeing the equality of its citizens.”  Acosta maintained that this is different from absolute equality.  The State works to create more equality, but it also has to create more wealth, and this sometimes involves adopting measures that promote more inequality.  The adoption of internal use of foreign currency in 1993 is an example, but it had to be done.  We do not presently have the conditions for total equality, and we cannot do things that are beyond our capacity, Acosta argued.  However, responding to the concerns of some for growing inequality, the Commission amended the article to include, “the State makes effective this right [to equality] through the implementation of public policies and laws that promote social inclusion and the safeguarding of the rights of persons whose condition requires it.”
 
     The Commission amplified the article on the right to employment, identifying the role of the state to help the unemployed to find employment.  It amplified the article on health, designating the responsibility of the state to ensure that the system of public health is accessible to the population and to develop programs of prevention and education.  It amended the article on education, rescinding the proposal in the draft to exclude post-graduate education from the right of citizens to free, quality education at all levels.
 
      In response to the polemical debate on the proposal to define marriage as “union between two persons” (see “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019), Acosta explained that a new chapter on “Families” has been included.  He stressed the designation of families in the plural affirms that there are many types of families, including traditional families, single parent families, and multigenerational families, as well as couples. Among Cuban couples, 52% are married; and 47% are consensual unions.  And there are homosexual couples.  This is the reality, and the Commission believes that the Constitution has to legitimate what exists. 
 
     However, Acosta continued, the Commission believes it must accept and be respectful toward the various opinions, on both sides of the debate.  We want to arrive at a position that respects both sides; this Constitution must reflect equilibrium and consensus.  Therefore, the new formulation does not mention the subjects that enter into marriage.  It sets aside the debate for another moment, by requiring that the National Assembly develop a new Family Code within two years, and that development of the Code include a popular consultation and a referendum.
 
     Acosta declared that with this resolution of the issue by the Commission, there are no winners and losers.  We all win (a declaration greeted by applause). We continue to affirm the rights of all, and we will not abandon the struggle.  But we have to recognize what is possible today, in a form that respects the positions of all.
 
     Acosta took issue with persons who maintained that presidents are elected directly in other countries.  This is not true, he stated.  Many systems of parliamentary elections have second level elections for head of state.  Including the United States (referring to the Electoral College).  He maintained that the Cuban system is more democratic, because of the direct vote of the people in the formation of municipal assemblies, and the direct vote of the people affirming the second-level elections for the National Assembly.  “We have to defend our form of election.  We respect the systems of other countries.  Ours too should be respected.” 
 
      With respect to the limit of two consecutive terms on important offices of the government and the setting of age limits, Acosta maintained that these proposals came from the Party, and they did not originate in the Constitutional Commission itself.  He cited comments by Raúl on various occasions, who argued that the situation is different from the earlier years, when the Revolution confronted many challenges.  Acosta also cited Fidel on this matter.  The Commission wishes to maintain these proposed restrictions, in accordance with the views of the Party, its historic leader, and its present leader.
 
       A modification was introduced in one of the articles with respect to proposed changes in the structures of government.  The new office of provincial governor is to be elected by the delegates of the municipal assemblies of popular power in the province, rather than being designated by the National Assembly. 
 
      Homero Acosta concluded his four-hour presentation with the affirmation, “Never before in the world has an entire people participated in the development of a Constitution.”
 
     I will discuss the debate on the new Constitution in the National Assembly in my next post.

​     As I described in two previous posts, Cuba is in the midst of a process of developing a new constitution.  A Constitutional Commission named by the National Assembly developed a draft of a proposed new constitution, which the National Assembly subsequently approved.  Next, there was a people’s constitutional assembly, held from August 13 to November 15, 2018, which consisted of 113,680 meetings in neighborhoods and places of work, in which roughly 85% of the adult population attended at least one.  There were 1,706,872 expressions of opinions by the people, including 783,174 proposals, that is, proposed modifications, additions, or eliminations of the text.  Based on these opinions and proposals, the Commission made substantial modifications and then presented it to the National Assembly, which debated, further modified, and approved the document.  A popular referendum that will establish the proposed constitution as the “law of laws” will be held on February 24, 2019.  (See “Constitutional Democracy in Cuba” 1/9/2019 and “People’s Constitutional Assembly in Cuba” 1/11/2019). 
 
      In this post, I address the question, what did the people say in their 1,706,872 interventions in 133,680 meetings?  Overwhelmingly, the people expressed approval of the socialist revolutionary road that has been in march since January 1, 1959.  The very high level of participation in the constitutional process itself is an affirmation.  Moreover, 62% of the interventions included some favorable expression with respect to the unfolding constitutional process.  At the same time, there were a scant thirty expressions of rejection of the socialist character of the revolution; and there were only 262 proposals (0.03% of the proposals) that rejected the constitutional definition of the role of the Communist Party of Cuba as the guiding force of the nation.  Going in the opposite direction, there were 4,802 proposals to change the name of the country to the “Socialist Republic of Cuba.”
 
     Some proposals could be construed as criticism of the Cuban political system, without necessarily implying a rejection of the socialist direction.  For example, the right of the accused to legal counsel was addressed in 2.33% of the proposals, which concerned for the most part a definition of the moment in which this due process right should begin.  These expressions may reflect dissatisfaction with the existing procedures as they operate in practice.  There is some sentiment among the people that those accused of crimes, in some cases, does not have a lawyer with sufficient time prior to the beginning of a criminal trial. 
 
     Similarly, there were 11,080 proposals (1.4% of the proposals and 0.6% of the interventions) in favor of direct election of the president.  In Cuban political discourse, direct election includes the approval or rejection of individual candidates on a list.  So some of these proposals could be expressing a desire that the people in a referendum approve the election of a president by the National Assembly.  On the other hand, some of the proposals referred to elections with competing candidates in other countries, so they might have had some version of this in mind.  Such a proposal is inconsistent with the structures of the Cuban electoral system, characterized by a combination of direct and indirect elections.  It was put forward by a small percentage, and the raising of the issue did not stimulate discussion and debate at the meetings of the people.
 
     There were more than 400 proposals for the elimination of private property, rejecting the greater space for private property granted by the new Constitution, in comparison to the Constitution of 1976.  This could be interpreted as an ultra-Left criticism of the direction taken by the Party and the government in the New Social and Economic Model of 2012.  However, inasmuch as such proposals constituted less than 1% of the proposals, this constitutes an implicit support for the new direction formally established in 2012.
     
     By far, the theme most addressed by the interventions was that of marriage.  The proposed new Constitution changed the language defining marriage from a union “between a man and a woman” to a union “between two persons.”  Some 24.56% of the proposals addressed the issue, more than twice that of any other issue.  Overwhelmingly, the proposals were in favor of reverting to the 1976 language of “a man and a woman,” or arguing that a constitution ought not enter into the issue.  The theme was addressed in 66% of the meetings.  Interestingly, in the section expressing the equal rights of all without discrimination, the insertion of sexual orientation and gender identity did not provoke controversy.  The people seemed to be saying that, yes, all people have rights, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, but gay marriage ought not be legitimated or legalized. 
 
      The second theme most addressed in the popular consultation was the placing of a limit of two five-year terms on the office of the President of the Republic.  Some 11.24% of the proposals addressed this theme, and they overwhelmingly expressed that no term limits should be placed on the office of the president.  In a related vein, 2.33% of the proposals addressed the establishment of a maximum of sixty years of age for a person to be elected president for a first term.  Overwhelmingly, the proposals eliminated the placing of an age limit on the office, or making the age limit higher.
 
      Some 6.56% of the interventions addressed the article asserting that all able persons have the duty to work.  The interventions reflected the sentiment in the society that too many persons are not working, yet they are receiving full rights and social benefits, and they may be living better materially than most, because of illicit activities or family remittances from abroad.  The interventions overwhelmingly expressed the view that work should be obligatory.
 
     A popular consultation is an open and public process.  Therefore, anyone criticizing the fundamental direction of the nation is doing so publicly, which could inhibit people from expressing their true feelings.  Not that there is any danger of legal action against them.  It is just that, in any social context, when persons express ideas that are against the prevailing consensus, they risk the loss of prestige among their neighbors and co-workers.  However, such rejection by fellow citizens would not deter anyone who is committed to his or her ideals.  Therefore, unless and until there emerges an anti-socialist or counterrevolutionary commitment among the people, in which the advocates of fundamental change are prepared to risk all in defense of their ideas, as the creators of the socialist road in Cuba themselves did, the counterrevolution cannot be taken seriously as a political presence in Cuban society.
 
     The popular consultation of August 13 to November 15 demonstrated the willingness and desire of the Cuban people to participate and to express themselves in the context of a national consensus in support of its socialist project; and to debate issues as framed by the Party, carrying out its historically assigned role as the vanguard of the Cuban nation.  For the foreseeable future, Cuba is on a revolutionary socialist road, with the support and commitment of the people.  I believe that the Cuban people, with the leadership and guidance of the Party, will continue permanently on that road, unless catastrophic events, caused by international developments, intervene.

     On January 10, 2019, Nicolás Maduro Moros took the oath of office for his second term as president.  Maduro won the elections of May 20, 2018 with more than 67% of the vote.  Nevertheless, the United States and several governments in Latin America deny the legitimacy of his government.  The “Group of Lima,” foreign ministers of seven Latin American nations, responding to the directions of Washington, emitted on January 9 a resolution soliciting that Maduro not assume the presidency for a second term.  On the other hand, presidents and delegations from several Latin American governments were present at the swearing-in ceremony, as 94 countries from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East sent delegations.  More than 120 countries as well as the United Nations have ratified the legitimacy of the government. 
 
     The conflict over Venezuela has deep historic roots.  The modern world-system is built on a foundation of colonial domination.  Seven European nations conquered the empires, nations, and peoples of vast regions of the planet from the sixteenth through the twentieth centuries, converting the conquered into suppliers of cheap raw materials on a base of forced labor, thus enabling the economic development of the conquering nations and their immediate neighbors.  During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the colonized formed anti-colonial movements, obligating the colonial powers to concede political independence.  However, colonial economic structures were preserved following independence, and various imperialist forms of penetration and intervention were developed.  As a result, the former colonies did not have true independence, which gave rise to popular anti-imperialist movements throughout the former colonies.  These movements condemned not only the imperialist powers, but also the national politicians, political parties, and governments that accommodated imperialist interests for personal gain.
 
       In this global scenario defined by neocolonial structures and imperialist policies, any nation that has been able to mobilize its political and economic resources toward an autonomous road has been branded an outlaw nation by the global powers.  The governments, corporations, and civil organizations of the powerful have sought to destroy the governments and political leaders that possess the audacity and the capacity to lead their peoples and nations toward a destiny different from that assigned to them by the global powers.  They have used all methods, including aggressive and barbarous military attacks, support for brutal dictatorships, economic sanctions, and the dissemination of half-truths and lies.  Examples of nations seeking autonomous economic and political development that have been branded and punished are legendary.  They include the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, (North) Korea, Nasser’s Egypt, Cuba, Tanzania in the time of Nyerere, Chile in the age of Allende, the first stage of the Sandinista Revolution in power in Nicaragua, the government of al-Qaddafi in Libya, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In Latin America today, the targeted nations are Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.
 
      Economic interests shape political thought and behavior in the colonies and neocolonies, as occurs everywhere.  Accordingly, two tendencies emerge, namely, accommodation and revolution.  Those who accommodate to imperialist interests are tied to sectors that economically benefit from the colonial/neocolonial economic relation.  Such sectors include the landed estates and mines that export raw materials as well as import/export commerce with the metropolis.  Some accommodationists are well grounded in the ideological orientation of the North by virtue of education and employment.  In the great majority of cases, in the transition from colonialism to neocolonialism, the accommodationists are installed in political power by the withdrawing colonial power. 
 
     However, the majority of the people in the neocolonies, including peasants, workers, and professionals, do not have an interest in accommodation to neocolonial domination.  They have an interest in the economic and social development of the nation, on a base of diversity of production and commerce, including scientific and technological development.  They have an interest in the structural transformation of neocolonial economic structures, such that autonomous and nationally directed economic development can occur.  They have an interest in the true sovereignty of the nation.  They have an interest in the taking of political power from the accommodationists, such that the state can act to promote the economic development of the nation and to defend the social and economic rights of the people.
 
       Domination and exploitation nearly always are based on force, but they are never carried out by brute force alone.  The global conflict between colonialist North and neocolonized South includes a battle of ideas, as the imperialist powers justify their interventions with ideological distortions that they present to their own peoples and that they disseminate throughout the world.  They speak of communism, terrorism, human rights, and humanitarian intervention.  With these ideological maneuvers, the imperialist nations and imperialist policymakers present themselves as defenders of democracy and civilization as they inflict great damage on the peoples of the world as well as on their own young men and women who are sent to carry out morally questionable missions in hostile areas.
     
       Such are the fundamental dynamics of the world.  A world-system founded on colonialism, constituting a neocolonial world-system that ensures the flow of raw materials, lowed-waged manufactured goods, and capital from the neocolonies to the metropolitan centers.  Indirect political control by the core powers, with the support of accommodationist actors.  Anti-imperialist social movements throughout the neocolonies, with the taking of political power by the movements in some cases, branded as outlaw nations and attacked.  The dissemination of ideological distortions, designed to discredit the recalcitrant nations and their leaders and to justify economic and military actions against them.  If our frame of reference is not shaped by colonial consciousness, that is, by consciousness of these fundamental historical and global dynamics of the last five centuries, we are not going to be able to understand very much about the world today, and we will be more easily taken in by the ideological distortions.
 
       Colonial consciousness helps us to understand the conflict concerning Venezuela today.  The Venezuelan twentieth century popular anti-imperialist movement above all was oriented to attaining national control of the oil industry.  The movement was not able to attain control, in spite of the nationalization of the industry in 1976, because Venezuelan managers accommodated to the economic interests of international oil capital.  Following the implementation of neoliberal policies, which began in 1989 in the case of Venezuela, foreign penetration of the economy intensified, and foreign political influence increased.  In 1992, Hugo Chávez led a group of military officers in a failed coup d’état, proclaiming the need for a constitutional assembly.  Released from prison in 1994, Chávez formed the Bolivarian Fifth Republic Movement.  He was democratically elected president in 1998, on the basis of a campaign calling for an alternative constitutional foundation and charging that the national elite was “kneeling undignified before the imperial power.”  When Chávez assumed the presidency in 1999, he convoked a Constitutional Assembly, the delegates of which were elected by the people in free, direct, and universal elections.  The Constitutional Assembly approved a new Constitution that established the Fifth Republic.  Chávez was elected president for two consecutive terms under the mandates of the Constitution, winning in free elections by strong majorities, before dying of cancer in 2013 prior to the completion of his second term. (See various posts in the category Venezuela). 
 
       The presidency of Hugo Chávez had three basic dimensions.  First, the taking of effective control of the oil industry, by appointing managers of the state petroleum company who were committed to Venezuelan national development and not the interests of international capital.  In addition, Chávez visited leaders of OPEC countries, forging new agreements with respect to limits on oil production, thus generating higher prices and more government income.  Secondly, the redistribution of income, through the channeling new oil revenues toward programs that responded to the needs of persons of modest income, including programs that reduced illiteracy and expanded educational opportunity and health care.  Thirdly, a foreign policy that sought Latin American unity and integration, seeking to develop alternative structures to those of the neocolonial world-system.  Accordingly, Chávez and Fidel founded in 2004 the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), an association of Latin American and Caribbean states dedicated to integration, unity, and mutually beneficial commerce and cooperation.  ALBA was the foundation for other regional anti-imperialist initiatives, such as the South American Union of Nations (UNASUR, founded in 2008) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC, founded in 2010), in which Venezuela was one of the leading actors (see various posts in the category Latin American unity) .
 
     As a popular revolutionary project that seeks to attain the true sovereignty of the nation and to develop its own endogenous project of national development, the Chavist Bolivarian Revolution is a threat to the neocolonial world-system.  The U.S. government has sought to undermine the Chávez government through the support of those sectors in Venezuela that have economic interests opposed to the goals of the revolutionary project, sectors that benefit from the neocolonial world order.  These sectors initially included: the technocratic elite that managed the petroleum industry prior to 1998; the business elite, owners of import-export companies; leaders of the union of petroleum workers, who were in a privileged position relative to the majority of workers; the landed estate bourgeoisie, historic beneficiaries of the core-peripheral relation; and the traditional political parties, junior partners in the imposition of neocolonial structures and in the implementation of neoliberal policies.  The opposition sectors control the private media of communication, and they can count on international financial support and the active engagement of the US embassy.   
 
      During the period of the Chávez presidency from 1998 to 2013, the opposition generated much conflict, but the Chavist forces prevailed.  However, with the death of Chávez in 2013, the opposition escalated its tactics, seeking to destabilize the government of Nicolás Maduro.  In February 2014, fascist gangs were organized to attack citizens and property, and the international media falsely presented the violent groups as peaceful student protestors.  There were calls for US intervention.  But Maduro weathered the storm by responding with political intelligence.  He convoked peaceful demonstrations by supporters of the Bolivarian revolution; he announced the organization of popular vigilance in centers of work and study and in neighborhoods; and he called for dialogue with the moderate opposition, seeking to isolate the extreme right. 
 
     But more challenges lay ahead.  Beginning in the summer of 2014, oil prices began a sustained and sharp fall, which significantly affected the Venezuelan economy, inasmuch as petroleum accounts for ninety percent of national income from foreign trade.  In addition, China adopted a model of slower economic growth, which reduced the prices of metals and soybean exported by Venezuela to her trading partners in Latin America.  Moreover, the value of the U.S. dollar increased, resulted in higher costs for imported goods in Venezuela.  These dynamics made evident the limits of the strategy of using oil revenue to redistribute income.  Further progress must be made in practice with respect to the Revolution’s goal of increasing and diversifying national production.
 
      An economic war, which had been waged by the opposition against the governments of both Chávez and Maduro, intensified and had greater effect in the context of the economic difficulties of 2014-2015.  Inasmuch as Venezuela imports more goods that it consumes, the country is dependent on the importing companies.  When these companies, with foreign financial support, reduce the availability of food, medicine and consumer goods by hording goods in warehouses and reducing imports, the result is critical shortages, price speculation, and price increases.  The withholding of food and medicine as a political weapon violates international law, and in the case of Venezuela, it has been conducted by importers and big merchants against the people of their own nation.
 
      The difficulties from the economic war, in conjunction with a constant anti-government campaign by the corporate owned media, gave rise to a lack of satisfaction with the government by the people.  As a result of the growing popular dissatisfaction, a coalition of opposition parties won the parliamentary elections of December 6, 2015, attaining nearly a two-thirds majority.
 
      The opposition parliamentary victory of 2015 makes evident the need for the improvement and further development of popular assemblies, where the people are able to discuss their concrete problems with their co-workers and neighborhoods.  In such a setting, informed revolutionaries are able to explain the sources of the shortages and price increases, making clear the culpability of the opposition, and not the revolutionary government.  The Bolivarian revolution has had a commitment to develop popular assemblies, but it needs to develop them further.
 
     However, the limitations of the opposition parliamentary victory also should be understood.  The Chavists continued to control other governmental powers, namely, the executive and judicial branches as well as the military forces.  In addition, the Constitution of 1999 was a creation of the Bolivarian revolution, and it supports revolutionary goals.  Moreover, the opposition has no viable program to offer.  In reality, the opposition favors a neoliberal dismantling of the structures established by the Bolivarian Revolution, but it did not campaign on such a program, and if now announced, such a platform would not have popular support. 
 
     Therefore, the opposition in early 2016 found itself in control of one of four governmental branches, with an unannounced agenda that, if clearly proclaimed, would not have popular support.  Moreover, the opposition was divided between a moderate and extreme opposition.  The moderates were prepared to work within the structures of the Constitution to promote their political objectives, even though this would likely imply merely partial and limited political power.  In contrast, the extreme opposition, recognizing the obstacles to obtaining sufficient popular support for a neoliberal restauration through constitutional means, sought to foster political destabilization and to create an international image of chaos, which would provide a pretext for a foreign military intervention that would create the opportunity for the taking of full political control by Venezuelan actors committed to neoliberalism.
 
     In the opposition-controlled parliament, the extremists gained the political upper hand over the moderates.  The extremists immediately demonstrated their contempt for the other constitutional powers.  They projected that the constitutionally elected president would be removed from power within three months.  They called for popular demonstrations against the government, and they organized violent gangs that burned public buildings, looted commercial establishments, and attacked supports of the Bolivarian Revolution.  Rather than formulating a proposal for an alternative direction for the nation, their focus was on the fomenting of political instability.  The international media supported their agenda, falsely portraying the violence as repression by the government of peaceful demonstrators. 
 
      In 2016, the opposition-controlled parliament came into conflict with the Venezuelan Supreme Court over the seating of three parliamentary deputies.  Much was at stake here, because the three additional seats would have given the opposition a two-thirds majority, enabling it to adopt measures without presidential approval.  However, the Supreme Court ruled that the three deputies should not be seated, as a result of irregularities in the voting in their districts.  The Parliament defied the Court, and administered the oath of office to the three deputies, thus ignoring the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court.  In response, the Court ruled the National Assembly to be in contempt of court.
 
     The Constitution mandates that, if the National Assembly is found in contempt of court, a Constitutional Assembly should assume the functions of the National Assembly, until the National Assembly obeys the decision of the Court.  Accordingly, taking into account the continuing violence of the opposition and the ongoing stalemate between the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, in June 2017 Maduro convoked a Constitutional Assembly.  Some 545 delegates to the Constitutional Assembly were elected in a universal, secret, and direct election held on June 30, 2017.  The majority of the elected delegates were Chavists, a result that was influenced by the fact that a good part of the opposition was oriented to disruption rather than to the nomination of candidates, and by popular disgust with the conduct of the opposition since its parliamentary victory of December 2015.
 
      Reflecting growing popular rejection of the opposition for its irresponsible conduct, Chavist candidates won the regional elections of October 2017.  The Chavist party, United Socialist Party of Venezuela, won 18 state governorships; whereas two opposition parties, Democratic Action and Justice First, won five.  Chavist candidates received 54% of the total votes cast.  Voter participation was 61%, the highest in the nation’s history for regional elections.
 
      In response to the violence and the attempts at promoting political instability, Maduro was continually calling for dialogue with respect to any issues of substance.  Accordingly, an encounter between the government and the opposition was held in the Dominican Republic, in which it was agreed that the presidential elections scheduled for the end of 2018 would be moved up to May of that year.  The Constitutional National Assembly emitted a decree to the effect, and elections conducted by National Electoral Council were held on May 20, 2018.
 
     Maduro won the May 2018 presidential elections with 5,823,728 votes (67.7%).  Henri Falcón of Progressive Advance was second with 21.1%.  Two other candidates had lower percentages.  The elections were recognized as free and fair by the opposition candidates and by international observers.  The voter participation was lower than in previous elections in the Chavist era, for two reasons.  First, the switch of voters from the opposition to the “ni-ni” category (neither for nor against the Chavists), as a result of the irresponsible conduct of the parliamentary majority.  Secondly, some opposition leaders, recognizing that they could not win and more oriented to destabilization, called for a boycott of the elections.  Nevertheless, Maduro’s absolute vote was roughly the same as in previous elections that the Chavists won, but now the vote represented a higher percentage of the votes cast.  Moreover, Maduro’s vote as a percentage of eligible voters was higher than that of the winning candidates in recent presidential elections in other nations, including Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.
 
      In fact, the Venezuelan electoral system in the Chavist era is recognized as one of the best in the world, with transparency and high voter participation.  It has been so characterized by former President Jimmy Carter.  In last 20 years, 25 elections have been held; and Chavists have won 23 of them. 
 
      But the United States stands against Venezuela.  In 2015, the Obama administration declared that Venezuela is a threat to the national security of the United States.  In August 2017, the Trump administration ordered economic and financial sanctions against Venezuela, with the intention of deepening the economic problems caused by the fall in oil prices, stimulating an economic collapse.  The United States has endeavored to use the Organization of American States, its historic diplomatic arm for controlling Latin America, in its attack on Venezuela.  The OAS attack is directed by Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the OAS, with the coordination of the Southern Command of the U.S. military.  Amargo convoked a session of OAS on March 28, 2017, but he was unable to obtain the approval of OAS members for the expulsion of Venezuela from OAS (as was done with respect to Cuba in 1961) or any other action against Venezuela.  On January 11, 2019, a U.S.-supported resolution not recognizing the legitimacy of the Maduro government and urging countries to take punitive measures against Venezuela was presented at an extraordinary session of the Permanent Council of OAS; however, it did not obtain the necessary votes from the member nations. 
 
       U.S. policy toward Venezuela has nothing to do with democratic elections or constitutional procedures.  From the U.S. point of view, the problem with Venezuela is that it is an oil rich country that does not submit to its mandates.  And even worse, it is a country that has played a leading role in forging a unified movement toward autonomous economic development and genuine political independence among nations located in what used to be the U.S. “backyard.”   The USA is supporting an economic and media war against Venezuela with the intention of promoting political instability and an international image of chaos, in order to justify a military intervention, dressed up as humanitarian aid. 
 
     U.S. policy in Venezuela is consistent with its general policy with respect to Latin America, which involves efforts to destabilize governments in the vanguard of change, operating through opposition political sectors that have an economic stake in the neocolonial world order.  Today, the attack is directed against of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua.  It was directed against Ecuador and the citizen revolution led by Rafael Correa, before that revolution was hijacked by a Trojan Horse.  Meanwhile, in accordance with the same imperialist objectives, the economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba continues.
 
       As the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela struggles to move forward in the face of the interferences and the threat of military intervention by the imperial power, it must in the long term strengthen itself through the diversification of the economy; the strengthening of popular assemblies and alternative structures of popular power; and the further development in practice of South-South commerce.  Nicolás Maduro, the constitutionally elected and legitimate President of Venezuela, is working hard on these objectives.
 
     Perhaps the United States will ultimately decide not to take the option of military intervention, taking into account the risks, including armed resistance in the occupied nation, opposition by numerous governments and international organizations, and widespread popular rejection in the world and in the United States itself.  However, taking into account the declining capacity of the United States to apply economic forms of inducement and coercion, as well as the growing political resistance of the neocolonized to U.S. demands, the peoples and nations of the world must be prepared for the increasingly likely possibility that the United States will return to its earlier forms of imperialism.  That is, we must prepare ourselves for the sad phenomenon of the declining hegemonic power increasingly turning to military interventions and propping-up military dictatorships in defense of its economic interests.

     The Cuban Constitution of 1976 established structures of popular democracy.  In universal and secret voting in small voting districts of 1000 to 1500 voters, involving elections with two or three candidates nominated in neighborhood assemblies without the participation of electoral parties, the delegates of 169 municipal assemblies are elected.  These delegates in turn elect the 602 deputies of the national assembly, responding yes or no to candidates put forward by candidacy commissions formed by representatives of mass organizations of workers, farmers, students, women, and neighborhoods.  Membership in the mass organizations ranges from 84% to 99% of their respective populations, and their leaders are elected similarly, with direct elections at the base and indirect elections for higher office.  The Constitution also establishes the Communist Party of Cuba as a vanguard political party that is responsible for guiding, educating, and calling the people, but which is constrained from participating in the electoral process.  The vanguard party leads, but it is not the supreme authority, for the Constitution establishes the National Assembly as the elected deputies of the people and as the highest authority in the nation.  (See “Constitutional Democracy in Cuba” 1/9/2018).
 
     Following the establishment of the Constitution of 1976, there have been two constitutional amendments.  The Constitutional Reform of 1992 took into account the necessary adjustments in economic policy provoked by the collapse of the socialist bloc and the loss of Cuba’s commercial partners.  It modified the 1976 constitutional requirement for state property with respect to the means of production (which excepted land owned by small farmers and agricultural cooperatives as well as self-employment).  The 1992 Reform mandates state ownership of the principal means of production, thus giving constitutional recognition to a complementary role for private property, including foreign property and foreign investment, in a process of economic and social development directed by the state.  The 1992 Reform also introduced changes in the administration and structure of the state, including a provision for the direct popular election of deputies of the National Assembly and delegates of the provincial assemblies, in which voters respond yes or no to a list of candidates approved by the National Assembly.  The 1992 Reform was developed with an extensive popular consultation.
 
     The Constitutional Reform of 2002 responded to the “Bush Plan,” that is, the plan of the U.S. administration of George W. Bush to undermine socialism and reestablish capitalism in Cuba.  The 2002 Reform declared the irrevocable character of Cuban socialism, and it declared that Cuba will never return to capitalism.  In addition, the Reform declared that Cuban relations with other states cannot be negotiated under aggression, threats, or coercion by a foreign power.  The National Assembly approved the Reform following the signing of its ratification by more than 8 million voters (nearly 100% of the number of registered voters) during a three-day period.
 
     Now, responding to the development of a new social and economic model in 2012 and to changes in Cuban society, a new constitution is being developed.  The process has six steps.  First, the National Assembly of Popular Power formed a Constitutional Commission, composed of deputies of the National Assembly.  Secondly, the Commission developed a draft of the new Constitution and submitted it to the National Assembly, which voted on it article by article. 
 
     Thirdly, a popular consultation was conducted from August 13 to November 15, 2018.  Prior to the consultation, a work structure was established, with training for the conducting of the meetings and the recording of the opinions expressed by the people.  Some 133,680 meetings were held in neighborhoods and places of work and study, in which the people were given opportunity to express opinions and to make proposals.  The meetings included 79,947 neighborhood meetings; 45,452 meetings in places of work; 3,441 meetings among small farmers and cooperatives in the countryside; 1,585 meetings among university students; and 3,256 meetings among junior high and high school students.  There were 8,945,521 participants, with an estimated two million attending more than one.  The participation rate, therefore, was approximately three-quarters of the adult population, defined as at least 16 years of age.  There were 1,706,872 interventions by the people, with 783,174 proposals, that is, proposed modifications, additions, or eliminations.  The media of communication, both television and newspapers, provided extensive coverage and analysis of the process.  There was widespread satisfaction with the extent and quality of the popular consultation.
 
     Fourthly, based on the opinions and proposals of the people (which I will discuss in a subsequent post), the text of the constitution was revised by the Constitutional Commission.  The Commission tried to take seriously every opinion, even those that were not expressed frequently.  The opinions were divided into groups for analysis and discussion.  The commission debated each proposal, and it called on experts to aid in the reflection, consulting with various entities and organizations, universities, scientific centers, academies of science, legal specialists, and government ministries.
 
     Based on this reflection, the Commission made 760 changes in the text, involving the addition or elimination of articles, paragraphs, sentences, or words.  More than 50% of the proposals of the people were included in the modifications.  The revised text has 229 articles, as against 224 articles in the original version.  Nearly 60% of the articles were modified in some form. 
 
     Fifthly, the National Assembly received the revised constitution, debated it, and introduced further changes.  (I will discuss the debate of the National Assembly in a subsequent post).  Sixthly, a popular referendum, involving the secret vote of every citizen, will be held on February 24, 2019. 
 
     The Cuban daily newspaper Juventud Rebelde described the process as “an entire people constructing their constitution.”  That it is to say, it is a Constitution developed by a constitutional assembly formed by the people.  Does such a process have precedent?

      On December 23, 2018, the National Assembly of Popular Power of Cuba approved a new constitution for submission to the people in referendum.  Some 583 of the 602 deputies of the National Assembly approved the new Magna Carta; nine deputies were absent from the vote.  As I note below, the National Assembly is elected directly and indirectly by the people.  And as I will discuss in the next post, the new Constitution was developed through an extensive popular consultation.  The new Constitution will be submitted to popular referendum on February 24, 2019. 
 
     In the next posts, I discuss the new Cuban constitution.  I begin in this post with summary of the historic antecedents of the new Constitution. 
 
     (1)  The Constitution of Guáimaro, a town in the liberated territory during the First War of Independence (1868-78), was adopted by fifteen deputies of the insurrectionists on April 10, 1869.  It created the Republic of Cuba in Arms.
 
     (2)  The Constitution of 1901 established the Republic of Cuba following the third war of independence, 1895-1898.  Written during the U.S. military occupation that followed the 1898 military intervention, and written in the aftermath of the elimination of Cuban revolutionary political and military institutions, the Constitution of 1901 copied the governmental structures of the U.S. model.  It did not reflect the conditions of Cuba as a new state recently liberated from Spanish colonialism.  It said nothing with respect to the protection of social and economic rights, the role of the state in the economy, or limitations on large estates and foreign capital.  It provided the constitutional foundation for the U.S.-dominated neocolonial republic.
 
     (3)  At the end of the 1930s, the changing national and international situation led the Batista dictatorship to a democratic opening, which included the convoking of a constitutional assembly, a long-standing demand of the popular movement.  Elections for the Constitutional Assembly were held on November 15, 1939, resulting in the election of seventy-six delegates from seven political parties, including six delegates from the Communist Party as well as other socialist and progressive delegates.  Influenced by the Mexican Constitution of 1917 and the prevailing social and progressive ideals of the epoch, the Constitution of 1940 was advanced for its time.  However, key aspects of the Constitution were not implemented with necessary complementary laws during the period 1940-1952.  Following the Batista coup d’état of March 10, 1952 that launched the second Batista dictatorship, the Constitution of 1940 was replaced with Statutes of dubious juridical base. 
 
     (4) Following the triumph of the Revolution of January 1, 1959, the Constitution of 1940 was reestablished, with necessary modifications for the exercise of power.  It was the base for the Fundamental Law of February 7, 1959 and the provisional revolutionary government. 
 
     (5)  On September 2, 1960, the National General Assembly of the People of Cuba emitted the Declaration of Havana, which defined the concepts and rights that would guide the revolutionary process in the subsequent stage.  It affirms the right of the Latin American peoples to sovereignty and self-determination, condemning the imperialist policies of the United States.  And it proclaims: the right of peasants to the land; the right of workers to the fruit of their labor; the right of children to education; the right of the sick to medical attention and hospital care; the right of youth to work; the right of students to free, experiential and scientific education; the right of blacks and Indians to “the full dignity of man;” the right of the woman to civil, social, and political equality; the right of the elderly to a secure old age; the right of intellectuals, artists, and scientists to struggle, with their works, for a better world; the right of States to the nationalization of the “imperialist monopolies,” thereby rescuing national wealth and resources; the right of nations to full sovereignty; the right of the peoples to convert military fortresses into schools, and to arm their workers, their peasants, their students, their intellectuals, the black, the Indian, the woman, the young person, the old person, and all the oppressed and exploited, in order that they can defend, by themselves, their rights and their destinies.  The National General Assembly of the People of Cuba was constituted by a mass meeting of one million persons at the Civic Plaza (today the Plaza of the Revolution), constituting perhaps 20% of the Cuban adult population of the time.  Fidel named it “direct democracy,” an alternative to the prevailing structures of representative democracy. 
 
     (6) The Constitution of 1976 was approved on February 15, 1976 by popular referendum.  Ninety-eight percent of the population of more than 16 years of age participated in the referendum, and 97.7% of the voters approved.  Thus, 95.7% of the people voted “yes” in the constitutional referendum.
 
     There are five important characteristics of the Constitution of 1976.  (i)  The most outstanding characteristic is that it institutionalized structures of popular participation that were initiated by the Revolution as “direct democracy” in the early 1960s.  It established municipal assemblies as the foundation to national structures of popular power.  The 169 municipal assemblies are formed by direct and secret voting in small voting districts, in which voters choose from two or more candidates.  The elected delegates of the municipal assemblies, in “second-degree” or “indirect” elections, vote for delegates to the provincial assemblies as well as the deputies of the national assembly.  Candidacy commissions, constituted by mass organizations of workers, farmers, women, students, and neighborhoods, play a pivotal role in the second-degree elections, proposing lists of candidates to the delegates of the municipal assemblies. 
 
      (ii). The Constitution of 1976 abolished electoral political parties.  Candidates for the municipal assemblies are nominated by the people in a serious of nomination assemblies in neighborhoods in the numerous voting districts.  
 
     (iii). The Constitution of 1976 established the unity of power.  It established a functional division among the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, but not a separation of powers or a balance of powers.  Accordingly, the National Assembly is the highest authority of the nation; it enacts laws and designates the high members of the executive and judicial branches of government.     
 
     (iv). The Constitution of 1976 defines the Communist Party of Cuba as the only party, which is the highest leading force in the society.  Distinct from political parties in representative democracies, the Party does not have electoral functions, and it does not participate directly in the electoral process.  The Party leads through education and by example, but it is the people, through the structures of popular power, that ultimately decide. 
 
     (v).  The Constitution of 1976, like the 1960 Declaration of Havana, affirms the right of Cuba to sovereignty as well as the social and economic rights of the people, including rights to employment, food, health, education, culture, and recreation. 
 
     In basing the election of the national assembly in local voting districts without the participation of electoral political parties, the Constitution of 1976 sought to ensure that the National Assembly reflects the people and functions to promote the interest of the people.  In establishing the unity of governmental branches, the Constitution sought to ensure that the National Assembly would be able to effectively act.  In creating a popular government that can act effectively in defense of the people, the Constitution reflects the most important principle of socialism, namely, that power is in the hands of the people, through the elected delegates of the people.  Accordingly, Article One of the 1976 Constitution describes Cuba as an independent and sovereign socialist state.
 
     The existence of a single party does not mean a negation of diversity or pluralism.  Cuba is a society with ideological diversity and a culture of free expression of ideas, which is evident within the Party, within popular assembles, and within the mass organizations.  Under the leadership of the Party, Cuban society has arrived to a consensus with respect to the principles of the Constitution of 1976, thereby demonstrating that a system in which a single party educates and exhorts can overcome confusions and dysfunctional divisions.  However, the forging of a consensus does not imply that minority opinions that deviate from the consensus cannot be expressed. 
 
      Constitutions should reflect the society, and as societies evolve, constitutional reforms or new constitutions ought to be developed.  In the case of Cuba, there have been significant changes since 1976.  The collapse of the socialist bloc led to new economic and social measures as well as significant social changes.  Moreover, in the period 2007 to 2014, the Party formulated and led the people in a discussion of a new economic and social model, adjusting to the evolving conditions.  These evolutionary changes created the need for a new Constitution.  The new Constitution, however, is built on the foundation of the Constitution of 1976, and preserves many of its elements, as we will discuss in subsequent posts.

     In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez declared the need for “socialism for the twenty-first century,” thus stimulating reflection on the characteristics of socialism.  The question emerges, how are the socialist models of the twenty-first century different from the socialist models of the twentieth century?  In addressing this question, it seems to me possible to identify nine points of current socialist continuity with the socialism of the last century; and seven points of evolutionary change, in which the differences between socialism today and the socialism of the last century become evident.
 
Points of Continuity
 
The taking of power through any means necessary.  The revolutions in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua came to power through guerrilla wars that first attained control of rural territory and then moved to capture control of the cities.  The Russian Revolution came to power through a combination of the formation of popular councils (soviets), mass protests, the arming of workers, and the taking control of some strategic military garrisons; it is evident that the use of arms was a component of its strategy for taking power.  In Venezuela, the taking of power was through the electoral process, but the revolutionary leader was a career military officer who had been working for years on the revolutionary transformation of the military.  In general, the socialist revolutions in political power today have developed for structures of armed defense and armed resistance to a military invasion and occupation, if they were to be invaded by a military power; this preparedness has functioned as a partial deterrent to military intervention by the global powers.
 
The structures of popular democracy.  The triumphant socialist revolutions of the twentieth century for the most part developed structures of popular power as an alternative to bourgeois representative democracy, as well as mass organizations integrally tied to popular power.  Elections at the base are direct elections among multiple candidates, whereas they are second-degree elections at higher levels, elected by delegates elected at the lower levels.  Structures of popular democracy are less developed in the socialist projects that have emerged in the twenty-first century, but their experience confirms the need for the further development of popular democracy, if popular consensus and political stability is to be attained.
 
The vanguard.  The majority of the people think in terms of concrete problems, and most do not spontaneously analyze their problems from a global, historical, and scientifically informed perspective.  The people, therefore, must be led by a committed and prepared vanguard, which plays a central role in the education of the people.  The role of the vanguard in the construction of socialism is often misunderstand in the capitalist societies of the West, where it erroneously is assumed that the people do not decide.  In fact, the people decide, doing so with the guidance of the vanguard.  That is, the decision of the people is based on public debate that is framed or reframed by the vanguard, rather than of the basis of a public debate that is framed by particular elite interests, as occurs in capitalist societies.  In socialism, in carrying out its role of leading the popular revolution, the vanguard checks the manipulation of public debate by the elite.
   
The important and necessary role of the state in the economy.  The government formulates a national plan for social and economic development, and the state itself is a key actor in the economy.  The socialist revolutions in political power in the Third World plus China and in Russia have made important and significant advances through this strategy, largely ignored by Western academics and the corporate controlled media.
 
The protection of the social and economic rights of the people.  The socialist governments played an important role in the formulation of Articles 22 to 29 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which describe the various social and economic rights of the people.  The socialist movements take the view that education and health care are rights, not privileges that are distributed on the basis of capacity to pay.
 
Science, technology and economic development.  From the outset, the socialist revolutions recognized the need for economic development, in order to provide for the social and economic needs of the people.  To this end, they have supported scientific research, especially research that it integrally tied to technological development and economic development.  In addition, they appropriate from Western scientific and technological advances that they see are useful for the project of scientific, technological, and economic development.
 
Women’s equality.  Socialist movements were among the earliest supporters of the cause of full and equal rights for women, and in positions of political power they have been committed to this principle, even though it has taken decades to overcome traditional customs among the people.  This commitment has included full opportunity for women in employment and in political leadership; full funding for the particular health needs of women, including reproductive rights; and the protection of women from violence and abuse.  The commitment is to immediate equality of educational and employment opportunity for women and girls; and to long-term equity, or absolute equity in the distribution of wealth, income, and power.  Equity can take a long time to be realized, because of culture and customs; it should not imposed ahead of educational and cultural advances.
 
Racial and ethnic equality.  Leaders of socialist movements have understood racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination as functional for the ideological legitimation of prevailing social and economic inequalities; according, they view it as an antiquated relic of the past.  They believe that this view as confirmed by recent development in science, which show that differences in skin color have emerged from ancient differential levels of exposures to the sun, and they have no relation to human capacities and qualities.  As in gender equality, the commitment to racial and ethnic equality involves short-term commitment to full equality of opportunity, and commitment to equity in the long term to economic and cultural development.
 
Public media. The twenty-first century socialist projects in Latin America have permitted private ownership of the principal media of communication, because they did not have sufficient political power and ideological influence to move to state control of the media.  However, the experience of the destructive and counterrevolutionary role of corporate ownership of the mass media make evident the need for public ownership of the principal media of information.
 
Evolutionary changes
 
Power to the people.  In the vanguard of the revolution are found not only factory workers, mineworkers, construction workers, and service workers, but also farmers and professionals.  Indeed, peasants and professionals played the most decisive roles in the triumph and subsequent development of socialist revolutions of national liberation in the Third World plus China.
 
Various forms of property, including private property and foreign investment.  These components were present from the beginning, out of necessity.  As productive needs continued to evolve, and as experience demonstrated that private property and foreign investment were effective in responding to needs, diverse forms of property came to be recognized explicitly as necessary.  Socialist economic theory has arrived to understand the necessary and important role of national and foreign private property, even though complementary to that of state property, in the national plans for economic and social development during the stage of constructing socialism.
 
A nationalist internationalism.  In the West, there emerged a movement of internationalist solidarity among the workers of the world, standing against the manipulation of patriotic sentiments of the workers in order to attain their participation in imperialist wars.  However, in the colonies of the capitalist world-economy, the socialist movement was integrally tied to the forging of a sovereign nation that would exercise control over its own resources.  Accordingly, the great revolutionaries of the Third World, such as Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro, were great patriots.  They forged an understanding of internationalism different from that of the West.  Their internationalism finds space for the legitimate and necessary defense of national interests and for the expression of patriotic sentiments.  Accordingly, socialism for the twenty-first century not only sees the importance of the nation, but moreover, it tends to express the revolutionary project primarily as a defense of the sovereignty of the nation and the dignity of the nation’s people, such that the nation becomes the unifying and integrating concept of the revolution.  Third World revolutionary internationalism, therefore, respects the sovereignty and dignity of all nations, and it expresses and acts in solidarity with all of the peoples of the world.  Such cooperation among nations and solidarity among peoples is seen by socialism today as necessary for the sustainability of the world-system and to ensure the future of humanity.
 
The protection of nature and sustainable development.  The twentieth century socialist revolutions came to power before global ecological consciousness had emerged.  Its subsequent embracing was consistent with its historic commitment to science.  Taking into account its need for economic development, it rejected the tendency of the Western ecology movement toward a pejorative view of development; and it arrived to the notion of sustainable development.  Accordingly, it treats ecological issues in a comprehensive and balanced form, integrated with a commitment to promote the economic development that the people need.
 
The family as a necessary unit of socialist society.  There has been a tendency in intellectual Marxism to view the traditional family as reproducing the oppression and exploitation of women and of restricting the sexual and economic options of men and women, thus envisioning the abolition of the family.  However, in the experience of socialism, the necessity of the family in the construction of the socialist society can to be understood, because in practice, parents, grandparents, and other relatives play an important role in the socialization of values.  At the same time, the diversity of families is recognized: families include single parent families, blended families, heterosexual couples, and gay couples.  And the full equality of women in the family is affirmed.
 
Religiosity as an element of a revolutionary people.  Marx famously wrote that “religion is the opiate of the people,” and there has been a historic tendency in socialist movements for leaders and intellectuals to believe that religious belief is a superstitious and antiquated legacy of the past, which would disappear as the people developed a more mature understanding.  However, experience has demonstrated the persistence of religious beliefs among the people, even as socialist states are lay states that are neutral toward religion.  Socialist projects have evolved to view religious persons as included in the diversity that comprises a revolutionary people.
 
Gay rights and transgender identity, and their inclusion in the socialist revolution.  The socialist revolutions came to power before the question of gay and lesbian rights and transgender identity became issues of public debate.  Indeed, at the time that most of the twentieth century socialist revolutions came to power, psychologists defined homosexuality as an illness, and the socialist revolutions possess a commitment to science.  As science has moved toward affirming homosexuality and transgender identity as a part of nature and humanity, socialism has moved toward recognition of rights, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including the right of gay marriage.  In the case of Cuba, the Party and the government have indicated that they will not adopt a gay marriage law without the consent of the majority of the people, in accordance with the principal that socialism is attained through education of the people, and it cannot be imposed.
 
Conclusion
 
     When the contradictions of the modern-world system first became evident during the 1960s and 1970s, the global elite reacted with a neoliberal economic war against the world’s poor, beginning in 1980.  Subsequently, it launched new wars of aggression, seeking to assure control of the vital resources of oil and gas.  In taking such actions, with ignorance of or unconcern for their consequences for the long-term wellbeing of humanity, the global elite has made evident the unsustainability of capitalism, the capitalist world-economy, and the neocolonial world-system.
 
     If capitalism no longer can work, perhaps socialism could.  Unfortunately, our images of socialism have been shaped by the Cold War, in which distorted images of a distorted form of socialism were widely disseminated.  We tended to overlook, then, the other forms of socialism that emerged as the Cold War began, in places like China and Vietnam, and then in Cuba, and then in Nicaragua, and then in Venezuela and Bolivia.  Our overlooking of them was in a general sense consistent with treating the world of the peoples of color as essentially unimportant.  However, these socialist projects were, on the basis of their accumulating experiences, deepening the human understanding of socialism, the only practical alternative to a capitalist world-economy in decline and decadence.  They thus constitute an important source of wisdom.  Our duty is to study these continually evolving socialist projects, not only to more fully understand what socialism is, but also to discover what they have to teach us with respect to the possible formation of socialist movements in the USA and the nations of the North.

     In 1994, the economic war against the poor, known to economists as neoliberalism, had reached its most devastating consequences.  The world’s poor, robbed of the modest protections in their defense put in place by Third World national liberation governments, experienced new levels of lack and desperation; and the Left, the historic defender of the rights of the people, was confused and divided.
 
      However, two events during that year heralded a revival of a spirit of struggle among the peoples.  The renewal would change the political landscape over the next twenty years, bringing socialist and progressive movements to political power in Latin America, and changing the discourse of the international organizations of Third World governments, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77.  The first event was the Zapatista uprising in Mexico.  And the second was the emergence from prison of Hugo Chávez, released by the demand of the people, who admired his courage and commitment to principles, evident in his leadership of a failed coup d’état that sought to establish a new Constitution in Venezuela. 
                                                                                                                                       
     In December of that year, Chávez undertook his first trip to Cuba.  He had been a great admirer of the Cuban Revolution, but he had not previously met Fidel.  When he arrived in Cuba, he was surprised to find the leader of the Cuban Revolution waiting for him at the foot of the steps of the airplane.  Nicolás Maduro years later would describe their embrace as the encounter of two revolutions. 
 
      Ten years later, when the renewed social movements had established more favorable political conditions for the process of Latin American unity and integration, Fidel and Chávez founded the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA for its initials in Spanish).  It was conceived as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA; in Spanish, ALCA), which was a U.S. proposal for a U.S.-directed integration that encompassed Latin America, the Caribbean, the USA, and Canada.  ALCA was never implemented, as it was blocked by the renewed popular movements and the emerging progressive governments of America, buried at the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina (see “The fall of the FTAA” 3/7/2014 in the category Latin American Unity).
 
       Chávez previously, in 2001, had conceived of a Bolivarian alternative to the U.S. controlled project of integration, and he announced the idea at a meeting of the Association of Caribbean States in Margarita Island, Venezuela in December of that year.  Fidel enthusiastically supported the idea, and the two communicated in writing concerning the details.  They signed the joint declaration establishing ALBA on December 14, 2004 (see “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014 in the Category Latin American Unity).
 
      Bolivia was incorporated into ALBA in 2009.  The word “Alternative” became “Alliance,” and the name of the organization was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Commercial Treaty for the Peoples (ALBA-TCP). 
 
     ALBA-TCP now has eleven members.  In addition to the two founding nations and Bolivia, they are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Grenada.
 
     ALBA celebrated its fourteenth anniversary with its Sixteenth Summit, held in Havana on December 14, 2108, issuing a Declaration entitled, “In Defense of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.”  It declared the need for a new, more just world-system, in which the sovereignty of nations and the right of self-determination of peoples are respected.  “We reiterate our will to continue to promote the construction of a new democratic, just, inclusive, and equitable international order, in which there is genuine sovereign equality among states and respect for the self-determination of peoples; an order that promotes cooperation and multilateralism.”
 
      The Declaration rejects “interventionism” in the internal affairs of states.  And it rejects “unilateral coercive actions,” by which it means actions undertaken by a single powerful state against governments of which it does not approve, without consultation or dialogue with other states, and with the intention of creating such economic hardship and political instability that the targeted state would be forced to abandon its political-economic project.  Examples of such unilateral coercive actions include the long-standing U.S. economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba.  And they include the economic war against Venezuela and the destabilization campaign against Nicaragua, both unleashed by the U.S. government with the cooperation of local actors with particular economic interests.  The Declaration insists that such unilateral coercive actions violate the United Nations Charter and International Law. 
 
      The Declaration calls for the unity of the Latin American and Caribbean nations.  It maintains that unity and cooperation will enhance their capacity to resist such unilateral coercive measures and “to confront the interference and domination historically imposed by the hegemonic global powers.”
 
      The Declaration specifically rejects the coercive measures taken against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.  It especially expresses concern with the threats of the use of force against Venezuela, in opposition to the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, emitted by the Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States celebrated in Havana on January 28-29, 2014.  It rejects the interventionist policy of the Organization of American States (OAS) with respect to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other countries.  It expresses solidarity with Lula Da Silva, a political prisoner in Brazil.  It supports the just and historic right of Bolivia to sovereign access to the sea, and it calls upon Chile and Bolivia to reinitiate dialogue, within the framework of the judgment of the International Court.  It supports the Caribbean countries in their demand for compensation for the genocide of the native population and the horrors of slavery and the slave trade.  It reaffirms commitment to confront climate change, which is a consequence of the irrational and unsustainable models of production and consumption of the capitalist system.
 
     In his address at the inauguration of the Sixteenth Summit, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel reviewed the history ALBA, and he summarized its works during the past fourteen years.  Namely, more than eleven thousand doctors in the countries of ALBA have been educated in Cuba and Venezuela; more than two million persons have had eye surgeries; and more than four million have been taught to read. Moreover, through just payments for petroleum, income was made available for investments in social development, agriculture, fishing, industry, and infrastructure.  Furthermore, following the January 12, 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the countries of ALBA approved a plan of action to contribute to reconstruction.  In addition, ALBA has developed concrete projects to increase the potential of member countries with respect to food, the environment, science and technology, just commerce, culture, education, energy, industry, mining, health, telecommunications, transportation, and tourism.
 
     Díaz-Canel also maintained that ALBA has become a moral and political power in the region, standing in support of countries under attack by the global powers, and condemning interventionist measures.  ALBA played an important role, for example, in the 2008 reversal by the Organization of American States of its infamous 1962 suspension of Cuba.  In a similar vein, Ralph Gonsalvez, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, pointed out that the weight attained by the positions of ALBA in the international political context has impeded, up to now, military intervention in Venezuela by the United States.
 
     We live in an epoch of a sustained structural crisis of the world-system (see “The terminal crisis of the world-system” 3/28/2014).  The global elite first discerned the signs of the global crisis during the 1970s, and in subsequent decades, it acted decisively in defense of its interests, imposing the neoliberal project on the peoples of the world (see “What are the origins of neoliberalism?” 6/17/2016) and launching wars of aggression in the Middle East.  In resistance, humanity has lifted up social movements in defense of itself, stimulating the renewal of the Third World project of national and social liberation and the coming to political power of progressive and socialist movements in Latin America (see various posts in the category Third World).  In reaction to the revitalized cry of the peoples, the U.S. power elite and the Latin American Right have adopted new strategies (see various posts in the category Latin American Right), which have led to a turn to the Right by the governments of Argentina and Brazil and the fall of the Citizen Revolution in Ecuador.  Now, the U.S. government in cooperation with the Latin American Right undertakes new efforts at destabilization in Venezuela and Nicaragua.  In this context, the principles and good works of ALBA constitute an important declaration, in theory and practice, of the necessary road for humanity. 
 
     Fidel taught that “no one has the right to lose faith in the future of humanity.” If we are to follow this teaching, we must believe that a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system is possible.  From a framework grounded in this faith, we can see the significance of ALBA.  ALBA is not, after all, merely a protest of concerned or enraged citizens, organized by popular leaders who have been called by a commitment to social justice.  More than this, ALBA is a protest made by governments, and it is a protest informed by historical consciousness and theoretical analysis, and accompanied by practical steps toward implementation of its vision.  Moreover, ALBA is part of an international effort to construct an alternative, more just, and sustainable world order, undertaken by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Non-Aligned Movement, the G-77 plus China, and key nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua (see various posts in the category Third World).  This international movement is empirically evident, and all who are capable of setting aside a framework grounded in cynicism can see it.  Furthermore, this global movement from below is emerging during a time in which the capitalist world-economy is increasingly making evident its economic, financial, and ecological unsustainability; its inherent political instability; and its underlying barbarity.