By Aurelio Alonso and - -
HAVANA, Jan 10 2008 (IPS)

The speech of acting president Raul Castro on June 26 was followed by a call for open discussion, which reignited the debate over the errors of the past and reflection on how to address them, from shortages and domestic difficulties to ideas about political, economic, and social projections, writes Aurelio Alonso, a Cuban sociologist and vice director of the magazine Casa de las Americas. In this article, Alonso writes that the discussion about the socialism in this century is above all a problem for Cuba, which must determine which changes it needs to make. What is certain is that up thus far there is greater clarity about what the socialist experiment was lacking than about what would be required to remake it. What is truly important is that debate has become an everyday matter in Cuba and that it has not been obstructed – even if we cannot recognise that the true value of this opening is rooted in not seeing it as a simple concession but rather a step forward in the revolutionary political culture. e future, must be capable of developing and preserving.

In the short term this rectification did not have much practical effect, but the call for it served to encourage more realistic approaches and to introduce into political circles an inclination to correct errors, and even adopt reforms, when the collapse finally occurred in the 90s and made another agenda the priority. Without allowing time for a thorough reexamination of strategy, this event brought about the reclaiming of certain elements of the market economy, as well as changes in its currency policy.

The year 2007 brought to the surface a body of criticism and an ongoing debate that had been put off because of the reigning ideological dogma of the time. Though we still found ourselves blocked by government habits from the past, it is possible that we have simply begun the rescue of that deferred rectification, including the questions of “what” and “how” to rectify.

The warning by Fidel Castro in November 2005 that the revolution could be lost from within contained a new appeal. Those of us who heard him knew that this loss could be caused by corruption, as he warned, but also by immobility, accommodation, bureaucracy, a lack of creativity, and aging. Maintaining a consistent ideology is a challenge that involves the elimination of all divergence.

In early 2007, Cuban national television provoked an unusual incident that revived in various interviews memories of the repressive or discriminatory policies of the 1970s in the cultural world –a period remembered as the ”5 grey years”. This led Cuba’s intellectual community to protest openly and without fear against the injustices they were suffering then and for the previous five years living under censorship, marginalisation, and a climate of ideological suspicion.

In response, the authorities of the cultural world initiated a cycle of conferences that broadened the reach of the polemic and the range of participants. Most of the debate did not make its way into the Cuban media. Was it official reserve, the self-censorship of a wary press, an underestimation of the readers? The reason might be a little of each. In any case, I think that, like democracy, freedom of the socialist press must be built.

In addition to various doubts, the year 2007 left Cuba with an important contribution: the channelling of the initial confrontation into a debate without thematic or time restrictions or a limit on proposals. This opening has shown no signs of reversal.

The speech of acting president Raul Castro on June 26 gave no indication of movement backwards. On the contrary it was followed by a call for open discussion, which reignited the debate over the errors of the past and reflection on how to address them, from shortages and domestic difficulties to ideas about political, economic, and social projections — an atmosphere open to an uninhibited and critical interchange.

The discussion about the socialism in this century is not only the problem of other brother peoples of Latin America, which have begun seeking alternatives. It is above all a problem for Cuba, which must determine which changes it needs to make in every area. What is certain is that up thus far there is greater clarity about what the socialist experiment was lacking than about what would be required to remake it.

What is truly important is that debate has become an everyday matter in Cuba and that it has not been obstructed – even if we cannot recognise that the true value of this opening is rooted in not seeing it as a simple concession but rather a step forward in the revolutionary political culture. To cut it off would be a sign of a relapse into past error. And any discussion that we cut off today we will have to be revived and addressed tomorrow. The debate cannot be limited to the confines of a policy; it must become a cultural device, one as essential as the laws of nature, which the institutions and members of Cuban society, and any society, facing the future, must be capable of developing and preserving. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: