If you don’t know what democracy means, you do not have the moral authority to lecture others on how to practice it. Yet US Secretary of State John Kerry, representing the greatest imperial power in human history, arrived at the ceremony for the re-opening of the US Embassy in Cuba to celebrate the beginning of a new era in US-Cuban relations and to inform the Cuban people concerning US hopes for more democracy in Cuba. To be sure, reflecting the new Obama policy toward Cuba, his tone was respectful toward the Cuban government, and he did not formulate US expectations as conditions for the normalization of relations. He even at one point observed that the future of Cuba is for Cubans to decide, and his speech was at times moving in its eloquent plea for the development of a positive and construction relation between the two nations and peoples. Nevertheless, his speech contained false premises with respect to Cuba and the meaning of democracy, false premises that are common in US political culture, which has been shaped by the enormous power of the imperial nation. The United States of America believes that it knows best concerning what the nations and peoples of the world ought to do to improve their lives. This is the arrogance that comes with power.
Kerry believes that the people of Cuba would be better served with a genuine democracy, where they can express ideas and choose leaders. With this formulation, he dismisses the Cuban structure for popular participation in mass organizations of workers, farmers, women, students and neighborhood, in which the people fully express their opinions on any subject of concern, and which have constitutionally-mandated structures of communication with the national legislature, the highest formal political authority in the nation. He seems to not reflect on the fact that such a structure for popular participation scarcely exists in the United States.
In expressing desire that Cubans choose their leaders, Kerry seems less than well-informed concerning the Cuban political structure of popular power that guides the decision-making process. Delegates are elected by the people in voting districts of 1000-1500, with competing candidates but without the participation of electoral parties and without the need for political campaigns and campaign financing (see “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context”. This structure ensures that elected delegates will not be more responsive to political parties and campaign contributors than to their obligations to the people and the nation. Kerry seems oblivious to the fact that the Cuban political system has a high degree of legitimacy in Cuba, whereas the structures of representative democracy in the nations of the North are experiencing a legitimation crisis.
Kerry urges the Cuban government to make it easier for Cubans to establish their own businesses. Kerry seems to miss the fact that, with respect to this theme, there is a true opportunity for US-Cuban dialogue, for the two nations have fundamentally different conceptions concerning the role of the market in society. In capitalist USA, the market rules; whereas in socialist Cuba, the needs of the people are predominant. In capitalism, there are few limits on the market. In socialism, the space for the market must be evaluated in the context of the protection of the economic and social rights of the people and the right of the people to economic, social and cultural development. Cuba believes that the amount of space given to the market depends on the conditions in each nation, and each nation should make such judgments, with full sovereignty, on the basis of the needs of the people. As the US-Cuban relation unfolds, Cuba will exercise its sovereignty with respect to the place of the market in its socialist society. But it would welcome dialogue on the theme, hoping to persuade the United States and other powerful nations of the North that a political-economic-cultural world-system that gives priority to the market is not sustainable in the long run.
Kerry urges the Cuban government to fulfill its obligations with respect to international agreements on human rights. He appears to be unaware that Cuba is a world leader in the field of human rights. It has a comprehensive understanding of human rights, according to which human rights include the political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights of all citizens of the planet, and the right of all nations to sovereignty and economic and social development. This advanced understanding has been forged by a revolutionary process against colonialism and neocolonialism, a struggle that began in 1868 and that required serious reflection on the meaning of human rights. As a result of widespread international recognition of Cuban advances in theory and practice with respect to human rights, particularly among the nations and peoples of the Third World, Cuba plays a leading role in defining and advocating human rights in the United Nations and other international forums, while US influence with respect to human rights is diminishing (see “Cuba, United States, and Human Rights” 4/9/2015).
Kerry would like to see the flourishing of an “independent civil society” in Cuba. He appears unaware of the different roles of civil society in different nations, according to the nature of the political process. In societies where the political process is controlled by the elite, the people form organizations to protest policies that ignore the rights of the people. In such societies, the popular struggle for democratic rights takes the form of organizations that are independent of the government and critical of the government. But in societies where the delegates of the people control the decision-making process, the organizations of civil society are independent of the government, but they are not necessarily critical of the government. They are non-governmental organizations, but they are not against the government. Because Cuban NGOs are not anti-government, the US government considers them to be not independent, even though they in fact are. Kerry, then, is advocating a greater role for non-governmental organizations that are anti-government. But such organizations necessarily would have a limited role in Cuba, as long as Cuban political structures continue to have ample space for the input of non-governmental organizations. In Cuba, the weakness of anti-government NGOs is not an indication of a lack of democracy; it reflects the democratic character of the Cuban political process, in that the demands of the NGOs are addressed through the structures of popular participation and popular power (see “Cuba and the Civil Society Debate” 4/13/2015).
In his speech, Kerry welcomed the three ex-marines who lowered the US flag at the closing of the US embassy in 1961. The US State Department apparently took a cue from the opening ceremony of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, which raised the same Cuban flag that was lowered in 1961, fulfilling a promise that it would be returned (see “USA and Cuba establish relations” July 24, 2015). For Kerry, the USA also has fulfilled a promise that it would return to have a presence in Cuba. But there is a fundamental difference between the two nations, their embassies and their flags. For Cuba, the return of the Cuban flag was tied to a commitment to its sovereignty, and it accomplished the raising again of the Cuban flag without compromising a single one of its principles. In contrast, the US lowered its flag in Havana in 1961, not in defense of a principle, but in reaction to Cuban affront to its imperial power. And the USA accomplished the raising again of the US flag in Havana, not through defense of its principles, but as a result of changes in its imperialist strategy, compelled by Cuban resistance and by total international rejection of US policy with respect to Cuba.
There is a popular saying that “power corrupts,” which implies that when a person attains political power, he or she will be corrupted. The adage manipulates people into thinking that when a leader of a triumphant revolution takes office as head of state, he will succumb to the temptations of power and will move toward totalitarian abuse of power. So we in the United States assume that Cuba has totalitarian tendencies, since it was led for many years by the same charismatic leader, whom it continues to embrace with affection. But the popular adage completely misreads the role of the charismatic leader in popular revolutionary processes. It does not see that the authority of charismatic leaders is based in popular movement and the values that it expresses, which maintain a decisive hold on the heart and will of the charismatic leader, and which is continually reinforced by a bond between the leader and the people. The bond is reinforced by the total breaking of ties with the global powers during the revolutionary process, who can see the bond between the leader and the people. The leader has cast his fate with the people. (See various posts on Charismatic Leaders).
We the people must see through the distortions implied in the adage “power corrupts,” and embrace another phrase, “the arrogance of power.” Whereas “power corrupts” refers to a betrayal of the people by an individual who assumes power, the “arrogance of power” refers to the power not of individuals but of nations. Powerful nations attain power through force and violence. Their power is not based in the moral authority of the people, or an educated class of scholars, or a prophetic religious tradition. The power of powerful nations has no moral constraints. It engages in any strategy in defense of its power, including an Orwellian distortion of the meaning of concepts. Power enhances material life, but it destroys the soul of the nation, causing it to develop a network of distortions, lies and half-truths, hiding from the people the fundamental fact that force is the foundation of its power. In order to be free, we the people of the United States have to reflect on the implications of “the arrogance of power” with respect to our own nation.
When the defense and legitimation of power shapes a nation, it generates confusion in all quarters, a confusion so profound that not even educators, intellectuals, religious leaders or political leaders can escape it or transform it. The speech of US Secretary of State John Kerry in Havana on August 15, 2015 contained the false premises of a nation that has undermined its capacity to understand the meaning of democracy. It is a discourse that reflects the “arrogance of power.”
In a joint press conference following Kerry’s speech, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez reiterated the five points that Cuba considers to be essential to the normalization of relations (see “Cuba is and will be sovereign” 7/3/2015). And he pointed out that Cuba has concerns with respect to US violations of human rights, with respect to the killing of African-American youth and the torturing of prisoners.
The United States of America will continue to be an arrogant power, until the people of the United States lift up an alternative political party of the people, whose moral authority will rest with the people and will not be based on force. An alternative political party will cast aside Orwellian proclamations of democracy, and it will appreciate that the nations of the Third World have something to teach the peoples of the North with respect to the meaning of democracy and human rights.
Key words: Cuba, Kerry, US Embassy, Havana
Kerry believes that the people of Cuba would be better served with a genuine democracy, where they can express ideas and choose leaders. With this formulation, he dismisses the Cuban structure for popular participation in mass organizations of workers, farmers, women, students and neighborhood, in which the people fully express their opinions on any subject of concern, and which have constitutionally-mandated structures of communication with the national legislature, the highest formal political authority in the nation. He seems to not reflect on the fact that such a structure for popular participation scarcely exists in the United States.
In expressing desire that Cubans choose their leaders, Kerry seems less than well-informed concerning the Cuban political structure of popular power that guides the decision-making process. Delegates are elected by the people in voting districts of 1000-1500, with competing candidates but without the participation of electoral parties and without the need for political campaigns and campaign financing (see “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context”. This structure ensures that elected delegates will not be more responsive to political parties and campaign contributors than to their obligations to the people and the nation. Kerry seems oblivious to the fact that the Cuban political system has a high degree of legitimacy in Cuba, whereas the structures of representative democracy in the nations of the North are experiencing a legitimation crisis.
Kerry urges the Cuban government to make it easier for Cubans to establish their own businesses. Kerry seems to miss the fact that, with respect to this theme, there is a true opportunity for US-Cuban dialogue, for the two nations have fundamentally different conceptions concerning the role of the market in society. In capitalist USA, the market rules; whereas in socialist Cuba, the needs of the people are predominant. In capitalism, there are few limits on the market. In socialism, the space for the market must be evaluated in the context of the protection of the economic and social rights of the people and the right of the people to economic, social and cultural development. Cuba believes that the amount of space given to the market depends on the conditions in each nation, and each nation should make such judgments, with full sovereignty, on the basis of the needs of the people. As the US-Cuban relation unfolds, Cuba will exercise its sovereignty with respect to the place of the market in its socialist society. But it would welcome dialogue on the theme, hoping to persuade the United States and other powerful nations of the North that a political-economic-cultural world-system that gives priority to the market is not sustainable in the long run.
Kerry urges the Cuban government to fulfill its obligations with respect to international agreements on human rights. He appears to be unaware that Cuba is a world leader in the field of human rights. It has a comprehensive understanding of human rights, according to which human rights include the political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights of all citizens of the planet, and the right of all nations to sovereignty and economic and social development. This advanced understanding has been forged by a revolutionary process against colonialism and neocolonialism, a struggle that began in 1868 and that required serious reflection on the meaning of human rights. As a result of widespread international recognition of Cuban advances in theory and practice with respect to human rights, particularly among the nations and peoples of the Third World, Cuba plays a leading role in defining and advocating human rights in the United Nations and other international forums, while US influence with respect to human rights is diminishing (see “Cuba, United States, and Human Rights” 4/9/2015).
Kerry would like to see the flourishing of an “independent civil society” in Cuba. He appears unaware of the different roles of civil society in different nations, according to the nature of the political process. In societies where the political process is controlled by the elite, the people form organizations to protest policies that ignore the rights of the people. In such societies, the popular struggle for democratic rights takes the form of organizations that are independent of the government and critical of the government. But in societies where the delegates of the people control the decision-making process, the organizations of civil society are independent of the government, but they are not necessarily critical of the government. They are non-governmental organizations, but they are not against the government. Because Cuban NGOs are not anti-government, the US government considers them to be not independent, even though they in fact are. Kerry, then, is advocating a greater role for non-governmental organizations that are anti-government. But such organizations necessarily would have a limited role in Cuba, as long as Cuban political structures continue to have ample space for the input of non-governmental organizations. In Cuba, the weakness of anti-government NGOs is not an indication of a lack of democracy; it reflects the democratic character of the Cuban political process, in that the demands of the NGOs are addressed through the structures of popular participation and popular power (see “Cuba and the Civil Society Debate” 4/13/2015).
In his speech, Kerry welcomed the three ex-marines who lowered the US flag at the closing of the US embassy in 1961. The US State Department apparently took a cue from the opening ceremony of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, which raised the same Cuban flag that was lowered in 1961, fulfilling a promise that it would be returned (see “USA and Cuba establish relations” July 24, 2015). For Kerry, the USA also has fulfilled a promise that it would return to have a presence in Cuba. But there is a fundamental difference between the two nations, their embassies and their flags. For Cuba, the return of the Cuban flag was tied to a commitment to its sovereignty, and it accomplished the raising again of the Cuban flag without compromising a single one of its principles. In contrast, the US lowered its flag in Havana in 1961, not in defense of a principle, but in reaction to Cuban affront to its imperial power. And the USA accomplished the raising again of the US flag in Havana, not through defense of its principles, but as a result of changes in its imperialist strategy, compelled by Cuban resistance and by total international rejection of US policy with respect to Cuba.
There is a popular saying that “power corrupts,” which implies that when a person attains political power, he or she will be corrupted. The adage manipulates people into thinking that when a leader of a triumphant revolution takes office as head of state, he will succumb to the temptations of power and will move toward totalitarian abuse of power. So we in the United States assume that Cuba has totalitarian tendencies, since it was led for many years by the same charismatic leader, whom it continues to embrace with affection. But the popular adage completely misreads the role of the charismatic leader in popular revolutionary processes. It does not see that the authority of charismatic leaders is based in popular movement and the values that it expresses, which maintain a decisive hold on the heart and will of the charismatic leader, and which is continually reinforced by a bond between the leader and the people. The bond is reinforced by the total breaking of ties with the global powers during the revolutionary process, who can see the bond between the leader and the people. The leader has cast his fate with the people. (See various posts on Charismatic Leaders).
We the people must see through the distortions implied in the adage “power corrupts,” and embrace another phrase, “the arrogance of power.” Whereas “power corrupts” refers to a betrayal of the people by an individual who assumes power, the “arrogance of power” refers to the power not of individuals but of nations. Powerful nations attain power through force and violence. Their power is not based in the moral authority of the people, or an educated class of scholars, or a prophetic religious tradition. The power of powerful nations has no moral constraints. It engages in any strategy in defense of its power, including an Orwellian distortion of the meaning of concepts. Power enhances material life, but it destroys the soul of the nation, causing it to develop a network of distortions, lies and half-truths, hiding from the people the fundamental fact that force is the foundation of its power. In order to be free, we the people of the United States have to reflect on the implications of “the arrogance of power” with respect to our own nation.
When the defense and legitimation of power shapes a nation, it generates confusion in all quarters, a confusion so profound that not even educators, intellectuals, religious leaders or political leaders can escape it or transform it. The speech of US Secretary of State John Kerry in Havana on August 15, 2015 contained the false premises of a nation that has undermined its capacity to understand the meaning of democracy. It is a discourse that reflects the “arrogance of power.”
In a joint press conference following Kerry’s speech, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez reiterated the five points that Cuba considers to be essential to the normalization of relations (see “Cuba is and will be sovereign” 7/3/2015). And he pointed out that Cuba has concerns with respect to US violations of human rights, with respect to the killing of African-American youth and the torturing of prisoners.
The United States of America will continue to be an arrogant power, until the people of the United States lift up an alternative political party of the people, whose moral authority will rest with the people and will not be based on force. An alternative political party will cast aside Orwellian proclamations of democracy, and it will appreciate that the nations of the Third World have something to teach the peoples of the North with respect to the meaning of democracy and human rights.
Key words: Cuba, Kerry, US Embassy, Havana
RSS Feed
