​     The member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the peoples of Our America-Treaty of Commerce of the Peoples (ALBA-TCP for its initials in Spanish), meeting in Havana on May 21 for the organization’s Eighteenth Political Council, have issued a declaration that rejects recent U.S. efforts to reestablish hegemony over Latin America and the Caribbean, and that affirms support for Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

  The preamble to the Declaration affirms that the member countries are:

​     The Declaration expresses support for the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, as it confronts the hostile and interventionist policies of the United States.

​     Similarly, the Declaration expresses its support for the sovereignty of Nicaragua and the negotiations undertaken by the government with opposition parties.  “We ratify our support for the process of dialogue and negotiation of the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of Nicaragua in its decision to continue defending its sovereignty, peace, and the notable advances that it has attained in the social and economic sphere as well as with respect to security and national unity.”

         The Declaration also rejects the longstanding U.S. economic war against Cuba.

​     The Declaration rejects U.S. efforts to reestablish its hegemony over Latin America and the Caribbean.  “We repudiate the Monroe Doctrine, an old reflection of the hegemonic and imperialist ambitions of the United States with respect to the lands and peoples of America, today resurrected.”  And it condemns the U.S. use of the Organization of American States to attain its imperialist goas.  “We reject the interventionist conduct of the government of the United States, which once again is utilizing OAS and its Secretary General in its interventionist policy in opposition to the sovereignty, the self-determination, and the constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Republic of Nicaragua, and the Republic of Cuba.”
 
     Since the 1960s, Third World governments have denounced the imperialist and interventionist policies of the United States and the Western European powers, doing so in the name of the principles that the global powers have themselves proclaimed.  Such denunciation of imperialism on the basis of international principles and international law is evident in the declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has arrived to include 120 member governments (see posts in the category Third World).  In accordance with this global political tendency, the ALBA-TCP Declaration demands adherence to international principles and international law.  “We demand strict observance of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the prohibition of the use of force or the threat of the use of force, and respect for self-determination, for sovereignty, for the integrity of territories, and for non-interference in the domestic affairs of states.”
 
     The socialist and progressive governments of Latin America and the Caribbean have a tendency to condemn U.S. policy as “unilateral” and “coercive.”  With this designation, they are opposing not only the unjust and unscientific character of the measures, but also the fact that they are imposed by a single power, in defense of its particular interests, ignoring the consequences for other nations.  From their perspective, policies with international consequences should be formulated and implemented on a basis of multilateralism.  The participation of various nations in the joint formulation of policies helps to ensure that they are not arbitrary or ill-informed, and that they emerge from agreement rather than being imposed by a more powerful nation that is single-mindedly pursuing its interests.  Accordingly, the Declaration states, “We insist that the application of unilateral coercive measures, rejected by numerous resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, is contrary to the purposes and principles consecrated in the UN Charter and International Law.”  Universal coercive measures “restrict the enjoyment of human rights of the populations of the states against which they are applied.”
 
      The Declaration calls for the strengthening of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which has been weakened in the last couple of years as a result of the fall of progressive governments in Brazil and Argentina and the socialist government of Rafael Correa in Ecuador, although it likely will be aided by the recent election of a progressive government in Mexico.  “We reaffirm the necessity of strengthening the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) as a mechanism for regional political coordination based on the strict observance and defense of the principles of International Law.”
 
     At the opening of the Political Council, Cuban foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez called upon social movement organizations to influence their governments in opposition to another imperialist military adventure in the region; and in opposition to the unilateral coercive measures imposed by Washington on Venezuela, which have had serious consequences and have done humanitarian damage to the people of Venezuela.  Rodríguez further asserted that the power of articulation of our peoples and the role of the truth should not be underestimated.  He declared that “ALBA-TCP is and will be a nucleus of resistance that always will back the peoples of the region,” finding inspiration in the teachings and thought of Fidel and Chávez.
 
     During his intervention in the Political Council, Venezuelan foreign minister Jorge Arreaza observed that when the U.S. government invokes the anachronistic Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in the second decade of the nineteenth century, it gives cause for alarm to the peoples and governments.  He asserted that, for the dominant elite, a process of liberation in the continent is unacceptable.  Diego Pary, foreign minister of the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia, affirmed that the people of Venezuela have consciousness and commitment to principles, and they therefore recognize and defend the constitutional government of President Nicolas Maduro; all of the peoples of the region, he declared, will know how to respond to the complex situation that the region confronts, characterized by threats to multilateralism and international law.
 
     Carlos Castaneda, foreign minister of El Salvador, stated that the unity of the progressive forces of the region will be an important element in confronting threats and aggressions against the development of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.  Paul Osquit, representing Nicaragua, observed that Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, in spite of having different political processes, are united in historic defense of the sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples, and in defense of their right to construct their political projects in accordance with their own decisions.  
 
     At the conclusion of the meeting, David Choquehanca, Executive Secretary of ALBA-TCP, observed that ALBA-TCP has to lift up its own identity on the basis of a decolonizing thought that permits a culture of life and of peace to prevail.  He asserted that one must assert and defend the noble road of integration, a road that seeks justice and truth and that values the “we” more than the “I.”  A road that struggles against neoliberalism, war, and the sacking of natural resources; and that defends the sovereignty of the nations against domination.
 
     ALBA was founded on December 14, 2004 by Cuba and Venezuela as the Bolivarian Alternative for the peoples of Our America.  Bolivia was incorporated into ALBA in 2009, at which time 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 Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, they are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Granada, Haiti, Nicaragua, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Surinam.  El Salvador also attended the Political Council as an invited country.
 
     ALBA seeks real integration, based in complementarity and solidarity above merely commercial interests.  In addition to coordinating political responses in defense of the principles of international law, ALBA has developed cooperative programs in health and education.  Millions of persons have received free medical services, with priority given to persons of limited resources, some of whom had never before received medical attention.  A cooperative literacy program has resulted in three members nations being declared free of illiteracy, namely, Venezuela (2005), Bolivia (2008), and Nicaragua (2009).  The Latin American School of Medicine, with branches in Cuba and Venezuela, has educated youth from many countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, producing community doctors who not only have scientific and technical preparation but also humanitarian and ethical formation.  ALBA-TCP is working on a proposed Space of Interdependence, Sovereignty, and Economic Solidarity, through the resources of the Trade Agreement of the People, the Sucre (a regional currency for commercial exchanges between members of ALBA), and the Bank of ALBA.
 
     ALBA-TCP is an important dimension of the efforts of the last two decades to put into practice the historic Latin American vision of La Patria Grande and the classic Third World vision of South-South Cooperation.  See posts on these themes in the category Latin American Unity and the category Third World.  For the full text of the May 21 Declaration, go to Declaration of the XVIII Political Council of ALBA-TCP, May 21, 2019.

​Sources
 
Concepción Pérez, Elson.  2019.  “El ALBA, tan esperanzadora como necesaria,” Granma (May 22), P. 5.
 
Menéndez Quintero, Marina.  2019.  “ALBA-TCP reitera necesidad de defender la paz,” Juventud Rebelde (May 22), Pp. 4-5.
 
Mojena Milian, Bertha.  2019.  “América Latina y el Caribe en la hora del recuento y de la marcha unida contra las amenazas imperiales,” Granma (May 22), P. 4.
 
__________.  2019.  “El ALBA-TCP renueve el compromiso con la cooperación, la integración, y la defense de la unidad frente a la injerencia,” Granma (May 22), P. 1.

      Today, May 17, 2019, marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Agrarian Reform Law, signed by the Cuban Revolutionary Government on May 17, 1959, a little more than four months after the Rebel Army triumphantly entered the city of Havana.  The signing ceremony was held in the wooden shack that had served as the general headquarters of the Rebel Army in the mountains of Sierra Maestra during the revolutionary war, in recognition of the important role of peasants in the revolutionary triumph.  The date for the signing ceremony was chosen in recognition of the “Day of the Peasant,” declared by Guantanamo peasants in commemoration of the May 17, 1940 assassination of Niceto Perez, a peasant who had been successfully cultivating, without title or authorization, land that he had informally occupied.   During the past week, in commemoration of the Day of the Peasant and the sixtieth anniversary of the Agrarian Reform Law, various acts have been held throughout the island, with significant media attention and journalistic commentary.
 
      In essence, the Agrarian Reform Law nationalized 40 billon square meters of land pertaining to large agricultural estates, without distinction between domestic and foreign ownership, offering compensation in the form of bonds that would mature in twenty years.  It was a bold and decisive step, made necessary by the fact that a majority of agricultural land was foreign owned, and 85% of peasants worked on land they did not own.  Of the expropriated land, 45.8% was distributed to 100,000 peasants, who, in addition to being granted titles of property, received favorable terms of credit as well as access to a state-regulated network for the commercialization of their products and the purchase of agricultural supplies, such as seeds and fertilizers.  In the late 1960s, the revolution propelled the cooperative movement, which, on a voluntary basis, unified the lands and resources of the peasants, and which gave rise to small village communities, with schools, medical institutions, markets, and offices.
 
      The remaining 54.2% of the expropriated land was converted into state-managed agricultural enterprises, which should not be interpreted as a top-down form of management.  In the first place, the revolutionary government was taking steps in accordance with popular will and in defense of the interests of the people; and in the mid-1970s, it developed popular structures to ensure that the political process is controlled by the people (see “Popular Democracy in Cuba”).  Secondly, alongside managers appointed by the appropriate ministry, the revolution impelled the organization of the workers, who elect their own leaders to work with the state-appointed managers in the development of the companies.  In general, the state management approach was taken with respect to the large U.S. owned sugar plantations, where distribution of land to individual peasants as a transitional step toward cooperatives would have been complicated.  In the early 1990s, in the context of the economic difficulties of the “Special Period,” the state-managed agricultural enterprises were converted into cooperatives, with contractual relations with the state.
 
      The Agrarian Reform Law sought to break Cuban neocolonial dependency on the USA and to break with its peripheral role of exporting sugar and coffee on a base of foreign ownership and superexploited labor.  It hoped to generate the diversification of agricultural production, the elevation of the level of consumption and the standard of living of the people, and the industrial and scientific development of the nation.  Standing against the interests of the Cuban national estate bourgeoisie and U.S. corporations with landed property in Cuba, the Agrarian Reform Law revealed the essentially anti-neocolonial character of the Cuban Revolution.  It provoked a firestorm of opposition from those interests, national and international, that benefited from the neocolonial world order.
 
     The Revolution, however, sought to minimize conflict with the USA.  The revolutionary leadership did not envision the rupture of USA-Cuba trade; rather, it intended a transformation of exploitative core-peripheral exchange into mutually beneficial commerce.  On July 6, 1960, the Cuban revolutionary government emitted Law 851, which authorized the expropriation of companies and not merely land, including the expropriation of companies in non-agricultural sectors.  Superseding the terms of compensation provided by the Agrarian Reform, Law 851 authorized the creation of a compensation fund that would be fed by deposits equal to 25% of the value of U.S. purchases of Cuban sugar in excess of the sugar quota.  It proposed, therefore, a mutually beneficial resolution to the issue of compensation, linking payment for nationalized properties to the U.S.-Cuban sugar trade. By means of a higher U.S. sugar purchase and Cuban use of the additional income to finance compensation and invest in industrial development, Law 851 pointed to the transformation of core-peripheral exploitation into North-South cooperation.  Although the United States immediately reduced U.S. purchases to a level below the sugar quota, thirty days later, in the announcement of the first nationalizations, Fidel appears to be hopeful that the U.S. government will accept the proposal of compensation through U.S. purchase above the sugar quota, thus maintaining a strong economic relation, but basing it in cooperation rather than exploitation.  Perhaps Fidel had hoped that a constructive relation between the two peoples and nations would be a practical learning experience for humanity, pointing to the necessary road toward a transformation of neocolonial structures, such that a more sustainable world-system based on cooperation, mutually beneficial trade, and respect for the sovereignty of nations could be constructed step-by-step.  However, the USA has been incapable of accepting Cuban sovereignty; it has continued to insist on a relation defined by Cuban subordination to U.S. interests, and it persistently has tried to effect regime change to this end.
 
     Although the Agrarian Reform Law confronted the established neocolonial world order, it did not affect directly the interests of the Cuban national industrial bourgeoisie.   Moreover, lawyers with ties to the national bourgeoisie were included in the revolutionary government in January 1959, making possible a political alliance between the Revolution and a national bourgeoisie committed to the industrial and scientific development of the nation.  However, the Cuban national bourgeoisie had been formed during the neocolonial republic as a puppet bourgeoisie, totally subordinated to the interests of U.S. capital.  In the months following the triumph of the Revolution, the national bourgeoisie demonstrated its incapacity to reconstruct itself as an independent national bourgeoisie, in alliance with the social and political forces that the triumphant revolution had unleashed.  Taking its cue from the U.S. corporations with which it was organically tied, the majority of members of the Cuban national industrial bourgeoisie, after the enactment of the Agrarian Reform Law, increasingly abandoned their companies and emigrated to the United States, participating in the U.S. project of regime change in Cuba, with the expectation that they would return to Cuba and reclaim their properties under a government supportive of U.S. interests.  As this political project failed, the Cuban national industrial bourgeoisie integrated with other counterrevolutionary sectors in the Cuban émigré community, eventually reconstituting itself as a Cuban-American bourgeoisie.
 
     Therefore, even though the Agrarian Reform Law did not affect directly the interests of the Cuban national industrial bourgeoisie, the law was a decisive step that provoked the breaking of the national industrial bourgeoisie with the Cuban Revolution.  The rupture reached culmination in the period of October, 1960 to July, 1962, when the Revolution nationalized Cuban-owned private companies, reasoning that members of the Cuban industrial and commercial bourgeoisie were abandoning the management of their establishments, participating in criminal counterrevolutionary activities, channeling capital out of the country, emigrating to the United States, and/or sabotaging production; and that such comportment made the nationalization of the companies, with compensation, a matter of public utility and social interest.
 
       Cuba, meanwhile, persists in its quest for sovereignty, in the face of the hostility of its powerful neighbor to the North, but with the growing support of the governments and peoples of the world.  It sustains itself by celebrating its modest gains.  In commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Agrarian Reform Law, Ana Margarita González, a journalist of Trabajadores (Workers, the weekly newspaper of the Union of Cuban Workers), traveled to the village of Güira de Melena, where she talked with associates of the Niceto Pérez cooperative for agricultural and animal production.  (All of the works of the revolution are named after martyrs of the revolution, and this cooperative is named for the above-mentioned peasant whose assassination prompted the declaration of the Day of the Peasant).  The associates report that the cooperative, established nearly forty years ago, has always been profitable, and this year it has attained a record crop of grains, vegetables, and fruits.  Celedonio Barroso, a sharecropper before the triumph of the revolution and an associate of the cooperative, declared that “the Agrarian Reform was the liberation of the Cuban peasant.”  It could be said with justice that the Agrarian Reform Law is the foundation of the national and social liberation of the nation; and it constitutes a Cuban declaration of sovereignty, standing in defiance of the structures of the neocolonial world-system.
 
      To read more on Agrarian Reform in Cuba, see “The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959” 09/23/2014 and “The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution”  09/24/2014 in the category Cuban History.

     The International Day of the Worker is a living memorial to the Chicago workers murdered on May 1, 1886.  In many countries of the world, there is an annual mass demonstration in which the demands of the workers’ movements in their particular countries are lifted up.  This year, in hundreds of cities of the world, workers protested the social insecurities provoked by neoliberal economic policies, unemployment, wage inequality, and increasingly concentrated wealth.  In Latin America, International Workers Day saw mass demonstrations of workers protesting the interference of the International Monetary Fund, the conditions of life of the people, the privatization of state companies, labor reforms that legalize superexploitation and low salaries, the annulment of the right to organize, and the growth of the external debt with the packages of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. 
 
     In Cuba, International Workers’ Day has a different tone, as a consequence of the political empowerment of the workers in the island nation.  In Cuba, the mass demonstration is a festive celebration of the socialist revolution and its achievements in defense of the workers and other popular sectors.  Protests are directed not to the government, but in support of the government in opposition to the imperialist policies of the global powers, especially Cuba’s powerful neighbor to the north.
 
     The political empowerment of Cuban workers was attained through a historic struggle that had its gains and setbacks.  In the 1920s and early 1930s, workers organizations were in the vanguard of the struggle against the Machado dictatorship, with the first Communist Party of Cuba as the leadings force, educating and organizing the workers.  But during the 1940s and 1950s, the Confederation of Cuban Workers (CTC for its initials in Spanish) had become an instrument for forcing the workers to submit to capital.  During the dictatorship of 1952 to 1959, a corrupt union oligarchy benefitted from obligatory membership dues, and it collaborated with Batista in the repression of workers.  However, in the early 1960s, with the support of the Revolutionary Government, CTC took definitive form as a revolutionary organization, casting aside the corrupt union oligarchy.  Along with other mass organizations of peasants, agricultural cooperativists, students, and women, CTC played a central role in the mass assemblies of the 1960s. 
 
     Since the Constitution of 1976, the political empowerment of workers is integral to Cuban structures of popular democracy.  CTC representatives, along with those of the other mass organizations, form candidacy commissions, which present to the delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies the names of candidates to the National Assembly of Popular Power.  (The municipal assemblies are elected by the people in 12,515 voting districts in secret elections in which voters choose from two or more candidates nominated by the people in a series of neighborhood nomination assemblies).  Elected by the municipal assemblies on the basis of the recommendations of the candidacy commissions formed by representatives of CTC and other mass organizations, the National Assembly of Popular Power is the highest authority in nation; it elects the highest members of the executive and judicial branches of the state, and it enacts legislation.  By constitutional requirement, representatives of CTC and other mass organizations are included in the legislative committees of the National Assembly. 
 
     CTC members are workers of all categories: industrial workers, agricultural workers, service workers, professionals, educators, doctors, nurses, and self-employed workers.  They generally are organized by place of work, united regardless of occupation, such that the medical staff and the janitorial staff of a hospital are in the same local union.  More than 90% of Cuban workers are members of the CTC. 
 
       This year, May Day occurs in the aftermath of the declaration of a new Constitution, which was developed on the basis of an extensive and vibrant popular consultation, and which was approved in referendum by 86% of the voters, with a voter participation of 90%.  The 2019 Constitution, like the 1976 Constitution, affirms: the socialist character of the nation; the National Assembly of Popular Power as the highest constitutional and legal authority; the role of the Communist Party of Cuba as the educating and guiding vanguard of the revolution; and a foreign policy that emphasizes the right of Cuba and all nations to be sovereign and the right of peoples to self-determination, and that calls the Third World to unity in opposition to imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism.  (See various posts from January 9 to February 26, 2019 on the new Cuban Constitution in this category Cuba Today). 
 
     At the same time, this year’s May Day occurs in the context of the strengthening of the U.S. economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba, which intends to nullify Cuban popular democracy and impose structures of representative democracy, inasmuch as representative democracy is far more susceptible to manipulation by moneyed particular interests.  Accordingly, the 2019 May Day celebration of Cuban socialism and the Cuban Revolution was accompanied by frequent denunciations of the U.S. blockade and of the announced implementation of Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Law.  Said law, fully implemented for the first time of May 2, authorizes demands against companies of any nation that have any kind of commercial relation with companies that were nationalized or confiscated by the Cuban Revolutionary Government in 1959 and 1960.
 
      In the Plaza of the Revolution in Havana, a multi-generational wall of people, nearly a million people, marched by the José Martí Memorial, where they were saluted by Raúl Castro, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba; Miguel Díaz-Canel, President of the Councils of State and Ministers of Cuba; and Ulisés Guilarte, General Secretary of the Federation of Cuban Workers.  Numerous were the slogans on their placards: “Unity, Commitment, and Victory”; “Down with the Blockade”; “Down with the Helms-Burton Law;” “Title III? Disapproved”; “Hands off Venezuela”; “Free Lula Now”; and “We are continuity.”  I liked the placard carried by a ten-year old girl: “Mr. Trump: With what right to you stomp on my future?”   Images of Fidel, Raúl, Martí, and Che were in abundance.  Similar celebrations were held throughout the nation; more than 350,000 marched in Santiago de Cuba, and nearly a million Cubans in the thirteen provinces outside Havana marched in defense of their nation and their socialist revolution.
 
     The Cuban Revolution has experienced a revitalization in recent years, as a consequence of a politically intelligent adjustment in the revolutionary project by the Party, formulated in response to the inquietudes of the people with respect to the material standard of living.  The social and economic model of 2012 seeks to improve the productive capacity of the nation through the expansion of self-employment and small-scale capitalist enterprises, the expansion of cooperatives to non-agricultural sectors, greater efficiency in state companies, and more flexible rules with respect to foreign investment.  The new Constitution of 2019 provides a statutory foundation to these steps, while it maintains the role of the state as the formulator of the development plan, the regulator of the economy, and the principal proprietor of economic enterprises.  At the same time, the new Constitution points toward a more inclusive Revolution, more clearly affirming the rights of persons regardless of religious beliefs, and affirming for the first time the rights of persons regardless of gender orientation or gender identity.  With these formulations of a more economically pragmatic and socially inclusive socialist project, the Party has recaptured the people, bringing them back on board in full support and active participation in the revolution and in the construction of socialism, which includes full and enthusiastic affirmation of the teachings and example of Fidel, defined as the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution.
 
       The aggressive and disrespectful language of Trump and his team only reinforces and strengthens the revitalization of the Cuban revolutionary project.  One could hardly expect otherwise.  Universally, people identify with their nation or ethnic group, and an external foreign threat will provoke the closing of ranks, as occurred in Cuba in the early 1960s and is occurring in Venezuela today.  The Cuban people will not be intimated by aggression; they are prepared to sacrifice, in the future as in the past, in defense of their socialist revolution.

​      The generation that led the revolutionary triumph in Cuba on January 1, 1959 were the heirs to a historic revolutionary struggle for national independence and social transformation, initiated in 1868, which had formulated an advanced political thought on the basis of a synthesis of concepts emerging from the Cuban struggle for national liberation with revolutionary theories from Western Europe, Russia, and Latin America.  They forged an anti-neocolonial revolution that was led by the radical wing of the petit bourgeoisie and by an exceptional leader.  They have demonstrated a remarkable political intelligence, marked by an intimate knowledge and respect for the people, and a capacity to adopt strategies that are adjusted to changing and challenging conditions (see “The social sources of revolutionary leadership” 4/22/2019).
 
     During their six decades in power, they have been attentive to the question of the transition of leadership in two senses: transition from individual charismatic leadership to leadership by a vanguard political party; and the passing of leadership to subsequent generations.  The transition of leadership in both senses is to considerable extent complete.  The State and the Party have been developed as separate institutions with complementary roles.  The highest positions in the State are elected by the people in a system of direct and indirect elections; whereas Party membership is self-selected, with leaders elected by members.  The State and principle social institutions are in the hands of leaders born after the triumph of the Revolution.  The Party remains in the hands of the generation of the Revolution at the highest level, with subsequent generations holding various positions of authority at various levels. 
 
     In recent years, the Party has dedicated itself to the development of the new Constitution, with the intention of building a solid statutory foundation for the policies and social changes of the past thirty years, which also would provide a constitutional guide for the future.  Based on 150 years of struggle and on the revolutionary practice and theoretical development of the last six decades, the new Constitution can be seen as the final will and testament of the generation of the Revolution.
 
     The new Cuban constitution was proclaimed by Raúl Castro on April 10, 2019, at the Second Extraordinary Session of the Ninth Legislature of the National Assembly of Popular Power.
Miguel Díaz-Canel, since his election as President of the Council of State and Ministers by the National Assembly of Popular Power on April 19, 2018, as been more visible than Raúl at affairs of state and public events.  However, Raúl, General Secretary of the Communist Party, was assigned the duty of proclaiming the new constitution, inasmuch as the Party has been the guiding force behind the new constitution.
 
       Cuban revolutionary leaders have created a custom in which political leaders, mass organization leaders, journalists, professionals, and public figures provide pedagogical public discourses, constantly striving to educate the people in historical and social consciousness.  In accordance with this custom, Raúl pointed out that the new Constitution is rooted in past Cuban constitutions, and especially important were the constitutions of 1869, 1940, and 1975.  The Constitution of the Republic in Arms of April 10, 1869, he explained, proclaimed the independence of Cuba from Spain and the objective of unity on a basis of recognition of the equality of all.  During the neocolonial republic, the Constitution of 1940 emerged in the context of an opening established by the international situation of a world struggle against fascism, which enabled the active participation in the Constitutional Assembly of delegates with progressive ideas, including the participation of the first Communist Party of Cuba.  The result was a constitution advanced for its time, which included the proclamation of social and economic rights; the rejection of discrimination for reasons of race, color, or sex; a limit of the working day to eight hours; and the prohibition of large-scale agricultural estates.  He noted that many of these postulates were not implemented, because the necessary complementary laws were not implemented.
 
      He stressed that the Republic of 1902-1958 was a U.S. neocolony, with Cuban sovereignty subordinated to the interests of the USA.  U.S. imperialist intervention in 1898, he observed, robbed victory from the victorious military campaign of the Army of Liberation, preventing a true independence that would have established a progressive and democratic republic.  The progressive Constitution of 1940, never implemented, was nullified by the Batista coup d’état of March 10, 1952.
 
      Raúl noted that on February 7, 1959, the Revolutionary Government promulgated the Fundamental Law, which was based on the Constitution of 1940.  However, the Revolutionary Government modified the 1940 Constitution by establishing its Council of Ministers as the highest legislative and executive body, and with authority to interpret the constitution.  Raul observed that it could not have been done in any other way.  It was a choice between, on the one hand, interrupting the revolutionary process in order to concentrate on the making of a new constitution; or on the other hand, proceeding forward in accordance with what was already decided by the leadership with the overwhelming support of the people.
 
     In retrospect, we can see the wisdom of the course of action taken by the Revolutionary Government in 1959.  If a constitutional assembly had been convened, many issues would have been debated, but the participants would not have had the experiential basis for their ideas.  The revolution was just beginning, as Fidel had proclaimed on January 1.  Many experiences lay ahead:  the Agrarian Reform Law, and the hostile reaction to it on the part of the U.S. government and the Cuban national bourgeoisie; the nationalizations of U.S. property; the sabotage of production by the Cuban industrial bourgeoisie, and its increasing participation in the counterrevolution; the nationalizations of Cuban large-scale industrial, commercial, and banking enterprises; the organization of mass assemblies, an alternative to the structures of representative democracy; the development of mass organizations, which came to be seen as integral to an alternative concept of popular democracy;  and the proclamation of the socialist character of the revolution on the eve of an invasion by Cuban counterrevolutionaries financed and supplied by the U.S. government.  All of these experiences of the leadership and the people in forging ahead with the revolutionary process became the basis for reflection on an alternative constitutionality, in which the issues could be debated with greater maturity, established through experience.  It was a question of revolutionary practice first, which provided the foundation for an alternative theory and revolutionary constitutionality. 
 
      Raúl observed that in 1975, in his report to the First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, Fidel proclaimed the need to develop a socialist constitution, which reflects the consciousness, convictions, and the social-economic-political transformations of the revolutionary process.  The result was the Constitution of 1976, developed with an ample popular consultation and approved overwhelmingly in popular referendum, which reaffirmed the socialist character of the Revolution; provided a constitutional foundation of the rights that had been attained through the revolutionary process; and established an alternative system of popular democracy, based on the experiences of the mass assemblies and mass organizations.
 
       Raúl further explained that developments in recent years in Cuba made necessary a new Constitution, and especially important were new economic policies developed in response to the need to improve production.  In 2011, the Sixth Congress of the Party approved Guidelines for the Social and Economic Policy of the Party and the Revolution.  The Party led the people in a popular consultation, and presented the modified guidelines to the National Assembly, which approved them.  The Seventh Congress of the Party in 2016 developed documents for a Cuban Social and Economic Model of Socialist Development.  Recognizing the constitutional implications of the Guidelines and the Model, the Party expressed the need for the development of a new constitution. 
 
      On June 2, 2018, the National Assembly approved the establishment of a Constitutional Commission composed 33 deputies of the National Assembly, naming Raúl as chair of the Commission.  On July 22, after various sessions of debate, the National Assembly approved a draft of the text for submission to the people.  From August 13 to November 15, some 133,681 meetings were held in places of residence, work, and study, in which 1,706,872 commentaries were made (all noted by members of the Constitutional Committee), and 783,174 specific proposals were made; thereby converting the entire people into a constitutional assembly.  On the basis of analysis of the popular consultation, the Commission modified nearly 60% of the articles of the first draft.  Following an analysis, debate, and further revision of the text, the National Assembly approved a draft for popular referendum.  On February 24, some 90.15% of resident citizens voted in the referendum, of which 86.85% voted Yes, 9% voted No, and 4.15% submitted invalid ballots.  (For further description of the constitutional process in Cuba, see various posts from January 9, 2019 to February 26, 2019 in this category Cuba Today).
 
      Raúl maintained that the new Constitution assures the continuity of the Cuban Revolution and the irrevocability of socialism.  It expresses the aspirations of those who have struggled for 150 years for a sovereign Cuba, characterized by social justice.  At the same time, it reflects the new historic circumstances of the Revolution, and it reflects the current aspirations of the people to attain a socialism that is increasingly prosperous, sustainable, inclusive, and participatory.  He asserts that as the USA renews its old desire to overthrow the Cuban Revolution through the suffocating of the economy and the creation of shortages, the U.S. administration should understand the unshakable determination of Cuba to defend its sovereign right to decide the future of the nation, without any foreign interference.
 
      The generation of the Revolution, a product of a historic struggle, has fulfilled its duty, to the nation, to the people, to humanity, and to the future.

     The generation of leaders that took political power in Cuba on January 1, 1959 were known as the centenarians, because of their determination to take political action in 1953, the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of José Martí, in order to show that the ideas of the apostle remained alive, in spite of the corruption of the neocolonial republic and the Batista dictatorship.  The July 26, 1953 armed attack on Moncada Barracks galvanized the people, and it gave the authors of that heroic action the right to claim leadership of a popular struggle against the dictatorship and the established neocolonial order.  Unable to forget the maneuverings and intrigues that had blocked revolutionary triumphs in three moments in Cuban history, they possessed a singular determination that, this time, the revolution will not be frustrated.
 
     They took power on January 1, 1959 amidst enormous popular acclaim, on the basis of a guerrilla struggle that moved from the mountains to the cities, forcing the dictator to flee the country.  In their first two years in power, the young leaders of the revolution took decisive steps that would demonstrate its anti-neocolonial intention, culminating in a declaration of its socialist character.  For more than six decades, they guided the people through various stages, but with constancy in commitment to basic principles: the commitment of resources to the social and economic needs of the people on a basis of full equality, regardless of class, race, or gender; and an international projection of commercial relations, political alliance, and solidarity with the socialist governments and neocolonized nations and peoples.  In order to ensure that political power remained in the hands of the delegates of the people, they developed alternative structures of popular democracy, characterized by mass assemblies, mass organizations, assemblies of popular power, a vanguard political party, and a public media attentive to the political education of the people. 
 
     There are many subjective and objective factors that create possibilities for an advanced generation of leaders to emerge in a particular time and place.  In observing advanced and sustained revolutionary processes, a common characteristic is the phenomenon of a generalized popular identification with the nation and a self-sacrificing commitment to its defense.  In the case of Cuba, nationalist consciousness emerged during the nineteenth century, forged by Cuban intellectuals of the Seminary of San Carlos in Havana.  They synthesized religious concepts of social justice with modern republican notions in standing against colonial Spain and the Spanish monarchy.  They initiated an awakening of consciousness among the Cuban privileged class that represented an alternative to subordination to Spain and envisioned a secular and progressive republic, with modern systems of production, moving beyond economic dependence on slavery.  Formed by these progressive notions, the Cuban landholders that declared independence in 1868 were able to discern the necessity of forging not only the independence of the nation, but also a national social transformation that would eliminate the social inequalities rooted in colonialism.  However, as a result of class, regional, civilian/military, and ideological differences and divisions, the war of independence of 1868-1878 ended without attaining independence or the abolition of slavery. 
 
       The vision of the 1868 revolution of a sovereign and socially transformed nation has guided Cuban revolutionary practice since that date, but continually evolving.  Reflecting on the failure of the War of Independence of 1868-1878, José Martí was able to see the importance of politically unifying all the popular sectors, on the basis of a promise to establish a republic of all and for all, regardless of race or class, and implicitly, gender.  The outstanding writer, poet, journalist, and diplomat politically implemented his vision, forming in 1892 the Cuban Revolutionary Party, which launched a war of independence in 1895.  However, the 1898 U.S. military intervention prevented the taking of power by the militarily victorious Cuban Army of Liberation.  The revolutionary army, party, and congress were dismantled, and the 1901 constitution had a “Made in the USA” character.  The republic of all and for all, as envisioned by Martí, was eclipsed by the neocolonial republic, and U.S. economic, commercial, and financial penetration was unleashed. 
 
      Twenty years later, reflecting on the neocolonial situation, and influenced by the examples of the Russian and Mexican revolutions, a new generation of revolutionaries emerged to struggle against the Machado dictatorship of the 1920s and early 1930s, synthesizing revolutionary currents of thought from other lands with the thought of Martí, and making more explicit the inclusion of women in the revolutionary process.  Sustained popular protests against the Machado dictatorship combined with urban sabotage and armed struggle in the countryside brought down the Machado government and led to the formation in 1933 of the “government of 100 days,” which included a revolutionary wing and was established without U.S. approval.  However, the short-lived independent government was brought to an end by U.S. mediation, leading to the first Batista dictatorship of 1934-1937.
 
     In the twenty years following the fall of the Revolution of 1933, disillusionment and fatalism prevailed among the people, but the soul of the nation hope was kept alive by intellectuals, social scientists, poets, and artists, who studied Cuban culture and the multifaceted work of Martí, and who reminded the people of the revolutionary ideal that was central to the Cuban sense of nationality.  The revolutionaries who came of age in the 1950s were made of the stuff that inclined them toward the dreams of the poets, rather than the seemingly more practical conclusion that the republic of Martí was impossible.  Martí himself had said that the task was to make possible what appeared impossible.  To the radical Cuban youth of the 1950s, the republic of Martí did not seem so impractical.  They were aware of the enormous reserve of revolutionary spirit among the people, who were the heirs to an advanced political thought and a history of political/military resistance.  They discerned the possibility of galvanizing the popular revolutionary spirit through decisive, bold, and courageous action, calling the people to the defense of national honor and dignity.  Theirs was an idealism guided by an intimate knowledge of the people and a practical political intelligence. 
 
      The neocolonial situation is defined by a pattern of betrayal of the nation through subordination to the interests of a foreign neocolonial power, and in this national debasement of the soul, the national bourgeoisie and the dominant political class are the most culpable.  Political leaders and government officials become habituated to using their positions to enrich themselves, having abandoned a dignified and purposeful road at the outset of their careers.  In Cuba in the 1950s, the indignity of the neocolonial situation never had been more evident.  Corrupt politicians invoked the ideals of Martí, thus corrupting the revolutionary vision itself.  To this national pattern of corruption, the Batista dictatorship added the disgrace of political repression, torture, and brutality.  And the visible presence of the Italian-American mafia, with its gambling and prostitution, compounded the national shame.
 
      In popular revolutions, the middle class is disproportionately represented in the revolution as well as in the counterrevolution that it unleashes.  Therefore, the possibilities for revolution are influenced by the conditions that the middle class confronts.  In the case of Cuba, the neocolonial situation, with political control by a figurehead bourgeoisie, created conditions unfavorable for the middle class.  As a result of the subordination of Cuban industry and commerce to U.S. capital, middle-class aspirations for advancement required an undignified accommodation to a foreign nation and culture.  As a result of generalized corruption, small business persons were overburdened with debt and harassed by corrupt government officials.  Reflecting the disconnection of education from economic development, young people with professional degrees found their opportunities for employment limited. 
 
      Accordingly, university students took a central role in the leadership of the revitalized revolution in the 1950s.  University students had the privileged opportunity to reflect on the conditions of the neocolonial republic; and those informed by the Cuban tradition of revolutionary and political thought could envision the republic of Martí.  The most politically astute among them could discern that, on the basis of a platform that would seek to address the desperate economic and social conditions of the countryside, an effective political-military alliance could be forged with the great mass of tenant farmers and agricultural workers.  This radicalized sector of the petit bourgeoisie played a central leadership role in the revolutionary process, and it is impossible to imagine the triumph of the revolution without them.
 
     It is equally impossible to imagine the triumph and persistence of the Cuban Revolution without the presence of Fidel.  To understand the successes of the revolution, we have to appreciate the exceptional capacity of Fidel to understand the correct course of action in pivotal moments: the creation of an anti-Batista coalition that included reformist sectors in 1958; the inclusion of representatives of the national bourgeoisie in the initial revolutionary government, creating the possibility for the inclusion of an independent national bourgeoisie in the revolutionary project; the necessity for the nationalization of U.S. properties in Cuba in order to break the core-peripheral neocolonial relation with the USA; the breaking with the national bourgeoisie through the nationalization of Cuban big industry, once the Cuban figurehead bourgeoisie demonstrated its incapacity to remake itself as an independent national bourgeoisie, not tutored by U.S. capital; the development of alternatives to representative democracy in the form of structures of popular democracy, including mass assemblies, a vanguard political party, mass organizations, and popular power; the seeking of Third World unity in working toward the establishment of a New International Economic Order, providing exceptional analyses of the contradictions of the unsustainable capitalist world-economy; the making of the necessary adjustments of the Special Period, redefining the revolutionary road in the context of new conditions; and at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the participation of Cuba in the process of Latin American unity and integration.   However, as the history of Cuban revolutionary movement makes evident, Fidel was not nurtured in a political vacuum; he was formed in a historical and social context shaped by revolutionary thought and political praxis.
 
      The emergence of charismatic leaders is a general pattern in revolutionary processes.  One cannot imagine the Haitian Revolution without Toussaint, the Russian Revolution without Lenin, the Chinese Revolution without Mao, the Vietnamese Revolution without Ho Chi Minh, and the Bolivarian Revolution with Chávez.  The emergence of charismatic leaders is indispensable in revolutionary processes, not only because their exceptional capacity to understand is itself an important resource for the revolution, but also because the leaders and the people discern these exceptional gifts, thus empowering the charismatic leader with the capacity to unify the various and sometimes contradictory tendencies within the revolutionary process.  At the same time, we also should appreciate that charismatic leadership emerged in a social and historic context, and it is formed and shaped by this context, as the case of Cuba makes evident.  In general, charismatic leaders have the capacity to lead the revolutionary process to a move advanced stage, even as they affirm and identify with the previous revolutionary achievements.
 
     The Cuban Revolution is presently in a process of transition from charismatic individual leadership to vanguard party leadership.  For more than five decades, Raúl Castro served as a second-in-command to the charismatic leader, substituting for Fidel when, for one reason or another, Fidel could not be present.  Raúl has assumed this substitute role on a relatively permanent basis in 2009, when Fidel step down as head of state for reasons of health.  In 2018, a further step in the transition was taken, when Miguel Díaz-Canel was elected President of the Council of State and Ministers by the National Assembly of Popular Power, while Raúl continues as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba.  Since his election, Díaz-Canel has been the more visible of the two, as he carries out his duties as head of state. 
 
     As the transition proceeds, many of the generation of the revolution continue to be present, fulfilling various duties in the state, the party, or various institutions.  Among the tasks that they have assigned themselves in recent years has been the development of a new constitution, so that the people and the nation will have a guide for the future.  It is their final will and testament, as we will discuss further in the next post.

​     We have seen in recent posts that Cuba has been developing a new Constitution, with the active participation of the people, the National Assembly, and the Party.  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 Cuban National Assembly debates” 1/24/2018; “The new Cuban Constitution: Continuity” 1/28/2019; “A more inclusive Cuban Revolution” 2/1/2019; “A more pragmatic Cuban Revolution” 2/7/2019; and “Cuba seeks greater state efficiency” 2/11/2019.
 
      On February 24, 2019, the Cuban people, in a direct and secret vote by each citizen, approved the new Constitution that they have been constructing.  Some 84.4% of resident citizens voted, with 86.8% voting “Yes,” 9% voting “No,” 2.5% blank ballots, and 1.6% annulled. 
 
     The Preamble to the Cuban Constitution of 2019 states:

The Constitution proceeds to affirm the civil, political, social, and economic rights of all, regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious belief, or disability.  It reconfirms that structures of popular democracy that have been evolving since the early 1960s, including the role of the Communist Party as the vanguard party that guides and educates the people.  It affirms the right of all nations to sovereignty and self-determination, in resistance to the imperialist policies of the global powers.  It defines the role of the state as the author of a development plan and as director and regulator in the economy, necessary for the protection of the rights of the citizens and the nation.  It confirms the duty of the nation to protect the natural environment.  It maintains that Cuba is and will be socialist.
 
      As we observe the fragmentation, division, and confusion that reigns in many representative democracies of the world, it is difficult to imagine that many of them would be capable of coming close to Cuba in forging a popular consensus with respect to the history of the nation, the concepts and values that ought to guide its development, and its political-economic structures.  The problem with the representative democracies, born from the bourgeois revolutions of the last decades of the eighteenth century, is that they pretend to give power to the people, but in reality, power is in the hands of the elite and its representatives; they have the appearance of democracy, but not the substance.  As a result, the popular revolutions of the twentieth century have assumed the duty of forging the political and economic processes that would give power to the people and establish their social emancipation.  The fruits of that labor are beginning to appear, such that, in the first decades of the twenty-first century, the advantages of popular democracy, with its structures of popular power, its mass organizations, and its vanguard party that is of the people and that educates the people, has become a self-evident truth.

​     Cuba calls upon the governments, organizations, and social movements of the world to mobilize for peace and against U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.  At a press conference on February 19, 2019, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Relations of Cuba, declared:

​     The press conference was a response to the February 18 speech of President Trump in Florida, and it reiterated the February 13 Declaration of the Cuban Revolutionary Government that the United States is preparing a military aggression against Venezuela under the pretext of humanitarian aid (see “Cuba declares on Venezuela” 2/18/2019).
 
      In the February 19 press conference, Rodríguez noted that the United States has set a deadline for penetrating Venezuelan territory with the “humanitarian aid” by means of force.  He declared this posture to be a contradiction in terms, because aid that is truly humanitarian cannot possibly rest on violence, on the force of arms, and on the violation of international law. 
 
     Rodríguez further observed that the government of the United States has been continually pressuring members of the Security Council of the United Nations in order to force the adoption of a resolution in support of a “humanitarian intervention.”  He noted that, in the past, resolutions of this kind are prelude to the establishment of “no-fly zones” and “humanitarian corridors” in order to justify the use of force, with the pretext of protecting civilians.  “We hope,” he declared, “that the Security Council of the United Nations will be true to its vocation and its responsibility as the principal guarantor of peace and international security and will not lend service to military ventures.  We call upon its members to act with fidelity to international law and to defend peace.”
 
     Rodríguez described Trump’s speech as characterized by “extraordinary cynicism, extraordinary hypocrisy.”  Trump speaks of democracy, Rodríguez observes, but ignores the injustice and the exploitation that are the legacy of U.S. imperialism in Latin America.  He overlooks that the U.S. political system is ruled by special interests and corporate contributions, with elections that are won through the manipulation of the people.  He does not mention the millions of poor persons in the United States, the five hundred thousand homeless persons, the racially differentiated system of criminal justice, and the low level of unionization among U.S. workers.
 
      Trump proclaims that the hemisphere will be free of socialism for the first time in history.  It is not the first time that the United States has decreed the “end of socialism,” Rodríguez maintains.  Trump said in Florida that “we have seen the future of Cuba here in Miami.”  But he is wrong, Rodríguez states, because “the future of Cuba is here” in Cuba, where “we reiterate that our loyalty to Fidel and Raúl will be invariable, and that the process of continuity headed by President Díaz-Canel is permanent and irreversible.”

     In eight recent posts, we have been reflecting on the new Cuban Constitution.  We have seen that, on the basis of an extensive popular consultation with a high level of participation by the people, the National Assembly has submitted to the people a proposed constitution that reaffirms the socialist character of the Revolution, the State, and the society; and that preserves the basic structures of popular democracy, which are distinct from representative democracy and are characteristic of nations constructing socialism.  At the same time, the proposed constitution is more inclusive than the Constitution of 1976 with respect to religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and gender identity.  And it also differs from the 1976 Constitution in that it provides a constitutional foundation for a pragmatic socialism that that has space for private capital and foreign investment, under planning and regulation by the State.  The popular referendum on the proposed constitution will occur 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; “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019; “The Cuban National Assembly debates” 1/24/2018; “The new Cuban Constitution: Continuity” 1/28/2019; “A more inclusive Cuban Revolution” 2/1/2019; “A more pragmatic Cuban Revolution” 2/7/2019.
 
     In accordance with its orientation to provide a constitutional foundation for economic measures and policies that are designed to increase productivity, the new constitution also seeks to found a greater administrative efficiency of the State.  To this end, the new constitution makes changes in the structure of the State, without in any way changing or modifying the logic of popular power.  As we have seen, in the Cuban structures of popular political power, the people elect directly and indirectly the deputies of the National Assembly; said National Assembly is the highest authority in the State and the nation, inasmuch as it elects the highest members of the executive and judicial branches, and it possesses the authority to legislate, to interpret the Constitution, and to make constitutional reforms (see “The new Cuban Constitution: Continuity” 1/28/2019).  The intention of the changes in the structure of the State is not to change its base in popular power, but to increase its effectiveness in responding to the daily and concrete needs of the people.
 
      Whereas the 1976 Constitution established a Council of State and Ministers elected by the National Assembly, the new Constitution divides functions, creating a Council of State (which represents the National Assembly) and a Council of Ministers (which is the executive branch).  The members of the Council of State are elected by the National Assembly from among its members.  The Council of State is the legislative branch; it represents the National Assembly between sessions of the Assembly, inasmuch as the Assembly has three or four sessions a year, since the majority of its deputies continue to work in their respective professions or occupations or continue with their studies.  The decrees of the Council of State are subject to the ratification of the National Assembly at its next session.  The President of the National Assembly presides over both the National Assembly and the Council of State.  The President, Vice-President, and Secretary of the National Assembly have the same charges in the Council of State. 
 
      The Council of Ministers is the Executive Branch.  It is directed and formed by the President of the Republic, who is the Chief of State.  The President of the Republic is elected by the National Assembly for a term of five years, with a maximum of two consecutive periods.  The President of the Republic presents the members of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to the National Assembly for approval.  The Prime Minister is designated by the National Assembly, upon the recommendation of the President of the Republic, for a period of five years. 
 
     The President of the Republic represents the State, directs foreign policy, presides over the Council of Ministers, presides over the Council of National Defense, and declares states of emergency.  The Prime Minister reports to President and manages the Council of Ministers.  The Council of Ministers organizes and directs the execution of the political, economic, cultural, scientific, social, and defense activities agreed to by the National Assembly; approves and submits international treaties to the Council of State; directs and controls foreign commerce and foreign investment; and develops legislative proposals for submission to the National Assembly or the Council of State.  The Council of Ministers renders account of its activities to the National Assembly. 
 
      Thus, the new constitution seeks to improve governmental effectiveness by creating two offices in the executive branch.  First, the President of the Republic, who is the chief of state.  Secondly, a Prime Minister, who is responsible for managing the various ministries of the government.  The President is the higher authority of the two, in that the President designates the Prime Minister and presides of the Council of Ministers, which the Prime Minister manages.  Both the President and the Prime Minister are elected by the National Assembly; and both report and must answer to the National Assembly, which, to remind, is elected by the people in a system of direct and indirect elections, and which is the highest authority in the nation.
 
     Changes were also made in the structures of local government, seeking to improve governmental responsiveness at the local level.  The new Constitution replaces the fourteen provincial assemblies of the nation with provincial governments.  The provincial governments are directed by governors, who are elected by the municipal assemblies in their respective provinces.  The provincial governors convoke and preside over meetings of the Provincial Council, which are composed of the Provincial Governor, Provincial Vice-Governor, and the presidents of the municipal assemblies of popular power in the province.  (To remind, the delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies of the nation are elected by the people in a direct and secret vote, in which voters choose from among two or three candidates that emerge from neighborhood nomination assemblies).
 
     As in the Constitution of 1976, the new constitution defines the Municipal Assembly of Popular Power as the highest local organ.  In the new Constitution, delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies of the nation are elected for terms of five years, changing the 1976 Constitution, which established terms of two and one-half years for delegates of the municipal assemblies. 
 
     As is evident, the new constitution, as it seeks a greater administrative efficiency of the State, preserves the hallmark characteristics of the Cuban political process, which were beginning to emerge in the 1960s, and which were institutionalized in the Constitution of 1976.  As we have seen, it is, in sum, a system that concentrates authority in the National Assembly, which is the legislative branch.  The National Assembly elects and oversees the executive and the judicial branches; it enacts laws; and only it can reform the Constitution.  The deputies of the National Assembly are nominated by the delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies, and subsequently elected by the people in referendum.  Said delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies are elected previously by the people in secret and direct voting in 12,515 voting districts, choosing from two or three candidates nominated by the people in neighborhood nomination assemblies, without the participation of electoral political parties.
 
     As we have seen in this series of posts on the new Cuban Constitution, the new Magna Carta of the nation has been developed through a thorough and careful process, illustrating the relations among the Party, the government (the National Assembly), and the people.  The Party initiated reflection and analysis on a new constitution in 2013, and it submitted a proposal to the National Assembly in 2018.  Most of the members of the Assembly are Party members, but in evaluating the proposal of the Party, they are functioning as the elected deputies of the people.  Upon receiving the Party’s proposal, the Assembly formed a Constitutional Commission, consisting of some of its members.  The Constitutional Commission submitted a draft to the Assembly, which debated and modified it, and approved it for a popular consultation.  The consultation consisted of 133,680 meetings held during a period of three months in neighborhoods and places of work and study.  Approximately 75% of the adult population (16 years of age or older) attended the meetings, and 25% of those present expressed an opinion or made a proposal, and each opinion or proposal was noted by a representative of the Constitutional Commission.  The Commission undertook a thorough analysis of the opinions and proposals, on the basis of which it modified the draft, and presented the modified draft to the National Assembly.  The National Assembly debated and modified it, demonstrating seriousness and political maturity in their debate.  The Assembly approved the draft with its final modifications for popular referendum, to be held on February 24, 2019.  Here we see the basic dynamics of the Cuban political process: The Party guides, educates, and exhorts; the people, through there own capacity to speak and their own mass organizations, and through their elected deputies to the National Assembly, decide. 
 
     The people, their elected deputies, and the Party are most satisfied with the process that is nearing culmination.  No one doubts that the people will vote overwhelmingly in support of the Constitution on February 24.  When they do so, they will vote for sovereignty, affirming the right of the nation to decide for itself the characteristics of its political-economic system.  They will vote for democracy, confirming the structures of popular democracy that they have been developing since the early 1960s, which ensure that political power is in the hands of delegates and deputies of the people, and not in the hands of politicians with debts to those who finance their political careers.  They will vote for continuity, proclaiming that the passing from the scene of the generation of the revolution does not mean rupture, but a continuation by a new generation of the same struggle that was launched in 1868, when a landholder freed his slaves and formed an army of national liberation, and that reached a more advanced stage with the revolutionary triumph of 1959.

      We have been reflecting in seven posts since January 9 on the new Cuban constitution, which will be submitted for popular referendum on February 24 (“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; “The new Cuban Constitution: Continuity” 1/28/2019; “A more inclusive Cuban Revolution” 2/1/2019).  We turn now to economic issues that are reflected in the changes being made in the new constitution.
 
      Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, combined with a strengthening of the economic sanctions against Cuba by the United States, the Cuban economy suffered a collapse in the early 1990s, and there was a significant decline in the standard of living.  The government adopted intelligent adjustment strategies, designed to preserve and protect the social and economic gains since 1959.  During the next fifteen years, there was a slow but steady recovery, and universal, free health care and education were maintained, as were subsidies for food and utilities.  However, the people endured great sacrifices, and there was a continually growing feeling of dissatisfaction among the people with respect to the material standing of living, which did not involve a desire to abandon the socialist road.  In response to the growing popular inquietude, the Party began to analyze possibilities for strengthening the productive capacity of the nation, which culminated in a new social and economic model, approved by the National Assembly, following an extensive popular consultation, in 2012.  In essence, the new model expands space for self-employment, small-scale private property, cooperatives, and foreign investment, while maintaining state ownership as the principal form of property; it preserves the role of the state as manager and regulator of the economy. 
 
     The new model did not emerge from a sector within Cuban society that would benefit economically from the changes, nor was it developed to satisfy the interests of international capital.  The new model was developed by the revolutionary leadership in response to the dissatisfaction that had emerged among the people, a dissatisfaction that implied an erosion of popular support for the Revolution in comparison to the era of the 1960s through the 1980s.  Even though the popular dissatisfaction did not express itself in the form of counterrevolutionary thought and behavior, it was a matter of concern, especially with respect to its long-term implications. 
 
     The new social and economic model of 2012, therefore, was developed autonomously by the leadership of a sovereign socialist nation, forged by its vanguard party with the participation and full support of the elected deputies of the people.  Its goal is to increase capacity for the production and distribution of goods and services, in order that the needs and desires of the people will be more fully satisfied, so that they will be kept on board in the socialist project in the long term.  It intends to facilitate the construction of a more “prosperous” socialism.
 
     The National Assembly, in accordance with its constitutional authority, interpreted the new economic measures as constitutional.  Nevertheless, there was a belief within the Party that the new economic measures had created the need for a constitutional re-foundation.  As a result, it is not surprising that the section on “economic fundamentals” of the new constitution includes important changes from the 1976 Constitution.  Said changes, however, do constitute rupture; rather, they reflect a continuous evolution, based on continuing theoretical reflection by the vanguard on revolutionary practice, on national social dynamics, and on the evolving political-economy of the world-system. 
 
     Both the 1976 and new constitutions dictate that the Cuban economy is a socialist economy that is directed and regulated by the State in accordance with its plan for social and economic development (Articles 14 and 16 in the 1976 Constitution; Articles 18 and 19 in the new Constitution).  However, there is a difference between the two constitutions with respect to the various forms of property.  The 1976 Constitution establishes state ownership of agricultural land, sugar processing plants, factories, mines, banks, and natural resources; and it recognizes other forms of property as exceptions to state property.  These exceptions include the agricultural property of small farmers and cooperatives, joint ventures of state and private capital, self-employment in transportation, and the property of mass, social, and political organizations (Article 15).  In contrast, the new Constitution recognizes various forms of property, including socialist property of the people, in which the state acts a representative of the people; cooperatives; joint ventures; the property of mass, political, and social organizations; and private property (Article 22).  These are not exceptions to state property, as in 1976; rather, they are forms of property that exist alongside state property.  Moreover, in the new formulation, cooperatives are legitimated beyond agriculture.  In addition, private property is explicitly recognized as a form of property in the socialist economy, although the state regulates to ensure that concentration of private property is limited, in accordance with socialist values of equity and social justice (Article 30).  Furthermore, foreign investment has its role: “The State promotes and guarantees foreign investment as an important element for the economic development of the country, over the base of the protection and reasonable use of natural and human resources as well as respect for national sovereignty and national independence” (Article 28).
 
      Such recognition of various forms of property, including private and foreign property, is in accordance with what I have elsewhere called “pragmatic socialism” (see “Pragmatic socialism: The necessary road” 5/14/2018 in the category Revolution), which is the form of socialism being developed in theory and in practice in China, Vietnam, and Cuba.  In this concept of pragmatic socialism, state ownership is the principal form of property, but other forms of property have a role, formulated by the state development plan and regulated by the state.  Moreover, the state plays a primary role in formulating a development plan and in directing and regulating the various forms of property.  The central role of the state as principal property holder, planner, and regulator is clear in the new Cuban constitution.  It affirms that Cuba has a “socialist economy based on the property of all the people over the fundamental means of production, as the principal form of property, and based on the planned direction of the economy, which regulates and controls the market in accordance with the interests of the society” (Article 18).  “The State directs, regulates, and controls economic activity, reconciling national, territorial, collective, and individuals interests in benefit of the society” (Article 19).  “The State socialist company is the principle subject of the national economy.  It has at its disposal autonomy in administration and management, and it plays the principal role in the production of goods and services” (Article 27). 
 
      Pragmatic socialism is the necessary road.  In the present conditions in the nations constructing socialism, and in the present international conditions, the total elimination of private property and foreign capitalist investment is not possible.  The nations constructing socialism have to develop productive capacity in order to satisfy the needs of the people, and in their present productive, commercial, and financial situation, they cannot do so without private property and foreign investment, assigning them a role in the national economic development plan.  In addition to such objective factors, there are subjective conditions: the aspirations of the people are influenced by the consumer societies of the core nations and the dissemination of their “values,” which really are anti-values.  The political reality is that concessions must be made to the aspirations of the people, in order to keep them with the socialist project. 
 
     Accordingly, there are both objective and subjective conditions that establish and limit possibilities, and socialist revolutions in power must intelligently respond and adjust.  It is possible that, in the future, property will be almost entirely state property and workers’ cooperatives, or entirely workers’ cooperatives; we cannot yet know, experience will teach us.  But under present conditions, the elimination of private property and foreign investment is not possible.
 
      In their efforts to construct socialism and a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system, the nations moving toward socialism must confront the aggressions of the imperialist powers, which continue to seek to preserve their structural advantages in the neocolonial world-system.  At the present time, for example, the declining hegemonic core power is threatening a trade war with China; is strengthening the long-standing economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba; and is imposing economic sanctions, intervening politically, and threatening military action against Venezuela.  These actions, of course, are new manifestations of the longstanding imperialist policies that were central to the transition from colonialism to neocolonialism, in which the sovereignty of nations is pretended but not real.  In this situation of continuing imperialist aggression, all of the nations that seek an autonomous road, different from that assigned to them by the neocolonial world-system, must economically and diplomatically cooperate with one another, as they are doing.
 
     In the struggle between the established unsustainable neocolonial world-system and the more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system in development, the role of ideas is central.  Unfortunately, many intellectuals and activists of the Left in the nations of the North have a limited understanding, as a result of the weakness of socialist movements in their lands.  Influenced by utopian conceptions of what socialist governments ought to do, they believe that the pragmatic socialist nations have lost the socialist road.  They cannot see that the nations constructing socialism they are leading the way in the forging of a socialist world-system.

​     Triumphant revolutions evolve following their taking of political power, on the basis of their practical experience in seeking to achieve revolutionary goals and taking into account a constantly evolving society as well as a changing international situation.  In the case of Cuba, the Revolution since 1959 has evolved to be a more inclusive and more pragmatic Revolution, and more committed to administrative and productive efficiency.  Said evolution is reflected in the new Constitution that the National Assembly of Popular Power approved on December 22, 2019, which will be submitted to popular referendum on February 24, 2019.   See various posts on the development of the new Cuban Constitution (“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; “The new Cuban Constitution: Continuity” 1/28/2019).
 
     The Cuban Revolution has evolved to be a more inclusive revolution, including all the people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious belief.  Whereas the Constitution of 1976 affirmed the equality of all, regardless race, color, sex or national origin (Article 41), the new constitution expands the equal protection clause to include no discrimination for reason of sexual orientation, gender identity, religious belief, or disability.  The equal protection clause of the Constitution now reads: 

​The amplification of the equal protection clause is in accordance with international tendencies, and it reflects changes in Cuban society, as it has evolved since 1976.
 
      In recent years, the revolutionary leadership move toward embracing the international tendency toward affirmation of the rights of gays and transgender persons.  However, it did not want to do so in a way that provoked a reaction from religious persons, whom it also wanted to include.  So its orientation has been to educate rather than to impose.  It has sought consensus, with the intention of avoiding a conflictive divide among the people on the question of religion and homosexuality.  The Revolution does not see the question as central to the essence of revolution; that is, a person could be gay or not, or religious or not, and could still be revolutionary (or not).  Therefore, the Revolution has sought to ensure consensus and mutual respect among the people on questions related homosexuality and religion. 
 
     The Revolution’s orientation toward consensus can be seen in the reaction of the Constitutional Commission to the polemical debate that emerged during the popular consultation with respect to the definition of marriage.  The issue here was whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, as formulated in Article 35 of the 1976 Constitution, or as a union between two persons, as expressed in the draft of the new constitution distributed for popular consultation (see “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019 and “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019).  The Commission responded to the polemical debate by modifying the language of the proposed new constitution.  The modified proposal removes the 1976 definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but at the same time, it does not define the subjects that enter a marital union, thus deferring the debate to a later moment.  In its transitional dispositions, the new Constitution directs the National Assembly to develop a family code on the basis of a popular consultation, which should be submitted to popular referendum.  In addition, the new Constitution recognize the diversity of marriage and family forms in Cuban society.  Its chapter on the theme is entitled “Families,” in contrast to the 1976 title, “The Family” (Articles 81-82 in the new constitution; Articles 34-35 in the 1976 Constitution). 
 
      Thus, the new Cuban constitution, in the form modified by the Commission, has a progressive character with respect to LGBT rights, taking into account various related articles.  In Article 42, it affirms the rights of all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.  Articles 81-82 remove the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and they affirm the diversity of marriage and family forms.  The new Constitution mandates a popular consultation on the family, which will provide extended opportunity for the people to debate the theme of gay marriage, in which defenders of gay rights will seek to educate the people with respect to scientific evidence and international tendencies. 
 
     At the same time, the Constitutional Commission has arrived to this progressive proclamation and agenda in a manner that is respectful of the people who are opposed to a legal recognition of gay marriage.  The Commission sought to formulate a constitutional foundation that would have consensual support.  It withdrew its formulation of marriage as a “union between two persons;” and it included in the new Constitution a requirement for a final popular referendum on a new family code, not wanting to impose legalization of gay marriage on the people, if the popular consultation does not persuade them. 
 
     In this approach to a polemical issue, the Cuban Revolution reflects a historic principle: the people must be respected.  If, as a result of pervasive confusions and distortions, the people have an unscientific or an unreasonable idea, they must be educated and persuaded; the political will of an “enlightened” minority can never be imposed. 
 
     Although the Constitution of 1976 affirmed freedom of religious beliefs and practices, it nonetheless maintained that the state bases its activities and educates the people on a “materialist, scientific conception of the universe” (Article 54).  However, during the 1970s and 1980s, there was evolving a more inclusive orientation of the revolutionary leadership, recognizing that the Revolution’s conflict with the Catholic Church in 1960s was not religious but political, and it did not result from an antireligious attitude by the Revolution (Castro 1985).  Reflecting this evolution, the Constitutional Reform of 1992 declares that the Cuban State is not an atheist State but a lay State, and it declares the separation between Church and State (Díaz 2011:71).  In the new Constitution set for referendum on February 24, 2019, the article guaranteeing religious freedom (Article 57) clearly and fully affirms the rights of religious believers. 
 
     The equal protection clause of the new Constitution (Article 42, cited above) includes disabled persons, whereas the Constitution of 1976 did not.  However, the rights and special needs of the disabled has been respected in practice in Cuban society since 1959, with schools and hospitals being provided for those in need.  The inclusion of disabled persons in the equal protection clause is not a reflection of change in Cuban society; rather, it is a reflection of the greater international tendency in this direction as well as of a desire to give a constitutional foundation to the practice.
 
      In addition to be being more inclusive with respect to the LBFT community and religious persons, the Cuban Revolution has also evolved to be more inclusive with respect to self-employed persons and small capitalists, defining them as part of the revolutionary people that are constructing socialism.  This evolution has occurred as a result of the need for the Cuban Revolution to be more pragmatic with respect to its socialist economy.  This will be the theme of our next post.

References
 
Castro, Fidel.  1985.  Fidel y La Religión: Conversaciones con Frei Betto.  La Habana: Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado. [English translation: Fidel and Religion: Conversations with Frei Betto on Marxism and Liberation Theology.  Melbourne: Ocean Press].
 
Díaz Sotolongo, Roberto.  2011.  La Constitución.  La Habana: Ediciones ONBC.