At the pace of the people | DIARIO DE CUBA

One of the most interesting phenomena in recent times in Cuba is undoubtedly the high level of empowerment that the people demonstrate. The so-called average Cuban, so often vilified both on and off the island, has become the eternal protagonist of demonstrations of all shapes and sizes in a process that the regime finds alarming and that overturns the most common stereotypes about what power is and how it is gathered and deployed. Despite all the real and concrete evidence in recent times, it is still very often heard (perhaps too often) that Cubans simply want to leave the country, that if they are given a little food they will calm down or, as I have heard some “Cubanologists” claim, that they are incapable of seeking change on their own.

Nothing could be further from reality. It is noteworthy that in most cases these arguments come from people who are outside the country and therefore enjoy peace of mind because they eat what they want every day and do not need or seek changes in their daily routines. These are dishonest arguments made by people who are completely disconnected from Cuban reality. The truth is that the criticisms that could be made regarding the inability of Cubans to organize and pose a significant social challenge to the system are so minor that they pale in comparison to the facts and figures that point in exactly the opposite direction.

It should be noted that this is not something coincidental or fleeting. When a phenomenon repeats itself in time and space, it ceases to be speculation and becomes a trend. The events of 11-J are an example of this type in Cuba; thousands of Cubans took to the streets across the country to demand freedom, democracy and an end to the dictatorship. The protests lasted until July 12 and 13 and according to calculations by various NGOs and independent observers, both inside and outside Cuba, the number of participants exceeded 100,000 in more than 50 cities and towns across the country, in what was the most significant nonviolent action on the island to date.

That impressive display of force in numbers, alongside the subsequent repression, also led to concessions from the regime, which, while initially minimal, such as repairing certain streets or restoring houses in specific places, were followed by relaxed customs regulations and other measures in the economic sphere, demonstrating a process of action and reaction that should be encouraged and reinforced. The equation is presented as follows: if people protest, the regime gives in in one way or another; it is all a matter of how they protest and what their demands are. After 2021, every year has seen hundreds of miniature 11-Js, like the aftershocks of that massive earthquake, shaking up patterns of behavior that defined citizens’ relationship with the state.

This is nothing new, but it is consistent with precedents that have been established throughout time and space. Successful movements in history have managed to escalate their demands from minimalist campaigns to maximalist ones. Surprisingly, some people believe that demonstrations are counterproductive and that it is advisable for change to come from above, soft landings that are wrongly called “transitions,” another misused term. Historical experience teaches us that dictatorial regimes, especially those of a communist nature, do not change or enter into dialogue from a sudden revelation. As the etymology of the word suggests, there must be a transition, a shift from one system of government to another, from one set of political and social relations to another, and for this another transformation is essential: one in the mentality of the people.

An excellent study by Freedom House, titled “How Freedom Was Won: From Civil Resistance to Enduring Democracy,” shows with facts and figures how Eastern European countries that underwent popular-driven change, in a non-violent manner, forged democracies (Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, etc.), while those that underwent change from above (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.) ended up with new forms of dictatorship.

What is happening in Cuba is a redefinition of power relations as a result of actions that generate results — however small they may seem at first — taken by Cubans confronted with situations of oppression. Yesterday it was in Caimanera, the day before in Santiago de Cuba. Who knows where it will be tomorrow, but what is certain is that this unrest will repeat itself, and this undermines the system’s ability to respond, because it cannot put out fires while at the same time being forced to use selective repression in a vain attempt to spread fear. The protests will continue, when and how the people want them to; perhaps not at the pace that some would like to see, but at the pace at which the people are marching.

Ultimately, the people set the pace, not an old dictator facing extinction or foreign visions of any kind. Whoever controls the clock controls the dynamics of any conflict. So there is no point in crying over spilled milk, because in Cuba the situation has reached a point where people are picking themselves up again, however they can, to satisfy their hunger. Faced with such a dire situation, academic treatises or café philosophies lose any relevance they might have in other contexts.

When will all these processes converge to produce an end result? No one has a crystal ball to predict this. But in the meantime, it is wiser to encourage action rather than disdain it in favor of a supposedly supreme intellectual reason. Rather than being relevant, it is necessary to be effective. As the great Cuban poet José Ángel Buesa would say, haste has never been elegant.