​     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.

     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.

     Social movements of Afro-descendants in various countries of Latin America and the Caribbean have resulted in the UN declaration of the decade of Afro-descendants.  The movements have identified such problems as the persistence of racist speech, racist images, and racial prejudices, facilitated by the social reproduction of racist perceptions; disproportionate levels of poverty; inequality in employment, income, and resources; and the unpreparedness of universities to address the particular needs of Afro-descendant students.  They maintain that there is a difference between equality and equity, that is, between formal equality before the law and an equal distribution with respect to employment, income, and resources. They have lifted up demands such as the defense of culture and the providing of social services.  They see Afro-descendants in each nation as a people and as a subject. 
 
     Some Cuban academics and social activists participate in the Latin American and Caribbean social movement of Afro-descendants.  The Cuban participants maintain that the gains of the Cuban Revolution with respect to race have to be acknowledged (see “Fidel, Martin, and Malcolm” 10/26/2018).  They affirm that, because of these gains, the situation of Afro-Cubans is significantly better than that of Afro-descendants in other countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is completely different from the situation of Afro-descendants in the United States.  However, the Cuban participants maintain, the Cuban story must not be romanticized.  The Cuban Revolution has not attained the full liberation of blacks, in that equity in employment, income, and resources has not been attained; and in addition, a certain level of racial prejudices persist in Cuba.
 
     The Cuban participants in the Latin American and Caribbean movement of Afro-descendants would like to increase their visibility in Cuba.  However, they recognize that they confront various difficulties in doing so.  First, the movement in Cuba consists of a few academics and social activists, and it has not attained an institutionalized participation in public discourse; nor does it have a high level of recognition in Cuban society, from the Party and the government; or among the people, including Cuban Afro-descendants.  Secondly, the movement has not been able to establish clearly that it has a revolutionary discourse that seeks to improve the revolution; and not a counterrevolutionary discourse that seeks to undermine the revolution.  This is in part a consequence of the fact that counterrevolutionary strategies emerging from the United States include claims that there are in Cuba systemic forms of racial discrimination and racial inequality.  Thirdly, in Cuba, there has been considerable race mixing, such some that persons that appear to be white are Afro-descendants.  It could be argued that the great majority of Cubans are Afro-descendants, taking into account race mixing on the island and the prior Moorish colonization of Spain.  Fourthly, systemic equality of educational and employment opportunity has been attained in Cuba, as a result of its historic revolutionary strategy of overcoming racial discrimination through free, universal, and integrated education (see “The teachings of Fidel on race” 10/22/2018).  The Cuban situation of structural equality of opportunity is very different from the situations found in the other countries of the Americas, and especially the United States, in which there is unequal funding of public schools as well as an invidious distinction between private and public schools.  The Cuban situation of systemic equality of opportunity limits the reach of the movement, because racial inequality in social status and income it is often perceived as occurring as a result of class differences that are rooted in historic pre-revolutionary racial discrimination and exclusion, and not as consequence of racial inequality of opportunity in the current political and social context.  Fifthly, Cubans today are far more concerned with inequality in general, and especially with the fact that some persons have difficulty purchasing necessities with respect to nutrition, housing, and clothing.  The present prevailing political will, among the people and in the Party and the government, is to provide greater support for people in need, be they black, white, or mixed race.  Sixthly, perhaps as a reflection of these five difficulties, the movement has not been able to formulate specific proposals and demands to the party, the government, or the organizations of civil society.
 
     So where do we go from here in Cuba?  I imagine that the movement of Afro-descendants will continue to evolve, and that it will eventually find an institutionalized place in socialist Cuba.  The development of academic centers dedicated to the theme seems to be a logical next step in its evolution, so that social scientific research can identify the causes of the remaining socioeconomic inequities, and practical strategies and programs could be proposed on this foundation. 
 
     The Cuban counterrevolution, based in Miami, has sought to fabricate a race problem with respect to Cuba.  This is a clever maneuver, because it is able to exploit the actual situation, in which racial equity has not been fully attained, and remnants of racial prejudice remain.  Thus, it is able to obscure the fact that, although Cuba has not attained perfection, it has registered exemplary gains, as a consequence of the formulation and implementation of revolutionary teachings and programs in 1959.  Cuba has established systemic equality of opportunity, on the basis of universal, free, public, and racially integrated education, in which there is equal investment, in money and human resources, in the education of every Cuban child, regardless of that child’s race or social class; and for all schools, whether they are located in the city or the country.  In addition, it has established the unambiguous message, disseminated in all institutions, that racism and racial prejudice have no place in the socialist society that the people and the Party are seeking to construct.  On this foundation, Cuba has established a society that in its fundamentals is different from the other societies of the Americas with respect to race, even though its people are human, subject to all the imperfections that are known to the human condition.
 
     A few Cubans give support to this counterrevolutionary conversion of the issue of race into a social problem.  Some do so as counterrevolutionaries of the Right; others as ultra-leftist critics of the Revolution (see “The Party and the Parliament in Cuba” 6/19/2018).  I have observed that some U.S. academics and activists, both whites and blacks, have been confused by the distortions and exaggerations of this ideological campaign with respect to race in Cuba. 
 
      In seeking to understand what is true, we always should endeavor to keep the fundamentals clearly and consistently in mind.  The issue of race remains in Cuba, but it expresses itself in a social context structurally different from Latin America and especially the United States.  Reflection on the theme of race in Cuba best proceeds with consciousness of the alternative social and political context that the Cuban Revolution has forged for the past six decades.  In Cuba today, race is an issue but not a social problem, thanks to the decades-long commitment of the Cuban Revolution to the needs of the people.
 
      For posts on the issue of race in Cuba written in 2016, see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016; “Using race to discredit Cuba” 4/19/2016; “Racial inequality in Cuba” 4/21/2016.

      The U.S. Left has a superficial and limited understanding of U.S. history, of historical and contemporary global dynamics, of Marxist-Leninist thought, of the Third World revolution of national and social liberation, of the meaning of revolution, and of the characteristics of socialism (see various posts in the category Critique of the Left).  Reflecting this superficiality, the U.S. Left has not formulated a narrative that explains national dynamics in global context; nor has it formulated a comprehensive plan of action.  At the same time, it tends to express its feelings without political intelligence, without reflection on the impact of its action, slogans, and demands on the people, who in the final analysis must be persuaded to support the program of the Left.  As a result of these characteristics, the Left attains limited popular support, and it is unable to lead a popular movement that would seek to take political power in the United States, and to use a position of political power to struggle for democratic changes.  Yet such a popular movement in the United States is necessary for the future of humanity. 
 
        When members of the U.S. Left travel to Cuba, said limitations are evident.  For the most part, they arrive with a superficial understanding of Cuban history and the Cuban political-economic system.  For the most part, they express great admiration for Fidel, without having studied his speeches.  Diplomacy requires a polite silence by the Cuban side with respect to these shortcomings.  However, although diplomacy is appropriate for discussions with representatives of the U.S. government and of U.S. businesses, it should not define the demeanor of the Cuban Revolution with respect to the U.S. Left, which ostensibly presents itself as an advocate of social change and as a defender of social justice.
 
      Historically, the Cuban Revolution has not been so reticent with respect to its relations with Leftist movements in the Third World.  Cuba has given concrete support and/or developed strong relations with socialist or leftist governments in Algeria, Ethiopia, Angola, Chile, Grenada, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Argentina.  Inasmuch as revolutionary Cuba has considered the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of nations to be necessary for justice and sustainability in the world-system, it has not provided concrete aid to socialist movements that had not yet attained power.  It nevertheless did have relations with them, as can be seen in the case of Cuban participation in the Forum of Sao Paulo. 
 
     The Forum of Sao Paulo was initiated in 1990, when the Workers’ Party of Brazil convoked a Meeting of Parties and Organizations of the Latin American and Caribbean Left in Sao Paulo.  The idea for the forum had emerged in a meeting between Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, head of the Brazilian Workers’ Party, and Fidel, during a visit of Lula to Cuba.  The initial draft of the First Declaration of Sao Paulo was developed by a commission composed of representatives of the Workers’ Party of Brazil, the Communist Party of Cuba, the Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation (FMLN) of El Salvador, and the Mariateguista Unified Party of Peru.  For the next twenty years, Leftist parties and organization from various Latin American countries participated, with twelve subsequent meetings being held in Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Brazil, Guatemala, and Uruguay.   The initiative enabled ongoing dialogue among political parties and organizations of the Latin American Left, in order to exchange ideas and discuss possible strategies (Regalado 2008).  Cuba played a leading and active role, constantly reiterating its message of the necessary unity of the various sectors of the Left, seeking to take power with strategies that were intelligently adapted to the political, economic, and cultural conditions in each particular nation. 
 
      The Forum of Sao Paulo played an important role in establishing the foundation for the arrival to power of Leftist political parties throughout the region during the first decade of the twenty-first century.  In the Sao Paulo Forum, the Cuban Revolution was playing an educating role.  It was helping the political parties of the Left, some of which were socialist and others that were not, to assess their own national situations and to arrive to an understanding of what ought to be done.
 
       The Left in the United States needs such help and guidance.   It is confused and divided, and it has scant understanding of the dynamics of a popular or socialist revolution.  Confronting the stunningly low level of historical and political consciousness of the U.S. Left and its subtle ethnocentrism, the Cuban Revolution appears uncertain of itself.  It tends to express appreciation for U.S. popular advocacy for an end to the blockade; and also for the earlier support by U.S. activists of the five Cuban anti-terrorist agents unjustly incarcerated in the United States, released and returned to Cuba during the Obama opening.  But the Cuban Revolution does not seem to know how to engage the U.S. Left in reflection on the meaning of revolution and of socialism.  It does not seem to know how to challenge the U.S. Left to deepen its understanding of revolution and socialism, moving toward greater insight on the basis of socialist revolutionary projects in the world, creatively adapting such insights to the conditions of the United States.  The Cuban Revolution does not seem to know how to play an educating role with respect to the U.S. Left, in the way that it has known with respect to the Latin American Left.
 
      The Cuban Revolution needs to give serious consideration concerning how it could draw upon its considerable experience in socialist revolution to educate the U.S. Left concerning the meaning of revolution and of socialism, so that the U.S. Left could benefit from the Cuban socialist experience.  To be sure, the U.S. Left must arrive to its own conclusions and strategies that are appropriate for a U.S. context, and it is responsible for forging its own popular revolution (which would be the fourth popular revolution in U.S. history).   However, it cannot do so without understanding the basic concepts of revolution and the basic structures and processes of socialist revolutions in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela and of anti-imperialist revolutions in Latin America.  It needs the benefits of honest, in-depth, mutually respectful, and sustained dialogue with Cuban revolutionaries.

​Reference
 
Regalado, Roberto.  2008.  Encuentros y desencuentros de la izquierda latinoamericana: Una mirada desde el Foro de São Paulo.  México D.F.: Ocean Sur.

       Cuban President Miguel Díez-Canal recently spent a week in New York City in order to attend meetings of the General Assembly of the United Nations.  During his stay in New York, he was received warmly by various political and popular sectors of the United States, which indicate that the rapprochement between Cuba and the people of the United States is continuing, in spite of the Trump reversal of the Obama opening.  For its part, Cuba welcomes the rapprochement, reiterating that it favors the normalization of relations on a basis of equality and mutual respect, without the acceptance of any conditions or the compromising of its principles or its sovereignty.  It recognizes that that there are differences, for Cuba is a socialist system, and not a capitalist system; it calls for a civilized acceptance of these differences, with neither side demanding change in the other as a precondition for establishing mutually beneficial commerce and cultural interchanges.  It points to the historic relations of affection between the two peoples. 
 
       Something is lacking, however, in the rapprochement between our two peoples.  Cuba affirms that it is socialist, and that it is and has been constructing socialism based on democratic principles.  However, it does not explain the character of democracy in its socialist society, as a political system that puts power in the hand of the delegates and deputies of the people, and not in the hands of political representatives and political parties that are under the influence of corporations and elite foundations (“Human rights and Cuba’s reasons” 10/8/2018).  In the evolving rapprochement, Cubans explain and defend many aspects of their society, including their gains in such areas as health, education, sport, and culture; but there is a strong tendency among Cubans to avoid the theme of their alternative structures of popular democracy. 
 
      I think that Cubans are not fully aware of the extent that they avoid the theme, for they do indeed endeavor to explain their principles and many features of their society, insisting on their right to sovereignty.  The avoidance, conscious or not, is rooted, in my view, in a desire not to offend.  There is, after all, a certain indelicacy for a Cuban to say to persons from the representative democracies, “our Cuban system is more democratic and more advanced than yours, because it was forged by the people and not by the elite and their surrogates.”  Indeed, it is hard to avoid this indelicacy, inasmuch as the socialist structures of popular democracy cannot be explained without invoking a contrast with the bourgeois structures of representative democracy, from which popular democracy evolved. 
 
     Meanwhile, North Americans tend to avoid the subject.  Even the supporters of Cuba, including those of the Left, have been influenced by many of the distortions about Cuba, and they assume that Cuba has some deficits when it comes to political and civil rights.  So they too are reticent about discussing such political themes, not wanting to offend. 
 
     But we must move beyond this impasse.  Even though no political system in a particular country can function as a model that should be replicated elsewhere, the Cuban political system is an exceptional example that has many insights to teach the world.  In order to offer its wisdom accumulated from its practical experience, Cuba must explain its system, if there is to be a meaningful conversation.  Exchanges of ideas on the meaning of democracy could be the most fruitful benefit of the emerging historic reconciliation between the peoples of the United States and Cuba.  It would occur in a historic moment in which socialist nations like Cuba, China, Vietnam, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are finding their way; and the representative democracies, not able to defend their nations and peoples nor to resolve the contradictions of the unsustainable world-system, are experiencing a crisis of delegitimation.
 
        During the Obama opening, an educational program was developed in the United States, in which Cuban youths were brought to the USA for a few weeks to be educated with respect to U.S. “democratic” values.  Members of the Cuban press criticized the program, implying that it was an interference in Cuban affairs.  I was not in agreement with this criticism by the Cuban press.  I think that the United States has the right to offer programs to youth from other nations, educating them is its values.  To be sure, the United States does not have the right to employ Cubans to engage in political activities in Cuba, as it has been doing for many years; such comportment indeed is interference in Cuban affairs, and Cuba consistently demands its cessation.  However, the United States does have the right to offer scholarships and education to Cuban youth, and to send them back to their native country more enhanced by the experience.
 
       Furthermore, Cuba has every right to do the same, to educate youth from the United States concerning Cuban history, the Cuban political-economic system, Cuban culture, and Cuban values.  Cuba would not have a right to finance and politically support a Cuban-inspired vanguard political party in the United States.  But Cuba does have the right to exchange ideas with U.S. youth who are admirers of Cuba.  Such an exchange could appropriately include the characteristics of a vanguard popular political party, discuss and the characteristics that such a vanguard political party might have in the United States. And it could include exhortations that the U.S. youths return to their native country to try to form a vanguard political party, with best wishes from Cuba.  In accordance with its respect for the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other nations, Cuba would send with the U.S. youths only its best wishes, and not money, political advisors, or arms.
 
       Such educational programs in the two countries competing for the hearts and minds of youth from Cuba and the USA could be a dimension of the normalization of relations.  Each country would create educational programs for the youth of the other.  And as part of the financial settlement for the damage caused to Cuba by the U.S. blockade, the USA could agree to pay for scholarships for programs in Cuba for U.S. youth, with the number of scholarships proportionate to (taking into account the different sizes of the two nations) the number of Cuban youth being educated in the United States.   It would be a civilized conclusion to the economic and sometimes military attack of the United States against Cuba for a half century, transforming the conflict to the battle of ideas.  I have no doubt, having lived in the heart of the two nations, that Cuba would emerge with greater strength and prestige in such a battle of ideas, because Cuba’s reasons are much more scientifically informed and much more in accordance with the values that humanity has proclaimed.  But let the USA try to prove otherwise.
 
         In any Cuban effort to explain its political system, it ought not necessarily focus on the Congresspersons and businesspersons that travel to Cuba seeking commercial possibilities.  In relating to such representatives of U.S. society, the current Cuban approach of diplomacy, but firmness in principles, is the politically intelligent road to ending the blockade and normalizing relations.  However, with respect to its relations with U.S. youth, the Cuban Revolution ought to rethink its approach.  This is especially true with respect to the U.S. Left, as will be the subject of my next post.
 
 
P.S.  Today marks the 150th anniversary of the initiation of the first Cuban war of independence, which the Cuban Revolution understands as the initiation of its revolutionary struggle, a continuous struggle from October 10, 1868 to the present.  Cuban television in recent days and weeks has been full of educational programming commemorating the event, stressing the heroism of the patriots of the War of 1868-1878 as well as the historic continuity of the revolutionary struggle.  For more on the Cuban Revolution, understood in historical and global context, please see “The Cuban war of independence of 1868” 6/17/2014; as well as my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The Light in the Darkness (London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

      On September 26, 2018, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel addressed the UN General Assembly (see “Cuba is still Cuba: Continuity, not rupture” 10/4/2018).  Near the conclusion of his address, he observed that the Cuban people continues with the work initiated with the triumph of the Revolution nearly sixty years ago.  And in accordance with this determination, Cuba “began a process of reform of the Constitution, a truly participatory and democratic exercise, characterized by popular discussion of the draft that eventually will be approved in a referendum.”  He was referring to the most recent development in an ongoing process of developing structures of popular democracy, an alternative to structures of representative democracy, which are practiced widely in the world, and which increasingly are losing legitimacy.  It is likely, however, that few listeners understood very well the process to which he was referring. 
 
      Díaz-Canel’s discourse before the General Assembly of the United Nations was not necessarily the appropriate place to for it, but the Cuban Revolution should give much more emphasis to explaining its alternative structures of popular democracy.  About ten years ago, I asked Jorge Lezcano, then administrative assistant to the President of the National Assembly of Popular Power and author of a book and several pamphlets on the Cuban system of popular democracy, why there was not more emphasis in Cuba on explaining the Cuban political system, as he himself was doing in his book and pamphlets.  He responded that it was because of sensitivity to the charge of exporting the Revolution; Cuba did not want to appear to be trying to disseminate its particular political system.  The Cuban approach is: you have your system, we have ours; we should accept this difference and treat each other with mutual respect.
 
      However, what I have in mind here is not trying to persuade others to adopt the Cuban system.  Rather, I am proposing a fuller explanation of what the Cuban political system is, in response to the distortions and misinformation that proliferate.  If the world were to understand the Cuban political system, it would recognize its essentially democratic character, and it would be able to discern that Cuba is a threat only in the sense that its example is so powerful and compelling that it might inspire others to follow it in some form.  But Cuba should hardly be sanctioned for that.
 
        I have observed a tendency when Cubans converse with persons of other nations.  The international visitor, not well informed about Cuban reality and influenced by the distortions that abound in the world, raises questions or makes declarations to the effect that Cuba violates human rights.  Often times, Cubans respond by referring to its excellent health and educational systems, and by directly or indirectly making the case that Cuba has a comprehensive and ample view of human rights, such that its approach includes the social and economic rights.  Thus, the Cuban argument runs, Cuba has a strong record in the protection of human rights, which can be seen when the issue of human rights is amply and fully understood.
 
       This response is entirely true, but it is ineffective in persuading.  The reason is that for the international visitor, human rights may or may not include social and economic rights.  For the most part, when folks from the countries of the North are inquiring about human rights, they are talking about political and civil rights, such as the right to vote, to freedom of expression, to freedom of association, and to freedom of the press.  Influenced by the distortions, they often believe that Cuba systematically violates these rights.  When international visitors raise this question, and Cubans begin talking about the excellent health system, visitors tend to think that Cubans are changing the subject, which appears to be an implicit recognition that Cuba does indeed violate political and civil rights.  When Obama was in Cuba, he reacted to Cubans talking about the health system in response to questions concerning human rights, observing, “I have great respect and admiration for the Cuban health system.  But strength in one area does not compensate for shortcomings in another.”
 
       The defenders of Cuba should be constantly explaining the Cuban system of popular democracy.  They should repeatedly affirm that political power in Cuba is not concentrated in the executive branch, but in the National Assembly of Popular Power.  The concentrated power of the National Assembly, established by the Cuban Constitution of 1976, is evident in the constitutional and legal authority that it possesses.  It elects the President and the other members of Council of State and Ministers, which is the executive branch.  In addition, it enacts laws; it names highest members of the judicial branch; and it has the authority to revise the Constitution.  In concentrating power in the legislative branch, the Cuban Constitution of 1976 is like the constitutions of the thirteen colonies of 1776.  Those constitutions, reformed or written during the popular revolution of 1774-1775, concentrated power in the legislatures, which were elected in voting districts not extensive in size. 
 
       The Cuban concentration of power in the legislature, however, is unlike the system instituted by the U.S. Constitution of 1789, which established a balance of powers among the branches of government.  The U.S. principle of balance of powers reflected the interests of the 1780s counterrevolution forged by the American educated and landholding elite, which was reacting to the popular revolution of the 1770s.  The structure of a balance of powers makes difficult any effective and decisive action that reflects the political will of the majority, which indeed was the intention of Madison, Hamilton, and other leaders of the Federalist Party (see blog posts in the category American Revolution).
 
     In Cuba, therefore, power is concentrated in the National Assembly, including the authority to elect the President of the Council of State to a five-year term.  But who are the deputies that form the National Assembly?  They are elected by the delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies, on the basis of recommendations made to them by candidacy commissions in each of the 169 municipalities.  These commissions are constituted by representatives of the mass organizations of workers, peasants, students, and women in each municipality.   
 
     So our question now becomes, how are the members of the 169 municipal assemblies elected?  Again, parallels with the smallness and locality of the American colonies of 1774 and 1775 are striking.  The delegates of the 169 municipal assemblies in Cuba are elected by the people, in voting districts of 1000 to 1500 voters, in elections with two or three candidates, all of whom are nominated by the people in a series of popular nomination assemblies.  No political parties nominate candidates.  The candidates do not conduct political campaigns, and thus there is no campaign financing.  In cycles of two and one-half years for municipal elections and five years for elections to the National Assembly, Cuban voter participation since 1976 in the various stages of the process has ranged from 85% to 95%. 
 
         So here we have the essential structures of the Cuban political system.  The deputies of the National Assembly have full authority to elect and remove the members of the executive branch, to make and repeal laws, to name and dismiss court justices, and to amend the Constitution.  They have been sent to such a position of concentrated political power by the elected delegates of the people, who themselves became municipal delegates without the financial support of wealthy donors or associations that represent elite interests.  Both delegates and deputies arrive to political power without a financial, political, or moral debt or obligation to anyone, other than the people. 
 
     The Cuban political system was forged by the Revolution in the period of 1959 to 1976, with full consciousness of the limitations of representative democracy, which were clearly in evidence during the neocolonial republic of 1902 to 1958.  During that neocolonial period, politicians promised to defend the people, but when they arrived to power, they represented the economic and political interests of the national elite as well as those of the United States, while pretending to defend the interests of the people and the nation.  With consciousness of the limitations of this structure, Cubans during the 1960s and 1970s forged a political structure that places political power is in the hands of delegates and deputies of the people, freely elected by the people in local nomination assemblies and voting districts, without the distorting influence of campaign promises and campaign financing.
 
     Therefore, the defenders of Cuba, when presenting arguments against the U.S. blockade of Cuba, have no reason to avoid talking about the Cuban political system.  Once we understand the basic structures of the Cuban political system, we can see that a reasonable case could be made that Cuba has developed an advanced system of democracy that is more democratic than the structures of representative democracy.  Apart from what position one might take in such a debate in political philosophy, the imposition of a blockade on Cuba, on the grounds that it does not have a democratic political system, can be seen to be lacking in any reasonable justification.  We may or may not agree with the structures of the Cuban political system, but it cannot be reasonably denied that Cuba has developed a form of democracy.  In criticizing the U.S. blockade of Cuba, explanation of the basic structures of the Cuban political system ought to be integral to the critique. 
 
     Moreover, in a historic movement in which the world-system is confronting a crisis of political delegitimation, the example of Cuba’s political system ought to stimulate international dialogue on the characteristics of democratic political structures.  The Cuban system is the result of a number of particular historical, political, economic, and cultural factors, and its features cannot be replicated unreflectively elsewhere.  However, it has many insights to teach the world concerning the development of processes of popular participation and of structures that put power in the hands of delegates of the people.  Cuba has the duty to engage in dialogue with the peoples of the earth concerning the meaning of democracy, drawing upon its concept of democracy forged through its revolution, which does not constitute the same thing as “exporting the revolution.”