NationStates Jolt Archive

Cuba has announced elections will be held in January for the National Assembly, which elects a council that elects the president and stuff...or is the president and stuff. And Fidel may not gain a position or he may just get something that is less important and more advisory.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_elections)

HAVANA - Cuba announced Tuesday it has set Jan. 20 for national elections that are part of the process of determining whether ailing leader Fidel Castro continues as president.

The ruling, signed by interim leader Raul Castro and read on state television, set the date for elections to provincial and national assemblies — voting that is held every five years.

There was no explicit mention of Fidel Castro, but the 81-year-old leader of the Cuban Revolution must be re-elected to the national parliament before he could repeat as president of the Council of State to remain in full power.

Raul, 76, is the council's first vice president

The January elections come almost 18 months after the elder Castro stepped aside on July 31, 2006, because of emergency intestinal surgery, provisionally ceding his functions to his brother and a team of other top leaders.

He has not been seen in public since, appearing only in official photographs and videos and regularly writing essays with mostly international themes.

The parliament, known in Cuba as the National Assembly, elects a new council every five years, several weeks after deputies are elected. It was not announced when the new National Assembly would meet for the first time to renew the top council members.

Cuba's constitution calls for the council's first vice president, currently Raul Castro, to fill the presidential slot when vacated. Fidel, Cuba's unchallenged leader since 1959, held the council presidency since its 1976 creation.

Phil Peters, a Cuba analyst with the pro-democracy Lexington think tank outside Washington, said January's vote would be "an election with real suspense."

"If (Fidel) doesn't put his name on the ballot he is effectively resigning," Peters said.

However, even if Castro relinquishes the presidency, he could still play a key role in the nation's leadership in his current position as Communist Party general secretary — arguably a more politically powerful job — or in a new emeritus position.

Vicki Huddleston, America's top diplomat in Cuba from 1999-2001, said it seemed likely Raul Castro would be Cuba's next Council of State president.

"Very few people imagine that Fidel will return to power in an active position," said Huddleston.

Cuba recently held the first round of its election process, with more than 8.1 million voters — 95 percent of those registered — casting ballots in late October to elect more than 12,000 delegates to 169 municipal assemblies across the island.

Those assemblies are now choosing candidates for provincial and national assembly seats.

Anyone 16 or older can vote in Cuba and casting a ballot is not mandatory. Membership in the Communist Party — the only legal political party on the island — also is not required.

Small dissident groups — which are tolerated but dismissed by Cuba's government as mercenaries of the United States — boycotted the municipal elections.

Detractors of Cuba's electoral process complain the country's president is not directly elected by citizens (note: Neither is the US President...) and say voters feel heavy pressure to support pro-government candidates.

"The current Electoral Law, marked by a totalitarian character, does not guarantee the elemental right of citizens to freely elect people who represent programs or proposals that differ from those of the only party that has governed for more than four decades," dissident Vladimiro Roca wrote earlier this week in a declaration from the opposition coalition Todos Unidos.

Such an evil, repressive, and undemocratic country, eh?

Yes.
No.
Maybe so?

You get to vote for candidates preapproved and preselected by the government, just like every other Communist dictatorship the world over. There's no chance in hell anybody that doesn't tow the party line would ever have real actual power in the government. I mean, Cuba's so free it has to censor and restrict internet and news access to ensure its people aren't exposed to the world outside them...but then again, it's not censorship, it's protecting people from the evil pigdog capitalist lackey boogeymen.

Such an evil, repressive, and undemocratic country, eh?

I won't call them evil or repressive, but until other political parties are legal, I won't call them democratic, no matter how much they try to pretty up the system.

"You don't HAVE to join our party...but you can't join anyone elses."

Is there anyone who would honestly wish to live under such a system?

I don't really think so, especially considering that most NSGers live in nations where we are allowed to make such a choice...even if it's between the lesser of two evils.

I won't call them evil or repressive, but until other political parties are legal, I won't call them democratic, no matter how much they try to pretty up the system.

"You don't HAVE to join our party...but you can't join anyone elses."

Is there anyone who would honestly wish to live under such a system?

I don't really think so, especially considering that most NSGers live in nations where we are allowed to make such a choice...even if it's between the lesser of two evils.

We do get to decide who we vote for, but not who we are ruled over by. Unless we move.
Essentially there is more choice in the process with a chance of not living under the 'system' you want to.

That was an amazing poll, sadly I see no option of not going to Cuba. Since I can't lie and I feel inclined to vote in all polls...

Such an evil, repressive, and undemocratic country, eh?

Yes, one party states are practically always undemocratic.

more importantly what does this mean for Cuban cigars?

Yes.
No.
Maybe so?

*hands over soul*

These elections are probably determined by Fidel in advance, and then the names are put on the ballot and rubber-stamped. Still, now that he's not running, they may be as exciting como los eleciónes en los Estados Unidos.

These elections are probably determined by Fidel in advance, and then the names are put on the ballot and rubber-stamped. Still, now that he's not running, they may be as exciting como los eleciónes en los Estados Unidos.

I think a more exiting election was for the head of the poultry farmer's union president, but this will be interesting none the less.

What I really like is the fact that these "elections" are non-competitive. Only one candidate is slated for each seat, without any competition.

I mean, there aren't even such Pat Buchanan/Ralph Nader types of people possible in Cuba.

Cuba has announced elections will be held in January for the National Assembly, which elects a council that elects the president and stuff...or is the president and stuff. And Fidel may not gain a position or he may just get something that is less important and more advisory.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_elections)



Such an evil, repressive, and undemocratic country, eh?
I rather suspect they could also announce the results right now, as well as the election.

You get to vote for candidates preapproved and preselected by the government, just like every other Communist dictatorship the world over. There's no chance in hell anybody that doesn't tow the party line would ever have real actual power in the government. I mean, Cuba's so free it has to censor and restrict internet and news access to ensure its people aren't exposed to the world outside them...but then again, it's not censorship, it's protecting people from the evil pigdog capitalist lackey boogeymen.

Got proof? Or just buying into American anti-Communist propaganda?

I won't call them evil or repressive, but until other political parties are legal, I won't call them democratic, no matter how much they try to pretty up the system.

"You don't HAVE to join our party...but you can't join anyone elses."

Is there anyone who would honestly wish to live under such a system?

I don't really think so, especially considering that most NSGers live in nations where we are allowed to make such a choice...even if it's between the lesser of two evils.

Political parties are bad. They weaken democracy.

Olmedreca;13232340']Yes, one party states are practically always undemocratic.

You can run as an independent there. In fact, I don't think any candidate is actually a Communist party candidate.

These elections are probably determined by Fidel in advance, and then the names are put on the ballot and rubber-stamped. Still, now that he's not running, they may be as exciting como los eleciónes en los Estados Unidos.

More buying into American propaganda.

What I really like is the fact that these "elections" are non-competitive. Only one candidate is slated for each seat, without any competition.

I mean, there aren't even such Pat Buchanan/Ralph Nader types of people possible in Cuba.

Do you have any proof at all?

I rather suspect they could also announce the results right now, as well as the election.

More buying into American propaganda.


Instead of accepting the anti-Communist propaganda that has been shoved down your throats for the last 80 years, maybe you should actually go visit and see what really goes on there. I haven't gone there, but I will soon (embargo or not). Go ask Sinuhue or whatever they go by now...N-something I think how it isn't actually bad there. The US has censorship and is barely a republic. There's only two parties with any ability and they both say the same crap in different skins.

Do you have any proof at all?

You're just buying into Cuban pro-Communist propaganda.

But, if you must, here is a link to the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba) on the Cuban electoral system, in which a single candidate is nominated for a seat, and in the "election" the people are given a "yes/no" "choice". These elections are non-competitive, and there is no way to get around this simple fact.

Or, to quote the European Union's analysis of the Cuban electoral system: "Elections for the National Assembly, where only candidates approved by the local authorities can partake, take place every five years. When the National Assembly, which meets twice-yearly, is not in session the 31-member Council of State wields legislative power. The Council of Ministers, through its 9-member executive committee, exercises executive and administrative power. Although the Constitution provides for independent judiciary, it explicitly subordinates it to the National Assembly and to the Council of State."

Or, would you prefer the statement of the dreaded right-wing NGO Human Rights Watch?: “Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law.”

Unless you want to contest what the meaning of "competitive" is, which is retarded.

You're just buying into Cuban pro-Communist propaganda.

But, if you must, here is a link to the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba) on the Cuban electoral system, in which a single candidate is nominated for a seat, and in the "election" the people are given a "yes/no" "choice". These elections are non-competitive, and there is no way to get around this simple fact.

Or, to quote the European Union's analysis of the Cuban electoral system: "Elections for the National Assembly, where only candidates approved by the local authorities can partake, take place every five years. When the National Assembly, which meets twice-yearly, is not in session the 31-member Council of State wields legislative power. The Council of Ministers, through its 9-member executive committee, exercises executive and administrative power. Although the Constitution provides for independent judiciary, it explicitly subordinates it to the National Assembly and to the Council of State."

Unless you want to contest what the meaning of "competitive" is, which is retarded.

As a matter of curiousity... since the subject of censorship amd restriction has already come up.... who is likely to have written the wiki article?

As a matter of curiousity... since the subject of censorship amd restriction has already come up.... who is likely to have written the wiki article?

Likely not a single unitary individual or entity. Rather, a diverse group of people and organizations, from all around the world. Probably a combination of novices and experts, and so on and so forth. Something that is evidenced from the diverse sources of information, and differing opinions provided in this article.

Really, it's a rather high-quality article.

As a matter of curiousity... since the subject of censorship amd restriction has already come up.... who is likely to have written the wiki article?

Even people who insist that Cuba is democratic generally agree that its elections are non-competitive--for some of them, it's a point in their favor. It's not a contested fact.

Instead they tend to maintain that the organizations appointing the candidates are grass-roots popular organizations, making the choice of candidate a part of the democratic process rather than a top-down appointment.

Likely not a single unitary individual or entity. Rather, a diverse group of people and organizations, from all around the world. Probably a combination of novices and experts, and so on and so forth. Something that is evidenced from the diverse sources of information, and differing opinions provided in this article.

Really, it's a rather high-quality article.

Like I said - it's a matter of curiousity. I always like to evaluate my sources. If Cuba is basically un-posty w.r.t. wiki... and there is (I'm sure you'll admit) a very anti-Cuba slant to American interaction, then it's probably worth bearing in mind, at least, that a wiki article (especially open-source) may not be entirely unbiased.

Even people who insist that Cuba is democratic generally agree that its elections are non-competitive--for some of them, it's a point in their favor. It's not a contested fact.

Instead they tend to maintain that the organizations appointing the candidates are grass-roots popular organizations, making the choice of candidate a part of the democratic process rather than a top-down appointment.

Even looking at the sources presented here (non-wiki ones) it's fairly clear that 'democracy' is relative... you can argue, certainly, that bottom-up appointment is very democratic. I'm not really taking sides, since it's not that important to me.... 'democracy' isn't all that special.

you can argue, certainly, that bottom-up appointment is very democratic.

Well, yes, if you buy into their analysis.

It seems more likely to me that the organizations responsible for the nominations are instruments of the state. Real democracies don't have the kind of political unity and immobility Cuba does.

Well, yes, if you buy into their analysis.

It seems more likely to me that the organizations responsible for the nominations are instruments of the state.

You could certainly make that case. On the other hand... the bizarre way Americans vote with their kind of 'brand loyalty'... you could argue that the average non-swing American voter is similarly an 'instrument of the state'... or at least a faction of the powers that be (in perpetuity).

Got proof? Or just buying into American anti-Communist propaganda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba#_note-US-SD

Read. The links in the article should be proof enough, but there's plenty more where that came from.

I love how all the apologists for one party states are such critics of all the elections in the free world and the US in particular.

And people wonder why many feel that some people need to be executed for the greater good.

I won't call them evil or repressive, but until other political parties are legal, I won't call them democratic, no matter how much they try to pretty up the system.

"You don't HAVE to join our party...but you can't join anyone elses."

Is there anyone who would honestly wish to live under such a system?

I don't really think so, especially considering that most NSGers live in nations where we are allowed to make such a choice...even if it's between the lesser of two evils.
It wouldn't make much sense for a communist country to have the option for voting for a capitalist candidate would it, kind of misses the point. Cuba is a socialist democracy, not a liberal pluralistic one as you are used to. You should read these:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5609
http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html

It's good the Cuban Revolution happened, it got rid of all the scumbags who want to exploit the country, the ones living now in the crime-infested toilet called Miami. The people in Cuba have the guarantee of a government job and wage, plus free top of the range health care and a sense of direction in life, the people in Miami have cocaine and whores.

It wouldn't make much sense for a communist country to have the option for voting for a capitalist candidate would it, kind of misses the point.

It wouldn't make sense to impose communism undemocratically on people... that would really miss the point.

But as long as the state gives you "a sense of direction", I guess you don't really care. :rolleyes:

EA's idea of a voting booth probably looks like this:

Vote yes and the vote is registered.

Vote no and the lever applies trigger to the pistol pointed at your head.

Am I in the ball park with that one?

EA's idea of a voting booth probably looks like this:

Vote yes and the vote is registered.

Vote no and the lever applies trigger to the pistol pointed at your head.

Am I in the ball park with that one?

LOL!

Cuba has announced elections will be held in January for the National Assembly, which elects a council that elects the president and stuff...or is the president and stuff. And Fidel may not gain a position or he may just get something that is less important and more advisory.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_elections)

Such an evil, repressive, and undemocratic country, eh?

Hi Sel Appa and fellow Nation posters, A very democratic well balanced poll options poll, I guess it must be in keeping with the democratic nature of Cuban government democratic elections.

Here are the official results of the national municipal election results of Oct 21, 2007 under a one political party state, note that 100 % of all nominated and winning candidates are pro government, 0 opposition candidates.

95.4% of voters cast their ballots
• 8,174,350 citizens go to the polls to elect their People’s Power delegates, according to preliminary information

MORE than 8,174,350 Cubans exercised their right to vote on Sunday, October 21, choosing their delegates to the Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power, a figure that represents the equivalent of 95.44% of voters.

In a press conference on Monday, María Esther Reus, president of the National Electoral Commission, said that those preliminary figures could become higher. She added that on Sunday the 28th, there would be a second round of voting in the 2,971 voting districts where none of the candidates received more than 50% of the vote.

She added that in this election, 12,265 citizens were elected as delegates; 3,288 are women, which is 26.81%; 2,053 are young people, which is 16.74%; and 5,776 of acting delegates were re-elected, a figure of 47.09%.

The likewise minister of justice described elections in Cuba as a mass event, given the active, enthusiastic and disciplined participation of the population. She also highlighted the level of preparation and security of the entire process.

Even in the eastern provinces, she noted, where the heavy rainfall affected communications and access, the elections went smoothly thanks to the search for alternative ways of meeting those challenges.

Reus explained that the final results of this first round would be provided soon, because they were yet to be reconciled against official, public and computerized voter information.

In the name of the National Electoral Commission, she congratulated the entire people, the 190,000 people designated as electoral authorities and those who worked as auxiliary personnel at every level, and with their efforts guaranteed that once again, Cuba’s elections were held with transparency and democracy.

Responding to questions from foreign reporters, María Esther Reus noted that one-third of the candidates nominated by the people were not members of the Communist Party of Cuba, and that party membership is not a requirement for being nominated.

In response to another question, she explained that religious affiliation is also not recorded, because any Cuban man or woman, regardless of their religious beliefs, may be elected as a People’s Power delegate.

She also noted that the date for electing delegates to the Provincial Assemblies of People’s Power and deputies to the National Assembly (Parliament) would be announced at the appropriate time.

Translated by Granma International •

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the Cuban governments official democratic 2003 election results to the National Assembly, note that even though deputies must recieve at least 50 % percent of the vote in their districts or the candidate is replaced by a replacement and voters have only a one candidate choice, according to the Cuban government 91.35 % of all eligible voters nationwide choose the united vote block option a vote for all of the above winning candidates in seperate election districts across all of Cuba.

Note how how Maria Julia Mayoral describes the democratic election results, Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

More than eight million Cubans vote

Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

BY MARÍA JULIA MAYORAL -Granma daily staff writer-WITH the participation of 8,115,215 voters in this Sunday's elections, the Cuban people once again offered conclusive evidence of their support for candidates for the National and Provincial Assemblies, but also for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism.

According to preliminary information given by Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), 97.61% of persons on the electoral rolls voted, on a day characterized by organization, the early attendance of millions of electors at the polling stations and the special patriotic spirit offered by the presence of thousands of young pioneers guarding the ballot boxes.

At the close of this bulletin the count was underway, beginning with the votes cast for deputies. Vela explained that once that was completed, they would proceed to validate the election of 609 candidates to the National Assembly and then the 1,199 provincial delegates. In the case of the former the responsibility lies with the CEN and, in the latter, with the corresponding provincial electoral commissions.

In order to be elected, each nominee must receive more than half of the valid votes cast in the municipality or district where they were proposed.

The CEN president emphasized the good functioning of communications systems in spite of heavy rain in parts of east Cuba, like Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Granma and Las Tunas. He likewise praised the excellent labors of more then 180,000 citizens who voluntarily staffed the constituency tables, and the work of the commissions at all levels.

Electoral results
By Maria Julia Mayoral

609 deputies and 1 199 provincial delegates were elected. 91.35% of the voters chose the united vote(block) option. For the first time in Cuba, the amount of citizens that went to the polls exceeded the eight millions.

According to the information offered by Dr. Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission(CEN), the updated voter's registry included 8 313 770 people, and 8 115 215 of them exercised their constitutional right, having a 97.61% of attendance.

Not only the high rate of participation is transcendent but also the quality of the elections. Vela indicated that 7 803 893 ballots were valid(96.14%), which surpasses last October's 241 378 valid ballots when the district delegates were elected.

This opportunity the balance of ballots in blank(243 431) and the spoilt ones(69 863), was smaller. In October they averaged the 2.78% and 2.54% respectively; this time they represented the 3% and 0.86%. This is a clear demonstration of the Cuban people position, even though U.S. employees persistent calls to sabotage the elections.

Our people, commented the university professor and President of CEN, knows what it wants, it is convinced of its principles and demonstrates this through the secret vote.

A 91.35% of the united vote, commented Ruben Perez, secretary of CEN, is a fact of extraordinary value. It means that some other 14 992 electors chose this alternative compared with the general elections of 1997-98. That percentage, he said, remarks the popular support that enjoys the Cuban democratic system, and expresses the level of unity and political culture that has been reached during this 44 years of Revolution.

SUCCESS IN THE TWO EVALUATIONS

What has happened this January is also evidence of the rigor that presided the nomination process of the 609 deputies candidates and the 1 199 provincial delegates candidates. Ernesto Freire, president of the National Candidacies Commission, pointed out that there were two important evaluations to be made for the representatives of the electoral commissions. One, derived from the fact that the municipal assemblies had the right to approve or reject the proposals, and the second one with the voting results because all nominees were elected, they need to win more than half of the valid votes.

In addition, Freire summarized the amplitude and meaning of the exchanges between the candidates and the people. Altogether, 11 102 meetings took place with the presence of more than 2 161 150 Cubans. (February, 2003)

(Taken from: Granma)

------------------------------------------------

According to the Cuban government here are the democratic results of a june 22, 2002 government sponsored petition drive to declare Cuba's economic, political and social system as irrevocable after former political prisoner and dissident Oswaldo Paya's Varela project collected over 10,000 and then 20,000 Cuban Citizens signiture calling for a referendum on economic, political and social reforms as allowed for under the Cuban Constitution.

Note that 8,198,237 eligible voters support is about 98 or 99 % of eligible voters, none of the National Assembly deputys voted against or stated qualified support to this amendment.

June 27, 2002

A transcendent ‘Yes’

• Cuban deputies approve constitutional reforms making socialism irrevocable and ensuring that the Constitution does not become outdated • Fidel describes popular support as impressive

BY RAISA PAGES (Granma International staff writer)

THE proposed reforms to the Constitution of the Republic, ensuring the irrevocable nature of the socialist system and preventing changes altering its essential content, have been passed by all the deputies present at the special session of the Cuban National Assembly.

Moreover, the amendments make it clear that Cuba will never return to capitalism and that economic, diplomatic and political relations with any other state can never be negotiated in the face of aggression, threat or coercion from a foreign power.

In a roll call vote, the 559 deputies present at the special session (out of a total membership of 578) stood up in their seats to pronounce their "Yes," in an exercise of their right of expression, converted into unanimous approval, the resonance of which transcended the legislative benches to be heard in Cuban homes, live and direct on television and radio broadcasts of the session. Amendments of this nature require the approval of two thirds of the National Assembly’s members.

President Fidel Castro observed that this kind of popular plebiscite can only be effected only in a country where everybody can read and write, and described as impressive the people’s adherence to a Cuban socialism that is irreversible.

Ricardo Alarcón, president of the National Assembly of People’s Power, stated that 165 parliamentarians and representatives of the island’s civil society had spoken over the three-day working session, plus speeches by guests from other countries, exposing the consequences of neoliberal democracies in certain Latin American countries.

José Luis Toledo, president of the Committee for Constitutional and Juridical Affairs, explained that the reforms apply to Articles 3-11 and 137 of the Constitution, with a special provision to be inserted at the end.

The modifications in the initiative previously endorsed by 8,198,237 citizens over the age of 16 in a popular plebiscite, are directed at employing the term "irrevocable" rather than "untouchable" to clarify that socialism, as the political and social system recorded in the Constitution, cannot be the object of changes or modifications that could alter its essential content.

It was decided that the following paragraph should be added to the current Article.

"Socialism and the revolutionary political and social system established in the Constitution and proven through years of heroic resistance to aggression of all kinds and economic warfare waged by the successive administrations of the most powerful country that has ever existed, and having demonstrated their capacity to transform the country and create an entirely new and just society, are irrevocable; and Cuba will never again return to capitalism."

The special provision states that those reforms constitute a dignified and worthy response to the demands and threats made by the imperialist government of the United States on May 20, 2002.

No doubt very democratic election results in one political party state.

All of us Nationstates posters should be so lucky to live under such a democratic government for life and have democratic presidents for life such as Fidel and Raul Castro.

Political parties are bad. They weaken democracy.

I tend to agree...but I think political parties are here to stay, so I prefer as many options as I can get.

Even people who insist that Cuba is democratic generally agree that its elections are non-competitive--for some of them, it's a point in their favor. It's not a contested fact.

Instead they tend to maintain that the organizations appointing the candidates are grass-roots popular organizations, making the choice of candidate a part of the democratic process rather than a top-down appointment.

I would agree with that...and it works for Cuba, for the most part. It wouldn't necessarily translate well in other states...the same goes for the US or almost any other system.

It wouldn't make much sense for a communist country to have the option for voting for a capitalist candidate would it, kind of misses the point.

So those born there are stuck living under a system they can't change?

...what's Cubas emigration policy anyways?

In an age of propaganda and pseudo-democracy, the strongest opponents of imperial power are subject to the most ferocious attacks. One result of this is that many of the firmly held opinions about democracy in Cuba and in the United States of America bear an inverse relationship to relevant knowledge. As the Canadian scientist William Osler said, “the greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism”.

The US has run a powerful and illegal economic blockade against Cuba for almost 50 years, after its investment privileges were withdrawn. It now runs propaganda suggesting that the Cuban people need US-styled “democracy”. Well let’s look at democracy in both countries, including civil rights and participatory democracy, as well as representative democracy.

In representative democracy, Cuba is clearly ahead. Cubans have open elections for their National Assembly (as well as their provincial and local assemblies); this assembly then elects the ministers, including a president of the Council of Ministers.
Advertisement

In the US, there is a directly elected Congress and a president indirectly elected through electoral colleges. This president of state then appoints ministers. Yet a majority of the elected US Congress cannot block many presidential “prerogatives”, including the waging of war.

So even when the majority of the population and the majority of the Congress oppose a war, the president can still wage it. In the US, then, the elected assembly does not really rule.

In Cuba, the Constitution (Art 12) repudiates wars of aggression and conquest, and all ministers are accountable to the elected National Assembly. The president of Cuba’s Council of Ministers (falsely called a “dictator” by the imperial US president) is not above the National Assembly and has no power to “veto” a law passed by his country’s National Assembly. In the US, the president can and does veto Congressional laws.

In the US, eligibility for election to office depends on subscription to one of two giant parties and substantial corporate sponsorship.

In Cuba, there are no electoral parties and there is no corporate sponsorship. The Cuban Communist Party is constitutionally recognised to promote socialist debate and policy, but has no electoral role. Citizens need not be CCP members to be elected, and many are not. National Assembly members (whether they belong to the CCP or not) do not represent any party, but rather their constituencies. The Cuban system bans foreign powers from funding electoral representatives or parties. The US Government, accustomed to foreign intervention, claims this law is “undemocratic”.

In the US, millions of people are excluded from voting, either because they have some criminal conviction or they belong to one or other group of second class citizens (for example, Puerto Ricans, who pay tax but have no representative in Congress).

In Cuba, very few are excluded from voting, and well over 90 per cent of the adult population (those over 16 years of age) actually do vote at each election. In the US, voter participation is often around 50 per cent.

While there are constitutional civil rights in both countries, these rights are stronger under the Cuban system. Cuban citizens have the constitutional right to employment, food, free education, free health care, housing (including family inheritance), political participation, freedom of expression, personal property and freedom of religion. The Cuban state is constitutionally bound to guarantee these rights.

US citizens have the right to freedom of speech, unlimited private property and the right to carry arms. They also have the right to participate in a “market” where their education, health and general well-being is often a gamble.

By the constitution, no-one in Cuba can be imprisoned without proper charges, a trial, and the right to a defence (Art 59). Cuba’s “political prisoners” are those who have been convicted of taking money to help overthrow the constitutional system.

By contrast, in the US, thousands of people are held without charge or trial, including several hundred in the illegally occupied section of Cuba, at Guantanamo Bay. The rate of imprisonment in the US, which has more than two million prisoners, is far higher than in Cuba (or indeed any other country). African-Americans are massively over-represented in US jails. Prisoners in the US lose many of their civil rights; prisoners in Cuba keep most of their civil rights.

Institutionalised racial discrimination persisted in the US well into the 1960s. Even today, the gap between formal and effective rights is very great in the US, because there are so few social guarantees.

Cuba, on the other hand, has made great efforts to overcome the denial of effective rights on racial grounds. The Cuban guarantees of universal and free education, health care and social security have proven powerful and effective tools against social marginalisation. Educational and health standards in Cuba are similar to, and in some respects better than, those of the US. This is despite the US having an average per capita income almost ten times higher than Cuba. The US has permanent wealth and poverty. Cuba shares its ups and downs.

In the US “freedom of speech” means that a handful of private corporations dominate the mass media.

In Cuba, the media (television, radio, magazines, newspapers) are all run by public bodies or community organisations. No private individual or investment group can capture or dominate public debate in Cuba. Nor is there mind numbing, commercial advertising.

In the US mass communications are dominated by consumerism and celebrity trivia; politics is about individuals seeking public office. In Cuba, mass communications are dominated by education and cultural programs; politics is about co-ordinated social responses to social problems.

Cuba does not use state power to intervene in the affairs of others or to push international propaganda, but rather sends doctors to more than 60 countries to assist communities which have no medical services. This internationalism, recognised by the World Health Organization, contrasts with US interventionism.

The US government maintains state-propaganda stations (for example, Voice of America, Radio Marti), funds opposition political groups (through the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department, USAID and the CIA) as well as funding pro-US academic centres and think tanks around the world.

Cuba’s human rights record is far better than that of the US. Amnesty International said the US in 2006 had “thousands of detainees … without charge or trial … deaths in custody, torture and ill-treatment … disappearances ... failure to hold officials at the highest levels accountable … [for] war crimes or crimes against humanity”. Within the US “sixty-one people died after being struck by police tasers … [and] 60 people were executed”. The Amnesty report did not address the thousands killed and maimed in the illegal occupation of Iraq.

By contrast, Amnesty’s criticism of Cuba in 2006 was mild. There were some “restrictions on freedom of expression, association and movement … nearly 70 prisoners of conscience … the government attempted to suppress private entrepreneurship. More than 30 prisoners remained on death row [but] no one was executed.”

Amnesty (whose US branch is responsible for reports on Cuba) did not note that the “seventy prisoners of conscience” had been charged and convicted of the specific offences of taking money from a foreign power to seek the overthrow of the Cuban constitutional system. Most were arrested in 2003, during a wave of hijackings, and many have since been released.

The US State Department - a fierce ideological opponent of Cuba - was forced to acknowledge in 2004 that Cuba had “no political killings ... or politically motivated disappearances", no religious repression, little discrimination, compulsory and free schooling, a universal health system, substantial artistic freedom, and no reports of torture. This contrasts strongly with the death squads and torture of dictatorial regimes trained and supported by the US throughout Latin America, for example in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia.

Cuban moves against homophobia and in support of gay rights have been more effective than those in the US. There is greater tolerance of sexual diversity in Cuba than in most Latin American countries and Churches which sustain such discrimination have less political influence in Cuba than in the US.

Cuba’s Centre for National Sex Education (CENESEX) since 1989 has pushed sexual tolerance, including acceptance of and support for trans-sexuals. Effective education campaigns and testing has meant that Cuba has the lowest HIV infection rate in the Caribbean region, lower than the US. Since 2001 every HIV positive Cuban has had free access to highly active anti retroviral treatment (HAART). The US has developed strong HIV-AIDS programs, as a result of pressure group lobbying, but access to health services is not guaranteed.

US backed, Cuban exile “pro-democracy” activists are mostly terrorists, as far as Cubans are concerned. For example in March 2007 the Madrid Municipal Government awarded Cuban exile Carlos Alberto Montaner the “Tolerance Prize” for his writings on Cuba. Yet Montaner is a European-resident fugitive from Cuban justice who has been on the CIA payroll for many years. He is wanted in Cuba for bombings carried out in Cuba, many years ago, and has close links to the Miami-based Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), which openly backs terrorist attacks on Cuba.

The Cuban Government has not moved against the celebrated “pro democracy” activist Osvaldo Payá, who was awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize in 2002 for “Freedom of Thought” following his creation of the “Varela Project”, essentially a petition for small business rights. However Cuban television in December 2005 pointed out that Payá was receiving $1,000 a session for his classes on managing a US-backed “transition” in Cuba, held at the US Office of Interests in Havana. This is a clear breach of Cuban law, but Payá has not been arrested.

In 2005 Australian journalist Paul McGeough feted another CANF and Miami-backed “pro-democracy” activist, Raul Rivero. McGeough asserted that Rivero’s arrest in 2003 “revived memories of the worst Soviet human rights abuses” and claimed that “Rivero's crime was twofold - possession of a typewriter, and a will to dream”. McGeough did not point out that Rivero was convicted of receiving money from the US Office of Interests and the CANF, as part of quite explicit plans to overthrow the constitution and install a foreign-backed regime. Such activity is a crime in every country.

The most notorious US-backed “pro democracy activist” is Luis Posada Carriles, currently held in the US on immigration offences. The US refuses to extradite Posada to Venezuela, where he is wanted for the 1976 bombing of a Cuba passenger plane, which killed 73 civilians. Posada publicly confessed (in the US) to the bombings of Cuban tourist hotels in 1997, but was never charged. He was arrested and convicted over an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro in Panama in 2000, but was pardoned and released in 2004 by outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso, a US ally. The US government, in the middle of its self-proclaimed “war on terrorism”, refuses to consider Posada a terrorist. Such is the US support for democracy in Cuba.

The US government funds a number of “civil society”, “pro-democracy” and human rights groups, to support the US image of the world. For example, the France-based group Reporters without Borders, backed by the US National Endowment for Democracy, portrays Cuba as the single worst violator of “press freedom” in the Americas. However the International News Safety Institute notes that while no journalists were killed carrying out their work in Cuba over 1996-2006, 21 were killed in the USA, most of them murdered. (Let’s put to one side the 72 others killed in Colombia, 31 in Mexico, 27 in Brazil, 16 in Peru, 13 in Guatemala, and so on.)

On participatory democracy, the US has very poor credentials. Economic policy is regarded either as “technical”, to be managed by experts, or a province of the private corporations that dominate US social and political life. Consequently there are few debates or participatory initiatives on issues of major public concern, such as health care, access to education and military spending.

In Cuba, by contrast, there are substantial debates on public policy issues, through the elected assemblies and social organisations. For example, in Cuba’s economic crisis of the 1990s, 18 months were spent debating the introduction of major economic changes such as introducing regulated foreign investment, the development of mass tourism, adjustments to services and taxes, preservation of free health care and education.

In the US, “structural adjustment” was a formula developed by the private banks, adopted at home and enforced in debtor countries. This “technical” formula, comprising privatisation, high interest rates, cuts to social services, user pays regimes, privileges for private investors and exporters, is presented as a “fait accompli”. There is no public inclusion in a policy debate, so communities are forced to react defensively to this “technical” economic policy.

There is one final, important reason why the US cannot be a democracy. An imperial ambition drives it to dominate, invade and exploit the resources of other countries. US “defence forces” are almost exclusively deployed abroad and current US “national security” policy contemplates pre-emptive military strikes on more than sixty countries.

Like other imperial ventures, US ambitions are pursued on behalf of a small clique of private investors, at the expense of millions of poor and marginalised people within the US. Yet as the US writer Gore Vidal has pointed out, no imperial project can be mounted in a genuine democracy, or a genuine republic.

Cuba, on the other hand, has never invaded another country. It has only used its defence forces to defend its own people or to support others under attack, such as defending the Angolan and Namibian people from the apartheid South African army, in the 1980s.

Cuba has used its world class health sector to assist other countries. While the US sends thousands of troops to other countries, Cuba sends thousands of doctors. Further, more than 20,000 foreign students are studying medicine in Cuba, on fully-funded Cuban scholarships. This includes nearly 100 US students. This is one more reason why, if the word is to have any meaning, Cuba is a democracy and the US is not.

You see, I can quote big articles too.

It wouldn't make sense to impose communism undemocratically on people... that would really miss the point.

But as long as the state gives you "a sense of direction", I guess you don't really care. :rolleyes:

I think we are having a definitions problem, you see democracy differently than I do. I see democracy as a general embodiment of the common good and spirit, I do not see it as the whimsical will of the mob whose minds can easily be turned by the dazzling displays of the wealthy. Capitalists see liberal democracy as a disguise to keep the common people in check but to control the system through economic power, ie money for election campaigns etc. I see true democracy as creating a bridge between the governors and the governed, so that common people can have a say in the public affairs of their country. I do not, however, see democracy as a superficial garbage which is currently is in the 'West'.

So to answer your question, to ask 'the people' whether they want something that is in their own interests innately, when these people have been brainwashed by their wealthy masters, would be useless. The only way is imposition of what is the best interests of the commons, by a group of professional revolutionaries who are not swayed by the propaganda intrinsic to capitalist liberal dictatorship. You're right about one thing, the common person is naive, ignorant and moronic, but they are only this way because capitalism needs them to remain that way.

Hi Sel Appa and fellow Nation posters, A very democratic well balanced poll options poll, I guess it must be in keeping with the democratic nature of Cuban government democratic elections.

In most cases, I would've thought the poll options were part of the joke of Cuba's democracy not being anything like a fair democracy, but given the trash he wrote in the OP, I know it isn't.

So to answer your question, to ask 'the people' whether they want something that is in their own interests innately, when these people have been brainwashed by their wealthy masters, would be useless.

:rolleyes:

The only way is imposition of what is the best interests of the commons, by a group of professional revolutionaries who are not swayed by the propaganda intrinsic to capitalist liberal dictatorship.

Contradictory much?

You're right about one thing, the common person is naive, ignorant and moronic, but they are only this way because capitalism needs them to remain that way.

LOL!


By the way, I find it funny how you claim to love democracy, yet regularly advocate slaughtering anyone who holds dissenting viewpoints.

The people in Cuba have the guarantee of a government job and wage, plus free top of the range health care...

iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
panem et circenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)

You see, I can quote big articles too.

The problem is you quote large articles and flee the thread when the trash they contain is ripped to shreads.

I should also note that Le Habana Cuba added his own insights within his post. You just quote the article.

By the way, I find it funny how you claim to love democracy, yet regularly advocate slaughtering anyone who holds dissenting viewpoints.

Thus my design for the patented EA approved voting booth

By the way, I find it funny how you claim to love democracy, yet regularly advocate slaughtering anyone who holds dissenting viewpoints.

Democracy was never meant to be about opposing views, opposing views create anti-social danger to the cohesion of society, democracy is about the public good (collective), and liberalism is about the individual, that is the real contradiction because certain individuals will always try to better themselves at the expense of others (the public good).

And EA, you once said something along the lines of "the masses are never wrong" and "the masses should never be questioned."

What if the masses said that they were wrong?

Or (theoretically) what if they voted in favor of boiling you in oil? Would you be against that? After all, it's what "the masses" want. ;)

Democracy was never meant to be about opposing views, opposing views create anti-social danger to the cohesion of society, democracy is about the public good (collective), and liberalism is about the individual, that is the real contradiction because certain individuals will always try to better themselves at the expense of others (the public good).

Right, I forgot about that. Good thing we have gulags that we can send reactionaries like that to. :rolleyes:

In most cases, I would've thought the poll options were part of the joke of Cuba's democracy not being anything like a fair democracy, but given the trash he wrote in the OP, I know it isn't.

Thanks for the Quote IDF, I once did a thread with a public poll on Fidel Castro for USA President and divided it among Europeans, Americans, Australians and others, ect, ect, results Fidel by a landslide, I appointed out to those who voted for Fidel that Fidel would take all thier election and freedom rights away if he could given that is Fidel's nature.

A very democratic well balanced poll options poll, I guess it must be in keeping with the democratic nature of Cuban government democratic elections.

Here are the official results of the national municipal election results of Oct 21, 2007 under a one political party state, note that 100 % of all nominated and winning candidates are pro government, 0 opposition candidates.

95.4% of voters cast their ballots
• 8,174,350 citizens go to the polls to elect their People’s Power delegates, according to preliminary information

MORE than 8,174,350 Cubans exercised their right to vote on Sunday, October 21, choosing their delegates to the Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power, a figure that represents the equivalent of 95.44% of voters.

In a press conference on Monday, María Esther Reus, president of the National Electoral Commission, said that those preliminary figures could become higher. She added that on Sunday the 28th, there would be a second round of voting in the 2,971 voting districts where none of the candidates received more than 50% of the vote.

She added that in this election, 12,265 citizens were elected as delegates; 3,288 are women, which is 26.81%; 2,053 are young people, which is 16.74%; and 5,776 of acting delegates were re-elected, a figure of 47.09%.

The likewise minister of justice described elections in Cuba as a mass event, given the active, enthusiastic and disciplined participation of the population. She also highlighted the level of preparation and security of the entire process.

Even in the eastern provinces, she noted, where the heavy rainfall affected communications and access, the elections went smoothly thanks to the search for alternative ways of meeting those challenges.

Reus explained that the final results of this first round would be provided soon, because they were yet to be reconciled against official, public and computerized voter information.

In the name of the National Electoral Commission, she congratulated the entire people, the 190,000 people designated as electoral authorities and those who worked as auxiliary personnel at every level, and with their efforts guaranteed that once again, Cuba’s elections were held with transparency and democracy.

Responding to questions from foreign reporters, María Esther Reus noted that one-third of the candidates nominated by the people were not members of the Communist Party of Cuba, and that party membership is not a requirement for being nominated.

In response to another question, she explained that religious affiliation is also not recorded, because any Cuban man or woman, regardless of their religious beliefs, may be elected as a People’s Power delegate.

She also noted that the date for electing delegates to the Provincial Assemblies of People’s Power and deputies to the National Assembly (Parliament) would be announced at the appropriate time.

Translated by Granma International •

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the Cuban governments official democratic 2003 election results to the National Assembly, note that even though deputies must recieve at least 50 % percent of the vote in their districts or the candidate is replaced by a replacement and voters have only a one candidate choice, according to the Cuban government 91.35 % of all eligible voters nationwide choose the united vote block option a vote for all of the above winning candidates in seperate election districts across all of Cuba.

Note how how Maria Julia Mayoral describes the democratic election results, Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

More than eight million Cubans vote

Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

BY MARÍA JULIA MAYORAL -Granma daily staff writer-WITH the participation of 8,115,215 voters in this Sunday's elections, the Cuban people once again offered conclusive evidence of their support for candidates for the National and Provincial Assemblies, but also for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism.

According to preliminary information given by Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), 97.61% of persons on the electoral rolls voted, on a day characterized by organization, the early attendance of millions of electors at the polling stations and the special patriotic spirit offered by the presence of thousands of young pioneers guarding the ballot boxes.

At the close of this bulletin the count was underway, beginning with the votes cast for deputies. Vela explained that once that was completed, they would proceed to validate the election of 609 candidates to the National Assembly and then the 1,199 provincial delegates. In the case of the former the responsibility lies with the CEN and, in the latter, with the corresponding provincial electoral commissions.

In order to be elected, each nominee must receive more than half of the valid votes cast in the municipality or district where they were proposed.

The CEN president emphasized the good functioning of communications systems in spite of heavy rain in parts of east Cuba, like Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Granma and Las Tunas. He likewise praised the excellent labors of more then 180,000 citizens who voluntarily staffed the constituency tables, and the work of the commissions at all levels.

Electoral results
By Maria Julia Mayoral

609 deputies and 1 199 provincial delegates were elected. 91.35% of the voters chose the united vote(block) option. For the first time in Cuba, the amount of citizens that went to the polls exceeded the eight millions.

According to the information offered by Dr. Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission(CEN), the updated voter's registry included 8 313 770 people, and 8 115 215 of them exercised their constitutional right, having a 97.61% of attendance.

Not only the high rate of participation is transcendent but also the quality of the elections. Vela indicated that 7 803 893 ballots were valid(96.14%), which surpasses last October's 241 378 valid ballots when the district delegates were elected.

This opportunity the balance of ballots in blank(243 431) and the spoilt ones(69 863), was smaller. In October they averaged the 2.78% and 2.54% respectively; this time they represented the 3% and 0.86%. This is a clear demonstration of the Cuban people position, even though U.S. employees persistent calls to sabotage the elections.

Our people, commented the university professor and President of CEN, knows what it wants, it is convinced of its principles and demonstrates this through the secret vote.

A 91.35% of the united vote, commented Ruben Perez, secretary of CEN, is a fact of extraordinary value. It means that some other 14 992 electors chose this alternative compared with the general elections of 1997-98. That percentage, he said, remarks the popular support that enjoys the Cuban democratic system, and expresses the level of unity and political culture that has been reached during this 44 years of Revolution.

SUCCESS IN THE TWO EVALUATIONS

What has happened this January is also evidence of the rigor that presided the nomination process of the 609 deputies candidates and the 1 199 provincial delegates candidates. Ernesto Freire, president of the National Candidacies Commission, pointed out that there were two important evaluations to be made for the representatives of the electoral commissions. One, derived from the fact that the municipal assemblies had the right to approve or reject the proposals, and the second one with the voting results because all nominees were elected, they need to win more than half of the valid votes.

In addition, Freire summarized the amplitude and meaning of the exchanges between the candidates and the people. Altogether, 11 102 meetings took place with the presence of more than 2 161 150 Cubans. (February, 2003)

(Taken from: Granma)

------------------------------------------------

According to the Cuban government here are the democratic results of a june 22, 2002 government sponsored petition drive to declare Cuba's economic, political and social system as irrevocable after former political prisoner and dissident Oswaldo Paya's Varela project collected over 10,000 and then 20,000 Cuban Citizens signiture calling for a referendum on economic, political and social reforms as allowed for under the Cuban Constitution.

Note that 8,198,237 eligible voters support is about 98 or 99 % of eligible voters, none of the National Assembly deputys voted against or stated qualified support to this amendment.

June 27, 2002

A transcendent ‘Yes’

• Cuban deputies approve constitutional reforms making socialism irrevocable and ensuring that the Constitution does not become outdated • Fidel describes popular support as impressive

BY RAISA PAGES (Granma International staff writer)

THE proposed reforms to the Constitution of the Republic, ensuring the irrevocable nature of the socialist system and preventing changes altering its essential content, have been passed by all the deputies present at the special session of the Cuban National Assembly.

Moreover, the amendments make it clear that Cuba will never return to capitalism and that economic, diplomatic and political relations with any other state can never be negotiated in the face of aggression, threat or coercion from a foreign power.

In a roll call vote, the 559 deputies present at the special session (out of a total membership of 578) stood up in their seats to pronounce their "Yes," in an exercise of their right of expression, converted into unanimous approval, the resonance of which transcended the legislative benches to be heard in Cuban homes, live and direct on television and radio broadcasts of the session. Amendments of this nature require the approval of two thirds of the National Assembly’s members.

President Fidel Castro observed that this kind of popular plebiscite can only be effected only in a country where everybody can read and write, and described as impressive the people’s adherence to a Cuban socialism that is irreversible.

Ricardo Alarcón, president of the National Assembly of People’s Power, stated that 165 parliamentarians and representatives of the island’s civil society had spoken over the three-day working session, plus speeches by guests from other countries, exposing the consequences of neoliberal democracies in certain Latin American countries.

José Luis Toledo, president of the Committee for Constitutional and Juridical Affairs, explained that the reforms apply to Articles 3-11 and 137 of the Constitution, with a special provision to be inserted at the end.

The modifications in the initiative previously endorsed by 8,198,237 citizens over the age of 16 in a popular plebiscite, are directed at employing the term "irrevocable" rather than "untouchable" to clarify that socialism, as the political and social system recorded in the Constitution, cannot be the object of changes or modifications that could alter its essential content.

It was decided that the following paragraph should be added to the current Article.

"Socialism and the revolutionary political and social system established in the Constitution and proven through years of heroic resistance to aggression of all kinds and economic warfare waged by the successive administrations of the most powerful country that has ever existed, and having demonstrated their capacity to transform the country and create an entirely new and just society, are irrevocable; and Cuba will never again return to capitalism."

The special provision states that those reforms constitute a dignified and worthy response to the demands and threats made by the imperialist government of the United States on May 20, 2002.

No doubt very democratic election results in one political party state.

All of us Nationstates posters should be so lucky to live under such a democratic government and have democratic presidents for life such as Fidel and Raul Castro.

I should have gone to sleep a half hour ago, so I'm not going to find the quote, but in 1984 one of the examples of doublethink on the Party members was their simultaneous belief that the Party was the great defender of democracy and that democracy was a bad idea because the people were not ready for it.

It has always seemed to me that this is an apt assessment of the elitist authoritarian Left.

Right, I forgot about that. Good thing we have gulags that we can send reactionaries like that to. :rolleyes:

They aren't worthy of live though anyways. We're better off killing them all because they disagree with me.:rolleyes:

Thus my design for the patented EA approved voting booth

This reminds me of a Wizard of Id cartoon, but I can't find it. :(

"It's election day, we're letting you out to vote."
*prisoner enters booth*
*sees two levers labelled 'KING' and 'OTHER GUY'*
*pulls 'OTHER GUY' lever*
*trapdoor drops him into dungeon*

Yeah, maybe you had to be there.

I should have gone to sleep a half hour ago, so I'm not going to find the quote, but in 1984 one of the examples of doublethink on the Party members was their simultaneous belief that the Party was the great defender of democracy and that democracy was a bad idea because the people were not ready for it.

It has always seemed to me that this is an apt assessment of the elitist authoritarian Left.

I agree.

Thus my design for the patented EA approved voting booth

The difference is that when Cuban people elect local representatives, they are given just a small file of the candidate, the candidates are not permitted to use excessive amounts of money so they get disproportionately more say and coverage than other candidates and thus compromise the true nature of egalitarian democracy. The people are therefore left to decide based upon the community actions and revolutionary spirit of the individual candidate based on their own firsthand knowledge in their community, if the person is always selflessly helping out with problems etc.

The same principle applies to the Communist Party, people on this thread seem to be talking about a single-party state like the CCP is an electoral party, with their knowledge of political parties in the capitalist system. In fact the CCP is not a party in the sense that it endorses candidates, you can only 'join' the party if multiple people in your local community all say you are a good local citizen and you are involved in mass popular groups etc etc, the power of the CCP is moral in that is offers commentary, not it has not political power, this is because socialism is ingrained into the system, so that politics take place within the underlying cooperative fabric of communism. It's not like the 'party' is a force above and dominating over society as you might think with other 'single-party states', it is instead an intrinsic part of the polity.

The problem with Cuba is that the only legal party is the Communist party. You don't have to be a member to vote but there is no diversity of opinion or position between candidates.

I never get why people from the US are so eager to talk about democracy when our system tends to be so hopelessly one sided toward the rich. Not saying that there's anything wrong with the US now but I don't think that same system works everywhere in the world. Making Cuba a 2 parties system of either democrat or republican sponsored by rich oil companies isn't necessary going to make the country any better than what they are now.

Just another note, the only way the US can sustain what we are doing now is through exploiting other countries. Having 5% of the world population while using 25% of the world's resources isn't exactly the kind of capitalism that every country can afford to do without some serious military/global power to back them up.

I've never been able to understand why anyone would consider Cuba the conerstone of a perfect society when so many ingenious, talented, creative, and driven people are trying desperately to escape it every year. Since there are quite a few people in the US that think the communist dictatorship (when you only have one party it's a dictatorship no matter how you try to dress it up) of Cuba is the closest thing to perfection since the Soviet empire, why not send them to Cuba and let them see first-hand their model utopia? Why not, instead of capturing and sending back those that build a boat in secret and make a mad dash for Florida, we pick them up and bring them to shore in style and send to Cuba an equal number of the hardcore lefties that want to epropriate everything and revere Marx as nigh god-like? The pinkos and commies would get their paradise and the Cuban refugees would get the freedom they seem to want badly enough to risk their lives. It seems like a win-win.

I won't call them evil or repressive, but until other political parties are legal, I won't call them democratic, no matter how much they try to pretty up the system.

"You don't HAVE to join our party...but you can't join anyone elses."

Is there anyone who would honestly wish to live under such a system?

I don't really think so, especially considering that most NSGers live in nations where we are allowed to make such a choice...even if it's between the lesser of two evils.

well, excuse me for sounding high and mighty, but I don't think that then a system with only two "main" partys you can vote at is democratic either...
for where will the votes of the american socialists go to, the Democrats?
naaah, USA isn't a true democracy either as long as they don't allow other factions in their parliaments

well, excuse me for sounding high and mighty, but I don't think that then a system with only two "main" partys you can vote at is democratic either...
for where will the votes of the american socialists go to, the Democrats?
naaah, USA isn't a true democracy either as long as they don't allow other factions in their parliaments

Your post is full of ignorance. There is no legal requirement that says there can only be two political parties. At several points during US history, there were more parties.

The US Constitution doesn't even mention parties and many of the founding fathers thought this would prevent the formation of parties as they thought such parties would be detrimental.

As the government formed, two factions grew. The Federalists (included Adams, Jay, Hamilton. Washington was considered one, but never joined the party) and the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson, Patrick Henry) The Anti-Federalists became the Democrat-Republicans and later the Democrats. The Federalists became the Whigs and later joined with several splinter groups to form the Republican Party.

There have been several parties such as the Bull Moose, Libertarian, Green, and Reform which have come up. If someone wanted to vote for another party (the Communist party for example) they could do so.

Your post is full of ignorance.

indeed it was... I should do more research next time

Such an evil, repressive, and undemocratic country, eh?Iran has elections too, but in the end, the people don't really have all that much impact on the ruling class.

I haven't gone there, but I will soon

I went there a couple of years ago. Rather interesting experience.

What startled me most is that they get US films (at that time it was the latest version of War of the Worlds) on television before we in France even get it at the cinema. They also get Disney films. :p So much for the myth of an isolated Cuba with no US influences...

Not that they know everything about the West. Cubans tend to believe that everyone in Western countries is rich. Some were also shocked when we told them that in the West, you have to buy your own house, which of course is extremely expensive, and that the government doesn't provide housing for all.

Another thing that was interesting is that Cubans who do grumble about Castro tend to think that Bush (and American governments in general) are even worse. Cubans do feel free to talk to strangers, by the way, including when they want to criticise their government.

When I was in Cuba I stayed with Cuban families. One evening, Castro was on tv for an interview. I left, came back 90 minutes or so later, and the interview was still going on. A friend and I joked about it, and our hostess laughed.

With another family, our elderly hostess mentioned that she didn't much like Castro, but that at least health care was excellent. When War of the Worlds came on TV, she watched for a few moments, then said something along the lines of "America. Bah!", grimaced, and walked away. ;)

I went there a couple of years ago. Rather interesting experience.

What startled me most is that they get US films (at that time it was the latest version of War of the Worlds) on television before we in France even get it at the cinema. They also get Disney films. :p So much for the myth of an isolated Cuba with no US influences...

Not that they know everything about the West. Cubans tend to believe that everyone in Western countries is rich. Some were also shocked when we told them that in the West, you have to buy your own house, which of course is extremely expensive, and that the government doesn't provide housing for all.

Another thing that was interesting is that Cubans who do grumble about Castro tend to think that Bush (and American governments in general) are even worse. Cubans do feel free to talk to strangers, by the way, including when they want to criticise their government.

When I was in Cuba I stayed with Cuban families. One evening, Castro was on tv for an interview. I left, came back 90 minutes or so later, and the interview was still going on. A friend and I joked about it, and our hostess laughed.

With another family, our elderly hostess mentioned that she didn't much like Castro, but that at least health care was excellent. When War of the Worlds came on TV, she watched for a few moments, then said something along the lines of "America. Bah!", grimaced, and walked away. ;)

All fine and dandy (you can never stop grumbling, so why try), but there remain issues of press freedom, competitive real democracy (as in: You actually get a choice), economic stagnation (the classic example being television penetration, which has significantly declined since the revolution) and substantial issues of human rights (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm). All the bread and circuses in the world don't make Cuba a particularly nice place to live.

Amongst other amusing things, though, did you know that the largest single supplier of foodstuffs to Cuba is the United States?

<SNIP>

Of course. I've never been one of those many people who see the Cuban situation as all black or all white. The lack of press freedom is of course an issue of concern. I find it saddening that people who criticise (or even hate) Castro find it impossible to applaud him for the good things he does, and vice-versa. I suppose many people's minds are too simple. Cubans themselves tend to be far more nuanced.

Yeah Cuba's a great country......

I mean it is so great all its citizens have these really high tech tire boats they use to come to Florida.

/end sarcasm

Your post is full of ignorance. There is no legal requirement that says there can only be two political parties. At several points during US history, there were more parties.

The US Constitution doesn't even mention parties and many of the founding fathers thought this would prevent the formation of parties as they thought such parties would be detrimental.

As the government formed, two factions grew. The Federalists (included Adams, Jay, Hamilton. Washington was considered one, but never joined the party) and the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson, Patrick Henry) The Anti-Federalists became the Democrat-Republicans and later the Democrats. The Federalists became the Whigs and later joined with several splinter groups to form the Republican Party.

There have been several parties such as the Bull Moose, Libertarian, Green, and Reform which have come up. If someone wanted to vote for another party (the Communist party for example) they could do so.

Given how hard it is to field candidates, your response isn't entirely fair. For small groups restrictions over national coverage, number of candidates in given areas, cost of participation, etc... mean that the situation - in reality - basically is a two-party state. Indeed, the last half a century has seen the situation become progressively more and more restrictive. So - citing 'third parties' from a century ago is either dishonest, or just irrelevent.

There are 'legal restrictions' in a lot of ways. Nothing that comes out and says 'we admit it's a two party game', but a whole lot of trying to ensure there is no real possibility of it being otherwise.

All fine and dandy (you can never stop grumbling, so why try), but there remain issues of press freedom, competitive real democracy (as in: You actually get a choice), economic stagnation (the classic example being television penetration, which has significantly declined since the revolution) and substantial issues of human rights (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm). All the bread and circuses in the world don't make Cuba a particularly nice place to live.

Curiously... you seem to be trying to impose that view over the perceptions of people who actually have been there (or do live there), and who think that - flawed or not - it's better than the competition.

It's exactly the same in America, you can only vote for capitalist candidates approved by the corporate superstructure, the electoral money campaign system ensures only those who the rich approve of get elected.

GOP - Socially authoritarian capitalists
Democrats - Socially liberal capitalists

The USA is a capitalist dictatorship.

It's exactly the same in America, you can only vote for capitalist candidates approved by the corporate superstructure, the electoral money campaign system ensures only those who the rich approve of get elected.

GOP - Socially authoritarian capitalists
Democrats - Socially liberal capitalists

The USA is a capitalist dictatorship.

ROFLMFAO!!! Keep it coming EA. You're such a great comedian.

I can't wait until you enter the working world and reality hits you like a brick.

You get to vote for candidates preapproved and preselected by the government, just like every other Communist dictatorship the world over. There's no chance in hell anybody that doesn't tow the party line would ever have real actual power in the government. I mean, Cuba's so free it has to censor and restrict internet and news access to ensure its people aren't exposed to the world outside them...but then again, it's not censorship, it's protecting people from the evil pigdog capitalist lackey boogeymen.

Cuban candidates are no more 'preselected' than candidates in the US who must also tow the party line. At least in Cuba, the candidates don't represent the party, they represent their constituents...since they're all in the same party anyway, there is no need for party politics. Also, a nation that prides itself on it's insularity and religious fanaticism (if you didn't guess, that's the US) really shouldn't be pointing fingers at others.

Also...what would a yank who is forbidden to step foot in Cuba know about it anyway? Bombarded with propaganda you are, from day one. Evil Cuba this, evil Cuba that...with no possibility of finding a middle ground. Lame.

The problem with Cuba is that the only legal party is the Communist party. You don't have to be a member to vote but there is no diversity of opinion or position between candidates.

And for an illustration of someone who has no understanding outside of party politics...

There is extreme diversity of opinion and position between candidates BECAUSE the candidates are not representing a political party.